--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote:
>> Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of >> attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her >> ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Why do > you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? -- wts is your fantasy. You > are entitled to make ridiculous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't > help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or > make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, > here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy > attributed to you that you did not have. > Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright > style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is > perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you feel defensive but it > doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather > than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with -- your "triggers" and deal > with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally > intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this > successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. It is true Judy backs up many of her statements with properly quoted facts etc., though selective snipping often seems to alter the argument (and she dismisses the snipped material as not relevant to the argument even though the person on the other end of the argument might feel it is definitely relevant). She also seems to attribute feelings and thoughts to others. I do this too, but with the caveat that I really cannot knows what anybody's thoughts are unless they speak or write them out, and maybe those are not what they are really thinking. And, my interpretation of other's emotions are probably pretty unreliable. Judy seems to imply that she is really good at this. Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without supporting fact. 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646 'intent to hurt people' #327646 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962 These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that none of us can experience directly. What we say, and this of course includes me, gives an indication, a window into our mental state, but given that we often are not even clearly aware of our own mental states, this does not reflect well on our ability to determines what others's states may be based on limited information. Still, there is the old saying (Jesus) 'Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.' Judy's arguments would be far stronger if they were not so often interspersed with this kind of characterisation. In a way it is a kind of mental Judo, by aiming at a person's emotions, you can sometimes throw them off balance because they will react with an emotional undercurrent rather than a logical, factual one. When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with it, even if the attempt is made.
