The Left Is Demanding That People Disconnect From Their Suppressive Person (SP) Family Members Again, So You Know This Must Be the Holiday Season

It's a standard cult move to demand that people separate from their families. Or from anyone else who might question cult doctrine.

The headline refers specifically to Scientology's terminology for disowning family members and "Suppressive Persons," meaning people who try to impede you from growing in the "church."

That is, a suppressive person is anyone who tells you you're in a cult. The cult demands you separate from -- "disconnect" from, in Scientology lingo -- anyone who points out that the cult you're in is acting a lot like a cult.

Which brings us to this lovely letter from a New York Times reader, written to the Times' "expert" on ethics.

The basic question: My mother refuses to say who she voted for. My wife and her sister demand I disown my own mother, because the fact that she even leaves open the possibility that I voted for Trump means that she's an SP. Should I disconnect from her?

His own mother.

His own mother.

My Mom Voted for Trump. Can We Let It Go?

The magazine's Ethicist columnist on how a family might proceed in the wake of a momentous presidential election.

An illustration of a contentious family gathering, with the factions separated be a long dining table. On the one side is a Trump supporter and her confused son, who looks at her askew. On the other is the son's wife and her family, who feel hurt and disappointed by the Trump supporter's actions.

My mother, a two-time Trump voter in Florida, has moved closer to us in a safely blue state. While I don't know what her vote was in the 2024 presidential election, it wouldn't have affected the outcome. I strongly oppose Trump, as do my wife and her family, who live nearby.

What's your wife's boyfriend's opinion, cuck?

(That remark was made by the Ruthless podcast guys, from where I heard about this "ethical problem.")

I'm troubled by my mother's support of someone I consider morally abhorrent and dangerous, especially when she voted in a former swing state.

With the result of the 2024 election, my wife and her family are directing their understandable fury at my mother. My wife's sister said, ''If she voted for Trump again, I'm completely done with her.''

By all means, side with your awful wife's awful sister over the woman who birthed you and raised you to be a "man."

I expect that the next time they interact it will not be pretty. But my mother is a member of our family, and an invaluable caregiver to our children. She's pleasant and kind in daily life and moved far from her home primarily for us and her grandkids. And she is my mother, after all.

Oh, and his mom provides free childcare for him, taking care of his kids while he and his awful wife cruise bars looking for bulls.

I'm torn. My wife and her family expect me to brook no compromise and to speak out on an issue that feels existential to them (as it does to me), but because I know that her vote here doesn't make a difference, I have trouble feeling motivated to admonish her for her past and possibly present support of Trump. At the very least, they don't think I should expect them to be anything other than completely unfiltered with my mother.

I appreciate the sacrifices my mother has made to be near our family and our children, and our kids love their grandma. And she is the woman who raised me. But my wife and her family will be channeling their anger at one of the few Trump voters they personally know. And my mother expects me to intervene and speak up for her or to encourage my wife's family to be more civil. She sees her vote as a ''personal choice'' and doesn't seem to believe that she should be criticized for it.

Ethically, is it wrong for me to hold my tongue or to try to negotiate the peace even though I agree with the substance of my wife's family's position? If I try to protect my mother from vitriol, would I be betraying myself, or my wife and her family, in order to preserve harmony and child care? Or would I be justified in suggesting that we all lay down our arms, given that her vote no longer affects the national outcome? If I try to completely opt out of having a role in this conflict, am I doing a disservice to all parties involved? What do we owe to ourselves and the respective warring sides in a situation such as this? -- Name Withheld

The New York Times' "Ethicist" -- what a deranged joke -- tells this mentally-ill, henpecked cuck that this is a very real problem and the fact that someone in his immediate family voted for someone he didn't vote for is a "sad" situation.

From the Ethicist:

This is a sad but not unusual story. Political scientists have identified a form of animus they sometimes call partyism, which they try to measure in various ways. They can ask respondents whether people of the other political party have positive traits (generosity, say, or honesty), or bad ones (selfishness, untrustworthiness); they can ask what people think about being friends with supporters of the other party or about their children marrying across the partisan divide. Since at least 2000, the research suggests, people's positive feelings about their own party have stayed roughly constant; the big drop, which has intensified since 2016, is in positive feelings toward the other side. In an era when few Americans are still bothered by interracial marriage, recent surveys find that a large percentage of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans want their children to marry within the party. And the trend isn't just found in this country: Partyism swamps other sources of intergroup hostility in Britain, Belgium and Spain, too.

One way in which these attitudes can be rationalized is by insisting that members of the other party are making the wrong choices because they are wicked or stupid or both. Yet voting for morally reprehensible candidates doesn't mean you necessarily share their vices.

Note there's no acknowledgement that Democrats might share the vices of their candidates. Only Republicans are assumed to share in the vices of their candidates.

Because Democrat candidates have no vices, of course.

At the same time, your mother is, as you say, mistaken to speak of her vote as if it were nobody else's business. For these purposes, the causal consequences of how she voted, in one state or another, is a distraction. It isn't that any of us is casting the determining vote; it's that we're joining with others to achieve the results we favor, collectively sharing responsibility for the outcome if we succeed. And because she has been open about her previous two votes, people who know her are entitled to ask her why she cast them. If they can't make sense of her answer, they're free to reproach her or express their disappointment. That goes for you as well: Treating your mother with respect means being honest about your views.

But it doesn't mean cudgeling her with them. Once you've said your piece and listened to what she has to say in her defense, repeating the same arguments over and over would be the act of a bully.

Well, it took a while, but I guess in the end the "Ethicist" is saying that it's perfectly reasonable to put your mother through a prolonged, searing Struggle Session, but once that Struggle Session is over, you shouldn't continue bullying her about her vote (even while you secretly and rightly continue to despise her).

MSNBC's Race Lady is also demanding that people disconnected from their Suppressive Person family members.

This "grief counselor" advises the non-patients watching him online to separate from their families for the holidays in the interest of mental health. He also says that Thanksgiving is a "made-up" holiday that is only a celebration of taking the country away from the Indians.

Flashback: Three years ago, Pope Anthony Fauci told Americans to exclude their unvaccinated relatives from Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings.

Meanwhile, Ana Kasparian continues talking as if she's been freed from the doctrines of a malicious cult. She specifically talks about freeing herself from the "cultish" members of the left who are continuing to attack her for refuting core cult doctrines. (This is in the first few minutes of the interview linked there.)

She says she's feeling "a lot more in touch with the world around me, and reality," and calls her escape from the cult "liberating."

She then says that for some people, "politics has taken the place of religion."

Welcome to 2015, Ana.

She does admit Trump "broke my brain a little."

posted by Ace at 04:00 PM

| Access Comments