Brief: Post-Election Online Survivor Group Dynamics

Summary

Conspirituality Podcast: Episode Summary

Title: Brief: Post-Election Online Survivor Group Dynamics
Hosts: Derek Beres, Matthew Remsky, Julian Walker
Release Date: November 16, 2024

---

Introduction

In the latest episode of Conspirituality, co-host Matthew Remsky delves into the intricate dynamics of online survivor groups that have emerged in the wake of the post-election landscape. Titled "Post-Election Online Survivor Group Dynamics," this episode examines how these digital communities mirror and diverge from traditional survivor groups associated with religious abuse, highlighting the unique challenges and tensions that arise in the digital age.

The Analogy: Religious Survivor Groups vs. Post-Election Online Groups

Remsky begins by drawing parallels between online survivor groups formed by individuals escaping abusive religious communities and those emerging in the aftermath of the second Trump presidency. He reflects on his experiences observing Facebook groups dedicated to abuse survivors, noting both the healing potentials and the inherent tensions within these communities.

"Finding fellow survivors who have left the same group is one of the most powerful things you can do for your sanity and your dignity" (02:45).

While religious survivor groups often provide a space for mutual support and shared understanding, Remsky observes that the post-election online groups lack a similar honeymoon period of generalized connection. Instead, they are immediately fraught with divisions and competing agendas.

Dynamics and Tensions Within Online Survivor Groups

Remsky identifies several key sources of tension within these online communities:

• Diverse Experiences and Healing Processes: Members arrive with varying levels of trauma, different timelines of recovery, and unique personal experiences. This diversity leads to conflicts over how to process and discuss their shared grievances.

• Divergent Goals: Some members advocate for the complete dismantling of political structures they perceive as harmful, while others seek to retain certain aspects they find meaningful or protective.

• Philosopher's Insight: Referencing philosophers T. Nguyen and Becca Williams, Remsky introduces the concept of "moral outrage porn," where the gamification of social media transforms justified outrage into a detached form of entertainment, diluting the impact of genuine moral responsibility.

"Moral outrage could be necessary and motivating, but moral outrage porn... could become a morbid but pleasurable indulgence" (15:30).

The Emergence of Hierarchies and Leadership Conflicts

One of the most striking observations Remsky makes is the formation of informal hierarchies within these survivor groups. Leadership often gravitates towards individuals who can generate the most engagement through outrage, regardless of the utility or accuracy of their contributions.

"Leadership positions were often seized by those who had the stickiest takes. These were the posts that created the most engagement, not because they were the most useful or informative, but usually because they drove outrage" (12:50).

This phenomenon aligns with what philosopher Ofemi Taiwo describes as the "politics of deference," where leadership is assigned based on perceived identity and personal narrative rather than actual skills or contributions. Such dynamics can hinder the group's ability to function democratically and supportively.

Privilege and Inequality Within Online Groups

Remsky emphasizes the role of privilege and unequal vulnerabilities within these online survivor groups. He argues that recognizing and addressing these disparities is crucial for fostering genuine solidarity and mutual support.

"If only people could recognize that they were entering a space of inequality where people were sharing different immediate needs and objectives... they might be able to listen to each other better" (25:10).

He highlights how societal inequalities, exacerbated by capitalist structures, influence how individuals experience and participate in these digital communities. For instance, marginalized groups such as Arab Americans and transgender individuals face existential threats that add layers of complexity to their interactions within these survivor groups.

The Buddha’s Second Arrow: Navigating Trauma and Rumination

Drawing from Buddhist philosophy, Remsky introduces the concept of the "second arrow," which represents the rumination and judgment that follow traumatic events. He critiques how social media amplifies these second arrows, turning personal and collective trauma into ongoing cycles of distress.

"The second arrow is the rumination and the judgment... The social media overlords have strung the bow and notched the arrow, but who will draw the string and let it fly?" (30:45).

Remsky argues that recognizing the space between the initial trauma and the subsequent rumination offers opportunities for more mindful and constructive responses, rather than falling into habitual patterns of negative engagement.

Building Constructive Online Communities

Despite the challenges, Remsky maintains an optimistic view on the potential for online solidarity. He suggests that while online platforms often exacerbate conflicts and hierarchies, there are still pockets of genuine support and mutual aid that can be cultivated.

"There are definite possibilities for solidarity and mutual support online, and I'm sure we'll continue to find that and feel it in pockets here and there" (34:20).

He advocates for a "politics of construction," focusing on building and nurturing supportive online environments that acknowledge and address inherent inequalities and differing needs.

Conclusion and Call to Action

In concluding the episode, Remsky warns listeners to be vigilant about the pitfalls of online survivor groups, such as falling into moral outrage porn or allowing hierarchical dynamics to overshadow collective well-being. He encourages the cultivation of supportive and equitable online communities that prioritize mutual understanding and constructive engagement.

"When you realize the ship you've built is in a bottle for someone else's amusement and profit, I believe we can feel these things and learn when to log the fuck off" (40:10).

Remsky also provides resources for listeners seeking support, directing them to mutualaidhub.org, which maps out local organizations across the U.S. that facilitate community pods for food sharing, temporary housing, child translation, navigating government services, and emotional support.

Key Takeaways

• Complex Dynamics: Online survivor groups post-election mirror traditional survivor communities but face unique challenges due to the digital environment.

• Moral Outrage vs. Constructive Action: Distinguishing between necessary moral outrage and its commodification is crucial for meaningful activism.

• Privilege Awareness: Acknowledging and addressing privilege and inequality within groups can enhance solidarity and support.

• Constructive Online Engagement: Building supportive, equitable online communities requires intentional effort to prioritize mutual understanding over hierarchical or divisive dynamics.

---

Stay Connected:
Follow Conspirituality on Instagram and Threads at @conspiritualitypod for more insightful discussions. Access all episodes ad-free and enjoy exclusive bonus content on Patreon or through Apple subscriptions.

Resources Mentioned:

• Mutual Aid Hub: mutualaidhub.org – Maps out local community support organizations across the U.S.

---

Thank you for tuning into Conspirituality. Stay informed, stay connected, and take care.

Transcript

[Unknown Speaker 1]

Wow.

[Unknown Speaker 2]

What's up?

[Unknown Speaker 3]

I just bought and financed a car through Carvana in minutes.

[Unknown Speaker 2]

You, the person who agonized four weeks over whether to paint your wall's eggshell or off white, bought and financed a car in minutes.

[Unknown Speaker 3]

They made it easy, transparent terms, customizable down and monthly. Didn't even have to do any paperwork.

[Unknown Speaker 2]

Wow.

[Unknown Speaker 3]

Mm. Hey, have you checked out that spreadsheet I sent you for our dinner Options.

[Unknown Speaker 2]

Finance your car with Carvana and experience total control financing subject to credit approval.

[Unknown Speaker 1]

We've got a very different kind of sponsor for this episode, the Jordan Harbinger Show, a podcast you should definitely check out since you're a fan of high quality, fascinating podcasts hosted by interesting people. The show covers such a wide range of topics through weekly interviews with heavy hitting guests, and there are a ton of episodes you'll find interesting. Since you're a fan of this show, I'd recommend our listeners check out his skeptical Sunday episode on Hydrotherapy as well as Jordan's episode about Tarina Shaquille where he interviews and ISIS recruits journey and escape. There's an episode for everyone, though, no matter what you're into. The show covers stories like how a professional art forger somehow made millions of dollars while being chased by the Feds and the Mafia. Jordan's also done an episode all about birth control and how it can alter the partners we pick, and how going on or off of the pill can change elements in our personalities. The podcast covers a lot, but one constant is his ability to pull useful pieces of advice from his guests. I promise you you'll find something useful that you can apply to your own life, whether that's an actionable routine change that boosts your productivity, or just a slight mindset tweak that changes how you see the world. We really enjoy this show. We think you will as well. There's just so much there. Check out jordanharbinger.com start for some episode recommendations or search for the Jordan Harbinger Show. That's Harb as in boy I n as in Nancy G E R on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

[Matthew Remsky]

Hello everyone. Welcome to Conspirituality, where we investigate the intersection of conspiracy theories and spiritual influence to uncover cults, pseudoscience, and authoritarian extremism. I'm Matthew Remsky. We are on Instagram and threads at conspiritualitypod and you can access all of our episodes ad free, plus our Monday bonus episodes on Patreon or just the bonus episodes through Apple subscriptions. We are independent media creators, and we really appreciate your support. Today's very brief brief is called Post Election Online Survivor group dynamics. And as you'll hear, it begins with an extended analogy. When I was working primarily on stories about abuse in religious communities, I would spend a fair amount of research time observing and interacting in Facebook groups set up by abuse survivors. Now, this was an amazing tool that people could use to find each other and share experiences from across great distances, and sometimes even different generations of the same religious organization. And, you know, therapists who work with cult survivors will commonly say that finding other fellow survivors who have left the same group is one of the most powerful things you can do for your sanity and your dignity, because they can reflect back to you this familiar pain that's so difficult to describe to other people, that so few people can understand. And at the same time, they can share the ways in which they've come to a fuller understanding of themselves and what happened. So all of that felt extremely constructive and generative and healing. But what I also saw with almost every group I was in was that for as much as participants had these shared life stories, tensions would arise from the fact that everyone arrived with different experiences and perceptions and levels of trauma. Everyone was in a different part of their processing and healing arc. Some had left the group only days before, but some had years under their belts and maybe even the benefit of therapy, plus all of their new experiences. Some needed their rage reflected back to them. Some needed comfort. Some wanted to discuss new ideas. Some people were recruiting others for legal action against the religious group. And others were there with the hope of redeeming at least a part of their experience in the group as having been helpful. And of course, everybody is just thrown in together with no real guidelines, no real sort of sense of where everybody is coming from and without being in the room with each other. Social media does what social media does. It. It prods and triggers people asynchronously across time zones, values, and temperaments. And what this seemed to drive people towards was this ethos of participants lecturing each other, questioning each other's values, and offloading unprocessed trauma on each other. And I think the most common fault line was between people who felt that the religious group was irredeemable and those who continued to appreciate its teachings or values. And that first group insisted that the religious organization should be demolished and would accuse the second group of being apologists. Group two was betraying survivors and laying the groundwork for the abuse to continue. It was hard to argue with that, but Sometimes something even stranger happened. Hierarchies began to form in these survivor groups, which ostensibly were dedicated to emancipation from hierarchy. Leadership positions were often seized by those who had the stickiest takes. These were the posts that created the most engagement, not because they were the most useful or informative, but usually because they drove outrage. And the thing about the outrage was that it was unimpeachable, totally justified. The participant was speaking out of personal experience and pain. And who would argue with them? They were speaking their truths. They were speaking truth to power. And when they got positive feedback, it wasn't simply their truth or feelings that were validated. It was also their affect, their tone, their ability to inspire, or to stir the pot. Now, full disclosure here. This is not something I steered clear of, because as I was coming into my own understanding of the cult literature, as I was doing my own work, I. I also used social media to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of my communications, often without any real clarity about what that effectiveness actually meant. And I am as prone to audience capture as anyone else. Now, years later, I came across a paper by philosophers T. Nguyen and Becca Williams called moral outrage porn. And in it they describe parts of this online tendency. It's not that the moral outrage is wrong or inappropriate. It can be essential to motivating people towards change, but then also it can cross a line into becoming its own content, divorced from consequence in the world. So moral outrage could be necessary and motivating. But moral outrage porn, in their description, encouraged by the gamification of social media, could become a morbid but pleasurable indulgence, granting feelings of vindication that were separated from the moral responsibility of helping to improve a situation. So it was tragic to begin to realize that the hierarchy of posters had obscured the more democratic possibilities of the group. And even more tragic was the realization that some users had risen to very controlling heights, paradoxically commanding unequal levels of respect and deference. Sometimes they were also group moderators, and that gave them real autocratic power and the excuse to police comments, for example. And the defense for this behavior, if it ever had to be made, usually revolved around claims or perceptions about how much experience, especially traumatic experience, the person had gone through. And I think this exemplifies what philosopher Ofemi Taiwo calls the politics of deference, in which leadership is assigned by perceived identity rather than through an evaluation of skills. It's a politics that evolves out of a noble sense of wanting to honor and listen. But it can run into this problem of focusing on the individual's story to the exclusion of the group need. Taiwo says that what is needed instead is a politics of construction. So recovering from a cult was bad enough, but what happens when this recovery tool exacerbates sleep disorders and attachment traumas? What happens when it burns all of its benefits away? I knew some people who said that they'd wished they'd never found the groups, that it would have been better for them to simply heal on their own. So maybe you can suss out that this is a very long and detailed analogy. As I flagged up at the top, everyone who knows what the second Trump presidency means is in a kind of survivor group, I think. But unlike with the groups I'm remembering, there hasn't been any honeymoon period of generalized connection and mutual support. And as with the groups I'm remembering, everyone is coming from different places. Some are convinced that the party must be stripped down to the studs, but others hold out hope that it can still protect them or give their lives meaning. And of course, new crops of influencers and mini demagogues are emerging. Full disclosure, I'm a leftist who believes the Democratic Party is irredeemable, as insurmountable a task as it seems. I believe there's no real option but a rebuild, beginning with going back to school and reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. But I'm not so disenchanted by democracy that I'm going to forget that I share space with liberals who I love but who I believe are mistaken. Both of those things, the conviction that everything must change and the ability to live with those who can't imagine changing everything have to coexist. For me, as with survivors of institutional abuse, everyone is or will be impacted differently by this post electoral storm because we live in an unequal society fragmented by the casino of capitalism. Not everyone in a cult has a terrible time after all. Some have padding, but others are in existential danger. In the US right now, Arab Americans and their allies are forced to watch their kin be genocided on Livestream. Trans people are going into hiding. People with ambiguous documentation are rushing to protect family members who might be deported, or they have to seek preemptive reproductive or gender care, or they work for Health and Human Services and they're waiting to be fired by RFK Jr. On January 20th. Or they're waiting for a knock on the door from the Matt Gaetz Qanon goons. Of all of the tensions I noticed in survivor groups, this difference was the most inciting. The differences in privilege there are temperament differences too. I mean, it's never good when anxiously and avoidantly attached people are sharing space. And there are profound values differences too, political differences, and those are difficult to negotiate. But the thing I always thought could be clarified, or at least seen more clearly, was this privilege problem. If only people could recognize that they were entering a space of inequality where people were sharing different immediate needs and objectives based upon the unequal vulnerabilities exploited by the cult, or in our present situation, capitalism writ large, they might be able to listen to each other better, maybe even support each other, or at the very least, stay out of each other's way. Because honestly, what is this online life for? Are we really going to continue to let it make our lives worse? I'm reminded of how the Buddha allegedly talked about the second arrow. The first is the traumatic event. Something happens to you, something happens to your community. But the second arrow is the rumination and the judgment. The social media overlords have strung the bow and notched the arrow, but who will draw the string and let it fly? Now, as with most spiritual teachings, this can be taken to a stupid place in which all afterthoughts about having been in a cult or having woken up to a GOP trifecta and Matt Gaetz as the AG nominee, these are mere ruminations that we should stoically dispense with. Now. That's not the point as far as I'm concerned. The point is to realize that there is a space between the first arrow and the second, and in that space we might have more choices than we think. But what is that space and where is it? And here's where I remember something that Matt Christman of Chapo Trap House said on a Jacobin panel called Log the Fuck Off. He described online discourse as a weird simulation of in real life, discourse and actions. In the old days, he said, if you wanted to sail somewhere, you had to get together with a group of people with a diverse skill set and you would build a boat. You worked together, you argued over the details, you collected materials and tools, and you got a lot of splinters in your hands. But when you do all of that work, or what passes for work on Facebook or Twitter, it's like you're building a ship in a bottle at a very small scale, and it's a ship that goes nowhere. Ultimately, even if it feels intricate and fascinating. It's a ship in a bottle, sitting on the desk of Elon Musk, where he just looks at it, half bored, half interested, and sometimes he gives it a shake just to fuck things up. We deserve more than this. All of which is to say that the online aftermath doesn't have to colonize the material aftermath with survivor groups. There are definite possibilities for solidarity and mutual support online, and I'm sure we'll continue to find that and feel it in pockets here and there. But I think it's also good to feel and to detect when that begins to go south. When you feel moral outrage sour into moral outrage porn. When you realize that you're standing on the archery range and the second and third and fourth arrows are coming. When you realize the ship you've built is in a bottle for someone else's amusement and profit. I believe we can feel these things and learn when to log the fuck off. So in light of this, the first link in the show notes there will be others, but the first link will be for mutualaidhub.org which maps out local organizations throughout the US that facilitate community pods for food sharing and delivery, for temporary housing, childc translation, navigating government services and also emotional support. Keep safe out there. Thanks for listening.