[serious] What are your most important boundaries you've learned to enforce?
Nobody tells me what I'm going to do or where I will be going and when that happens
I am open to invitations or requests or suggestions where my involvement is desired or ostensibly necesary for somone else. But I will never respond to this as a statement of fact or in the form of a threat
You are viewing a single comment
Sure, I'll bite.
I'm not going to pretend that my way of thinking is "unique" because I can't speak for how others think, but I expect that same courtesy to apply to me as well. For example, whenever someone says "You seem to think..." it upsets me quite a bit. What I say out loud (or "write" I suppose) doesn't include the context of how I got to that point.
I very much am happy for people to tell me when I'm wrong on something, because if I'm wrong I would like to know (more-so if they can actually prove it... just saying "You're wrong" and not saying how leads to nothing, but that is a whole other rant). However, one thing that that no one can assert to know more than I do is how I think, what I'm thinking, or the methods that I used to arrive to something I've said/done. You can possibly predict it depending on how long you've known me for, but to try to claim you know exactly what, is very egregious in my eyes.
I have a pretty high tolerance before my temper is set off (or as I like to say "A very long fuse, but an even higher yield when that fuse runs out"), but there is a small list of exceptions to that - one being hypocrisy, and the other being this.
Gaslighting is deadly and I violently shut it down whenever I perceive or sense it. It is emotional rape, pure and simple, and the REDDEST of flags 🚩🥀
Its been interesting engaging with people I know now that everyone is aware we don't mix factual and feelings-based conversations.
Much nicer when we know what's debatable or negotiable and what is off-limits.
"Oh you misunderstood".
No, I didn't misunderstand, I disagree, those are two very different things.
Easy way to avoid this is ask someone to summarize or if you can summarize the objective main points respectfully and then it becomes a joint-fact-finding mission if its all truly good-faith.
Like,
The summarizing is helpful tho because you might want to pin down the actual points of confusion or disagreement like lawyers do in a Joint Statement of Facts so you can know where the discrepancies lay.
That its surrounding misunderstanding is relatively simple to address because you can easily clarify that on the spot (in the factual realm) by summarizing the relevant facts or narratives and they can jump in any time to pin down where they think is a point of contention or that they want to expand on.
On some level it can be resolved that simply but there's likely something more fundamentally at issue that is not directly visible or comprehensible if the analysis remains fixated on facts/figures/narratives. I feel like if there's a nice way engage on why whatever is important to them or how it reflects them in their estimation, you can sometimes get them to take your hand and lead you to the treasure.
I got something similar-ish... low tolerance towards assumptions about things that one cannot reliably know. It includes assuming what I'm thinking, but also more objective matters.
You’re wrong tho
He's completely correct so the onus is on you to retract or clarify what youmre doing here. This is pretty obnoxious even if you're joking. Other threads dude, unless you want a problem.
I'm game either way, lets go, lets start making some better-taste choices here
You seem to think I’m trolling.