Beneficial Negativity
My character is a natural mixture of postmodern and critical theories through the lens of repeated trauma. I have to admit it’s a very specific lens for viewing the world, but I can’t not see what I see. Also, as many of my fellow autistics can attest, neurotypicals not seeing the patterns I see doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I get it.
The things I point out make things uncomfortable for people. I’ve never stopped challenging the status quo, and move quickly to my next justice-driven hyperfixation.
For those who benefit from the status quo, I am the bearer of relentless negativity. That’s kind of the point. Without that vigilance, oppression wins.
In addition, I took my trauma-informed, survivor-centered perspective and honed it in the social sciences. I learned about structural violence, hegemony, and systems of oppression.
I read Foucault.
And Butler,
And Weber,
And Marx,
And Durkheim,
And Papa Franz
Margaret Mead
Deniz Kandiyoti
Angela Davis
Cheri Moraga (who I got to meet in person!!!!!)
Milgram
Viktor Frankl (you’re welcome)
If I’m being honest, I’m having a lot of fun sharing these perspectives and I could sit here for the duration of the night adding to this list. (And there are certainly other posts in which I offer more).
The point is that I’ve been finely tuned to see injustice, to recognize gaslighting, to hear words that control and dehumanize. It’s how I understand the world, and again, if I’m being honest, it’s an honest understanding of the world.
I want to see equality. I want to alleviate suffering. I want to dismantle systems of oppression. I want it with my whole heart, and every thought that enters my overstimulated brain.
What’s Negative?
My family thought it was pretty negative of me to tell my counselor about my childhood sexual abuse. I thought it was pretty negative that they blamed me.
My bosses thought it was pretty negative when I refused to cut corners on patient care when I was a CNA.
My mom thought it was pretty negative that I didn’t abort my eldest who happens to be my OGFP.
The newspaper I worked for thought it was pretty negative that I wasn’t comfortable getting in peoples faces after car wrecks, etc.
My sorority thought it was pretty negative that I testified against them for hazing.
Every time I’ve escaped abuse there have been people to tell me how negative I am.
I think the abuse is negative. I think the hazing is negative. I think invading privacy is negative. I think taking away choice is negative. I think cutting corners is negative. I think sexual abuse is negative.
I’m not going to suddenly wake up some day and just see sunshine, and flowers, and rainbows, and lollipops. That doesn’t feel real to me, and I truly don’t believe I’m wrong.
Let’s examine how critics have talked about my heroes.
| Thinker | What They Challenged | Common Critiques Used Against Them | How Those Critiques Functioned to Frame Liberation as “Negative” |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paul Farmer | Structural violence; global health inequity | “Naively idealistic,” “too political,” “anti‑development,” “blames systems instead of individuals” | Cast systemic analysis as impractical; framed moral clarity as unrealistic or disruptive to existing global health hierarchies. |
| Michel Foucault | State power, surveillance, disciplinary institutions | “Relativist,” “nihilistic,” “anti‑humanist,” “destabilizing,” “too negative about institutions” | Painted critiques of power as corrosive rather than illuminating; suggested that exposing domination undermines social order. |
| Judith Butler | Gender norms, performativity, heteronormativity | “Destroys stable categories,” “too abstract,” “undermines tradition,” “confusing on purpose” | Framed challenges to gender hegemony as chaos‑producing rather than liberatory. |
| Max Weber | Bureaucratic domination, rationalization, disenchantment | “Overly pessimistic,” “too critical of modernity,” “elitist” | Cast his warnings about bureaucratic control as negativity rather than structural insight. |
| Karl Marx | Capitalism, class domination, alienation | “Dangerous,” “subversive,” “incites class hatred,” “unrealistic utopianism” | Delegitimized structural critique by equating it with threat, disorder, or violence. |
| Émile Durkheim | Anomie, social fragmentation, moral regulation | “Overly moralizing,” “too focused on social control,” “conservative” | His insistence on social cohesion was reframed as negativity toward individual freedom, obscuring his critique of destabilizing inequality. |
| Franz Boas | Scientific racism, cultural hierarchy | “Cultural relativist,” “anti‑science,” “undermines Western superiority” | His anti‑racist stance was framed as an attack on objectivity or civilization itself. |
| Margaret Mead | Gender norms, cultural determinism, sexuality | “Unscientific,” “too radical,” “promotes moral decay,” “romanticizes other cultures” | Her challenges to Western norms were reframed as corrupting or naïve. |
| Deniz Kandiyoti | Patriarchal bargains, gendered power structures | “Overly critical of tradition,” “too structural,” “undermines cultural values” | Patriarchal critique was framed as cultural betrayal or negativity toward heritage. |
| Angela Davis | Prison abolition, racial capitalism, state violence | “Extremist,” “dangerous,” “unpatriotic,” “too radical,” “supports criminals” | Her liberation work was criminalized to preserve carceral hegemony. |
| Cherríe Moraga | Intersectional feminism, queer Chicana identity | “Divisive,” “identity‑obsessed,” “too angry,” “anti‑family” | Her intersectional critique was framed as negativity toward unity or tradition. |
| Stanley Milgram | Obedience to authority, authoritarianism | “Too dark,” “unethical,” “overly cynical about human nature” | His exposure of obedience dynamics was reframed as pessimism rather than a warning about authoritarian power. |
| Viktor Frankl | Meaning‑making under oppression; critique of nihilism | “Too spiritual,” “too individualizing,” “not political enough,” “naïve about structural forces” | His insistence on meaning was reframed as insufficiently radical, even though it resisted dehumanization. |
I actually think they’d be kind of proud of me. 🙂
- If you expose structural violence → you’re “too negative.”
- If you challenge norms → you’re “destabilizing.”
- If you demand liberation → you’re “dangerous.”
- If you reveal power → you’re “attacking society.”
- If you empower the oppressed → you’re “divisive.”
Politics
Politics isn’t about right or wrong. Politics is about power, and maneuvering, and money. Politics is also the venue through which they dole out oppression, and therefore a forum through which we must oppose that oppression.
It’s intolerable and inavoidable.
I’m neither tasteful, nor easy to consume, because the truths I can’t help but see aren’t tasteful, nor are they easy to consume.
I favor the truth, and transparency. It’s a challenge for me to enter the public theater of politics, and yet, as long as the oppression continues, I will end up on any platform to which the fight takes me.
Friends and Foes
You’ve probably assessed that I’m not exactly insulted when the sharpest of words are launched at me from MAGAts, Proud Boys, and fascist “Patriots.” Really, the more reactive, the sharper the words, the grander the response, the more I feel I’ve hit my mark.
It’s different when the feedback comes from your own community. I’ve been approached by a number of gentle veterans in the fight for human equality about the negativity of my contributions, especially as of late.
They’re not wrong.
In less than two months I’ve covered a number of uncomfortable truths. I’ve exposed lies being told by those in power. I’ve revealed some of the mechanisms and ideologies behind what’s going on. And while I’m not acting alone, the media is mine. I make decisions about the tone, and how I want it to hit. The decision to share the raw data isn’t mine alone, but the formatting of it is.
I’m listening. The impact I have on my community matters.
I’m confronted with the eventuality that in revealing the nasty underbelly at play, I’ve also damaged some options that were in the works to actually solve some of this.
I do not want to be the reason that groups won’t work with Loveland to solve our problems. Neither do I want to play along while inaction kills people.
Heck.
I want people housed. I want programs to help. I want people working together.
As I’ve been the family scapegoat on repeat, I should also admit that some of this has been triggering- but I’m working on that part, because as concerned as I am with the truth, I am also concerned with outcomes.
The Path Forward
I have a long history of doing exactly what I’m doing right now, and it would be ludicris to think I would or could stop. Luckily, I’m hardly a one-trick pony.
I will continue to uncover the crap, because it’s there. I also look forward to covering the change.
I look forward to highlighting partnerships, and community volunteers. I look forward to working on solutions and education so we can fix things. I’m actually really excited about it, and I hope you’re excited about it too.
Ultimately, in contrast to the SCRRIPPTTs of toxic positivity I offer you beneficial negativity- while also looking for the good.
Survivor Literacy 
What do you think?