What are the other person's qualifications?

Generally, their qualifications are that the audience is rallying around them. Also, they don't know me, which makes them less likely to be biased in my favor. (I.e., the old "my mom says I'm great at <X>, so shut up!" problem)

On the other hand, they might be more likely to be biased against you, and they certainly don't know a lot about your situation.

...the assurance that babies start out with that they get to care about their pain and pleasure.

This flies in the face of the political climate I exist within, that talks primarily about the gallish "entitlement" of poor people who believe they have the right to food and shelter and work.

Can you find a different political environment?

I've noticed that conservatives tend to think that everything bad that happens to a person is the fault of that person, and progressives tend to think that people generally don't have any responsibility for their misfortunes. Both are overdoing it, but you might need to spend some time with progressives for the sake of balance.

Also, I've found it helps to realize that malice is an easy way of getting attention, so there are incentives for people to show malice just to get attention-- and some of them are getting paid for it. The thing is, it's an emotional habit, not the voice of reality.

Unfortunately, people are really vulnerable to insults. I don't have an evo psy explanation, though I could probably whomp one up.

Do you have people who are on your side? If so, can you explore taking their opinion seriously?

It's very, very difficult, primarily because people who are INTENSELY on my side are never as vocal as people who are casually against me.

It is very difficult, but I think you've made some progress. All I can see is what you write, but it seems like you're getting some distance from your self-attacks in something like the past year or so.

I find it helps to think about times when I've been on my own side and haven't been struck by lightning.