Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Voicelessness and Emotional Survival => Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board => Topic started by: Anonymous on September 08, 2004, 08:05:04 PM
-
Is this evil? a personality disorder because of childhood trauma? if there is no love, what are we dealing with?
Dinny
-
Quoted straight from the website http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text7-4-2003-42541.asp:
In his bestselling "People of the Lie", Scott Peck claims that narcissists are evil. Are they?
The concept of "evil" in this age of moral relativism is slippery and ambiguous. The "Oxford Companion to Philosophy" (Oxford University Press, 1995) defines it thus: "The suffering which results from morally wrong human choices."
To qualify as evil a person (moral agent) must meet these requirements:
That he can and does consciously choose between the (morally) right and wrong and constantly and consistently prefers the latter.
That he acts on his choice irrespective of the consequences to himself and to others.
Clearly, evil must be premeditated. Francis Hutcheson and Joseph Butler argued that evil is a by-product of the pursuit of one's interest or cause at the expense of other people's interests or causes. But this ignores the critical element of conscious choice among equally efficacious alternatives. Moreover, people often pursue evil even when it jeopardizes their well-being and obstructs their interests. Sadomasochists even relish this orgy of mutual assured destruction.
Narcissists satisfy both conditions only partly. Their evil is utilitarian. They are evil only when being malevolent secures a certain outcome. Sometimes, they consciously choose the morally wrong - but not invariably so. They act on their choice even if it inflicts misery and pain on others. But they never opt for evil if they are to bear the consequences. They act maliciously because it is expedient to do so - not because it is "in their nature".
The narcissist is able to tell right from wrong and to distinguish between good and evil. In the pursuit of his interests and causes, he sometimes chooses to act wickedly. Lacking empathy, the narcissist is rarely remorseful. Because he feels entitled, exploiting others is second nature. The narcissist abuses others absent-mindedly, off-handedly, as a matter of fact.
The narcissist objectifies people and treats them as expendable commodities to be discarded after use. Admittedly, that, in itself, is evil. Yet, it is the mechanical, thoughtless, heartless face of narcissistic abuse - devoid of human passions and of familiar emotions - that renders it so alien, so frightful and so repellent.
We are often shocked less by the actions of narcissist than by the way he acts. In the absence of a vocabulary rich enough to capture the subtle hues and gradations of the spectrum of narcissistic depravity, we default to habitual adjectives such as "good" and "evil". Such intellectual laziness does this pernicious phenomenon and its victims little justice.
-
I don't think narcissists are evil at all. Many times the behaviors they do are in nature, but stem out of an illness. This does not excuse the behaviors of rightful consequences, but in my opinion they are simply very ill with a diagnosable disorder--not evil.
-
...
-
Very good post Dinny! I'm going to have to buy the book cos it sounds spot on! You/he are right...they're not evil in the pure sense, but the adjective near as damn hits the mark in describing them!
David
-
------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for your insight and support.
It aided my healing. Too much of my heart
was in this post to let it remain here for posterity on the web.
The post served its purpose and now it is time to
edit it or gently take it down.
To every thing there is a season, and a time
to every purpose under the heaven: Ecclesiates 3:1
------------------------------------------------------------
-
Excellent topic indeed. Love it love it love it....
I will read Ellie's recommended book as well...
-
Is this evil? a personality disorder because of childhood trauma? if there is no love, what are we dealing with?
I see narcissism as a continuum from mild to severe. Ns at the mild end are far less destructive than Ns at the severe end of the continuum. Ns at the severe end are dangerous, evil monsters. They are psychopaths which is a constellation of various mental disturbances. This still doesn't negate their evilness and threat to society. Ns at the mild end are mainly insufferable and not necessarily evil.
bunny
-
My definition of evil is viewing living creatures as objects without life, as things for one's own gratification. Period.
Seeker
-
I would guess that with all things there is a scale of 0-10, mild to severe. Additionally, factors of their education, background, gender, etc. will determine their style and methods. Is it better to be only mildly evil? Can we say, "well, at least she did not commit murders." It also depends on the toleration level of the victim. It is very complicated, too complicated for me to sort -- I only know that it hurts, hurts real bad, and the pain is compounded by a 1000% when it is your parent abusing you.
-
Discounted girl,
I think your mother was at the severe of the spectrum -- not mild.
bunny
-
I think you are right bunny ... She is far more clever and nasty than her little old white haired lady personna. It's like a disguise (but she ain't Lucy and she ain't in the sky, needless to say there ain't no diamonds :lol: )
-
...
-
Moonflower said:
"Boohoo...why am I being so mistreated?" ....all the while backstabbing and trying to turn everyone against us. My sister and I are the ungrateful daughters, and so very horrid for ever leaving Nmom.... and after all she has done for us too. Bah
DITTO!!
Could not have said it better!
Since this PD seems so rampant, shouldn't we petition the gov't for special tax deductions - maybe $600 per N parent, spouse or sibling. It would be like child care deductions only we would call it pain and suffering deductions. 8)
-
hahah -- yes, but better yet, just give me an EXEMPTION from the torment !! :idea:
-
I've agonized over whether NPDs are evil or sick. In the case of my mother (severe, 11 on the 0-10 scale, quite coniving and clever and fooled most of the people most of the time).
In one sense I feel sorry for her because she is clearly sick (she believes her own lies at this point, she can not distiguish between reality and 'her perspective' as she calls it).
But, like other Ns I've read about on this board, she plans, plots... she makes conscious decisions to do evil things and then does them. She clearly has the intent to do evil. Therefore, she is evil. She knows what she does is wrong and makes attempts to cover her tracks before she makes them. It is deliberate and premeditated.
She chooses to be evil, every day.
-
I used to believe some people were evil.
My definition of evil being that the person was totally devoid of conscience,
possessed by a desire to cause harm, and composed entirely of pure negativeness.
As time has gone by, I've gained some knowledge and understanding of people's feelings and behaviour, in general, and I have given up the above belief.
Instead, I think some people behave in ways that make them appear to fit my definition of evil, but they themselves, are not evil. There is some good in every person, even those who behave in the worst ways.
They do have good qualities but their behaviour often poses a barrier for others to see those qualities. Their childhood environment may have repressed all mention of anyone's good qualities, or a psychological defect, or illness, may override most everything else, so the person behaves immorally/evilly/consciencelessly/harmfully/negatively-- as a result, as if possessed or unable to change. The good person in there gets stifled.
A person's morals do not define what is inside the person, or define their feelings, because those morals must be learned, and the value of them must be learned, and that learning is separate from feelings. Morals are not part of us from birth. Behaving immorally is behaviour, not a genetically definable trait, as far as I know, and there is nothing concrete to be located or isolated for treatment.
People who behave in evil ways may know the difference between right and wrong but for whatever reason, they get better value out of behaving wrongly. They haven't learned the value of behaving morally correctly, or they make a choice to behave immorally due to any number of events, circumstances and/or thoughts/urges. We all have immoral thoughts and feelings sometimes, or face events, or are in some circumstance that tempts us to behave immorally. Some people choose the wrong path a lot more often than others.
To know their feelings, we would have to be inside there somehow and actually feel what they feel. That is impossible but the next best thing is to imagine and try to empathize or put ourselves in their shoes. I find it difficult to do sometimes because the behaviour is so nasty but it's doable with effort.
Without knowing the value of behaving mostly morally correctly, with an abusive environment in which to grow, or with a mental illness that is defining/confusing/upsetting their thoughts, I don't imagine that person having a whole lot of good feelings.
If their thinking is bad, they feel bad things, and they more often behave badly. They may be totally unaware that they have a problem.
If the person has been diagnosed, it is easier to imagine the turmoil.
If the person has never been labelled by a doctor, we can allow for the possibility that one could be given, which might clarify the behaviour patterns more clearly and make it easier to undertand the illness.
In the end, since thoughts greatly effect our feelings and then our behaviour, I have to admit that a person with such a background is probably behaving in evil ways due to circumstances beyond their control, or due to improper learning and surely, their thinking is messed up in very big ways. Some are definately making choices to behave badly, but they may not be able to choose otherwise, unless something drastic occurs to help them think healthier and make correct choices, such as a magic pill (haven't seen one of those around) or a brain transplant (which I would like too please when they get really good at doing those).
Habit is formed when people behave in however ways, over a period of time, and habit must be broken-- to effect a change in behaviour. I've recovered from some habits and I know how tough it was for me. It must be an immense thing to overcome habitually evil behaviour and very hard work indeed to change it. A great desire must exhist before any change will happen in our behaviour. A person must strongly want to change before a habit can be ended and must be aware that there is a problem that needs fixing.
A sick mind does not repair itself, it gets worse, without attempts being made to help make it better, and in some cases, even with those attempts. The info on N seems to indicate no known way to correct the problem. One may be found, some day, maybe. Who knows? Until then, I'm sticking with the idea that these people are ill, messed up, and/or incorrectly taught, with very sick thinking, but good people, who behave in evil ways, in varying degrees, due to any number of causes, or yet to be determined causes. It's a much longer, harder to grasp definition than my evil one but seems to me more accurate a description. To simplify it- the disease is evil, not the person, imo.
It would be a lovely thing if some cure could be found wouldn't it? Such a cure would put one more evil disease to rest and prevent so much pain for so many.
s
-
I hear a latent symptom of denial in the last post. The illness is of the disease, disease is facing ones own portrait.
N is psychopathic, in denial that it is consequence of their own doing.
Without confrontation no psychiatrist is going to pick it up, because they will be played verbally like everyone else. To gain strength through manipulation and self satisfaction of the poor little me syndrome, to seek all the blessings of their victims that they know only too well how to portray.
The disease is less likely to have been childhood punishment, in fact the opposite one gone rampant, wild and got away with it so long that there is no meaning to moral values other than self serving.
There are some causes of toxicity ask any forensic scientist they can tell you what they look for.
I believe for the most part that it is the crimal aspect, like the criminal hacker or white collar theif, on another level, laws that need to recognize the crime in its infancy before someone gets killed due to psychotic episodes of destruction. There are most likely many minor infractions, minor offences building to the point of saturation, a complete profile needs to be placed on the table.
-
My Nparents are very very religious. They have used their religion all of their life to defend all of their actions. This is common behavior among the fundamentalist religions.
Here's the delimia - I was raised in the same religion. I don't know if I had my eyes open to what was going on and they have always gone into it blindly, or the other way around, but I never saw or heard what they told me I was being taught in church!
I was forced to study the bible and so I've learned a lot of scripture. I have a degree from a Baptist university and had to learn even more. I've read and re-read scripture they quote in church and I do not see the twisted ways the churches translate what is written.
For example - the church and Nparents say it is a sin to let alcohol of any time touch your lips. I read where Jesus turned the water into wine. Nparents and the church say the bible didn't mean to say wine - it meant to say water. In those days, wine was all they had to drink safely. So how in the world can someone writing the scriptures say it is sinful to drink the only safe liquid around? I know that man has translated this to be what man wants to use to control other men - think Prohibition!
So, the bible is supposed to be the only true word, but the bible according to Nparents. Yet the bible says no man is to change the scrptures. So - in my little stupid - as Nparents say - head, I determine that Nparents and church have actually sinned by lying about what the bible actually says to fit their needs. They know better! You can catch them on it multiple times if you have the stamina to last.
Here's the evil part - Nparents say I am going to hell because I drink alcohol and smoke and curse. Well god cursed and Jesus cursed and drank wine and they didn't have tobacoo but I bet he would have smoked the peace pipe if they had it! So Nparents are lying and they know it but they want things their way and lie about the bible! THAT's PURE EVIL!
Also Nparents have told me I can't go to heaven because I'm not going to the church I was rasied in and told to go to. There's so many churches out there and they all say the same thing - you must beleive like we believe to enter heaven - blah blah blah. So it is very easy to recognize the evilness of their ways. They know what they are doing and saying. BUT they think they can justify it all because they actually believe, get this:
"god told them to do this...."
Sounds a little like the women going to prison for killing their children because "god told them to do it..."
The bible tells us to discern what we read and hear. We are not to take man's word at face value. We are to live by what is in our hearts that we feel is the right way. Man can lead us astray. My Nparents have led me completely away from church and anything to do with church.
I told them I read in the bible that one of the greatest sins of man is from one who would lead someone away from god. Nparents refuse to believe that they have so much evil in them that they are doing the exact opposite of what they think they are trying to accomplish.
And they say they are holier than me or anyone else that they do not like or approve of. The bible speaks of Love. There is no love in my evil Nparents heart.
According to the dictionary Evil is:
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : INFERIOR
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor>
c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery>
b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
Too many parts of that definition defines my Nparents.
-
Please forgive me for hogging this topic, but I must chime in about one more thing:
Evil ways are when a person performs actions to bring another harm to satisfy themself or for their own gain.
Ndad said he would call the child protective services and claim that I abuse my children so he could punish me for moving 3000 miles away and taking the children so far from him. He knows it's a lie but would do this for his own gain and for my suffering that would bring him enjoyment. (That was many years ago and this is no longer a fear.)
THAT's EVIL!!!!
Ndad recorded our last phone conversation to use against me so he could harm me in some way - either monetarily, or as he thought - "I could be thrown in jail for talking to him like that". My purpose for talking with him was to gain some positive ground; his purpose for talking with me was to do me harm and gain himself pure entertainment.
THAT's EVIL!!!!
Nmom took my sister's child from her and forced an adoption because she wanted another baby and she was in menopause.
THAT's EVIL!!!!
Are all Ns evil? Probably not, but anyone who would harm another person either using physical or mental abuse, for their own gain or enjoyment is EVIL.
Anyone who is confronted with this abuse and denies it for their own protection and comfort is EVIL.
Actually looking back on my past - my Nparents were criminals; physical abuse, mental abuse, slander, extortion. How many years could they go away for?
-
There is some good in every person, even those who behave in the worst ways.
There is an old aphorism that "Hitler was very kind to children and dogs." His secretary certainly liked him. I'm afraid that he wasn't good inside, nor did he have the potential for good. Some people are just evil and that's it. I also understand their internal workings and mental/emotional impairments, etc. But these internal systems are not "hiding the good" inside of them. The person is now malignant.
my opinion,
bunny
-
I hear a latent symptom of denial in the last post. The illness is of the disease, disease is facing ones own portrait.
That's because s is Somebody who is in denial. Go figger. Or maybe go figure.
-
I hear a latent symptom of denial in the last post. The illness is of the disease, disease is facing ones own portrait.
That's because s is Somebody who is in denial. Go figger. Or maybe go figure.
I think that s is making a philosophical point, more than anything. If I'm not confusing stories, s, are/were your parents religious? A religious upbringing puts a lot of stock in the term "evil" that isn't really in the dictionary definition.
Are people born evil? Or are they made that way? If they are made that way, do they fit the definition of "evil", really? Or are they just sick? Is it biology, psychology, or your soul?
From my reading of s's post, this is what's being addressed...
I subscribe to the idea that Nars are sick. That any baby if mistreated badly enough might "become" a Nar: the baby is not born that way. Even in the sickest Nar (or Antisocial personality - the true psycho), there is some glimmer of who that baby could have become. A Nar is very much like a baby: it's all about them - but even still the Nar is human. As the children of Nars, we probably see it less, since we're the ultimate supply. If our Nar parent was our three year old kid, most of their actions would be something we'd discipline, but we wouldn't think of them as evil.
However, I don't think there is a possible cure: I have a limited knowledge of brain biology, but I think that moving past "object love" (the Freudian concept, but it applies to Nars), has to happen at a given stage. If it doesn't happen, you can't go back.
-
Ellie, I appreciate your posts above - The truth in them needed said and you made your points well IMO.
-
Thank you Flower. That was very sweet, and Yes, I needed to get it off my chest. I am expressing my experience with the Ns in my life. I realize we all have different experiences and different feelings and different truths. Since today is Nmoms b-day, I have very strong feelings against her treatment of me in the past year.
The next question I pose is this:
How can it be that an N parent can treat one child so maliciously and not the other children in the family. Would a disease be the reason for such differences in treatment? Can the N just have a disease against one child and not the others? Or is it simply hatred - such as in my family?
Several have spoken on the board about how they observe the N in their life treat another child, family member, neighbor, or stranger with respect, but turn on them with abuse as soon as they get the chance.
I am a mother of 3 very different personality children. I see them each very differently. I love them all the same. There are times that I simply do not like one because of their behavior, but I love them to pieces! I would never harm them for acting out bad behavior. And I don't just dislike the behavior, I admit I am mad at one when they act out the way they do. But we are allowed to be mad at each other. I allow them to be mad at me too. That is mutual respect. They are not punished for being angry at me. They are allowed to express the anger in a healthy, controlled fashion.
I cannot fathom treating one of my children the way my parents treat me, or even the way my sisters treat me. I have respect for every human being. I was raised to hate, disrespect and judge all others. I cannot do it! I have N tendencies because of my upbringing, but I understand the difference in treatments. I could turn into a full blown N tomorrow if I could ditch my respect for others and if it would serve me well. But the truth is, I like being liked by others and being accpeted and being respected. I have been taught respect by my friends, teachers, co-workers.
I swear to all of you my Nparents can understand the difference also. I think a lot like my mother in simple life things, except my treatment of my children.
For example, my Nparents were notorious for visiting with people, treating them nice, then walking away and talking about them like they were dirt. They taught us all to do it and my sisters are still that way. I recognized that part of my personality a few years ago and determined it was a learned HABIT and I ditched it. I have always had a sort of telepathy with my mother. I can predict her actions and words. I have known when she was going to call, or whatever. I have always had some sort of connection with her mind, maybe because of so many years trying to stay up with her and not get in trouble.
I can feel what she feels for me. It is as fresh of a feeling as my children's kisses on my cheek. I know she adores my older sister, somewhat likes my younger sister because she gave birth to the child Nmom raised and loves, and absolutely hates the ground I walk on. She has put up with me, but only for what I could give her. She does not have an uncurable mental disease. She is full of hate. And she justifies her hatred by using the church and the bible. Ndad has always hated me. I could always see it in their eyes. I could see the love in their eyes for their other daughters and for their pets. But the looks to me were empty, blank, or disgusted.
I don't know if this is the total definition of evil, but is an offensive, repulsive, morally unacceptable and wicked behavior.
Nmom once told me she could not talk to me or my family anymore because I had just told her we were dropping out of church and all church activities. She said her pastor had just preached to them to seperate themselves from non-christians and not have them in their life. She said he was talking about us and she would need to cut us out of her life until we changed our minds and went back to church but to the church she chose. That lasted 3 months. She called and acted like nothing ever happened. And she now denies saying it.
She's a control freak, full of hatred.
Is hatred Evil?
-
Happy not sending a birthday card to your mom day!
At least I think I read you weren't going to send a card.
-
...
-
How can it be that an N parent can treat one child so maliciously and not the other children in the family.
As Moonflower said, a child in a family might be the designated scapegoat. The parents can't process their own problems, so they project it all into one child and blame the child. Other siblings may join in because they are terrified of becoming scapegoated themselves. It's very common (I was the 'black sheep' of my family) but when it escalates to total hatred, I think we're looking at a psychopathic parent. And psychopaths are evil.
bunny
-
Ellie and others,
I think it is okay to call a spade a spade.
This is what I was trying to say to Ellie about the truth in her posts that needed said:
I agree with Ellie that her parent's distortion of the Bible is evil.
-
I still believe this is not a disease, in a physical sense, and certainly not a mental illness. It is a bad habit played out by choice, decisively, purposely and deliberate. It's not about being ignorant or uneducated, it's about being devious, wicked, nasty and evil. Sometimes their heartless schemes are aimed at only one, sometimes they switch to another, but always and forever it is about and for the N -- the center of their universe. How else could you look in the mirror after performing hateful acts towards your child, aimed at destroying them in some way. How else could you receive joy from seeing the fruit of your womb bleed. They are just awful, more putrid than slime oozing from a garbage pit.
Remember EVIL is to LIVE in reverse -- backwards, the wrong way. That's what the devil is -- a life lived in reverse, against progress and forward movement -- opposite of advancement and growth.
What is there to forgive? Can you forgive evil? It is to be avoided and protection of your own self is mandatory. It is a matter of survival. Forgiveness is not what has to be worked on, it is getting on with your life and not dwelling on the horror we endure(d). They need someone higher up the ladder to forgive them, not us.
I have seen pure hatred burning in the NQueenmother's eyes when she looks at me. I have seen her smile cruelly when I hurt -- mostly she made sure noone else saw it. I have heard such unbelievable tales she has told about me -- complete stories with beginnings and endings that do not even resemble the truth. What horrible black vile resides in there -- it makes my skin crawl.
-
I have seen pure hatred burning in the NQueenmother's eyes when she looks at me.
I hear you, Discounted Girl. Here's one example from my Nmom: I got called a b**ch when I told my mom years ago that I might have dysentery. That's the hot aspect of hatred it seems to me.
Then I see the cold aspect of hatred. My mom, when I stopped being the submissive, cowering daughter and woke up here a couple of years ago, I saw an icy cold in her eyes when she looked at me that defies description. Those eyes were totally devoid of feeling for me. They were blank. The coldness could have frozen over the sun. I mean nothing to her.
-
.....
-
flower, discounter, moonflower,
DITTO :)
-
Hi everyone,
This part of the discussion reminds me of a hitting child hiding behind the "I didn't mean to" or "I can't help it" excuse-non-apology. I tell my kids to say "THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HURT!"
:x
Seeker
-
(this is a bit spooky - I wrote a reply this aft, and it was posted for a while, then disappeared - Yikes!! ... so I'll write it again, and see what happens!)
Evil, Evil, Evil -
Pure Evil in Human Form.
-
IMO, if I am enjoying healthy thinking, most of my thoughts will be positive about myself and others, which will lead me to have more positive feelings and in turn, to behave in more positive ways, in general.
To me, if a person is "aware" of causing harm to others, and "enjoys" or even seems to "enjoy" causing that harm; if that person "plans" their acts, without letting their "knowledge of right and wrong" direct them morally (indicating a lack of conscience imo); when they appear not to show and do not express remorse (indicating a lack of conscience imo); and when they fail to seem to consider the consequences or to "care" about the effects of their acts (indicating a lack of conscience imo); when a person behaves in such a manner, especially if they do so over and over and over again..........
Well, that tells me that that person is not thinking in a very healthy way at all, or with any healthy regularity. There has to be something wrong in the thinking such a person is experiencing. Their thinking is.....
diseased.....or sick. It is not a healthy state of thinking.
If that perosn had diabetes or typhus....they would have no control over those disease processes. It would not be their fault. So why do I think they have any control over their diseased thinking? How can that be?
They are making choices based on unhealthy thoughts.
The cause of their behaviour is nothing magical, nothing satanic, nothing in their true being or of them. It is their thoughts that are the evil sickness, not them, not the person.
It's a concrete thing---something solidly wrong....... with their thinking. Not with them...but with what is going on in their mind. Their thoughts are ill.
To explain this separation of person from thought, feeling, behaviour:
In parenting our children, we strive to do this. Our child misbehaves and we say: "I love you and you are good but I don't like your behaviour..."
We try to teach the child that the behaviour is wrong but that they... are good and that we love them, even when they behave badly. We do not accept their behaviour, but we do not for a moment, stop loving them.
We may feel ..upset with their behaviour but we still love them, just as much as ever before. It is not the child we are upset with, the person, it is their behaviour and it is their behaviour that we strive to correct. As people, we accept our children and think of them as good. We want to help them learn how to behave nicely, not to injure their feelings while teaching them how to behave well, if we are parenting well.
This is so foreign to us when we grow up in an abusive situation. Regardless if that abuse is openly agressive or incidious. Chances are high that our abusive parents said: "You are bad" not even "you behaved badly". They did not tell us how much or often, if ever, that they love us and want us to learn and why it is important. They did not express their love while attempting to correct our behaviour (if indeed we even were behaving badly at the time- which now, as adults-- is questionable).
I don't know if there is a way to help sick thinkers see this or not and in essence, to begin to effect a cure for their unhealthy thinking (especially in certain sicknesses eg. n-ism). Nor do I know if those sick thinkers are aware of their sick thinking and loathe themselves (but I suspect, sometimes, that they do).
So far, the theory is that there is no cure but I try to remember that the "sport" of psychology is the pitching and batting around of ideas and theory, and that we can prove virtually anything by creating the correct study, and then noting the results. It is not a proven, beyond a doubt, bible truth, absolute factual science. Psychology is very much like a sport in that some ideas are ahead of others and the score can and does change, as time advances. An example of this is that homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness and now, it is not. All of that information is wiped form the books and that idea.....is now a dead theory.
I have personally experienced the effects of the behaviour of sick thinkers (as have you) and my own thinking has been non-too-healthy sometimes too. I have seen people with unhealthy thinking come to a true realization, face their own "demons", and effect change. I have done so myself, so I know that it is possible and realistic to have this hope sometimes.
It's a matter of me taking the anger, the fear, and all of the other negative feelings I have that are produced in me, when an unhealthy thinker acts in ways that generate those feelings in me, and putting those feelings out.....releasing them (ultimately) or, at least, setting them aside, until I am able to release them in appropriate ways...that allows me to remind myself that...
unhealthy thinking can be caused by a number of factors and can be corrected sometimes...but the awareness of that messed up thought process MUST be made FIRST.
And the desire to change it into a healthier thought pattern/process/thingy MUST come ultimately come from...the diseased/sick/unhealthy thinker, which may, or may not ever occur, depending on a whole whack of factors.
I can't instill that desire in the sick mind but I can patiently offer insight and hope for eventual positive effect or....I can accept defeat and not try at all to help because I understand that that is probably not going to happen (eventual positive effect), for that particular person.
But to label them as evil.....in my mind....seems to generate many negative thoughts and then feelings come that are negative and it does me no good. It causes me to stay in a less than healthy state of thought and to heal a lot less. I choose to think of my children, and people in general, as good, and sometimes, of their behaviour, as not so good. I choose to think of the disease as evil - not the person. The mind as sick and causing the person to behave badly and to suffer too. They have malignant thoughts that never end. What torture that must be! What blackness!
If those people were unable to act correctly because their minds were sick due to some physically obvious cause...say one of the lobes of their brain was missing (a totally silly hypothetical example :D ), would we then say...the person is mentally deficient? How do we know all the parts of an n's brain are working right?
The question has been asked: Is N-ism a disease or evil?
I ask then: What is n-ism? What are we asking about? Behaviours or physical problems? Unhealthy thought patterns or broken parts? Are they thinking healthy as indicated by their behaviour? Or none of the above?
Whether they are born or made is the cause and whether they are sick or not will determine how we deal with the problem.
I used to believe in evil.
It made me feel really, really angry.
Now, I believe in disease and I have more empathy that way, for the person who is stricken. I feel less anger than before and I see the possibility of hoping for better studies, more batting and pitching of theories and ideas, more physical pin-pointing, in order to try to win against the disease.
This has been healthier for my own personal healing and the only possible way to effect change or find a cure that I can see. I accept people--not necessarily their behaviour.
I watched my father in law experience "progressive dementia".
He voiced his terror to me one time and I felt so loved and trusted when he did that, and such helplessness to ease his fear. I could only muster validation, which was better than nothing, I guess. What could I have said to help him????
I'd be bloody terror-stricken too--somewhere deep inside--if all I could see was blackness and I'd be terrified of saying so--I imagine.
I don't know...thank God.
As children growing up around unhealthy thinkers, we do not know about disease and it's malignant gifts, nor are we being taught much positive at all. We only know how it makes us feel and mostly those feelings are negative. We cope by various mechanisms.
Now that we are adults, we can choose to learn more positives and to implement them into our lives and we can hope for improvement and work toward healthier thinking.
Please hear nothing harmful and no negative tone and imagine no negative or manipulative intention in this very long, long post.
I write all of this in order to share what has helped me and for any chance that it may help someone else.
s
-
If that perosn had diabetes or typhus....they would have no control over those disease processes. It would not be their fault. So why do I think they have any control over their diseased thinking? How can that be?
On one hand, there is a "mental illness" component to evil behavior. But most people doing evil KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. So this is a moot point.
In parenting our children, we strive to do this. Our child misbehaves and we say: "I love you and you are good but I don't like your behaviour..."
We try to teach the child that the behaviour is wrong but that they... are good and that we love them, even when they behave badly. We do not accept their behaviour, but we do not for a moment, stop loving them.
The behavioral expectations for a child are far lower than for an adult.
But to label them as evil.....in my mind....seems to generate many negative thoughts and then feelings come that are negative and it does me no good.
Then don't label them. Other people are going to, though. And they have that prerogative.
They have malignant thoughts that never end. What torture that must be! What blackness!
Some of these Ns deserve this torture and worse.
I ask then: What is n-ism? What are we asking about? Behaviours or physical problems? Unhealthy thought patterns or broken parts? Are they thinking healthy as indicated by their behaviour? Or none of the above?
You can go into semantics. But when there's an N around, it becomes obvious.
I used to believe in evil.
It made me feel really, really angry.
Now, I believe in disease and I have more empathy that way, for the person who is stricken. I feel less anger than before and I see the possibility of hoping for better studies, more batting and pitching of theories and ideas, more physical pin-pointing, in order to try to win against the disease.
Fine for you. Others choose to see it differently.
Please hear nothing harmful and no negative tone and imagine no negative or manipulative intention in this very long, long post.
I write all of this in order to share what has helped me and for any chance that it may help someone else.
Yeah, whatever. I've heard it before, from "Somebody."
bunny
-
Bunny wrote: "But most people doing evil KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING."
Bunny: They are making choices based on unhealthy thoughts.
Sick thoughts that fill their mind and create sick desires which in turn may cause them to act in sick ways. You think this has no significance?
And: "The behavioral expectations for a child are far lower than for an adult. "
The example was to demonstrate where to assign our negative feelings, that is--- to behaviour rather than to the person, and how we strive to do this in parenting. This was to help in the understanding of this technique. There is no argument about behavioural expections being made.
And: "Some of these Ns deserve this torture and worse."
Are you saying that people deserve diseases of the mind?
And: "You can go into semantics. But when there's an N around, it becomes obvious."
What does? Who is?
And: "Yeah, whatever. I've heard it before, from "Somebody."
Maybe some day you'll be open to hearing, Bunny, rather than?????
I'm not sure of your motives.
No insult meant to you. You are entitled to feel angry, if that is what you are expressing.
s
-
They are making choices based on unhealthy thoughts.
Sick thoughts that fill their mind and create sick desires which in turn may cause them to act in sick ways. You think this has no significance?
It doesn't matter, no. And I spend a lot of time reading about psychopathology. Ultimately, in "real life" people just have to protect themselves and society.
The example was to demonstrate where to assign our negative feelings, that is--- to behaviour rather than to the person, and how we strive to do this in parenting. This was to help in the understanding of this technique. There is no argument about behavioural expections being made.
I don't know what children or parenting have to do with an adult narcissist.
Are you saying that people deserve diseases of the mind?
I'm saying that I don't feel sorry for their mental torture. I feel sorry for their victims.
Maybe some day you'll be open to hearing, Bunny, rather than?????
I'm not sure of your motives.
No insult meant to you. You are entitled to feel angry, if that is what you are expressing.
s
My motive is to disagree with all the stuff you're saying.
bunny
-
Bunny wrote: "And I spend a lot of time reading about psychopathology."
Maybe too much time, Bunny.
And "I don't know what children or parenting have to do with an adult narcissist."
Nothing, not a thing. This was to show something else that you didn't get, it seems.
And: "I'm saying that I don't feel sorry for their mental torture".
Nice narrowly specific empathy there, Bunny. That's your choice which you are entitled to.
And: "My motive is to disagree with all the stuff you're saying. "
That motive is honest and you're doing a fine job.
s
-
Hey "Somebody" - Your sarcasm and putdowns lead me to believe that you aren't as compassionate and non-angry as you claim. You seem pretty angry to me.
bunny
-
Red Flag.
This is just a hunch, but 's' is signing and creating an angry disturbance here much like 'Somebody' named 's' who was recently turfed from another Narcissism board.
Maybe or maybe not just a coincidence.
-
To the contrary Bunny. I think I have compassion and I am trying to express it.
I do not tolerate it well, however, when others make such blatent attempts to nullify me.
Angry? Yep. You got it. That's the result. But I do understand how you may think it necessary to prove the point that I am capable, just as capable of feeling angry, as anyone else is.
I hope you will believe, that I forgive you without a doubt, because I think you may think some seriously inaccurate thoughts about me and that I understand that that may very well be what drives you to want to anger me in the first place? Or maybe I'm completely wrong, I don't know but I am trying to understand.
I was just expressing and trying to share what has helped me, Bunny. Why is that so very threatening to you? Why do you see that as something you must crush?
s
-
Sorry Guest, I disagree with you.
I posted a long post about some things that have helped me, then,
the criticism began.
Now, the refute of criticism continues, as it has before, because otherwise, there is nothing but silence and voicelessness. The problem isn't my opinion, but probably, that it is mine.
I did not create an angry disturbance, I am responding to one.
Maybe that's a bad idea. I'll give you that.
s
-
"Somebody" - I thought you were only going to post to one thread. And this wasn't the thread.
bunny
-
Hi,
Maybe a redirect back to the original question...
I first heard the label of 'evil' applied to narcissitc personality disorder, very carefully and cautiously, by M.Scott Peck in 'People of the Lie', as I think was cited in earlier post. I am personally undecided in how to regard my N-mother...many of the same issues raised by others...her actions have consequences, her motives/malice may be skewed by something closer to an illness, etc. -But- I'm fascinated by a related question...is 'evil' a by-product that is spawned by a N, and either tolerated, confronted, ignored, etc, but those around them.
What I've noticed is that a N will spawn many situations that allow others, non-N, to confront their own choices of good and evil. These people (typically) are not the one's creating the chaos and don't have the pathology to use as cover/excuse -- they are like lots of us on this discussion board, and many of our relatives who may not yet see how their lives are warped by a N in their midst.
In my own family, I have witnessed, and for a time participated in, treatment of a sibling that can be objectively described as morally wrong, and after factoring in that I know right-from-wrong in most other parts of my life, my continuation of behavior that I know to be wrong (and harmful to another person) is an example of 'evil'. The situation was set up by my N-mother, and out of the type of dark loyalty that is cultivated in these families, I made a bargain ('with the devil', if you forgive use of the gratuitous use of that cliche in this thread) to harm my sibling in order to ensure continued love from her. The harm was not physical, not immediately obvious, but almost from the get-go my subconscious started telling me I was on the wrong path. And eventually I stopped the 'evil' behavior of my own, made amends with the harmed sibling, and got on with a happier life. Of course that required cutting against the grain in my family, which had its own cost.
But shouldn't we expect to see some 'evil' in our lives every day? And isn't what all healthy humans strive for in some way is the 'good', which sets up the mythic struggle most of us have been raised on, whether through religion or at least pop-culture. From N-families, I just think we have a higher likelihood of experiencing and maybe participating in 'evil' than the general population...not some Hollywood excorcism or Axis-of-Evil rhetoric...just behavior that we know at some level to be wrong, but feel drawn to due to the strange dysfunctions N's create among those around them. And we do our best to choose the good instead of the bad...it may take months, years, a lifetime, but the struggle toward the good is what (I think) defines humanity, and enobles even the most outwardly mundane and boring life that any of us might lead.
My turning point this summer in recognizing the truth in my family is that I was trying to do something that I think can be objectively regarded as 'good' (help set up a financial support mechanism for a disabled brother) and it was incredibly difficult to do in my family...l felt I had to go against everything I learned growing up in order to do good...which made me get very scared of exactly the kind of behavior I was taught as a child, from a moral/ethical perspective.
BG
-
Reading 'People of the Lie' a few years ago left me with the realization that there are both 'Good' and 'Evil' forces at work on earth, and therefore, the possibility exists that some of the N's in our lives might in fact be 'Evil'.
-
Thankyou BG for re-establishing calm discussion and I just want to say that I admire your bravery in admitting to behaving in a way that you consider an example of evil, for having the courage to speak about that to us. Your empathy for others is clear and admirable.
I can relate to your words and to those experiences too and I know that feeling of facing one's own truth in both situations. So glad you are here.
s
-
Seems positively narcissistic to me. Another N come to "excuse" their vile and EVIL behavior and blame the victims. So patently obvious when you know what to look for.
{quote="Anonymous"]Hey "Somebody" - Your sarcasm and putdowns lead me to believe that you aren't as compassionate and non-angry as you claim. You seem pretty angry to me.
bunny[/quote]
-
In my own family, I have witnessed, and for a time participated in, treatment of a sibling that can be objectively described as morally wrong,
This is emotional blackmail and unfortunately it's pretty common. I wouldn't call it 'evil' to cave in to blackmail. More like desperate, or unable to cope with familial rejection. It's wrong but not evil in my book. I suppose it is colluding with evil and hopefully the person (like you) will stop doing it. But not everyone is able to develop this degree of backbone when the alternative is family rejection. That feels like a life-or-death choice to some.
bunny
-
Dear BG and all,
I think it might be timely to point out that not all Ns are pushing the needle to red. The Ns that do are about 1% of the population, the Hitlers and Stalins among us. There are about 10% who are seriously and pathologically flawed and do not care to change and they can pass for normal. Then there are the 20 percenters who can change if motivated, they are basically good people who can learn if properly motivated and they can care about other people. They might be unaware of the effects of their actions, but once pointed out, they do care about outcomes, etc.
IMHO, there is no dealing with the 1% who are destructive. I don't care how much abuse they themselves have endured, how their brains are programmed, or whatever light can be shed on their twisted brains. They victimize other people. Period. My interest is survival. I don't want their money, good looks or sex appeal AT ALL. It isn't worth it. Just look at OJ. He blames his wife (yes, I think he's guilty--can we just accept that without arguing it here--) and he blames his dead wife for not being around to help more with the kids, like it's her fault she was murdered. :shock: I have no sympathy. OK? And he still has his hangers-on justifying their "stand-up" behavior of snuggling up to a murderer.
Just an example--any others? There are plenty of people in prison who feel they did nothing wrong. No moral compass at all ie what's the big deal?
Please, y'all, do not change the subject to approval/disapproval of the tone of my post. It gets too messy, ya know? Seeker
-
Nice one Seeker. Example: Rosemary West, she popped right into my head. Rosemary West is a vile woman. Yes she’s had a terrible life, but so has Dave Pelzer and he hasn’t sexually abused his own kids, murdered them and buried them in the back yard. Can I have sympathy Seeker? No, like you, the business is survival, in the ‘real world’ as Bunny put it. In the real world people are shits every day. I don’t have the time or enough compassion to analyse every little word and gesture of some total stranger and empathise with them.
We’re still very primitive beings. We don’t know enough. We know very little and are limited by our position in time, history, place, language and limited by being stuck inside our own heads. So how do we deal with the 1% or even the 10%? If they threaten the already fragile fabric of society, we have to remove them from everyday society, until we know better how to deal with them. In some States, we kill them. In some countries, we kill them slowly and painfully. In the UK we imprison them (if we don’t kill them ‘accidentally’ through rough handling). I think we still use ECT in the UK. We still allow black-market drugs to enter prisons (on purpose?). We allow suicides to happen in prison cells (or are they suicides?). Social workers are underpaid, overworked and, like teachers, treated as less than ‘first-rate’ citizens. Because society here still bases human worth on material value. Very primitive. But that’s where we are, right now, in evolution.
I’m not someone who is ever going to come close to knowing what we do with people who do evil. To me people who do evil are those who have NO LOVE for anything or anybody – love being wanting to and acting to protect, care for, help to grow and see evolve.
We want to evolve. Sure, it would be fantastic right now to understand and ‘cure’ people who do wicked things. But what about the rest of society? How do we spread the care and love around? I am not capable of loving the whole human race. It’s physically impossible. So in evolutionary terms, I’d be better employed loving those who have potential and those who support me. There is no objective in my loving OJ or Rosemary West. And those who do love the most wicked? Does anyone love OJ or Rosemary West? Maybe not. Sure, both of them can have my intellectual compassion from a great distance. But up close active love? Not for me. Evolution wants us to improve. Maybe we could get heck of a lot smarter, use more of our brains, feed more people, solve diseases, stop bloody wars before we start putting our energy into those who are likely to blow the whole thing apart!
Ack. Even in posting I think I gotta circular argument here, in making the post, if you see what I mean. I care less what happens to people who do evil. I care more about what happens to people who I see as doing good.
-
Somebody, why have you ignored Bunny’s last post to you? It said:
"Somebody" - I thought you were only going to post to one thread. And this wasn't the thread.
bunny
Are you the same Somebody, or are you in fact “an imposter trying to create chaos” as the previous Somebody said another Somebody would be?
I want to ask you S, Somebody, why are you here, on this Board?
What do you want? What is your objective?
-
Hi all:
Portia wrote: "I care less what happens to people who do evil. I care more about what happens to people who I see as doing good."
Me too. I try to understand why people are doing evil and I encourage them to do good, if at all possible. Sometimes there is potential for change, sometimes not. I praise the good I see in those who do good and encourage them on. I value good the most and look for the good. I try to behave well myself, but I don't always succeed. I try my best and I believe most people do. Some don't and I have a desire to encourage them to try because I believe it will benefit all.
"Somebody, why have you ignored Bunny’s last post to you?"
Because it felt like taunting to me and I'm trying to avoid war. I see no point in going there. I can't reach you Bunny. You've got your mind made up about me and my words are seen by you as some kind of weapon, I think. That's not true but I don't know how to proove that to you or how to say anything that will not be viewed that way by you (my perception-maybe I'm wrong). I don't want to war with you, or anyone else. I don't need your acceptance but I would like it. I would like very much to communicate and relate with you in a kind way but I don't think you want that with me and I respect your wishes. I'm not interested in going to bat with anyone here.
"Are you the same Somebody, ...."
I answered that question for you, in ramble. Yes, but I'm much smaller now. By that, I mean, I feel like I have been reduced, my voice has been reduced to a tiny thing. I'm still trying to speak, regardless. I'm still trying to communicate and speak what I feel. I think I need to.
I want to share what I can and learn what I can. My objective is to improve my knowledge and share anything that may be of use to others. I'm here to heal.
And the colour, by the way, is to distinguish between what others have written and my response (I just realized that may be misinterpreted, maybe not). I saw it somewhere else, in another post, and thought it was a good idea. It made it easier for me to follow the post, so I thought it may be a good idea, since I don't know how to use the quote thingy. I picked green because I like that colour. I'm adding this to help make my intentions clear. It would have been a good idea to do this previously, had I thought of it but I didn't. My mistake.
s
-
Dear all, am I hijacking this thread talking to S like this? Views welcome. I will stop if you say stop, okay?
S you said:
I try to understand why people are doing evil and I encourage them to do good
Why? Seriously, why do you do this? Do you think you can change other people?
I can't reach you Bunny. You've got your mind made up about me and my words are seen by you as some kind of weapon, I think. That's not true
S, how do you know that you can’t reach Bunny? Aren’t you making a big assumption here? How do you know if someone has their ‘mind made up’ about you? How can you say that someone’s perception of your words is NOT TRUE? This is taking me, in my mind, straight back to your first thread here. Where you said that your child’s belief was NOT TRUE. Who are you to say what is true or not true in someone else’s head? (I’m sorry Bunny that I am by default talking sort of about you here. My intention is to find out more about the reality inside S. Why? Why not?)
I answered that question for you, in ramble.
And your point is? Yep, you did answer me in Ramble. Does that mean I can’t ask again, for clarification? Or are you telling me off for asking again? What gives here? What’s the intention? You said you were leaving. You appear to be back. Clarification can be useful.
By that, I mean, I feel like I have been reduced, my voice has been reduced to a tiny thing.
It doesn’t sound tiny to me. Your posts are strong and opinionated, to me. And what do you mean “have been” and “has been” – note how this is happening to you, how you are not responsible for minimising your own voice. If it’s not by your choice, presumably someone else is responsible for reducing your voice? And if so, who? Us, presumably? Are you shaming us? You said you were leaving. It was your decision. And now you’re back. What happened?
I'm still trying to speak, regardless. I'm still trying to communicate and speak what I feel. I think I need to.
Why do you need to? Serious question.
I want to share what I can and learn what I can. My objective is to improve my knowledge and share anything that may be of use to others. I'm here to heal.
What exactly are you healing? Another very serious question. The answer could turn this around.
Colour? Do as you want to with colour. It doesn’t bother me one way or another. Serious questions though for you, up there. P
-
Hi
I'm really getting worried here. This whole thing is starting up again. This is exactly what our nparents did to us- push the buttons to make us react, thus putting them in control and in the spotlight. Why don't we just treat posts like "somebody"s like we give advice to treat our nparents? Just put up that invisible wall so they don't get a reaction, turn away, not respond and go on with our regular lives? Like with our nparents, this person will never stop, want to change, try to see another point of view, stop blaming others, stop trying to drive a wedge between us and others, etc., so we have to ignore this person. Nip it in the bud. We don't have to respond to these posts, thereby giving people like this the power. This board is for positive support- lets try to go on with that.
-
Sorry- the previous "guest" post submitted at 8:45 was mine- I forgot to log in.
-
Dear all, am I hijacking this thread talking to S like this? Views welcome. I will stop if you say stop, okay?
Stop. I realized what I was doing and am not going to respond to her any further. Since you ask, I think that is the way to go. :wink:
bunny
-
Red Flag.
This is just a hunch, but 's' is signing and creating an angry disturbance here much like 'Somebody' named 's' who was recently turfed from another Narcissism board.
Maybe or maybe not just a coincidence.
Worth repeating.
-
I just stopped! :D Thank you (((Bunny))). P
-
Hi Portia,
I'm skipping back to your response to my post...
Your thoughts about how does society deal with the 1% is really interesting. Like, how do we deal with them without becoming like them or seeming like them to prevent them from threatening the survival of our community? (Saddam Hussein comes to mind.) That is one thought that popped into my head reading your post.
Another one is: forgiveness doesn't remove the consequences that occur from the evil deed that must be remedied. That is, let's say our neighbor murdered another neighbor. This threatens the whole of the neighborhood. The act must be confronted and dealt with. That can include forgiveness but doesn't remove arresting the murderer, a trial with a jury of his peers, and the possibility of imprisonment. It is, I suppose, possible to say "hey we know you can't help it, we forgive you buddy" but that doesn't make it any safer to let him back into the neighborhood. Again, safety and survival are imperative.
I like to think I have forgiven my psycho SIL, but I don't want to invite her to dinner. :?
Peace, Seeker
-
Seeker, yes, 100%.
On forgiveness: did you see the part of the SA Truth & Reconciliation Commission hearings where Desmond Tutu was crying, weeping, because Winnie Mandala would not say she was sorry for what she had sanctioned? He was crying for her inhumanity. It was so sad, beyond sad. Incredible. I’ll never forget those images. Thanks for your post (((Seeker))) Protect and survive P
-
Portia asked regarding my trying to understand people doing evil: "Why? Seriously, why do you do this?"
Because it is part of empathizing. Trying to understand is the first part.
I believe this is a good thing. Not just to do for those who behave well but especially for those who behave badly. A person who behaves badly may often need compassion in order to help them change their behaviour.
It is also necessary to do in order to help ourselves. Trying to understand, having empathy and compassion toward our abusers helps to dissipate our anger and allows us to work toward forgiving. Forgiving benefits us most, not the person forgiven. It does not mean an acceptance of their behaviour, it simply means to be rid of anger and resentment. It is part of healing.
And: " Do you think you can change other people?"
No. I am only able to change myself. However, I can help others recognize the value and necessity for change sometimes. It is then up to them, if they have the capability. Some do. Some don't.
And: "S, how do you know that you can’t reach Bunny? Aren’t you making a big assumption here? How do you know if someone has their ‘mind made up’ about you?"
By her responses to my posts, I have assumed this, yes. She hasn't stated otherwise so that leads me to believe my assumption was correct.
Maybe I'm wrong.
And: " How can you say that someone’s perception of your words is NOT TRUE? This is taking me, in my mind, straight back to your first thread here. Where you said that your child’s belief was NOT TRUE. Who are you to say what is true or not true in someone else’s head?"
My child's belief was formed by, not her own perceptions, but by what she was being told, that was not true, by my sister. My child's false belief has been rectified.
Just as your perception, Portia, that you thought you had not been through enough abuse to justify your pain, was not true, and that, I hope, has been rectified too. I tried to help you and I hope I did.
Who am I to try to correct my child's belief, formed by false information fed to her by a revengeful adult who had her own motives to cause harm as priority? I am my child's mother and I love her. I have an obligation to protect her and I did. She is my priority. I am my revengeful sister's sister. She is high on my priority list and I am trying to understand her behaviour because I love her too. I can't change her behaviour and she continues to behave in a similar fashion.
Who am I to try to help you? I saw a chance to help and I try to do that when I see it. I like to help others.
I wrote: "I answered that question for you, in ramble."
Portia asked: "And your point is? Yep, you did answer me in Ramble. Does that mean I can’t ask again, for clarification? Or are you telling me off for asking again? What gives here? What’s the intention? You said you were leaving. You appear to be back. Clarification can be useful.
My point was to make it clear that you were asking a question that you already knew the answer to.
I wrote: "By that, I mean, I feel like I have been reduced, my voice has been reduced to a tiny thing. "
Portia stated: "It doesn’t sound tiny to me."
What I feel is being invalidated by this statement.
Portia stated: "Your posts are strong and opinionated, to me..."
I have strong opinions. My feelings are not my opinions. They are two different things. You have strong opinions too Portia. And your feelings are valid.
Portia asked: "And what do you mean “have been” and “has been” – note how this is happening to you, how you are not responsible for minimising your own voice."
This is happening to me. I am not responsible for trying to crush my opinions or silence myself.
Portia: "And if so, who? Us, presumably?"
It appears to be true. First by criticism. Then by hijacking. Then by no more response. Very effective. Except I am answering your questions as best I can anyway because I agree with you, clarification can be useful.
Portia asked: "Are you shaming us?"
No. I'm pointing out what appears to be true. Do you feel ashamed?
If so, it was not my intention to induce that feeling in you, nor am I able to remove it. Possibly, it's a learned response? Possibly a reaction?
Portia asked: "You said you were leaving. It was your decision. And now you’re back. What happened? "
Yes. Prior to leaving you had asked me to consider becoming a registered user. I waited to see if there would be a second to that idea. There was none. I accepted that and decided maybe it was best to just go. Then, I thought about it and wondered if I had been a bit hasty. I asked myself afterward, did I leave because I felt rejected? Do I really need your acceptance? The answers are: Yes and No. Yes, I felt rejected but I wasn't counting your invitation or what seemed like an invitation. Why not? Then I realized, I don't need to be accepted to share what has helped me and to learn what I can. I was making a decision due to my fear of rejection. I try not to make decisions based on fear and I generally don't worry about being rejected. Why was this suddenly so important. I reconsidered and I decided to return.
I wrote: "I'm still trying to speak, regardless. I'm still trying to communicate and speak what I feel. I think I need to."
Portia asked: "Why do you need to? Serious question."
I need to try to communicate and speak because I need to know to tried my best. It is my habit in life to try my best and I am trying. I feel good about myself when I try my best. Another bull-headed thing I do.
I think we all need to speak what we feel and I am no different.
Portia asked: "What exactly are you healing? Another very serious question. The answer could turn this around."
I am trying to heal from the effects of the abuse I have sustained by the behaviour of the n's in my family. I am trying to heal from trauma and I am grieving losses.
s
-
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:00 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Flag.
This is just a hunch, but 's' is signing and creating an angry disturbance here much like 'Somebody' named 's' who was recently turfed from another Narcissism board.
Maybe or maybe not just a coincidence.
I think "s" was outed on the ramble thread as being "Somebody".
MM
-
I have never been to any other N board.
I already pointed out above that the somebody question was "outed", if that's what you mean.
Trying to create suspicion and making wild accusations are n traits, aren't they? Anything to distort the truth, I mean.
This may be learned as well so I'm not offended.
s
-
Hi s,
I've been watching some of the ways people have been reacting to your posts, so may I offer this one observation?
I hear you saying that you want to help people, and that's generally a pretty good thing. I think everyone here wants to help out in any way they can.
Unfortunately, some of your posts come across as though you have all the answers and are in a position to tell others how to think, feel, and act so that they will be happy and healthy. We all share some similarities here, which is why we're able to support each other so much. But we all have to find our own paths to health and happiness. That's part of why so many of us are here. We've been told what the 'right' ways are to think, feel, and act. Even if it hurt us.
So I think it's great that you're here and learning and trying to find answers. But I think it may help your conversations with others if you try to keep in mind that many people here may not need your help. They may, in fact, be able to help you.
Best wishes,
Wildflower
-
Somebody, I said I would stop but I just changed my mind. I have another reply for you and then I do intend to stop. I feel I have hijacked Dinny's thread by speaking with you. Sorry Dinny. Just one more...
(and while I'm here, may I say: hiya MM, good to see you again, I like reading you. Yep I do!)
Quote Somebody: I wrote: "By that, I mean, I feel like I have been reduced, my voice has been reduced to a tiny thing. "
Portia stated: "It doesn’t sound tiny to me."
What I feel is being invalidated by this statement.
Portia stated: "Your posts are strong and opinionated, to me..."
I have strong opinions. My feelings are not my opinions. They are two different things. You have strong opinions too Portia. And your feelings are valid.
Portia asked: "And what do you mean “have been” and “has been” – note how this is happening to you, how you are not responsible for minimising your own voice."
This is happening to me. I am not responsible for trying to crush my opinions or silence myself.
I had a logic breakdown. Somebody, you say you "feel like I have been reduced, my voice has been reduced to a tiny thing" - so that's your feeling and as you know, you choose what to feel....
...so, when you then say: "This is happening to me. I am not responsible for trying to crush my opinions or silence myself" this does not compute. You are responsible. It's your feeling. As you point out to me.
You cannot accuse me of invalidating your feeling. I was stating my perception. That doesn't invalidate what you feel. I do not control what you feel. But you then cannot attempt to disown that feeling as being your feeling, your reaction, your perception.
Mind games. Word games. Sam Vaknin. Life is too short. S, life is too short. It's unlikely that everyone will relate to each other in this world. So generally we stick with people we can understand. I don't understand you. I've tried. I read your words. But nope, it doesn't work for me. We're both wasting our time on this I think. I'm getting angry, I think maybe you are too. I say let's call it a day. How about you? Want to let Dinny have her thread back? P
-
Sorry Wildflower, I was writing and didn't see your post. (((Wildflower))) you're such a warm person. You do it with such panache and humanity! P
-
Thankyou Wildflower, I'll keep that in mind.
I have seen many posts here. Some are as you say and no real upset reaction occurs. I think maybe the problem is more than my opinions.
Posting what I have learned is simply posting what I have learned to be a help to me. It doesn't mean that anyone has to accept it or agree with it. I post it for others to consider and decide if it is of any use to them. I have done the same with many, many posts here.
I admire the group effort to stand up for one another. That is a wonderful thing. I feel like I have been deemed the enemy, not because of my opinions, but because I am posting them.
s
-
Hi P:
I'm glad you are still speaking to me and sorry to hear that you intend not to do that anymore. I feel sad to think of that.
I'm not sure I said that we are responsible for what we feel, always, at all times, in every situation. If I said that or something that came across that way, I have not said what I think about that correctly.
We are able to have an effect on the way we feel by making changes to the way we think. I did say that, and I did that when I came back here.
On the other hand, as to feeling my voice is small, that feeling seems in sink (I really, really wish I could spell) with this situation, so I don't have a need to change my thinking on it, I think, for now at least. I'm not disowning it. I'm claiming it (my feeling). Look how small it is being made. No word goes unchallenged. No opinion without dispute. Not one person has acknowledged the possibility that there may be misconceptions, assumptions, misjudgements and worse made about me. Instead, the same insinuations are starting to sprout. The "you're an n" thing is starting again and soon there will be swearing and a frenzied linch mob maybe! That's what it was seeming like. For what?
Because I put down my opinion about evil and behaviour etc. Take it (my opinion, or anyone's for that matter) or leave it. Don't have a breakdown over it! No need to jab me and taunt me and pick, pick, pick (as I have seen written here so many times).
Now I'm playing mind games! Right! And nobody else here is?
Ofcourse. I forgot. I was hallucinating when someone posted posts with the name Somebody on them that Somebody didn't write. (Not true).
Certainly there is someone here doing that and that, is your villan, I'd bet my left slipper on it!
You stated your perception that my feeling was invalid. Well, P, sorry to let you know but that's not true. My feeling is valid and I did point out that all of yours are too.
We can't go around changing our thinking to alter each and every feeling we have now can we? And whether you think this is playing on words, or some other manipulation, or not, the fact is you did invalidate my stated feeling. It's ok though. You may not have meant to do that and it doesn't matter. I can take it as an error, unintentional, assume that's what happened.
I'm not angry at all, believe it or not Portia. I read how angry you are in ramble and I'm sorry to hear that but I do understand. It is sometimes very maddening to face facts.
The fact is, I have been verbally abused on this board and it is starting to occurr again, to me-- again. I'm not abusing myself (at least the last time I looked I wasn't).
I'm not feeling angry about that but I am feeling a bit frustrated. What for? Read and discard, if you don't agree. State what you think. But don't disect every word of what I think and have the courage to write, and then try to blame me for standing up for my right to do so and for throwing abuse back where it belongs and for feeling small (etc) when the whole goal appears to be to make me feel that way.
This is not happening to you Portia, it's happening to me. I did nothing to cause this and I will not take responsibility for such silly conflict. Over a person's opinion and their right to voice it?
Who the heck thinks anyone does not have that basic right (other than some hate crimers or such)?
I'm not trying to disturb. I'm voicing what I think. I'm feeling very, very small indeed, like a squished fly for doing that and the response. I have a right to feel that way when that is what is going on.
The attempt to make it my fault and my problem isn't working for me.
I would much rather do as you say and leave it at that and give Dinny back her thread (if it's Dinny's thread, which you say these cyber spaces belong to all and I have changed my thinking on that idea and I agree with you about that now. P!!! We agree about something I think!!!).
Still, I propose one idea here and ofcourse, all I can do is hope.
I hope a lot sometimes and I'm going to keep doing that.
How about a truce?
How about looking for the good in my posts instead of what is wrong with them?
How about taking what helps you and leaving the rest there on the page?
How about giving up the idea that I am here to cause you some problem or divide anything?
How about believing me....that I am like you....that I have plenty to learn and that I will learn a lot easier with kindness than I will without it?
I bet that works for lot's of people.
I'm not wasting my time trying to understand you Portia. I'm not mad at you. I admire you and I like you. I've said this before and I haven't changed my mind about it.
And I'm taking your advice and calling it a day.
s
-
Messed up again!
My time is not being wasted and I do not think it is a waste of my time trying to understand you. That's what I meant to say.
s
-
Hiya Somebody :D , And may I ask, please start your full big name again. Enough of this little tiny s stuff, okay? :D
Yeah, it's me, CG. I was going to stay outta here, and hey, maybe I'll wish I had of later. :? hahahahahahaahahahah
But I just wanted to say, don't get all defensive and sorry for yourself :D . Keep talking. Maybe not here on this thread. It's probably not going to improve for you on this one. But I understand the feeling of feeling like the board enemy. It's not nice. And you're not the board enemy. That's negative self-talk. You're say just sharing your views and beliefs as they are at this point in your life. Well then, if that's true, you're not the board enemy, are you? :D
Maybe, can I make a suggestion? Please? Ignore the negative combative responses to your posts as much as humanly possible. Or find the positives in the responses to you posts. If there are any?? :shock: :D .
Might be wise not to go into full armour contact immediately, just because people post back that they don't like you or disagree with you. That's their opinion they're sharing. That's healthy communication. Doesn't need to turn into a "Who's the cleverest" or who can write the longest or most convincing argument. Quoting and quoting and explaining and explaining. I kinda think about that approach. It's not working for you here. Well, that's how it appears to me anyway. And other people here are all generally prety much an okay bunch. As good as you're gonna find anywhere.
Hey, I'm going out on a limb here. I kinda liked that first post you did here on 20/9 at 5.50pm. I could agree with a lot of it. Not all of it, but a lot :shock: hahahah hahahaha I've got my ideas, about this thread's topic, and I'm not buying in.
But yeah, I agreed with some of your ideas, and that bothered/confused me, because at times I just so don't understand you. I think I've told you before, you've kinda given me the creeps at times. My own problem thinking maybe? Dunno? But I'm giving you some honest feedback here, because I kinda care about how you're feeling too, now.
:shock: :shock: :shock: Yeah, Somebody, hahahha I'm shocked too.
Some things you and I will never ever agree on, but I'm not going there with you. Okay? :D
But it's obvious you're screaming to communicate. You want/need to communicate. That's so obvious. And healthy. If you didn't you'da left by now. Enough people have expressed that desire, and you keep coming back. Anyway, no-one should you just because a few other people tell you to. It's not all the board. Just a handful. And hey, people don't have to read your posts. Suggestion, Make it clear you're Somebody when you post, and not imposter Somebody, and then people can not read if they don't like your posts. Dunno if that will work, but it may be worth a try.
This is voicelessness forum. And you make your own decisions about staying or going. You haven't violated any of the official rules I don't think. If you had of Dr G would probably have pulled you up by now.
My hope for you :D . I hope you can read and learn form others here. Not everybody dislikes you, so youc an lose that self-talk :D .
Ask questions, yes, certainly. But not just combative ones, in defence of your own posts which seem so precious to you. Once you've posted your thoughts, it's good/healthy to be able to allow people to disagree with them. Maybe, try to understand what they're disagreeing with, if it's just so important to you that you can't let it go. Or it won't let you go. But taking exception to every disagreement with your posts is going to keep you very busy with very long replies to a recipient maybe really doesn't care for you, and will keep you on-the-nose for quite a while, so to speak.
Unfortunately :cry: I think you're percieved as forcing your opinions. That's how I see it too. :cry: Sorry, but I do. Well, that's how it appears to me anyway. I think you're very extremely sensitive about your opinions. That's okay. Maybe I am too? Maybe we all are? I'm just trying to share with you that maybe being so precious about them, in the way you are, is causing you more problems than you'd otherwise experience here.
I for one am happy to talk to you at times, if the topic interests me, and am happy to read you. And thankyou Somebody for giving the Portia and CG topic of friendship discussion a rest. I really appreciate that you respected that request.
So maybe you could post to some other threads. Share some opinions and ideas maybe. Offer some heartfelt validation to some people needing encouragment. Something not related to this topic and trial/test newer better hahahahahaah shorter/less combative way to communicate here. :D I hope your read this post in the spirit it is written. With warmth.
I'm going on hols so won't be here to reply to you. Never mind.
Arnie style, "I'll be back" :D But can you one more favour??? Please?If it feels okay with you, and only if it's okay with you, if you feel the need to reply to me, can you do it at Ramble Cafe please, cause I won't be coming back to this thread probably.
Best wishes
CG
-
So maybe you could post to some other threads. Share some opinions and ideas maybe. Offer some heartfelt validation to some people needing encouragment.
I am deeply opposed to this suggestion. I wish she'd stay on the one thread as she stated she would. She loses any credibility she may have by posting elsewhere.
bunny
-
And CG, it's a bit irritating that you post on this thread, saying you WON'T BE READING IT AGAIN, and suggest that Somebody post on other threads! Gee, thanks!
bunny
-
Hi CG:
This was my original post to this thread:
"Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:03 pm Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to believe some people were evil.
My definition of evil being that the person was totally devoid of conscience,
possessed by a desire to cause harm, and composed entirely of pure negativeness ................."
Unfortunately, the only way to ascertain the facts sometimes, CG, is to quote them. That's not a put down or an insult. It's just what seems needed sometimes, that's all.
And here is the first line of the first response to that post:
"Guest
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:52 am Post subject: Excuses --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hear a latent symptom of denial in the last post..... "
A no name guest. First words, a putdown or what?
Then, not too much further along,
"Guest
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 6:11 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hear a latent symptom of denial in the last post. The illness is of the disease, disease is facing ones own portrait.
That's because s is Somebody who is in denial. Go figger. Or maybe go figure."
Did you see a response by me to either of these two mystery guest posts posted on this thread?
Who is beginning the disturbance in this thread?
Am I responsible?
Then, ListNewbie comes along and tries to calm things down.
Thanks for trying LN.
I'm not going to go through the whole thread or try to explain any further, CG.
You're right about disengaging, whoops, I agree with you on that.
I appreciate you speaking and saying my need to speak is healthy and you're way of trying to suggest that I am not the board enemy. Also, that it seems you would like to see me use the name, Somebody. That was nice.
However, Bunny's next stated wish (after your post) to confine me to another thread, by myself, on this board, indicates she thinks I should not, for some reason????, post elsewhere or where I choose and seems like an attempt to confine me and keep me confined which, sorry to say, here comes the negative self-talk, that makes me feel really small again. I'm keeping the name, s, for now, and if and when I start to feel like Somebody again, in regard to --the putdown's stop--, if it's ok with you, or even if it isn't, I'm going to just sign as "s" because that's how I feel and you, nor anyone, can direct me to feel otherwise. (if you reread the ramble thread, you may note the same reference to credibility there as well, maybe I'm wrong about who our mystery guest might be. I'm not going there.....but I do have my ideas on that.
I hope you won't wish you hadn't posted CG because I value so much of what you say. I think you are very wise and I've wanted to say that but since you became so upset when I complimented your friendship with Portia (and that was confusing for me but P pointed that out for me), after that, I said what I most wanted to say and missed this very important quality. You are wise, CG. I agree with a lot of what you say. I have never told anyone that they "creep" me out before though. I don't like to hurt other's feelings by saying things like that that have no real explanation. But, it's your feeling you're expressing and you have every right to express it. I'm sorry that I creep you out and I hope I can find a way not to creep you out or at least, creep you out less often and that creeped out feeling you have is valid, for you. I get creeped out in horror movies so it's making me feel very much like a horror movie character to think of it. Maybe you don't mean it that way, so I'm not going to assume my idea of being creeped out is the same as yours. OK?
Here I'm quoting you: "don't get all defensive and sorry for yourself...."
Do you ever feel defensive? When there is a mystery poster accusing you of being in denial and taunting you on a public bulletin board, do you feel defensive about that? Has that happened to you before? Sorry for myself? I don't think I feel that. I did before, awhile back, but now, I just feel frustrated that this person is achieving their goal of discrediting me, making me out to be something I am not, etc.. and I seem to be the only one who seems to see it.
Am I entitled to feel defensive and sorry for myself (if I do feel that way-which I don't. I feel small and frustrated (and creepy, like a horror movie character--just kidding).
Are your smileys indicating you would be shocked to see positive responses to my posts? I've been posting for awhile here. There have been some. I'm not sure if you were aware of that. Not even sure why I'm letting you know except to relieve your shock, maybe.
You wrote: "Might be wise not to go into full armour contact immediately,..."
I don't think I did that. It took awhile for me to decide to speak about it. This is another accusation isn't it? Maybe you're thinking of it as healthy communication but I'm thinking of it as an accusation. I'm not that sensitive. But take a look around? I'm not trying to be cleverest (is that a word?). I pointing to the facts.
I'm not trying to write the longest, most convincing argument, another accusation, I'm trying to point out the abusive communication happening here. Maybe it wasn't obvious to you? Or to others.
You wrote: "And other people here are all generally prety much an okay bunch. As good as you're gonna find anywhere. "
I couldn't agree with you more and those are the people I'm pointing this out for.
And: "But yeah, I agreed with some of your ideas, and that bothered/confused me, because at times I just so don't understand you. I think I've told you before, you've kinda given me the creeps at times."
I see. OOooooo. The creeps again. I'm confused by your attempt to sound kind while continuing to refer to me as creepy? That is confusing.
And: "It's not all the board. Just a handful...." in regards to people wanting me to leave the board. I figgered that out too. Another thing I considered before returning. There are a lot of members on this board. But thanks for pointing it out again and I do really, truly appreciate that this is a kind comment you are making, and I don't find it confusing at all.
And: "Not everybody dislikes you, so you can lose that self-talk . "
Well, CG, you blew it. I don't think everybody dislikes me and you have absolutely no idea about my self-talk or a right to order me about it. But......I'm not going there any further. That's not what this problem is about.
I agree with Bunny (Bunny, we agree on something!!!!). I'm posting my response for you here and if you have time or inclination to read it, good, and if not, that's up to you. I'm not trying to hurt you in any way here. I'm trying to look at the facts and bring them to the surface.
CG wrote: "Ask questions, yes, certainly. But not just combative ones, in defence of your own posts which seem so precious to you. "
What? Huh??? What's precious to me??? An assumption that my posts are? The truth, CG. The facts. That's what I'm posting about. Not a response to some other opinion that disagrees with mine. Nope, I'm speaking about an attempt to cause a disturbance and then blame it on me. Clearly.
"I think you're percieved as forcing your opinions."
Yes, that's the impression that's trying to be made isn't it. That's not the truth. I don't know what is or is not perceived but whoever......the impression being forced is certainly clear to me.
"I think you're very extremely sensitive about your opinions."
Well, I don't agree. I am sensitive about being made out to be a trouble maker though, when I voice an opinion and a mystery poster begins a disturbance.
Getting more sensitive about that....but actually, now that I think about it,....maybe that is lessening because I'm pointing it out and hoping that others will also see it and recognize it sooner and speak about it too. That would be a good thing, what do you think?
And: " I for one am happy to talk to you at times, if the topic interests me, and am happy to read you."
Me too with you CG, although that hasn't happened very often and I am hoping with all of my heart that you will not feel sorry that you posted here or angry with me for my response because I disagree with you about your observations and that is not the end of the world. Maybe you didn't notice and that's ok. I am not offended by your words (except maybe a little about creeping you out but I'm still confused about that and maybe you aren't saying what I think you're saying).
You wrote: "So maybe you could post to some other threads. Share some opinions and ideas maybe. Offer some heartfelt validation to some people needing encouragment."
Been there. Done that. Gonna keep at it CG, don't you worry about that a bit.
Then: "...........shorter/less combative way to communicate here".
Oh, oh. More of the I'm combative over my opinions again. Well, that's ok, CG. You may have changed your mind about that by now. I'm not going to judge you and expect that you won't keep on trying to promote the idea that I have started a disruption that I did not start. I'm combative about taking blame that is not mine and so I should be, don't you think?
Have fun on your holiday!! I hope you have a blast!!!
I said I would give it a rest today. I was going to post this tomorrow but I've just found out I have company coming and will not be on here again until Monday, at the earliest. No time to do the colour thingy.
Hope you all have a great week-end.
s
-
Hark.....I hear the wailing of old wimmen.
-
This is about the most exhausting thread I have read yet.
-
Ahhh, I haven't posted in at least 2 blue moons. But to the unitiated, s or Somebody (same person) came on this here board a while ago to say her sis, her dad, her kids and basically all God's chillen were Ns....and oh btw she is empathic because she's married to a registered sex offender.
Personally, I don't read s or somebody. No credibility to me. She couldn't get why people didn't focus on her N issues. But if ya see a long post by GUEST, ya might want to see who signs before readin' the ramblins of a person who cares more for sex offender H than her daughters. Can't figure why we have a problem with her......Hmmmm.
Q
-
Right, "Q"--- or why people keep responding. Just feeds into her.
-
Sorry- forgot to log in again.
-
That’s an inflammatory post Q. But it raises the issue of what some of us know about Somebody.
So S, what to do? Your initial thread contained some inflammatory ideas for a board which includes victims of child sexual abuse/incest. What did you think would happen? Maybe you just didn’t realise the sensitivities here.
But how you move on, without being continually harassed, I don’t know. Some of us, it seems, won’t let it go, for good reasons. Maybe that original issue – even the original thread – has to be thrashed out.
Just a suggestion. If you think it’s relevant, maybe you could consider it S. I wonder what others think of the suggestion.
-
Greetings,
Well, I suppose it is a subject worthy of being thrashed, torn apart, chewed upon, etc. Most people come here for support, relief, understanding, advise, etc.
But I'll take a shot at the original post from the person who couldn't understand why her children couldn't why their mother would choose to forgive and stick with a person who abused them, paid his debt, etc.
My observation is that this poster is akin to wandering into a rape victim's support group and asking them to support her for supporting a "reformed" rapist. When she doesn't get the support, she accuses them of being judgmental, less than empathic, and tries to take the high road of being more understanding (a competitive remark) than the rest of us.
OK. Poster, you are right. We don't understand why you would ask us to support an abuser. Or more accurately, support your support of an abuser. We don't understand your need to tell your kids the "truth" etc. If you really loved them, you would let them go and discover the truth on their own and keep the door open for them to come back on their own terms. Versus trying to control outcomes.
My two cents. Anonymous for now. :o
-
thrashed out - my meaning = debated, resolved
-
Somebody has come to a board owned by a psychologist that exists for support and healing purposes. Since she has been here, she has insisted that many members of this board are lacking because we don't believe in harboring child molesters. Now she has attacked the field of psychology which is the basis of many members' healing through therapists, books and this board. Is she really seeking support or is she seeking to inflame? She says that she is judged unfairly here, but I think that based on the information she has provided there is nothing unfair about most judgements members are making (imo).
-
to somebody or s
Hi Somebody,
As you know they did the same thing to me 'pick,pick,pick'. Round and round we go....
my decision was not to engage and go off and leave everyone to it. I am wondering why you persist.
As we both know, it's like bangning your head against a wall. Who wants more and more invalidation? :)
I can see what you're saying and it is exactly like being 'N'-ed. But you are being bullied and verbally abused, similar to me.
Alright it's an internet board and feelings and intent of meaning can be lost easily.
Unfortunately you have been labelled and anything you do say will be interpretated in those terms...
you can't win, why are you still playing?
I don't mean to get your hackles up, Somebody, but I am curious, as we went through a similar thing a ways back. It seems we both made different decisions about it, that's all and was just wondering.
-
Yep, I knew that, I find everything posted is aimed at pushing a certain agenda, which I have noticed because I have bothered to read everything. Trying to understand this is the reason why I am exhausted.
Ahhh, I haven't posted in at least 2 blue moons. But to the unitiated, s or Somebody (same person) came on this here board a while ago to say her sis, her dad, her kids and basically all God's chillen were Ns....and oh btw she is empathic because she's married to a registered sex offender.
Personally, I don't read s or somebody. No credibility to me. She couldn't get why people didn't focus on her N issues. But if ya see a long post by GUEST, ya might want to see who signs before readin' the ramblins of a person who cares more for sex offender H than her daughters. Can't figure why we have a problem with her......Hmmmm.
Q
-
thrashed out - my meaning = debated, resolved
I'd still like to point out, as well, Pedophiles often target single mothers for their children. The relationship a woman has with a man who sees her child as an object for his sexual gratification, whether or not he was able to follow up on that, may in fact, be entirely based upon his sick desire for her children and nothing more. The entire marriage is a sham from the very first hello. And yes, this is EVIL.
-
Lizbeth,
You are so right on. I saw you post this before about targeting the single mom with daughters and I had been thinking the same.
I personally don't see what there is to thrash out. And I do see Somebody pushing an agenda as well. And whoever said she is here for supply is right too.
And Bunny.....you just keep reading psychology and offering your gems because they are valuable. Thank you.
I wish as well that somebody would stick to her word. She just doesn't belong here, it's not a matter of people harrassing her. She's not coming here for healing imo.
-
Sometimes people who make a bad decision can't accept the rebukes they receive for their decsions, so they go round and round looking for someone, anyone, to allow them to justify their actions. They also look to blame others for the reactions they are getting for the decisions they have made. Then there are the pity parties and the word salad and the effort to avoid the real subject. None of that is part of healing. To heal you have to accept what you have done and live with it or do something REAL to change it. You can't continue to live in denial and expect to heal.
Lizbeth,
You are so right on. I saw you post this before about targeting the single mom with daughters and I had been thinking the same.
I personally don't see what there is to thrash out. And I do see Somebody pushing an agenda as well. And whoever said she is here for supply is right too.
And Bunny.....you just keep reading psychology and offering your gems because they are valuable. Thank you.
I wish as well that somebody would stick to her word. She just doesn't belong here, it's not a matter of people harrassing her. She's not coming here for healing imo.
-
So what does 'the board' want to say to/ask Somebody when she comes back on Monday, as she indicated?
Does the board want her banned?
Does the board want to ask her questions?
What to do.....? and why?
-
Long time lurker, when you said:
you can't win, why are you still playing?
is that a turn of phrase or are you saying it is actually a game? Like the question though. Why is s still here. Good question.
-
Guest asked the following /b]
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what does 'the board' want to say to/ask Somebody when she comes back on Monday, as she indicated?
Does the board want her banned?
Does the board want to ask her questions?
What to do.....? and why?
____________________________________________________________
I have no questions. I would like to come here for healing and not have this character here, but what can be done. Anything? She has been shunned by the non cyber world, so I guess she is looking for friends or something. It would be sad if she wasn't so resolute in pushing an obvious agenda.
-
Quote - I would like to come here for healing and not have this character here, but what can be done. Anything?
Ideas anyone?
-
Perhaps there is a more suitable forum for Somebody. The following link is to a website that includes forums for families of sex offenders and some members seem to share her point of view.
http://www.sexcriminals.com/forums/
-
Just remind her that the empress has no clothes on...
It's very telling that S or somebody hangs around still trying to get the board to conform to her reality, still complaining that the kids don't have the 'truth', loftily informing us of our deficiencies while she is on her way to healing ("I am SO more healed than you") etc.
As they said in Monty Python & the holy Grail, "Never mind who's killing who! this is supposed to be a happy occasion!" (This is my favorite movie expression of denial.)
She's kind of funny really. It's like she insists on walking into the men's room and telling the guys they are in the wrong place. What WILL she do next? Stay tuned until Monday...she's so important we will wait with bated breath. Come on, girl, don't disappoint us now!!
:roll:
-
IMO, s/Somebody seems to be taking Energy away from those of us who are trying to reason with her, and it is also frustrating for those of us who are reading the futile exchanges. We usually try to help one another through the rough times in our lives, and we share positive energy with one another, not negative. My feeling is that these mental gymnastics with 's' are not productive, here. It almost feels like a "N" in sheep's clothing.
-
My feeling is that these mental gymnastics with 's' are not productive, here. It almost feels like a "N" in sheep's clothing.
It isn't productive. She is just an agitator and a past master at provoking arguments. It's useless- futile - fuhgeddaboudit. People can get sucked into engaging against their better judgment (I have). Hopefully they'll get themselves out of it, too.
bunny
-
I don't feel comfortable or right asking anyone not to participate but I also don't feel this poster is going to get any better of a reception than she has and the members are going to continue to be tortured by her attempts to explain how bad we all are because we can't forget about the BIG FREAKING ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM. To me it's a rediculous farce and her posts since then really disturb me in their content.
Guest asked the following /b]
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what does 'the board' want to say to/ask Somebody when she comes back on Monday, as she indicated?
Does the board want her banned?
Does the board want to ask her questions?
What to do.....? and why?
____________________________________________________________
I have no questions. I would like to come here for healing and not have this character here, but what can be done. Anything? She has been shunned by the non cyber world, so I guess she is looking for friends or something. It would be sad if she wasn't so resolute in pushing an obvious agenda.
-
This is all quite N behavior, which, of course, will infuriate her yet again, but I'm sorry, it's true. Whether or not she's an N, this is how they behave. That, and all the freaking word salad and the "have a great weekend' at the end of it.
Just remind her that the empress has no clothes on...
It's very telling that S or somebody hangs around still trying to get the board to conform to her reality, still complaining that the kids don't have the 'truth', loftily informing us of our deficiencies while she is on her way to healing ("I am SO more healed than you") etc.
As they said in Monty Python & the holy Grail, "Never mind who's killing who! this is supposed to be a happy occasion!" (This is my favorite movie expression of denial.)
She's kind of funny really. It's like she insists on walking into the men's room and telling the guys they are in the wrong place. What WILL she do next? Stay tuned until Monday...she's so important we will wait with bated breath. Come on, girl, don't disappoint us now!!
:roll:
-
We can’t kick “S” off even if we want to.
It is clear that “S” is provocative and disruptive.
Engaging in conversation with “S” only leads to is tying oneselves up in knots – and I believe “S” intends that.
S is hard to ignore when she comes mewing back like some innocent little kitten. Yet, any kindness offered gets upturned, all in the name of “S” ‘right’ to respond.
What you get is a kick in the teeth for your effort.
Isn’t this what we’ve encountered throughout our lives living with N’s? “S” can’t be addressed in any way, because “S” doesn’t want to be addressed.
Collectively here is something we can do, and it can be done with a sense of community:
Whenever “S” posts, whoever sees the post first, post right after with the username "Troll" (you will have to log out first); that will alert anyone from the Voicelessness menu, that “S” has been spotted, and replied to . Write only N/T ( no text) in the dialogue box. That way we are purposely ignoring her, but also being proactive about it. There will be satisfaction in giving a reply that can’t be responded to. That yes, the message is acknowledged, but we aren’t interested anymore. "S" has to get the message that she has worn out her welcome- many times.
If we stick together on this, we can make our point.
And for any bleeding hearts, (of which club I belong ), consider that we are doing her a favor. If she gets it, she can find a board elsewhere and start over. If she doesn’t that’s her problem. We can’t fix that.
-
Dear Trollspotter:
I gather, even as a self-confessed bleeding heart, you don't consider S someone you would or should bleed over? Just want to be clear on that because you have me a bit confused with that statement.
I'm usually pretty soft hearted myself, but there are limits.
Lizbeth
We can’t kick “S” off even if we want to.
It is clear that “S” is provocative and disruptive.
Engaging in conversation with “S” only leads to is tying oneselves up in knots – and I believe “S” intends that.
S is hard to ignore when she comes mewing back like some innocent little kitten. Yet, any kindness offered gets upturned, all in the name of “S” ‘right’ to respond.
What you get is a kick in the teeth for your effort.
Isn’t this what we’ve encountered throughout our lives living with N’s? “S” can’t be addressed in any way, because “S” doesn’t want to be addressed.
Collectively here is something we can do, and it can be done with a sense of community:
Whenever “S” posts, whoever sees the post first, post right after with the username "Troll" (you will have to log out first); that will alert anyone from the Voicelessness menu, that “S” has been spotted, and replied to . Write only N/T ( no text) in the dialogue box. That way we are purposely ignoring her, but also being proactive about it. There will be satisfaction in giving a reply that can’t be responded to. That yes, the message is acknowledged, but we aren’t interested anymore. "S" has to get the message that she has worn out her welcome- many times.
If we stick together on this, we can make our point.
And for any bleeding hearts, (of which club I belong ), consider that we are doing her a favor. If she gets it, she can find a board elsewhere and start over. If she doesn’t that’s her problem. We can’t fix that.
-
Dear Trollspotter:
I gather, even as a self-confessed bleeding heart, you don't consider S someone you would or should bleed over? Just want to be clear on that because you have me a bit confused with that statement.
I'm usually pretty soft hearted myself, but there are limits.
Lizbeth
I do not feel sorry for this person.
-
Thanks for clarifying that. I will surely consider what you said, you made a very good suggestion.
Dear Trollspotter:
I gather, even as a self-confessed bleeding heart, you don't consider S someone you would or should bleed over? Just want to be clear on that because you have me a bit confused with that statement.
I'm usually pretty soft hearted myself, but there are limits.
Lizbeth
I do not feel sorry for this person.
-
Many of us have been negatively affected one way or another, already, by the words of 's'. I speak for myself, as I am sort of shaky right now, just by the energy we are wasting because of 's'. Many of us are sensitive, and something like this is upsetting.
It might be cooincidence, but this is the sort of thing that got another 's' removed from a site on N - then, within the week, we began to receive confrontational and angry input by 's'.
Here is the other link, for what it's worth - maybe, maybe not, but suspicious, nonetheless.
I'd hate to see our wonderful group be damaged, and broken apart, as was this other site.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AdultsRecoveringFrom-NarcissiticParents/message/22572
-
Can you please cut and post the message, it won't let me see it without joining Yahoo and I don't care to join.
Thanks, if that is possible.
Many of us have been negatively affected one way or another, already, by the words of 's'. I speak for myself, as I am sort of shaky right now, just by the energy we are wasting because of 's'. Many of us are sensitive, and something like this is upsetting.
It might be cooincidence, but this is the sort of thing that got another 's' removed from a site on N - then, within the week, we began to receive confrontational and angry input by 's'.
Here is the other link, for what it's worth - maybe, maybe not, but suspicious, nonetheless.
I'd hate to see our wonderful group be damaged, and broken apart, as was this other site.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AdultsRecoveringFrom-NarcissiticParents/message/22572
-
I just realized that we're probably not supposed to pass info from one support group to another? I dunno. (How secure is the internet, anyway?) Suffice it to say, it is the same back and forth type of word games that we are witnessing here, and it escelated into nasty language until 's' was removed from the group by the group owner.
Could be two different 's' posters, but maybe not, and I'm trying to save us any more pain.
-
Appreciate your efforts, just the same. Word salad is exhausting, I agree. A classic N attempt to gain control by confusion. I'm sure we could recognize the style of language if you were allowed to post.
I just realized that we're probably not supposed to pass info from one support group to another? I dunno. (How secure is the internet, anyway?) Suffice it to say, it is the same back and forth type of word games that we are witnessing here, and it escelated into nasty language until 's' was removed from the group by the group owner.
Could be two different 's' posters, but maybe not, and I'm trying to save us any more pain.
-
Hi guest
I really hope that "s" word you were referring to was not about about the "s" in my post. If so, I will absolutely refraim from using it in all due respect to all posts. The last thing I would wish to do is offend any posters - it is directed at the evil or N's ill at ease.
Cappi
-
Capricorn, we're talking about a poster who uses the handle "s" because she used to be called "somebody" when she first posted on this board.
Hi guest
I really hope that "s" word you were referring to was not about about the "s" in my post. If so, I will absolutely refraim from using it in all due respect to all posts. The last thing I would wish to do is offend any posters - it is directed at the evil or N's ill at ease.
Cappi
-
Cappi,
We're talking about a poster from a while ago named SOMEBODY aka s now. Does that clear it up or maybe I'm the one not understanding :)
-
Lizbeth and Cappi,
Sorry, I was typing my reply when you had just posted yours!
Trollspotter, excellent idea. I think you should repost that suggestion several times if you think it would help. That's the best idea I've heard to date.
-
I'm with bunny when she says it's not worth getting engaged and yet it can be easy to get sucked in (me, too :oops: ). I'd been away from the board for a few months, so I think I missed the whole intro to Somebody/s - and it wasn't obvious at first what was happening. So I really like the idea of following 's' posts with a warning, but I'm a little uneasy about the troll bit. :?
This is all quite N behavior, which, of course, will infuriate her yet again, but I'm sorry, it's true. Whether or not she's an N, this is how they behave.
I completely agree with this. It really doesn't matter whether or not she's an N. She's expressing N behavior and it's not good for anyone to engage in the word twisting that usually follows when someone responds to her. Not really that good for her either.
But the bleeding heart in me keeps thinking about how I certainly picked up some nasty N habits from my parents, and as someone here said, the tough work is to to face these problems, deal with them, and move on. So on the off chance that there's hope, but she just doesn't get it, maybe there's something we could say that would be just as much of a wall as N/T, but which is also meant to provide a warning to others while being constructive. Too much to ask :roll: :lol:? Maybe. But maybe "Don't Engage" as the poster and "You've got to help yourself first." Or maybe the content could be a link to that other forum suggested above. Just a thought.
{Edit:Oh, and something that's clearly directed at "s". As we've seen (sorry Cappi :wink: ), it can get pretty confusing pretty fast.}
Wildflower
-
That is also a good idea, wildflower, but I don't hold out much hope that you will crack her facade. If she is not an N, she is pretty heavily invested in her denial and bristles at any suggestion that she is not facing her true issues or is behaving with the Narcissistic behavior she is blaming others for. How can she allow herself to face what she is doing, she'd have to get rid of the GIGANTIC ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM in order to do that.
I'm with bunny when she says it's not worth getting engaged and yet it can be easy to get sucked in (me, too :oops: ). I'd been away from the board for a few months, so I think I missed the whole intro to Somebody/s - and it wasn't obvious at first what was happening. So I really like the idea of following 's' posts with a warning, but I'm a little uneasy about the troll bit. :?
This is all quite N behavior, which, of course, will infuriate her yet again, but I'm sorry, it's true. Whether or not she's an N, this is how they behave.
I completely agree with this. It really doesn't matter whether or not she's an N. She's expressing N behavior and it's not good for anyone to engage in the word twisting that usually follows when someone responds to her. Not really that good for her either.
But the bleeding heart in me keeps thinking about how I certainly picked up some nasty N habits from my parents, and as someone here said, the tough work is to to face these problems, deal with them, and move on. So on the off chance that there's hope, but she just doesn't get it, maybe there's something we could say that would be just as much of a wall as N/T, but which is also meant to provide a warning to others while being constructive. Too much to ask :roll: :lol:? Maybe. But maybe "Don't Engage" as the poster and "You've got to help yourself first." Or maybe the content could be a link to that other forum suggested above. Just a thought.
{Edit:Oh, and something that's clearly directed at "s". As we've seen (sorry Cappi :wink: ), it can get pretty confusing pretty fast.}
Wildflower
-
I'm with bunny when she says it's not worth getting engaged and yet it can be easy to get sucked in (me, too ). I'd been away from the board for a few months, so I think I missed the whole intro to Somebody/s - and it wasn't obvious at first what was happening. So I really like the idea of following 's' posts with a warning, but I'm a little uneasy about the troll bit.
Would just posting "Warning" instead of "Troll" be better? More benign? That would be ok.
I completely agree with this. It really doesn't matter whether or not she's an N. She's expressing N behavior and it's not good for anyone to engage in the word twisting that usually follows when someone responds to her. Not really that good for her either.
But the bleeding heart in me keeps thinking about how I certainly picked up some nasty N habits from my parents, and as someone here said, the tough work is to to face these problems, deal with them, and move on.
I think it safe to say we are all in our own struggle to eliminate the N voice inherited from our familiar Ns. It is part of the process, part of what our pain is, to free ourselves from the "N" infection. That is not what "s" is displaying. You were willing WF.
So on the off chance that there's hope, but she just doesn't get it, maybe there's something we could say that would be just as much of a wall as N/T, but which is also meant to provide a warning to others while being constructive. Too much to ask ? Maybe. But maybe "Don't Engage" as the poster and "You've got to help yourself first."
I like "Don't Engage". N/T is just for the sake of simplicity.
I think that it could be fairly agreed upon that there is substantial history of others coming to "s"s defense only to get the treatment I described in my first post.
Ignoring doesn't seem to satisfy the individual need that arises to say something, even when we know it is futile. Being able to take some action, one we agree on, doing something where we feel we are doing something, might be the replacement needed to dispell the urge to communicate to this individual.
My beleeding heart only goes so far. After watching a number of others being spurned, I am willing to try another tactic.
-
Me, above.
-
and only somebody's posts are inflammatory, right? no-one elses?
course if I defend her I'm in denial aren't I?
if I said :
"why don't you all take a couple of steps back,let it go, drop it"
"you can't tell me what to do" would be the response or something similar. "I'll post if I want"
a similar dynamic to the one involving somebody. everything she has said has been picked on. she has told what to do,where to go,where to post - my guess is she doesn't like it.
If I said "Neither do I" then I would be the next target.
Pick through everything I said, cut and past if you like, then question,question,question.
I really question if this board is about healing, as the most popular threads seems to be the ones like this, where everybody picks on somebody :)
I'll get flamed for that,now won't I?
-
LTL,
I understand what you are saying. And your points are valid. What do you propose we do?
OK we can step back.
But I think many of us have come to the point of exhaustion with the circular conversations that we get drawn into, in the light of compassion. She has been offered much compassion, don’t you think? She has been spoken to with kindness by a number of posters, well-meaning to illuminate and invite her in. But it is then thrown in our face.
This person pisses on everything offered. This is not a person wanting to connect. You don’t see that?
You LTL are genuine. “S” is not. We know the difference.
Dealing with her in a proactive way may be a kindness. It is not meant to harm, but it a way for us to insist that we be treated right. Enough people here seem to feel this way - that this person is deliberately antagonistic.
It is allowable and I believe necessary to arm oneself at times, to have a strategy. We discuss here issues regarding our personal lives, exchanging ideas on how to maneuver to our benefit and health, these relationships. Well we have a problem here, on the board, that needs to be addressed in the same way.
Hypothetically, if you knew for sure this person was a rabble rouser, would you then agree to this type of confrontation? I am asking this question just to see where you stand on this issue. Maybe you honestly don’t see the difference between her and you ( and/or others), the lack of sincerity that comes across from “S” to the rest of us.
Peace, friend, don’t be offended here, we are just needing to work this out, and maybe the means suggested stretches what you feel is decent.
Maybe S will come back, read all this and wise up.
-
I don't know what happened to you, LTL, but you are not like S. I think you are identifying with her in some way, but I don't get the confusion and word salad and agenda and blame shifting and N behavior in your posts that we have seen in S' posts. You seem like a very nice person to me.
Lizbeth
and only somebody's posts are inflammatory, right? no-one elses?
course if I defend her I'm in denial aren't I?
if I said :
"why don't you all take a couple of steps back,let it go, drop it"
"you can't tell me what to do" would be the response or something similar. "I'll post if I want"
a similar dynamic to the one involving somebody. everything she has said has been picked on. she has told what to do,where to go,where to post - my guess is she doesn't like it.
If I said "Neither do I" then I would be the next target.
Pick through everything I said, cut and past if you like, then question,question,question.
I really question if this board is about healing, as the most popular threads seems to be the ones like this, where everybody picks on somebody :)
I'll get flamed for that,now won't I?
-
Hi guest/lizbeth
Thanks for clearing up the message with the original 's' problem - I am a very sensitive person and for that reason my desire is not to offend anyone as I have been offended by my ex N and N parents and families of origin.
My choice is to cut the N umbilical cords!!!
/cappi
-
LTL,
Maybe you're apprehensive that this group is going to boss people around and persecute them. If so, it's a natural fear which I share. But I think this is about "Somebody" being ID'd by many people here as a troll. She is trolling for drama, agitation and disruption. People will be sucked into this because it's human nature, and because of our early histories. There is no way to communicate reasonably with this type of poster as they get gratification from negative attention. I personally think it would be optimal if she were moderated out of here. But if she is not, I am open to the suggestions being put forth, not because I am angry and vengeful but because she has a chilling effect. Many people go away when she's around. Basically I think the point of a moderated group is to weed out trolls and/or abusive posts. Sadly, moderated groups can also become little principalities and dictatorships, so it's dicey when someone is banned from posting. Especially if it's for their viewpoint. "S" certainly has a different viewpoint. But the problem is more about style than content. The style (to me) is that of trolling.
I hear your apprehension and I am trying to differentiate between people unfairly turning on someone for being who they are, and people being frustrated and disrupted by a "troll." I hope it makes some sense.
bunny
-
Would just posting "Warning" instead of "Troll" be better? More benign? That would be ok.
Warning. I really like that. It is more benign, and I also think it's less likely to make others (who might not be aware of the "s" situation) feel paranoid. You know? Like thinking it was a troll posting or that they were being called a troll?
I hear your apprehension and I am trying to differentiate between people unfairly turning on someone for being who they are, and people being frustrated and disrupted by a "troll." I hope it makes some sense.
Thanks for writing that, bunny. I was actually feeling pretty uneasy about all this, too. Your point about moderating a forum is a good one. I think it's important that people be able to communicate as Guest here, but unfortunately, it makes moderation very difficult. Without moderation, it's up to the members of the board to work it out and try to find a fair balance between protecting the group and being open to different views. Even if "s" stays, if fewer people get caught up in responding, I think that would be a good thing.
WF
-
LTL,
I have been on this forum for a long time (before the board changed) and haven't really posted much until recently. I've seen what happens when "s" is on the board and it isn't good. And like others, I see a difference between you and her....a stark difference. You have been here a while too as I recognize your name from a while back and honestly, I'm just not sure why you feel as you do. Did someone persecute you here? I guess since I haven't been here steadily, maybe I missed some dynamic.
In any case, I do beleive it's time to take action. And I think the ideas put forth are reasonable and shouldn't give anyone else cause to think it could happen to them if they are sincere posters (as opposed to agenga pushers, spammers and rabble rousers).
Since you are in reality still here, maybe you are still getting some good from the board? I hope so even if you're miffed (maybe not the right word but I'll let you educate me as to the better word if you feel inclined).
Everyone here has opinions and I don't see a trend toward smacking down opinions. We aren't an unempathic group here. Any other group would probably be far more vitriolic than we've been. Understanding can only go so far. This is my opinion.
-
imagine all the fun the real troll is having watching/reading this, while he/she, probably she, jumps in and out posting frantically under a variety of names, some of which would shock us -- answering him/herself back and forth, argue, whine, attack, moan, groan, scratch, get huffy, apologize, bla bla bla. Yes, ignoring them is the best tactic, but they are plugging up some really good threads and causing a lot of us to miss out on worthwhile views.
-
imagine all the fun the real troll is having watching/reading this, while he/she, probably she, jumps in and out posting frantically under a variety of names, some of which would shock us -- answering him/herself back and forth, argue, whine, attack, moan, groan, scratch, get huffy, apologize, bla bla bla. Yes, ignoring them is the best tactic, but they are plugging up some really good threads and causing a lot of us to miss out on worthwhile views.
Discounted Girl,
I am a bit confused by your post and I think you are saying something important. Can you clarify? Do you believe that 's' is not the troll and that someone else is? Or do you think that 's' is a troll and that she has signed in with other names during this discussion about her? Or is it something totally different?
I also don't quite understand what you mean by "causing a lot of us to miss out on worthwhile views".
Thanks.
-
I don't answer questions from unnamed guests. I think the name bravado is still open.
-
Discounted Girl and others,
DG, I recognize your posts because you have a 8) fun personality and also because you log in too.
Some of these trouble maker guest posters' personalities show through too and they aren't pleasant and fun. I keep seeing the same Nish personality type with names or no names too. They seem insincere. But you know it is getting kinda boring.
I think that what we need to do possibly is to at least stop responding to unidentified guests here like you mentioned doing Discounted Girl.
They can pick a name to use. I know that some are supportive and use the plain vanilla guest post but a guest post is kinda like a pig in a poke. Kinda like a ghost post.
-
Just in case... the guest post above signed WF was me. I wasn't in a place where I wanted to log in.
Wildflower
-
Wildflower (and others)
I thought that WF was indeed you, Wildflower :)
I see what people mean by the chilling effect here by trollish persons and also that we are having to be more careful and I think that something should be done carefully and thoughtfully about the problem. I feel confident that it can be worked out though from what I've heard about the history of this board.
-
Discounted Girl,
I choose to post as Guest at this point for my own personal reasons. My post was written with sincere curiosity. I did not mean to offend you.
-
I just wanted to say, this was an interesting question, and I liked the answer of the guest who had the 1%/10%20% breakdown, a few pages back. That is, 1% of the population would be the irredeemable monsters, like Hitler and Stalin, or maybe less uh ambitious people like serial killers, or even just incredibly, deliberately malevolent people who don't necessarily kill, but still cause tremendous suffering; 10% are severely narcissistic people who aren't quite as malignant but still can't or won't change; and 20% are narcissists who boil down to your garden variety asshole.
I think that's probably a fairly accurate assessment, give or take a few percentage points. (Someone out there has probably done a study). Thinking about it, though, I'm still not sure if or how that answers the question of "evil." If we say that the 1% or even the 10% are "evil," that suggests that "evil" is a question of degree; that is, quantity, not quality. I wonder.
There's a lot to unpack here, actually. Going back over some of the earlier responses, it seems like people were in fact answering this as though it were several different questions, which it certainly could be. Among them:
Does "evil" mean something one *is* (i.e. an internal characteristic) or something one *does* (an action)? Or both?
Is evil something you're "born with," something you learn, or something you choose; or some combination? Does it matter? If so, why?
Can people be "partially evil?" Is it possible for evil to change? Or is evil defined by its inability (or unwillingness?) to change?
Is an evil action defined by result, or conscious intention? What about "unconscious intention?" (And here we enter the thorny area of whether people with severe personality disorders have free will, even assuming [I do, anyway] that the rest of us do, more or less).
What does it mean to differentiate "evil" from "sick?"
Ultimately, is the question really, "should we feel compassion for the narcissists (or anyone for that matter) who have harmed us?" Because I think that's a really good question, and worth discussing. But i'm wondering whether the answer hinges on defining the narcissist as "evil" or not.
Scott Peck, who was cited somewhere upthread, had an interesting take on evil, which he equates with what he calls "malignant narcisissm" in "People of the Lie." Personally, I disagree with his conclusions in the latter half of the book, where he veers farther off into a Christian worldview than I'm comfortable with. (Which is yet another potential discussion, I suppose...) But I really liked a lot of what he said about malignant narcissism/narcissists. His take, if I recall correctly, was that yes, there was something that could be defined as evil; and that the evil *is* a sickness; and that it's also, at some level, a choice. He actually boiled it down to certain criteria, which are worth repeating, and if/when I can dig up the book I can post them here. I'm not sure that actually turning those criteria into a formal DSM diagnosis, as Peck suggests ("evil personality disorder") is a really terrific idea, since, as noted here and elsewhere, "evil" is a really loaded term. But for personal purposes, I find them useful in assessing people.
Oh, one more thing: I also think "should we feel compassion" is a separate question from "should we forgive."
-
Ultimately, is the question really, "should we feel compassion for the narcissists (or anyone for that matter) who have harmed us?" Because I think that's a really good question, and worth discussing. But i'm wondering whether the answer hinges on defining the narcissist as "evil" or not.
Great post, thanks. Very thought provoking. Compassion (to me) is a back burner issue, because it can actually send a person back to enabling. It takes a certain degree of autonomy to handle compassion. A person can consider compassion only if it doesn't harm them or enfeeble their boundaries.
bunny
-
Yeah, I struggle a lot with this one. It's tricky. I think, tentatively, it *is* possible to feel compassion and still not let the person(s) walk all over you, but it's a long, hard road to get there. and that it's perfectly acceptable to not get there at all, or even want to. Ultimately I think compassion is more about you than the other person; it's more about letting go of your own anger than about enabling. But before you get there, if you get there at all, you have to go through the anger. It's way too easy to mistake rose-colored glasses and the seduction of "I am a good and kind and forgiving (or spiritual, because i think this comes up a lot in that context) person" for having compassion for the *actual* person in all his/her ugliness, even evilness.
boy that was a convoluted sentence...
-
Hello discounted girl, I have had those very thoughts, in fact, realized what wonderful supply all of this would be. But I also realize that needed to be discussed. Hate it being this way.
imagine all the fun the real troll is having watching/reading this, while he/she, probably she, jumps in and out posting frantically under a variety of names, some of which would shock us -- answering him/herself back and forth, argue, whine, attack, moan, groan, scratch, get huffy, apologize, bla bla bla. Yes, ignoring them is the best tactic, but they are plugging up some really good threads and causing a lot of us to miss out on worthwhile views.
-
We have done the same thing, it's the only path to freedom and peace of mind.
Hi guest/lizbeth
Thanks for clearing up the message with the original 's' problem - I am a very sensitive person and for that reason my desire is not to offend anyone as I have been offended by my ex N and N parents and families of origin.
My choice is to cut the N umbilical cords!!!
/cappi
-
Greetings,
Boy, these posts are very insightful! Evil vs. sick, evil =sick, etc. Extremely thought provoking.
A person can consider compassion only if it doesn't harm them or enfeeble their boundaries.
Bunny again has hit the nail on the head. I have often thought about how people can be so tolerant of some Ns I know or read about. It's because there is something in it for them--they are not getting hurt to the degree that the target is. They may even be better off being with this N and/or do not have to experience this person's abuse. It may not be about compassion, but self-interest.
I have compassion for some people, but I am usually standing on the sidelines. There is a family in my midst that I interacted with for a time. They were persecuted by lots of other families, but then I was rewarded with my own child being "set up" by one of the children of this family at school. It wasn't working (this child has no credibility), but still sent me a message to distance myself and draw a line in the sand. I still have compassion for them--but at a distance. Does that count as compassion? I don't know. It's something I ponder.
Seeker
-
Here's a little twist to spice up the topic of evil.
It is an article called:
"The sickening predictability of our capacity for evil"
Not everyone was surprised by the news of abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Seattle Times/May 6, 2004
By Jerry Large
It discusses the Stanford Prison Experiment and another classic psychological experiment.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing42.html
rickross.com is:
"A database of information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (RRI) is a nonprofit public resource with a vast archive that contains thousands of individual documents."
-
Good Morning Everyone:
I'm in a hurry this morning so I don't have time to look back and read the many pages posted after my last post on Thurs (I think that was on page 5, if I recall correctly). I will read those posts but I don't have time now. It looks like the discussion is continuing and I'm glad to see that. I did take a look at this article, thankyou for posting it Flower.
Quote from article: "At this point, men gasped and women often cried, but 65 percent of more than 1,000 subjects had done something they wouldn't have believed themselves capable of. "
This is something I have personally experienced, doing something I wouldn't have believed myself capable of. I feel it might help to let you know that my family is healing slowly, with patience and understanding. It may be difficult to imagine but some families do heal from what seems like the unhealable and some of our relationships are stronger than they were before.
"Prisons can establish safeguards against abuse, encourage reporting of misbehavior and treat it seriously, foster the attitude that inmates are fellow human beings, make each individual responsible for his behavior. "
Tough thing to do on a public bulletin board and so there are mystery posters who are then able to create disruptions and verbally abuse to their heart's content. I've thought about this over the weekend and really, CG is correct (thanks CG). The best thing is just to ignor negative comments.
"But it's not just prisons that have a problem. Any institution where individuality, dissent and morality are sacrificed for some other goal is liable to support evil. "
This makes sence to me and any institution where these things are assumed absent in individuals, thus labelling that person as vile, is liable to support a dangerous type of evil behaviour--verbal abuse.
The words that struck me as so wise and so true were written elsewhere on this board as such:
There are many reasons but no excuses (or something akin to that, not sure I have the wording precise).
To me that means there are many reasons people abuse eachother but there are no valid excuses for abusing people.
Ever.
Abusive behaviour of any type is wrong and I don't accept it.
I understand that there may be reasons for it but I agree fully that there are never valid excuses for it. I do not accept such behaviour toward anyone in my family, nor to myself. This may be something that some here are having trouble believing about me, but it is the truth.
In any event, I will read the rest of the posts here when I can (I have a busy week ahead and may not get a chance until late in the week).
Hope you are all doing well.
s
-
Troll Alert.
-
I typed out some things from a book at the weekend that I thought were relevant to evil, making people objects, making them the 'enemy' and so on. For anyone's interest here.
D Rowe, ‘Friends and enemies’ page 336:
“Your enemy must see and acknowledge you. To be held in the gaze of your enemy might put you in danger, but such a gaze can be comforting because it assures you that you exist and are important. Many people, when offered the choice between living comfortably and safely in a society where nobody even acknowledges your existence, much less talks to you, and living in a society where people acknowledge you but only to persecute you, choose the latter…..
….being unacknowledged creates the threat of annihilation. The comfort of paranoia is that someone, somewhere is thinking of you. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that other people think of us only occasionally, if at all. Our favourite topic in our thinking is ourselves and our concerns. Those people who pride themselves on their concern for others are likely to be busy observing themselves being concerned about others rather than giving their full attention to the objects of their concern.”
On trolls. Page 327. “Then there was the deep division that racism created. Pat spoke of how, centuries ago, when people in northern Europe began living in villages, they had to find ways of getting along with one another. So they invented trolls and other dark little people to be the repositories of their fears. The trolls represent those parts of our meaning structure which, if we subjected them to scrutiny, would challenge the validity of other parts of our meaning structure. The Aboriginal people, said Pat, were the trolls of white Australians….”
Page 340 on paranoia: “The enemy, so central to the theory, is no ordinary enemy…..
he is a perfect model of malice…he is a free, active, demonic agent….He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history himself, or deflects the normal course of history in an evil way….the paranoid’s interpretation of history is in this sense distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequence of someone’s will…..very often the enemy is held to possess some special source of power: he controls the press; he directs the public mind through ‘managed news’….
Such a comprehensive theory with such an enemy at its centre removes all ambiguity and uncertainty from the paranoid person’s view of the world. Moreover, it absolves the person of any responsibility for what happens in the world. The enemy is always to blame…..”
Page 343 on absolutism: “Whenever I spend time with someone who adheres absolutely to some absolute belief, even if that person is not threatening me, I begin to feel oppressed and want to escape…my friend Sandra…said: ‘People with absolute beliefs are like death. They’re anti-life.’
Life is about change. People who hold absolute beliefs and want everyone to conform to those beliefs are against change. They do not even allow for the possibility of change. Therefore they have to force other people to be what they want them to be. Force always involves some degree of cruelty.”
I post these because they meant a lot to me, reading them. Portia, identifying myself
-
That is my post above, with the Rowe quotes. I was also in this thread as Guest earlier – it was very liberating. But I’ll stop now. P