Enablers..???

[Nevermind]

You can't seize on one comment she has made and say there's nothing of value in what she has written elsewhere in this thread (because there's a lot). I feel like you guys were waiting to pounce the moment she "slipped up" so you could accuse her of hypocrisy and dismiss the rest of what she's written on this thread.

 

To be honest, shadow, I had a similar feeling with your long post on this thread (that got deleted).

[shadowplay]

I'm going to get out of this thread so people who have to admonish others through a public means within a separate thread, can do so at their own leisure. It appears to me that there are pulpiteers who can't see their own behaviours and feel that it's necessary to point out everyone elses' "failures" by a form of public ostracization of individuals.

 

The sad reality is, that there are no angels or demons.

 

This is exactly what Taramere predicted. That the "persecutors" would start painting themselves as the "victims." You're only proving her points in trying to dismiss them.

[shadowplay]

To be honest, shadow, I had a similar feeling with your long post on this thread (that got deleted).

 

That I was waiting for someone to slip up? I've been making the same complaints for months on what I see as ongoing behavior in multiple threads. It just happened to reach a boil in one recent thread to the point where people were like "this is enough."

 

I can't defend what I said in a post that has now been deleted because it's just your word against mine.

 

Going any further down this route will only make the persecutors feel more like the victims and overshadow the original discussion with petty OT bickering. Actually I'm doing a disservice to Taramere in stirring up more drama in her defense. Her posts can speak for themselves. I'm bowing out.

[Taramere]

I was thinking about this thread late last night and it made me sad. The attempted ostracizing and controlling through passive-aggressive means, makes me sad.

 

It sparks of creating a co-dependency.

 

"My way is better so listen to me. These others are mean/evil so don't listen or provide them with any form of respect. Ignore all the thousands of other helpful posts they've made because this particular thread, the one I'm pointing out, is meaningful. They should have handled it my way because my way is the right way. Can't you see? They know nothing."

 

I think that's a valid point, which is why I made it earlier:

 

Abusers isolate their victims...but rescuers can also isolate people. How? By giving them the message that "You can trust me - but not others who are out to persecute you. I have the skills to nurture you through this. They haven't got those skills. They have nothing valid to offer you in this process of you becoming a stronger and more confident person."

 

And that's something therapists have to watch out for.

 

It shows how people can reach some consensus if they spend a bit of time reading and considering eachother's perspectives.

 

It's a pity the thread did deteriorate - and I take some responsibility for going off topic and inciting further aggravation in the process. It was a good topic idea from Unders, and hopefully it'll get explored again at a later date.

[Tomcat33]

Reading this thread reminds me why I periodically leave the Shack. Never do so many act so cruelly over so little: The Shack continues to devour its best and brightest.

 

Tara's getting flamed because she had the temerity and good sense to constructively engage the Mob: the Keyboard Queens with their Conventional Wisdom and bullying ways. Cliques, pecking orders, resentment, rivalry and school yard fights all reflect the Shack's dark side.

 

To some extent, LoveShack "enables" the worst in some and the best in a few.

 

Thanks for your enlightening contributions,Tara.

 

Keep lighting the darkness.

 

 

I second this notion.

 

It's really funny to see all the people that pounced and exclaimed, "me me you're talking about me and are baiting me aren't you?" when in fact there is an entire forum of people that fit the description, me included, ALL inlcuded, any description at that. I do find it amusing though how many walk around with their backs up just waiting to be called out, it is interesting to see this phenomenon because it it is very telling of what they feel they are doing and it can't be right if they are so easily identifying with negative generic comments.

 

Someone makes one general comment and there is always someone saying "you said that about me didn't you?" :laugh:

 

Those are questions we should be asking ourselves rather than fighting them, correct them and you won't even have to feel like any negative comment is directed at you in any shape way or form. If you really care that people make comments about you then that's the only solution really

 

And I am not talking about this thread I am talking about threads in general but coincidently it played out nicely here quite a few times.

[Touche]

This is about me isn't it? I just know it.

[Citizen Erased]

I didn't read any of this thread beyond this page. Should I?

[Touche]

I didn't read any of this thread beyond this page. Should I?

 

Nah, waste 'o time. Trust me.

[underpants]

I have found many of the posts very interesting in a myriad of ways.

 

Thanks to everyone who contributed in either a contructive or a paranoid manner. The latter, sort of proving the "denial" factor touched on in the opening post.

 

I started the thread in hopes of gaining a new foot hold of how to engage with a personality type that differs from my own. I have and I thank who have provided me some tools in that direction.

 

For the record. I have taken some advice from members on this board to heart. Meaning I have acted in a way that was contrary to my first impulse. I'm open when I ask for advice. In real life and on here. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

 

I did like J's analogy of house building. I agree. If you do see someone you do care for, or have the best intentions for, building out of sand. When do you assert yourself and when do you walk away? That is a tough spot. Especially when you foresee much of the counter psyc, that will ensue from the action of you taking that stand.

 

...people are funny.

[Tomcat33]

This is about me isn't it? I just know it.

 

 

:lmao::lmao: Ok now THAT was funny.

 

Nooo read the thread almost the entire thread is everyone being paranoid about each other and it happens in all the threads. Shoot every time someone starts a thread in this section someone pipes in with "this was about me wasn't it?"

 

I think we all need to chill out.

[Touche]

:lmao::lmao: Ok now THAT was funny.

 

Nooo read the thread almost the entire thread is everyone being paranoid about each other and it happens in all the threads. Shoot every time someone starts a thread in this section someone pipes in with "this was about me wasn't it?"

 

I think we all need to chill out.

 

Glad you got a laugh out of it, TC. Yes, it was meant to be funny. I know it wasn't really about me...was it?

 

Sorry, Undies. Didn't mean to put the whole thread down. There were some interesting perspectives. I was just upset at some of the posts.

[underpants]

Sorry, Undies. Didn't mean to put the whole thread down. There were some interesting perspectives. I was just upset at some of the posts.

 

No need.

 

Personally, I actually found some of them quite amusing and frankly strangely on topic. As far as the dynamics between personalities go.

 

A case study if you will.

 

It is all good.

[Tomcat33]

. If you do see someone you do care for, or have the best intentions for, building out of sand. When do you assert yourself and when do you walk away? That is a tough spot. Especially when you foresee much of the counter psyc, that will ensue from the action of you taking that stand.

 

 

 

But that's just it, when you are trying to support a person you care deeply for and have great amount of affection for the dynamic is very different. My goodness if people reacted in real life the way they do to strangers with the lack of patience and insults as it goes down here sometimes, with their loved ones or close ones, I just don't know how we would stay friends or even keep family. Eventually you can play out tough love with a loved one and "love" being the operative word, it's really hard to digest tough love from someone who doesn't really give a ratz ass about you and is only here to vent out their personal issues. Trust is the foundation or the card blanche for the level of abuse you can use when trying to shake some sense into someone ya know? And I say "abuse" as a very loose term. I don't literally mean abuse I mean "tough love"

[Tomcat33]

Glad you got a laugh out of it, TC. Yes, it was meant to be funny. I know it wasn't really about me...was it?

 

 

 

No of course it was not about you and yet I find myself doing the same thing we just described. Bizzare!!

 

Why does it feel like I am holding a mirror up to a mirror and can see the reflection of the reflection in the reflection of the reflection in the reflection....

[underpants]

But that's just it, when you are trying to support a person you care deeply for and have great amount of affection for the dynamic is very different. My goodness if people reacted in real life the way they do to strangers with the lack of patience and insults as it goes down here sometimes, with their loved ones or close ones, I just don't know how we would stay friends or even keep family. Eventually you can play out tough love with a loved one and "love" being the operative word, it's really hard to digest tough love from someone who doesn't really give a ratz ass about you and is only here to vent out their personal issues. Trust is the foundation or the card blanche for the level of abuse you can use when trying to shake some sense into someone ya know? And I say "abuse" as a very loose term. I don't literally mean abuse I mean "tough love"

 

Perhaps it comes down to a place of personal nurture?

 

I've had plenty of tough love/consequence as I grew up. Nothing extreme, although, ask my preteen self and I'm sure I would have a different story to tell.

 

Personally, I would prefer to be told an ugly truth then coddled into a blanket of soft denial. However, I realize that not all people can step up to the plate and take the ball that may be pitched to them. I do get that.

 

The thing is that with humility. I needed those hard early times to prepare me for later bumbs in the road. Heck, I still need to get checked on ocassion. That is how I grow.

 

I do notice that some people (generally) are very coddled and that staves off those lessons. Those internal lessons of actions to consequense. Those lessons of core change.

 

Do you not agree?

 

At what point to you as a friend/family member/so/person on the street...step in and check another human?

 

Just asking?

[Taramere]

I second this notion.

 

It's really funny to see all the people that pounced and exclaimed, "me me you're talking about me and are baiting me aren't you?" ......Those are questions we should be asking ourselves rather than fighting them, correct them and you won't even have to feel like any negative comment is directed at you in any shape way or form. If you really care that people make comments about you then that's the only solution really

 

And I am not talking about this thread I am talking about threads in general but coincidently it played out nicely here quite a few times.

 

Absolutely. It's one of the things that detracts from a lot of potentially good discussions on this board. It became clear after the first few posts that something was going on in another thread that was being taken onto here. Which makes it harder to present your views without people assuming that you too are referring to whatever's going on in the other thread and taking sides. Even if, at that stage, you haven't even seen the other thread.

 

It's not often I'm directly involved in really personalised conflict here - but I've seen it on the board often enough to know the ambiguous comment about "certain members" accompanied by a winking emoticon is commonly used bait that members who have fallen out use with eachother. It raises that "do I give the person the benefit of the doubt that this comment is in no way aimed at me and just ignore it? Or do I address it and risk falling into the usual "look how paranoid she is!/touched some kind of nerve did I?" trap. I generally try to do the "give the benefit of the doubt thing", but now and again my temper gets the better of me. Who does that not happen to? And if I misinterpreted any comments by Touche, I am of course sorry for that.

 

Thanks to those who suggested that the majority of my posts on this thread were objectively toned and on topic and that this should point to me not being some broken creature who has something terribly wrong with her and takes offence at every little thing. I do appreciate that. Nobody likes to be told that they're "broken" simply because they got fed up and vented about something without thinking things through.

 

Any "certain members here" reference is always going to be aimed at some people on the board, which is why comments like that tend to either stir up bad feeling or renew recent conflicts. Minimising your use of them/not responding to them is probably a good rule for not being perceived as someone who continually gets into pointless, bitchy, discussion-spoiling exchanges - but easier said than done. We all slip up now and again.

 

As you suggest TC, if a comment is made by someone you haven't had any conflict with and you get that "they're aiming that at me!!!" feeling, then it may well be touching a raw nerve. Something that you recognise something in yourself - that you don't want to recognise, or a flawed self belief (eg as in the bullying link Walk posted, the "I'm worthless") belief.

 

If you take a good look and conclude that you're annoyed because the person has hit on a very real tendency you have, like you say - there's always the option of trying to correct it. Or just accepting that it's an aspect of who you are, and one that you might take some ridicule/criticism for now and again. If someone teases me for being wordy or level the "know all" accusation because I contribute a lot on subjects I have a particular interest in, I'll just accept that I irritate them. Unless I'm in a bad mood, in which case I might point out some of their flaws in exchange. You just can't change everything about yourself that other people perceive as flaws, in order to people-please though. Otherwise you'd end up being an empty shell

 

With more general threads like this one, there's definitely no reason to assume that people adopt a position on the topic of "enabling" based on their feelings about threads/posters on this board. Especially when people are taking pains to present real life examples of enabling in practice, in an effort to eliminate any suspicions that "he/she's talking about me." Which people shouldn't really need to do in a generalised discussion. I'm sure pretty much all of us base our thoughts about on human interaction primarily on what they have experienced and learned in the real world - not on what goes on on a message board. Though this board often does present a bit of a caricature of what takes place outside.

[OpenBook]

As you suggest TC, if a comment is made by someone you haven't had any conflict with and you get that "they're aiming that at me!!!" feeling, then it may well be touching a raw nerve. Something that you recognise something in yourself - that you don't want to recognise, or a flawed self belief (eg as in the bullying link Walk posted, the "I'm worthless") belief... You just can't change everything about yourself that other people perceive as flaws, in order to people-please though. Otherwise you'd end up being an empty shell

 

Far more commonly, though, my own reaction is to be GRATEFUL, THANKFUL and RELIEVED that I'm not anything like those posters who spew-out their sick vitriolic condemnations, like an overflowing sewer drain. I cannot imagine what it must be like for the poor souls who have to deal with them IRL.

[Lishy]

Taramere, you have such a lovely way with you and you conduct yourself like the true lady that you are. This, I am afraid, breeds jealousy and people feel the need to gang up and put you down. You, as per usual, raise yourself above the jealous few and remain a lady! Well done

 

You are a well respected member and people are people and they get jealous. Do not take it personal take it as a compliment. There is no REAL hierarchy on this web site, people just like to imagine there is a queen and king and some strive to be that, let them!

 

If they could see how they embarress themselves by fighting with a complete stranger and trying to score points when there are no points to be earned they would stop in a heartbeat! I have cringed at so much said here! Shame on them!

 

We enable this behaviour by responding to it.

[Taramere]

Taramere, you have such a lovely way with you and you conduct yourself like the true lady that you are. This, I am afraid, breeds jealousy and people feel the need to gang up and put you down. You, as per usual, raise yourself above the jealous few and remain a lady! Well done.

 

That's really nice of you Lishy, but I can't really accept the compliment. Sometimes I'll see someone launch a sarcastic attack on someone who I think has had it coming, and I'll enjoy reading it hugely. Plus I've posted my fair share of sarcasm here and slagged people off in PMs when I've felt that strong desire to vent, but don't want to disrupt the board with it.

 

It's not about being ladylike; just trying to be rational in discussions that involve some level of conflict (as most interesting and worthwhile discussions tend to). Adopting the language of rationality while nurturing an inner cauldron of bubbling anger is futile and results in transparent claims of "being above all this".

 

Life and conflict are a lot more fun when we can recognise our own more ridiculous and flawed aspects, and laugh at them.

[Star Gazer]

Like I have said, we ALL say things in the heat of the moment, depending on our present emotions and relation to the post, but If I ever do or have said something to someone that made them cry or made them feel worthless I would want to be told about it.

 

I would also apologise!

 

Oh really?

 

Throughout December 2007 to February 2008 you did just that - to me. Never once did you apologize.

[grogster]

That's really nice of you Lishy, but I can't really accept the compliment. Sometimes I'll see someone launch a sarcastic attack on someone who I think has had it coming, and I'll enjoy reading it hugely. Plus I've posted my fair share of sarcasm here and slagged people off in PMs when I've felt that strong desire to vent, but don't want to disrupt the board with it.

 

It's not about being ladylike; just trying to be rational in discussions that involve some level of conflict (as most interesting and worthwhile discussions tend to). Adopting the language of rationality while nurturing an inner cauldron of bubbling anger is futile and results in transparent claims of "being above all this".

 

Life and conflict are a lot more fun when we can recognise our own more ridiculous and flawed aspects, and laugh at them.

 

Nice post, Tara. I'm wondering, however, how much gender factors into this. LS contains its fair share of male posters, yet most of the bloodletting (at least on this Thread) involves female posters.

 

Do women posters have a heightened rivalry with other women posters but not with male posters? If so, why? I don't want to extrapolate too much, but gender, at first blush, appears to play a role in the conflicts. Queen Bee syndrome? Sexual competition?

 

Gender, I suspect, adds fuel to the flames.

[Lishy]

Oh really?

 

Throughout December 2007 to February 2008 you did just that - to me. Never once did you apologize.

 

 

Everything I said to you came true did it not?

 

You just didn't like what I said as you was not ready or able to see it, but in the end you saw it!

 

There is no apology needed on my behalf or I would have said sorry!

 

In fact, I feel it was YOU who needed to apologise for the way you jumped on me for stating facts and trying to help you!

[shadowplay]

Nice post, Tara. I'm wondering, however, how much gender factors into this. LS contains its fair share of male posters, yet most of the bloodletting (at least on this Thread) involves female posters.

 

Do women posters have a heightened rivalry with other women posters but not with male posters? If so, why? I don't want to extrapolate too much, but gender, at first blush, appears to play a role in the conflicts. Queen Bee syndrome? Sexual competition?

 

Gender, I suspect, adds fuel to the flames.

 

You're right that gender plays a role. It has to do with the romantic focus of this forum.

 

Relationship talk brings out the cattiness in women because so much female insecurity is rooted in the romantic realm.

 

When men get nasty it's usually about other subjects like politics, sports, sexual conquests, etc. Women are also more likely to stick it to other women in a place that really hurts, preying on insecurities. They know exactly what nerves to hit in another woman.

 

Men can be giant aholes too, and I believe they often have less kindness and empathy than women, but their aggression takes a more blatant, detached and general form. They're less likely to carefully pick apart another man's insecurities. They also are less deceptive about doing so.

They don't fake niceness and then lash out when the opportunity strikes as bitchy women do.

 

It's a different form of aggression. Not better or worse.

[Taramere]

Nice post, Tara. I'm wondering, however, how much gender factors into this. LS contains its fair share of male posters, yet most of the bloodletting (at least on this Thread) involves female posters.

 

Do women posters have a heightened rivalry with other women posters but not with male posters? If so, why? I don't want to extrapolate too much, but gender, at first blush, appears to play a role in the conflicts. Queen Bee syndrome? Sexual competition?

 

Gender, I suspect, adds fuel to the flames.

 

Thanks, g. I think Queen Bee syndrome and sexual competitiveness frequently play a role in conflict between women....but you could equally say that jostling for alpha male position and sexual competitiveness play roles in the conflict that men have. Whereas men are encouraged, from an early age, to deal head on with conflict ("like a man!") women are given the message "be nice...play nice...be a lady...co-operative not confrontational. That makes it a little more difficult for us to handle conflict in the more straightforward "say what you think, argue a bit about it and then let it go" manner that men tend to take.

 

That's a generalisation, of course, because some women are very direct in conflict and some men are very passive aggressive...but this board often speaks to the extent that the scenario you outlined is typical.

 

I don't want to focus on conflict that happens here, because however real and agitating it might seem, to my mind it's nothing more than an exaggerated imitation of the more important and hurtful conflicts we're faced with in the real world.

 

What woman doesn't remember, from schooldays, the fallings out that would result in groups of friends splitting and engaging in endless cold wars? Venting and bitching behind eachother's backs that went on....some or most of it passed on to the subjects of the bitching sessions by interested onlookers who wanted to sit back and watch drama and conflict unfold. But who would often end up, being rounded and blamed once the original players got tired of fighting with eachother.

 

That old "if you've got anything to say, say it to my face" call out probably gets made dozens of times every day in every school playground in the world. But then when things are said directly to faces it results in the same fury and antagonism that bitching behind backs leads to. Because generally people don't want anything bad said about them - whether it's said behind their backs or to their faces.

 

And in that respect, generally speaking (again) women may well be less good at both dishing it out and taking it than men are. I find it interesting to talk about this. I like analysing conflict in an effort to improve how I personally handle it - but the trouble with doing that here is that, as has already been touched upon, people assume that generalisations are side-swipes at them. Instead of recognising that these are generalisations about human nature and not about any specific person.

[Leoni]

What appears to be happening is the rationalization, thus minimalization of self-behaviours, while externally finger pointing. There's also a strong element of passive-aggressiveness within the confines of the finger pointing.

 

Once again, some of the comments referenced, can easily be leveled at the same members who are pointing generalized fingers. I can't understand the reason for any of this, beyond an opportunity to put oneself above the madding crowd.

 

In so many ways, this thread albeit unintended by the OP, serves as a platform to posture and create battle lines between members. It feeds the "he/she done me wrong a year ago" resentments.

 

Why can't people look to themselves and put forth effort into the community, without publically ostracizating behaviours within a separate thread? Either let be and allow everyone to be who they are or take it up directly with them, within the threads themselves, PM or by other private means.