Project Willow wrote:...
Which is to say, as I've said at least twice in this thread already: i am well aware that the positions under discussion are not socially equal in the traditional senses. This is not in question...
Your general approach to me from the beginning (of this thread) belies the assertion, not to mention that a specific statement to that effect from you is lacking. However, if you grant that observation as evident now, then I'll go from there.
i can grant that i certainly didn't say such in those exact words, and i can also grant that as such it is understandable that they failed to be obvious to you. that you did not observe my meanings, at the least, is undoubtledly in evidence.
No, we would not be having this discussion if you had accepted my previous conciliatory remarks and obvious identification with your predicament in regards to dealing with the state of survivors, which apparently was not enough and so you pursued me into this thread. Then you proceeded as if you were indeed not only ignorant of the question, but essentially unable to understand it, hence my language.
i was trying to rather, but it is, as above, quite obvious that this did not seem so to you. on the contrary you have interpreted my statements as provocative when their intention was borderline conciliatory.
but i did not "pursue" you to this thread. my first piece of interaction in this thread was directed at sw, as this poster had specifically mentioned my name, as such i felt obligated as it were, to attempt to remedy our former miscommunication.
(i also addressed only Nathan28 on the previous thread initially, but this seemingly somehow created commentary from several posters, as is common in these parts, i think American Dream calls it "piling on")
[while in retrospect i realize my comment could've done with at least an orz-level explanation, it did not occur to me in context, as i never got the memo about which specific words not to say, although i've requested a copy]
that thread was already warm when i got there, and i did not directly participate in the ongoing arguments, my point being merely tangental, as it often is in these parts.
my expertise generally lies on the peripheries.
...
i confess as to the rest, i'm not really sure what you mean, that is, i am unsure as to how exactly my words have led to this interpretation of my former statements. as such, i wouldn't wish to make it worse by attempting to unravel the knot.
suffice to say that it is clear to me that what i am intending to say and what you are getting from it are obviously not in unison.
[i'm really not interested in fighting a lot, i've been out of this thread for a page or so, and i'll go away again after this, if you like, i won't even respond to direct statements and you can say what you will after i'm gone]
[i've been trying to mostly avoid you since the Culture Jam thread actually, as i am aware that my presence seems to alarm you, hence my shorthand in your thread, that is, really really i was actually trying to be nice, and was literally utterly shocked that my attempt was interpretted in such totally opposite values -- it hurt my little feelings, and if i've seemed rude or lingeringly acrimonious since then, i most truly apologise]
OP ED wrote: and as i said before, my offense is taken on your presumption that you are "explaining" the way of the world to me.
which is based on your preconceived notion that i am or have been trying to "pick on people" or that i refuse to try to see their points of view.
It's not a preconceived notion, it's sourced in direct observation, or more accurately, reading your words in this thread.
i agree that this is your observation, as it must be if you are saying that it is.
i only disagree that that was what i was trying to do. that is, i am saying that if i am seemingly picking on you per your observation, then i should make clear that this was not my intention and that however unsuccessfully i am verily attempting to rather elaborate on our previous progress.
OP ED wrote:which i disagree with, because unlike you, i know my mind and intentions and i also know damned well when i am trying to understand and when i am trying to pick on someone or not.
If you have been hurt by my words, then in response you've just delivered a blow with that statement far worse than any flippant condescension I could ever muster. That one sentence is of the most despicable kind you could ever lay on a mind control survivor. You're digging a big hole. While I may have forgotten all else and put if off to clumsiness or even accident, that statement I shall not forget.
why should it harm you?
all it means is that you do not understand me. as clearly i do not understand your point of view in interpreting this as some sort of attack, because the logic is over my head perhaps, it is self-evident to me that were i insulting you with this statement, it would apply equally as a self-insult, which i try never to do, per the context it was made in at that time and as i've attempted to reformulate it as above.
which is to say: "what!?!"
I am judge and jury about when someone crosses the line with me and I will not be silent. I object to dealing with people who do not or cannot interact with me in any other way than by demanding I completely abandon my point of view in favor of theirs. That's how I perceive your approach to me in this thread, it is without balance. I don't give up self advocacy in the name of peace anymore.
nor should you.
but you're going to have to tell me what lines i'm crossing. i've been as polite as i know how to be to you, as polite as i've ever been to anyone who has said the sorts of things you've said to me. perhaps moreso.
i don't have an "entire approach". i make this up as i go along. my only motivations in this place are to learn things i do not know and to interact with interesting and intelligent people. if somehow some small part of the interactions here ever aid some sort of actual justice, then i am pleased, but i'm kind of cynical and i haven't seen much of that on the internet, so we'll party when it happens.
sometimes, you must see, i really have no idea where you're coming from. i can try, but it doesn't seem to help. all i can do is to keep rephrasing myself until we can at the least communicate in an unheated manner and pursue our mutual and/or seperate goals.
OP ED wrote:btw, anger at these sorts of indignations is a classic sign of emotional affect. in case you didn't know. empathy, that is, makes us care whether people mistake our innocent moves as agressive...
Survival makes us care what others think of us. Empathy is when we care about the affect of our actions on other people, regardless of what they think of us.
indeed. but the empathy can make us upset if we hurt someone's feelings, and also defensive, because retaliations from those you feel empathy towards [i.e. directly rather than abstractly] are more harmful than those from strangers in similar circumstances. which is to say, that my reactions, perhaps inappropriate from your POV, were made precisely because i do care what effects my actions have, specifically on those of you who have been harmed by them, even if my understanding of the mechanisms whereby i've made these mistakes is lacking. if i am at fault, it is for badly concealing my upset at having failed to keep the harming to an absolute minimum.
OP ED wrote:...
i was, am, and will be fully aware that the self-identifying survivor types here come at this from a disadvantaged social position which is inclined to view otherwise innocent behavior as hostile.
[how could i not be aware of this, have you missed the shit i get subjected to?]
Finally at the end, after flailing about you get it. Such a shame though.
Like I said previously, we all go through the experience that the observation is sourced in, but you are determined to present your pain as solitary and primary. The observation is supposed to be salve for your indignation, but if you choose to apply it as yet another wound, well, there's nothing I can do.
the logic of solitude is my existential fetish. if it seems unbalanced, this is largely because i am only myself and no other. i am not certain i believe in primaries, therefore i think this may be one of those places wherein a communications breakdown has taken place.
if my formulation was crude, i admit it. i am crude. they've tried to socialize me properly, but my grandad actually was born in a barn.
my point was that this back and forth really does exasperate me, but i love this place and i'm not leaving. so the best i can offer is to reattempt to avoid you if you find me unsettling. the reason it exasperates me is that i come in peace and to make friends here, and the back and forth is not conducive to my true goals. it frustrates me and as i am very flawed i often fail to refrain from displaying my frustrations. it upsets me much to so utterly fail (epic) to communicate effectively. further to facilitate largescale derailment of fruitful topics is never my aim.
[minor detours i like, but derailing implies failure to arrive]
i'd not like to see this thread go the way of others that should've been chain proof. as such, if you wish i will attempt further communications, if i've managed to make it clear that i am upset if i've harmed anyone or failed to communicate properly my motives for all of my movements. if you think we can do so without furthing bringing harm to either of us. if not then i can go, the amount of input i can offer this subject is somewhat limited, as i'm no expert, and i can still learn from reading silently.
say the word and i will disappear into a puff of smoke.
