3 ms·
It is not an "article", but a talk announcement, which typically do not give additional "references". Since we do not know the content of the talk, you exercise
by rendx 3y ago
It is not an "article", but a talk announcement, which typically do not give additional "references". Since we do not know the content of the talk, you exercise outright rejection and not sincere curiosity, and your comments do not invite an honest and open conversation. You may disagree with their perspective, and you can doubt its contents, call it out as "dubious", and ask them to "substantiate their claims", but I don't see how this makes the description posted "narcisstic and toxic", in even the broadest definitions of the terms that I can think of.
They do give multiple books as references, which do look like book from actual trauma therapists and violence researchers.
In the old days, you would have been called a troll, and we would not even try and feed you.
- elmerfud 3y agoNow you see a resort to personal attacks. If you can't engage in debate on the topic this is exactly what you do. Your own narcissism is evidence in the fact that apparently having an opinion is evidently offensive to you? Instead I must kowtow and beg for counterpoints, instead of having an opinion, stating it emphatically and leaving it there for response. The simple fact of a public post and a public response invites a response on the issues. Instead you leverage personal attacks which means you have nothing to say on the issue. It's as if you have knowingly or unknowingly substantiated every point that I've made in my comments.