When your SO makes subtle comments that you need to lose weight

[torn_curtain]

Cyber-bullying (in schools, which is where the term comes from) is about social power, humiliation, and very much mimics other forms of bullying. The definition Kamille gave is similar to what I've always heard.

 

The term "bully" really shouldn't be confused with the term "mean." There's much more to a bully than that.

 

/PSA

 

Right--I agree. See my post above. What I've seen in this thread and the breakup thread fits squarely into the definition of cyber-bullying, with social power and humiliation coming into play.

 

In many ways cyber-bullying is a lot easier because there is no face to face interaction and the bully's real life reputation isn't at stake.

[Star Gazer]

I've openly stated that Taramere made me see things more clearly in reference to Karpman's Drama triangle. I also backed off LB when I realized what was going on and also, suggested you do the same.

 

Don't know why you felt the need to defend yourself. I didn't say you were bullying LB. I guess you thought you had?

 

The only lie that shadowplay told was not telling the site that she decided to stay with her then ex. And this was self-admitted in a thread by her.

 

That was the first lie she got caught in. There were several others. But my problem with her wasn't what she did (lied about) on LS, but rather, her pretty twisted use of men and the abuse she heaped on them.

 

And here YOU go with your abuse:

 

That you managed to convince Tony this was the case, is beyond sick and psychotic.

 

Hmm. I wonder how you'd feel if I called you or anyone else those words?

 

Wow, nice spin. Try again. What happened between myself and Touche and Johan have nothing to do with you. You know nothing beyond gossip.

 

You're right that it has nothing to do with me. I was just bringing up those two examples as an example of your behavior, in the same way you and CG have with me.

 

I don't rely on gossip. What I know is what you shared publicly, and in private with me. As for the public stuff, a taste:

 

You bullying Touché by starting a thread to publicly declare your friendship over, and discuss the reasons why, for all of LS to see.

 

You bullying Johan by entering his thread to tell him he's not the ultimate, and mock his feelings.

 

...not unusual for someone who fabricates on any given day about people you don't like. Either people are your friends who you coo over in a sickening manner or they're evil beyond repair. Get some balance woman. I'm very glad you continue with your therapy.

 

And just more outright, intentionally hurtful things.

 

Who's abusing who here? Keep digging your hole.

[zengirl]

Right--I agree. See my post above. What I've seen in this thread and the breakup thread fits squarely into the definition of cyber-bullying, with social power and humiliation coming into play.

 

I disagree, and I think comparing that to cyber-bullying really takes away from real cyber-bullying. Commenting and replying to a thread started by someone, even in a critical manner, does not compare to (Wiki definition coming): "when the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person." Some examples include sending threats via email or posting embarrassing pictures on FB or starting rumors on message boards.

 

Analyzing another's posts, words, actions, and presented-personal critically does not = bullying. It's criticism. And criticism is just (definition coming): "the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything." Which is a normal human reaction.

Edited August 12, 2011 by zengirl

[Star Gazer]

I will say SG is a critical person. In some circumstances, hypercritical might be a fair assessment of her response.

 

I can't deny that.

 

There's playing fair and playing dirty, though, for sure. I don't think SG played dirty in this thread. I do think TBF played dirty. (Again: You can feel free to disagree.)

 

That's not what I saw happen. She made the BBW mistake (and so did a couple other people, and a few more argued over the range, and Fit Chick said everyone overweight was the same, and there was lots of dissing of an entire population that includes some perfectly lovely people who aren't in perfect shape, from many posters, including ES), and then I saw her make the "clothes make you look bigger than you are" post, and immediately after that, bittersweet memories said SG was fat and short and TBF jumped on that bandwagon. I just went back and re-read it.

 

I forgot about the short and fat part! Yup, that's pretty much where it started to unravel...

 

I didn't see anyone write, "Hey, that comes off a little impolite" (which I won't even disagree with, though I will say ES opened the door for criticism with asking people to view her photos). I saw people ATTACK.

 

Actually, you, MC, Kam, and probably someone else, said a few times that it wasn't a nice thing to say...and because you said it rather than calling me names, I was able to reflect on it. I can see how it may have come across as impolite, but it was never my intention to harm or hurt her feelings - just as I hope it wasn't ES's intent to hurt any of the (true) BBW that may have been reading this thread when she made disparaging remarks about BBWs.

[Kamille]

I don't think bullying necessarily has to do with power in any real form. I see it more as being about ego; it's a way of the bully feeling better about his or herself by tearing somebody else apart. Cyber-bullying is a well-documented and increasingly common problem as our lives move more online, even though no tangible form of power may be at stake. Look it up.

 

I agree bullying doesn't necessarily have to do with power in any real form. This whole thread really has me thinking about bullying. It's easy to say that no one, in effect, has power over anybody else, but the truth is that there are stakes attached to every interaction. Here on LS, the stakes can be: inclusion in the community, sense of self-esteem, respect and reputation, etc.

 

That's why I like the Ontario board of education's definition of bullying: 1) it deals not only with intent but also awareness of potential harm. (There, the guiding principle is simple: If I say X, will it affect this person's self-esteem negatively?). 2) It allows for perceptions to be taken into account. There is also another section in the document where they mention that bullying has emotional consequences for both the person doing the bullying and the person being bullied. And of course, the main reason they see bullying as a problem is because of its effect on the individuals' sense of self but also it's effect on the community (in their case, the school).

 

I wish there was a way to talk about all this productively, away from the finger pointing. We can all agree that something negative is happening here, something that is taking it's toll on many posters and on the LS community in general. But I'll step out again now.

[torn_curtain]

I disagree, and I think comparing that to cyber-bullying really takes away from real cyber-bullying. Commenting and replying to a thread started by someone, even in a critical manner, does not compare to (Wiki definition coming): "when the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person." Some examples include sending threats via email or posting embarrassing pictures on FB or starting rumors on message boards.

 

Analyzing another's posts, words, actions, and presented-personal critically does not = bullying. If SG started a thread about someone saying "So-and-So is a Slut" and detailed real or fake exploits from their lives to embarrass them, she'd totally be a cyber-bully, but I could never imagine that happening. If SG is sending ES death threats via PM, then she should totally cut that out, but I could never imagine that happening. And if SG were to take ES's loveshack posts and print them out and mail them to real people ES knew, then she'd definitely fit it. . . but again, not seeing that ever being remotely possible. She doesn't even really name-call. She just says what she thinks, which is sometimes harsh, but that doesn't make her a bully.

 

Throwing the word "bullying" around is really a bad idea because bullying is a real problem in the real world (mostly for kids honestly). All ES has to do is actually respond to SG and/or use the ignore function, and she's good.

 

The definition you just gave fits into what I see here. "When the Internet...is used to...post text...to hurt or embarrass another person."

 

What you write after that--your definition--is just one type of cyberbullying:

"Some examples include sending threats via email or posting embarrassing pictures on FB or starting rumors on message boards."

 

There have also been many documented instances of cyber-bullying where the bullies and targets didn't even know each other in real life or weren't able to do harm to their target's reputation in real life. There have even been extreme examples of internet forum members ganging up on one member of a community who was emotionally fragile and inadvertently pushing that person to suicide. I'm not saying of course what is going on here is that extreme but I still see it as bullying because I believe it is intended to cause psychological harm and distress to the target--who is perceived to be weak enough to be susceptible to it. Bullying doesn't have to be blatant name calling either. The most insidious kind is more manipulative and underhanded--a form that is more common among adults who have more social skills at their disposal.

 

Cyber-bullying is unfortunately common because of how easy it is to do since there are no real repercussions. A number of forums I've visited have a few resident bullies.

[zengirl]

I agree bullying doesn't necessarily have to do with power in any real form. This whole thread really has me thinking about bullying. It's easy to say that no one, in effect, has power over anybody else, but the truth is that there are stakes attached to every interaction. Here on LS, the stakes can be: inclusion in the community, sense of self-esteem, respect and reputation, etc.

 

That's why I like the Ontario board of education's definition of bullying: 1) it deals not only with intent but also awareness of potential harm. (There, the guiding principle is simple: If I say X, will it affect this person's self-esteem negatively?). 2) It allows for perceptions to be taken into account. There is also another section in the document where they mention that bullying has emotional consequences for both the person doing the bullying and the person being bullied. And of course, the main reason they see bullying as a problem is because of its effect on the individuals' sense of self but also it's effect on the community (in their case, the school).

 

I wish there was a way to talk about all this productively, away from the finger pointing. We can all agree that something negative is happening here, something that is taking it's toll on many posters and on the LS community in general. But I'll step out again now.

 

To the bolded:

 

It's worth noting that this, and most in-depth bullying definitions, are used in schools.

 

That's an awesome guiding principle for teenagers, adolescents, and children, don't get me wrong, and it's what I'd teach my kids (students). However, I don't think people --- particularly adults --- should be held responsible for another person's self esteem or insecurities or reactions. I think at some point, the hormones die down, and we become responsible for our own reactions as well as our intentions. And at that point, the person's reaction is less important than your intentions.

 

Why should a person who can't take criticism be spared it? I teach my students, as they get into middle and high school, to begin taking criticism and giving constructive criticism. It's super important, and it's important to learn not to internalize criticism and be so sensitive that it hurts your self-esteem to hear something harsh(. . . unless it's the truth. Then, it's going to hurt, and that's a good hurt---it means you've found something you need to change.) Because if you feel that way, you don't really HAVE self-esteem. It's like the emotional equivalent of living your life in a bubble to stave off infection.

 

And school SHOULD be/start as a bubble (it isn't) where everyone is safe to a laughable degree and never has to take their own precautions and find their own strength, but the world shouldn't. And isn't. And will never be.

[threebyfate]

Don't know why you felt the need to defend yourself. I didn't say you were bullying LB. I guess you thought you had?

Reread what I wrote. You again twist words, making things up in your head.

 

 

 

That was the first lie she got caught in. There were several others. But my problem with her wasn't what she did (lied about) on LS, but rather, her pretty twisted use of men and the abuse she heaped on them.

Right, her ex was horrible to her while she was waiting for an abortion and then ditched her. Such a terrible, terrible woman. NOT!

 

And here YOU go with your abuse:

Hmm. I wonder how you'd feel if I called you or anyone else those words?

Just being honest, like yourself. Don't like it, then stop the abuse on ES.

You're right that it has nothing to do with me. I was just bringing up those two examples as an example of your behavior, in the same way you and CG have with me.

We brought up your behavour in generalized terms which was accurate and in defense of members you were blatantly and consistently bullying over a period of years.

 

I don't rely on gossip. What I know is what you shared publicly, and in private with me. As for the public stuff, a taste:

What I've shared privately with you has been very, very little. You've managed to get more gossip elsewhere or have filled in the blanks with some serious strangeness and inaccuracy.

You bullying Touché by starting a thread to publicly declare your friendship over, and discuss the reasons why, for all of LS to see.

Read the thread. Funny how it was acceptable for Touche to attack me in thread after thread and how it's bullying when I create a thread to ask for advice from LS members about what to do about someone like that. Note the member's name wasn't originally mentioned in the opening post?

You bullying Johan by entering his thread to tell him he's not the ultimate, and mock his feelings.

While you criticize me about starting a thread about Touche, you sympathise with johan for starting a thread about me and accuse me of bullying him.

 

This is exactly the behaviour I'm talking about. There's no balance to your thoughts and you don't consider the lead ups, using things out of context and twisting them to create your own fantasies.

 

And just more outright, intentionally hurtful things.

 

Who's abusing who here? Keep digging your hole.

Funny how when I'm being honest about you, it's abusive and when you're being "honest" with someone else, you're just being honest!

 

SG, can you not see the imbalance? You dig "evidence" up from 2009 to make your purported points. This is now 2011 and everyone should be getting emotionally better from bad times in their lives. So why not you? Why haven't you and your life improved? If anything, your abusive bullying has gotten progressively worse. Why?

[zengirl]

The definition you just gave fits into what I see here. "When the Internet...is used to...post text...to hurt or embarrass another person."

 

SG is not using the internet as a means to hurt or embarrass ES. She's responding to things ES has chosen to say on a public forum. All the information she has is supplied by ES. If she were bringing something ES had PMed her or told her in real life on here, and posting them, then I could see, but otherwise, I just cannot.

 

Criticizing something that is put out there is not the same as using the internet as a tool to hurt someone.

 

"Some examples include sending threats via email or posting embarrassing pictures on FB or starting rumors on message boards."

 

Yes, and if SG is sending threats via PM, she really should stop! But she certainly never started any rumors that I can see, and definitely not in this post. She's totally reacting to ES.

 

To confuse criticism with bullying is to do a huge disservice to the cause of anti-bullying efforts everywhere IMO. And again /PSA

[TheBigQuestion]

TBF, I don't quite understand why you feel the need to ascribe motives to me that are not ascertainable over this forum. I offer my reason for not thinking that what's happened in this thread is bullying, and you automatically tell me I must have anger issues. I don't get it.

[torn_curtain]

SG is not using the internet as a means to hurt or embarrass ES. She's responding to things ES has chosen to say on a public forum. All the information she has is supplied by ES.

 

I guess I misunderstood the definition you gave then? I took it to mean "post text" in other words "write something on a forum intended to hurt...". If it just means share private text with the rest of a forum in order to embarrass the target that that's a much narrower definition of cyber bullying than I've seen applied elsewhere. As I wrote earlier there have been instances in other forums where targets have even been driven to suicide through hurtful words and character attacks alone without anything private being revealed. Just did a look through some of ES's old threads and it's not true that Stargazer hasn't directly insulted ES or called her names. I found a post where she called her "batsh#$t insane".

[threebyfate]

SG, can you not see the imbalance? You dig "evidence" up from 2008 and 2009 to make your purported points. This is now 2011 and everyone should be getting emotionally better from bad times in their lives. So why not you? Why haven't you and your life improved? If anything, your abusive bullying has gotten progressively worse. Why?

The above last paragraph should include the bolded amendment.

 

I'm admittedly more of a thread-reader than a regular poster. However, one thing I've realized is that both ES and shadowplay had been incredibly tactless, vindictive, or downright abusive to people in their actual lives. An example of shadowplay doing so was described by SG above. While I understand that both these posters (and others here) may have legitimate psychological issues and difficulties, such psychological explanations are just that: explanations. They do not EXCUSE behavior. ES being insecure does not excuse the way she has treated some men in the past. It doesn't excuse her seriously contemplating cheating on her exes whenever the viability of her relationships have been threatened.

 

I personally don't think anyone who criticizes these aspects of their behavior should be accused of being bullies. Posters like ES are very frequently the biggest bullies to others in their personal lives.

 

TBF, I don't quite understand why you feel the need to ascribe motives to me that are not ascertainable over this forum. I offer my reason for not thinking that what's happened in this thread is bullying, and you automatically tell me I must have anger issues. I don't get it.

Reread what you've wrote in the above quote. You've just ascribed real life behaviours to both shadowplay and ES that you can't prove. At one time shadow did get together with one of her b/fs friends. But her b/f knew about it and she learned her lesson very well that time which was many years ago.

 

It's like SG can never, ever let go of past behaviours in people, digging them up when she needs ammunition when defending herself. People learn, change and grow. Why hasn't SG learned, changed or grown, instead grown worse?

[zengirl]

I guess I misunderstood the definition you gave then? I took it to mean "post text" in other words "write something on a forum intended to hurt...".

 

No "post text" would reply to forums, FB, twitter, etc, that is intended to embarrass or hurt. And if SG has started a thread about ES's weight issues. . . that's be some cyber-bullying for sure!

 

But she didn't. She just responded to the conversation ES totally opened up. She is a critical persona and was a bit impolite by many societal standards, sure, but that's not bullying.

 

As far as the bat**** insane thing, if SG said that, I would consider it pretty darn mean. Is it bullying? Well, it'd really depend on context. And at any rate, it's not something I'd say. But I don't go looking through posters past history ad nauseum (I will go through the thread history, obviously, and have, but that's as far as I go) to validate various claims. That just sounds . . . exhausting.

 

ETA: I will examine patterns that are relevant and re-emerging, but one thing I do agree with TBF on . . . people grow and change. I only point out a pattern if I see it coming up/back again and know it off the top of my head.

[torn_curtain]

As far as the bat**** insane thing, if SG said that, I would consider it pretty darn mean. Is it bullying? Well, it'd really depend on context. And at any rate, it's not something I'd say. But I don't go looking through posters past history (I will go through the thread history, obviously, and have, but that's as far as I go) to validate various claims. That just sounds . . . exhausting.

 

Well a few people have said here that bullying can only be determined by a pattern of behavior so I wanted to be sure I wasn't jumping to conclusions based on this thread and the other one ES started. I have only skimmed through ES's threads but I do see a pattern of bullying from certain members.

[Kamille]

That's an interesting point ZG. If we take your argument to its logical extreme, it would mean that, in essence, bullying only happens to children and teens. And yet, work-place bullying happens all the time.

 

I agree that an ideal world, nothing anyone else said would ever affect our sense of self. However, we construct who we are in interactions, and as such, how others value us remains an important source of self-awareness for humans. Do I wish some posters were less attached to what other posters thought of them? Definitely. Do I think they should all equally be able to brush negative critiques off? Nope. I'm not that much of an idealist. I recognize humans' coping skills vary greatly and much like you don't think anyone should tell others how they respond to threads, I don't think anyone can tell others what the appropriate emotional response to criticism should be.

 

Don't get me wrong. I wish it were that easy. A world where every adult could build and maintain their self-esteem regardless of the thoughts and actions of others would be a world where we wouldn't need anti-depressants, therapy or women's shelters.

 

 

Why should a person who can't take criticism be spared it? I teach my students, as they get into middle and high school, to begin taking criticism and giving constructive criticism.

 

 

Yes. Constructive and fair criticism is an important aspect of all of this. Defining it is as tricky as defining bullying. Generally though, it's linked to the question of awareness: If I say X, will it genuinely help the person or will it affect their self-esteem (reputation, etc) negatively?

[zengirl]

Well a few people have said here that bullying can only be determined by a pattern of behavior so I wanted to be sure I wasn't jumping to conclusions based on this thread and the other one ES started. I have only skimmed through ES's threads but I do see a pattern of bullying from certain members.

 

Yeah, but one random name does not a pattern make either. If SG had been bullying ES for years, I think she would've been banned. I've seen many abusive posters banned, even in the past year. So if SG made a habit of calling anyone "bat**** crazy" to the point where it was a pattern, I kind of have faith that Tony would've chucked her.

 

ETA: And you've been here for a month or something? Why are you looking for patterns?

[zengirl]

That's an interesting point ZG. If we take your argument to its logical extreme, it would mean that, in essence, bullying only happens to children and teens. And yet, work-place bullying happens all the time.

 

Of course, and I don't like logical extremes. The middle path! That's the way.

 

I agree that an ideal world, nothing anyone else said would ever affect our sense of self.

 

I think that's an extreme version of what I said, FTR. And I'm certainly not saying that feedback does not affect us. But to me, it is a terrible idea---and quite manipulative---to only give feedback that is meant to get a particular response, whether that response is negative or positive to the person's self esteem. Instead, in my view (and with adults and teenagers, when maturity allows), feedback should be honest and direct. If it can also be positive, that's great, but not if doing so would diminish its truthfulness in any way. This is not true, of, say, 6 year olds. I lie to 6 year olds all the time, and it sometimes makes me ashamed of myself, but being honest and direct with them would crush them. So, I fudge. A grown woman should not have the self-image of a 6 year old, though, and it'd be an insult to imagine she does or needs me to filter for her.

 

Do I wish some posters were less attached to what other posters thought of them? Definitely. Do I think they should all equally be able to brush negative critiques off? Nope. I'm not that much of an idealist. I recognize humans' coping skills vary greatly and much like you don't think anyone should tell others how they respond to threads, I don't think anyone can tell others what the appropriate emotional response to criticism should be.

 

People can respond as they will, surely, but my point was more they cannot expect the others to be responsible for their responses. Or uncritical of them. I've never said anyone should not be critical of how others respond to threads, FTR. Just not try to CONTROL it. For me, the issues almost always boil down to control and honesty.

 

I'm anti-control, thus pro-honesty. I think I usually manage to be fairly tactful, kind, and optimistic with people as well, overall. But those are all bonuses, and honesty is more important. To me.

 

Yes. Constructive and fair criticism is an important aspect of all of this. Defining it is as tricky as defining bullying. Generally though, it's linked to the question of awareness: If I say X, will it genuinely help the person or will it affect their self-esteem (reputation, etc) negatively?

 

I would not define constructive and fair criticism that way. I'd define it as criticism that was intended to help the person. Regardless of its outcome. I have no control over the outcome of my words and actions, only their intent. Trying to control how people react to me would be a sin, in my eyes.

[torn_curtain]

Yeah, but one random name does not a pattern make either. If SG had been bullying ES for years, I think she would've been banned. I've seen many abusive posters banned, even in the past year. So if SG made a habit of calling anyone "bat**** crazy" to the point where it was a pattern, I kind of have faith that Tony would've chucked her.

 

That was just the most blatant example of name calling and was to correct your statement that SG doesn't name call ES--but there was a pattern of bullying throughout ES's most recent threads that I saw. Admittedly I haven't read SG's threads and don't really have a desire to pick through her history but I'm just going based on what's been written in ES's. I could probably pick out and quote every example of it but as you said that sounds exhausting.

 

If somebody really has such a low opinion of another person then I think it's probably a bad idea for them to be giving that person advice--for both them and the advicee--and I don't see how any advice they give could ever be seen as altruistic or the slightest objective.

 

ETA: And you've been here for a month or something? Why are you looking for patterns?

 

 

 

See above: "A few people have said here that bullying can only be determined by a pattern of behavior so I wanted to be sure I wasn't jumping to conclusions based on this thread and the other one ES started."

 

 

I think it's really important to remember that people who come to an advice forum may be especially susceptible to bullying and emotional distress. We never really know what the effects are going to be

Edited August 12, 2011 by torn_curtain

[Nexus One]

I didn't post anything with the intention to specifically defend SG, but on this point I will, as I know it to be incorrect.

 

Some people have commented that SG called ES batsh*t insane. That's bullsh*t, because I remember the thread where that was discussed. I was the one who said that SG probably thought ES was batsh*t insane. To which SG answered "nope".

 

After which the following exchange between them took place: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3385098&postcount=258

 

So on that point people have been wrongfully accusing SG and using it as an argument to support their case that SG is bullying/abusing ES.

 

It somewhat strengthens my suspicion that people are exaggerating things, that things are being blown out of proportion.

[Kamille]

Of course, and I don't like logical extremes. The middle path! That's the way.

 

So you would agree that the balanced view is not to expect all adults to be capable of brushing off repeated criticism? That to me is the realistic, balanced view. I went to the logical extreme because your view seemed idealistic to me, as was indicated by the should statements in your post. Yes, I agree with you that ideally all humans would have healthy self-esteem. That ideal, however, is far from matching the reality I have experienced and observed. Nor does the ideal match my ontological beliefs about how we construct our sense of self.

 

 

 

But to me, it is a terrible idea---and quite manipulative---to only give feedback that is meant to get a particular response, whether that response is negative or positive to the person's self esteem.

 

I hear what you're saying. I don't think my idea is that people should always take into consideration how others will respond. But, if over the course of a year my feedback was always received with hostility, I would either stop giving feedback or ask myself if I could give it differently.

 

Instead, in my view (and with adults and teenagers, when maturity allows), feedback should be honest and direct. If it can also be positive, that's great, but not if doing so would diminish its truthfulness in any way. This is not true, of, say, 6 year olds. I lie to 6 year olds all the time, and it sometimes makes me ashamed of myself, but being honest and direct with them would crush them. So, I fudge. A grown woman should not have the self-image of a 6 year old, though, and it'd be an insult to imagine she does or needs me to filter for her.

 

How is thinking about the potential effects of my words dishonest? It matches my sense of self and how I want to ethically carry myself in the world. I can combine thinking about the effects of what I say (we usually speak to have an effect anyway) while leaving others free to respond how they wish. I can also rely on experience to know that if I say X to Person A, she will likely respond by doing Y. Not to mention, I always have options on how I will phrase something. In my mind, it never takes away from its honesty.

 

 

I would not define constructive and fair criticism that way. I'd define it as criticism that was intended to help the person. Regardless of its outcome. I have no control over the outcome of my words and actions, only their intent. Trying to control how people react to me would be a sin, in my eyes.

 

Criticism that is intended to help. I like that. Again, it goes back to the central issue here, which is how that help should be delivered.

[torn_curtain]

I didn't post anything with the intention to specifically defend SG, but on this point I will, as I know it to be incorrect.

 

Some people have commented that SG called ES batsh*t insane. That's bullsh*t, because I remember the thread where that was discussed. I was the one who said that SG probably thought ES was batsh*t insane. To which SG answered "nope".

 

After which the following exchange between them took place: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3385098&postcount=258

 

So on that point people have been wrongfully accusing SG and using it as an argument to support their case that SG is bullying/abusing ES.

 

It somewhat strengthens my suspicion that people are exaggerating things, that things are being blown out of proportion.

 

No, it was in a later thread where she actually RETRACTED that prior statement.

[zengirl]

Oh, I remember that too now, Nexus One!

 

Seems weird that someone looking through post history just today would get it wrong. . .

 

So you would agree that the balanced view is not to expect all adults to be capable of brushing off repeated criticism?

 

I suppose it depends what you mean by "brushing off."

 

I think all healthy adults are capable of not internalizing criticism that rings untrue and is unfounded, because they have a sense of self that allows them to see it's erroneous. Of course, even in those adults, there are often exceptions, such as criticism from a parental figure or lover, but I mean criticism in general. Say from someone on the internet.

 

My version of the balanced view would be: Most criticism bugs healthy people sometimes, helps them sometimes, and is not a big scary deal overall. And most criticism that really hurts you SHOULD hurt you because it's true. (But that's a person who is generally healthy and does not apply to particular circumstances such as some mother/daughter dynamics.) No view works for every situation.

 

I went to the logical extreme because your view seemed idealistic to me, as was indicated by the should statements in your post. Yes, I agree with you that ideally all humans would have healthy self-esteem. That ideal, however, is far from matching the reality I have experienced and observed. Nor does the ideal match my ontological beliefs about how we construct our sense of self

.

 

I didn't see it as idealistic. I don't believe all people have healthy self-esteem. I just don't feel responsible for another person's self-esteem or think it is helpful to attempt to manipulate them to raise it, even if that manipulation is one that makes them "feel good." I always choose the truth as I see it. Except, as I said, with children. (Or truly mentally ill people maybe.)

 

I hear what you're saying. I don't think my idea is that people should always take into consideration how others will respond. But, if over the course of a year my feedback was always received with hostility, I would either stop giving feedback or ask myself if I could give it differently.

 

Interesting, and I see the point. Personally, I would assume there was a good chance I was hitting on the truth. But mileage may vary, and I'm not saying you're wrong.

 

How is thinking about the potential effects of my words dishonest?

 

It changes the response from what your own natural, honest response would be to one that is meant to prompt something from the other person. It's a way to control interpersonal relations. It's often used "for good" purposes, but it's a form of control nonetheless. I don't mean it's a horrible thing to do, by any means; I just personally disagree with it, and it goes against my value system. If I have to choose between being polite or being honest, I hope I always choose honest.

 

It matches my sense of self and how I want to ethically carry myself in the world. I can combine thinking about the effects of what I say (we usually speak to have an effect anyway) while leaving others free to respond how they wish.

 

Personally, I try very hard not to speak to have an effect (except inside the classroom), outside of being understood. But, again, that's just me. I wasn't really speaking against anyone else's morals. I have no issues with you or someone else seeing the world differently, and I usually think you're a lovely person. I was just trying to flesh out and explain my view of it. A lot of it comes back to control and nonattachment, which are hard to talk about (for me, at least) but central to my life.

[torn_curtain]

Oh, I remember that too now, Nexus One!

 

Seems weird that someone looking through post history just today would get it wrong. . .

 

Except I didn't get it wrong. She went out of her way to retract the previous comment in a later post.

Edited August 12, 2011 by torn_curtain

[Nexus One]

Except I didn't get it wrong. She went out of her way to retract the previous comment in a later post.

 

I did not remember that retraction, you might be right on that. But I think the post I linked to counts for something. I think it was a genuine comment from SG.

[torn_curtain]

I did not remember that retraction, you might be right on that. But I think the post I linked to counts for something. I think it was a genuine comment from SG.

 

Does it count for something when she later said she changed her mind? Even if she did change hr mind, that's a really hurtful thing to say in my opinion.