2 ms·

This remains a remarkable misrepresentation of the points I made yesterday. I had hoped for better, not least in that you might try speaking with rather than pa

This remains a remarkable misrepresentation of the points I made yesterday. I had hoped for better, not least in that you might try speaking with rather than past and over me.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Let me make this part clear: You are not, as a result of any trauma at all, entitled to an answer. I love discussing things here and elsewhere, that's why I'm here afterall: but if at any point I feel a discussion is going nowhere I am fully within my ethical boundaries to check out and pursue others. I hold you with the same base respect I have for any person, but you have earned nothing beyond that. You are a faceless pile of (difficult to follow) words, nothing more. That being said, if you want to try and "call me out," let's do it then. It's fitting that you feel so misrepresented by what I presented as you, largely because it wasn't about you, but about others I've worked with over the years. I don't think you're nearly as far up that particular chain of thought (though it is interwoven through your writing on the subject) but you also seem aware that it's a bad thing, even if you continue doing it. You denounce trauma olympics, then engage in them: > You're not wrong that oppression olympics is bullshit, but since you went on to start doing it anyway under the color of performatively claiming not to, this is me telling you to knock it off. Also somehow construing a denunciation of trauma olympics as somehow me performatively not doing them which is truly profound in it's nonsensicalness: how does one performatively engage in trauma olympics while not doing so? And when I asked that you followed with: > Asserting everyone deserves the same prize is still handing out prizes. There is nothing to be prized in any of this. Which is just... what? The "prize" at play here is a right to express your subjective experience? And then accused me of saying you're psychotic by employing a very well used colloquial term for someone who has become incomprehensible in written communication. And I'm just... not going to engage with that. Which is ultimately what led me to abandon the thread: I don't engage with people who purposely go out of their way to read every last thing someone says in the absolute worst way possible. I ignored it once with your first post that was in large part just straight hypocrisy, and you followed it, doubling down on it. Trauma olympics is bad, until you need to demonstrate your view on trauma is superior to mine, with, I'd add, zero knowledge about me at all and strictly is in competition with your own imagined adversary's trauma: and, secondly, going on to predict what I'm going to reply with and how shitty it will be, which is classic poisoning the well. And like, as an aside, I consider myself a pretty well-read individual, and your posts are astonishingly cryptic, and require heavy effort to simply comprehend. I don't know why you do this, but that's also why I stopped talking, because decoding the layers upon layers of 5-dollar-words is just more work than I'm ready to perform, for free, as a part of my leisure time. And if you'd like to spare yourself from writing another one, do feel secure in the knowledge that I will not be responding further.
- throwanem 3y ago
  I can't help how you consider yourself, or what colloquialisms we don't share. I also can't help that you don't get the privilege of choosing how you come across or how that's answered. No one does. But your behavior can influence it, and has. If at any point you had attacked the argument rather than the person, we might have had a worthwhile discussion. Instead you opened with arrogant condescension, claiming I set out to minimize others' suffering in favor of my own, and explaining to me how I should do better than your own assumption, rather than attempting to engage with the argument I had actually made. When challenged on this you responded with considerably more of the same. This has not changed to date, which is a pity. You could instead, for example, have introduced the concept of psychological resilience, with which I was not familiar under that name, and which is a lot of what I was striving to express. That would have made for a more useful discussion, but you weren't here for that. I responded in accord with what such behavior deserves. If you didn't like that it turned into a fight, why did you do so much from the start to help that happen? If you didn't want to work to make your point, why enter the discussion at all? If you weren't here for a conversation, why did you start a conversation? As I said, I can't help how you consider yourself. I can only tell you what you've shown me.

This remains a remarkable misrepresentation of the points I made yesterday. I had hoped for better, not least in that you might try speaking with rather than past and over me.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

Let me make this part clear: You are not, as a result of any trauma at all, entitled to an answer. I love discussing things here and elsewhere, that's why I'm here afterall: but if at any point I feel a discussion is going nowhere I am fully within my ethical boundaries to check out and pursue others. I hold you with the same base respect I have for any person, but you have earned nothing beyond that. You are a faceless pile of (difficult to follow) words, nothing more. That being said, if you want to try and "call me out," let's do it then. It's fitting that you feel so misrepresented by what I presented as you, largely because it wasn't about you, but about others I've worked with over the years. I don't think you're nearly as far up that particular chain of thought (though it is interwoven through your writing on the subject) but you also seem aware that it's a bad thing, even if you continue doing it. You denounce trauma olympics, then engage in them: > You're not wrong that oppression olympics is bullshit, but since you went on to start doing it anyway under the color of performatively claiming not to, this is me telling you to knock it off. Also somehow construing a denunciation of trauma olympics as somehow me performatively not doing them which is truly profound in it's nonsensicalness: how does one performatively engage in trauma olympics while not doing so? And when I asked that you followed with: > Asserting everyone deserves the same prize is still handing out prizes. There is nothing to be prized in any of this. Which is just... what? The "prize" at play here is a right to express your subjective experience? And then accused me of saying you're psychotic by employing a very well used colloquial term for someone who has become incomprehensible in written communication. And I'm just... not going to engage with that. Which is ultimately what led me to abandon the thread: I don't engage with people who purposely go out of their way to read every last thing someone says in the absolute worst way possible. I ignored it once with your first post that was in large part just straight hypocrisy, and you followed it, doubling down on it. Trauma olympics is bad, until you need to demonstrate your view on trauma is superior to mine, with, I'd add, zero knowledge about me at all and strictly is in competition with your own imagined adversary's trauma: and, secondly, going on to predict what I'm going to reply with and how shitty it will be, which is classic poisoning the well. And like, as an aside, I consider myself a pretty well-read individual, and your posts are astonishingly cryptic, and require heavy effort to simply comprehend. I don't know why you do this, but that's also why I stopped talking, because decoding the layers upon layers of 5-dollar-words is just more work than I'm ready to perform, for free, as a part of my leisure time. And if you'd like to spare yourself from writing another one, do feel secure in the knowledge that I will not be responding further.

throwanem 3y ago
I can't help how you consider yourself, or what colloquialisms we don't share. I also can't help that you don't get the privilege of choosing how you come across or how that's answered. No one does. But your behavior can influence it, and has. If at any point you had attacked the argument rather than the person, we might have had a worthwhile discussion. Instead you opened with arrogant condescension, claiming I set out to minimize others' suffering in favor of my own, and explaining to me how I should do better than your own assumption, rather than attempting to engage with the argument I had actually made. When challenged on this you responded with considerably more of the same. This has not changed to date, which is a pity. You could instead, for example, have introduced the concept of psychological resilience, with which I was not familiar under that name, and which is a lot of what I was striving to express. That would have made for a more useful discussion, but you weren't here for that. I responded in accord with what such behavior deserves. If you didn't like that it turned into a fight, why did you do so much from the start to help that happen? If you didn't want to work to make your point, why enter the discussion at all? If you weren't here for a conversation, why did you start a conversation? As I said, I can't help how you consider yourself. I can only tell you what you've shown me.