Discussion in 'Brainbent' started by townghost, May 25, 2020.
this is so unappreciated you do not have the right to enjoy verbal jousting with me
hey spock. i appreciate that you're trying to hold a conversation ATM and it seems a bit weird that lukas responded in such a manner. however, the thing is, lukas just attempted to establish a boundary here and you went and overstepped it.
your immediate reply is probably going to be 'what,' so i'll try to explain. also, i did run this all by lukas before i posted, and he said it was a perfect analysis / rewording.
the TL;DR is that this post in particular, i can translate to:
"i know you all mean well so far, but i'm not looking for something well-meaning. this is because when people think they are correct in your presumptions, they tend to get cruel. this has happened to me... and it's very popular and will get you attention. i don't like it, but it's how the world works."
spock, you then immediately quote responded lukas with - understandable, don't get me wrong! - cherry picked language lukas had used. this was the exact opposite of respecting lukas' wishes, from lukas' point of view. for him, this was a cruel slight on him trying to carry a conversation.
lukas, who has a history of suffering from unreality episodes and the forum as a whole as basically diagnosed him with a communicative disorder, flips out. because in disrespecting this boundary he tried to establish, you are potentially triggering an unreality episode and making him recess in how he communicates. now we have lukas going, 'please, you need to stop,' because he's trying to hold firm on that boundary. otherwise, he risks a full down meltdown.
let me make this clear: you did not intend this. this is not your fault. you were raising a concern and bringing up lukas' history. i do not blame you, you are not the Bad Guy, and it can be exhausting to have someone freak. i do not condone anyone's actions here, but i perfectly understand and welcome your intent.
i'm going to stop here because i don't want to cause more harm. i am happy to act as a mediator and continuously run my analysis of lukas' content and posts by him before i publish them here. spock, i am so sorry that you are hurting, and if you ever want to talk to me DM me.
if anyone has questions, please let me know.
What *are* Lukas' supposed wishes here? Because to the best of my ability (second language and all) i cannot for the life of me see where he established a boundary
you're fine! i explained more of this concept in a discord chat, so i don't blame you for being confused.
"i know you all mean well so far, but i'm not looking for something well-meaning. this is because when people think they are correct in your presumptions, they tend to get cruel. this has happened to me... and it's very popular and will get you attention. i don't like it, but it's how the world works."
to break this down further: lukas is saying it is fine to communicate with him, but don't do anything that is self-absorbed or self-righteous. this gives the impression of looking for agree reactions, and upon receiving said popularity of agree/like/winner reactions, lukas will doubt his own perception of the events.
to break it down, again, into internet-people speak: "yo you can talk to me, but please be careful with your wording and don't try to come off as holier-than-thou to me."
quotes are in the holier-than-thou category, in that it uses lukas' literal own wording and phrasing against him. it comes across as, "i know what you're saying better than you actually do," regardless of the actual intent behind using quotations. this does not mean you should not bring up or quote lukas. this means to be cautious and tread carefully when bringing up lukas' own language.
spock unintentionally stepped over this boundary. this is not spock's fault whatsoever, again. i do not think spock knew it was a boundary he was trying to establish, nor do i think spock intentionally violated it.
ffff double post: i am on a self-requested post mod, so this may mean that my responses can be slow at night and not come up at all during the morning. if this causes a genuine issue in discussion, i can sock up. you can also PM me at any time, ask to exchange discord information, etc. i want to have a healthy and constructive discussion. :)
I’m still confused. On the previous page, TG responded to clarifying questions by saying he’s also calling a boundary on explaining himself or defining terms in this discussion. That’s a fine boundary to have, but I don’t know how much productive conversation can happen within it. It makes communication a lot more difficult when nobody is allowed to ask, “Is this what you meant?” Especially when the user in question makes a lot of logical leaps, can’t or won’t explain them, and then gets hostile when he feels he has been misinterpreted.
I would rather not misinterpret his message in the first place, but the only way I know how to avoid that - asking him straight up what he meant - violates a boundary, so I don’t want to do that either. How are we meant to engage with TG’s actual sentiments if they’re behind seven loosely connected metaphors?
Idk about anybody else, but I don’t go looking for agree reactions. If I post something and people agree react, it clogs the thread way less than five people posting the same thing rephrased over and over. Would it be helpful to disable ratings for this thread or move the thread to a forum with no ratings if seeing people agree is stressful or upsetting?
this is perfectly valid and reasonable. i do think there is a way to ask "is this what you meant" re: quotations and interpretations. the discussion theoretically could go,
lukas: i am open to people talking to me
k: i had a question about something you've talked about beforehand
lukas: ok, go ahead
k: ( quotes someone of lukas' ) now, here's what i think you meant, tell me if i'm wrong...
from here, lukas could very well lash out. he could get upset. but in my experience, whenever i've handled a concern i had in the above manner, lukas is fairly respectful. this is because it avoids the 'drive-by aggression' he portrays certain comments as. instead, it appears to be a fleshed out conversation, rather than someone popping in and quoting lukas' past language and prose at him.
again: this is not something that is bad. i do not think it is always inappropriate to appear in a thread and quote OP. i am merely bringing my analysis forward and talking about how it is from lukas' POV.
ah yes, the metaphors issue... there's 2 reasons why lukas' content always appears to be disconnected & long-winded
1. the very nature of forum posting
2. the fact that he is on post moderation
do not misunderstand me. i am not saying that lukas shouldn't be on post mod. all i'm saying is this has consequences on him & his posting style.
forum posting typically prefers long paragraphs. you can have short, quick messages that are to-the-point, but those are not very popular in discussion and debate. to post on a forum is to be able to congest many ideas into one post as well as juggle several different topics in a singular post.
pretty much everyone has to be on the same wavelength. if you have someone who is out-of-sync, well... we get users like lukas. i will say that lukas' behavior and language in a closed, private discussion that favors fast discussion is entirely different to that on the forums. and i do not believe lukas is tugging at my leg, acting sneaky-sneaky in our DMs.
no, lukas just handles the issue of '3/4 ideas:1 post' differently. how effectively he handles that is up to you. some posts of his read as string-of-consciousness, whereas to lukas it is an idle thought or speculation. it is not necessarily something he is hardcore believing in. sometimes he talks about things that appears totally unrelated to the subject... things that are totally unrelated to the subject.
"how do we get him to stop?" be more comfortable with shorter questions and dialogue. be comfortable with him making you uncomfortable. that, on it's own, is something that is deeply unsettling; not everyone wants to be around them who will casually unnerve them. however, in my experience, i've let lukas talk openly and i've managed to delicately have discussion re: his beliefs and lifestyle. i genuinely value the things he has to say, because he has a completely different perspective on life and politics.
not everyone is going to be okay with digesting a totally new perspective. not everyone would want to, even if lukas wasn't considered vitriol.
am i saying you should do this? no. am i saying it is healthy? no.
furthermore, point 2 on post moderation... as someone who is now on post mod it is slightly bonkers. no disrespect to our staff; y'all are wonderful and are doing your best. i cringe whenever i post just another comment and stagger the queue a bit more.
no, it's more or less... when the discussion is continuing without you, it drives you a bit insane. you want desperately to be heard, to get your two cents in. for lukas, this means he starts talking more about how he feels. he wants people to know that 'i am still here, i am still involved' even if he can't respond immediately.
so you have the whole, 'eight comments of increasing tone' issue like earlier. it's a bit of a natural consequence, unfortunately. i do think it can be helped by not upsetting lukas, of course. but the methods of doing that can be tedious and not everyone wants to talk to lukas to begin with.
yeah i was a bit worried about this issue honestly. i don't think anyone is fishing for positive reactions by taking a jab at someone. also, i do think the positive reactions in lieu of 5x people going 'yeah, agree' is actually very beneficial to lukas. IMO, if i had to pick, reactions should stay.
that is a good question. ultimately i think that's something lukas himself should come out and say. if the reactions bother lukas enough, is it possible to prevent a user from seeing ratings at all?
Okay, I've got limited time to type this, because I have about a half hour before I'm off to my brother's graduation. So this isn't going to be a fully cited retrospective, which would be incredibly, incredibly hard to pull together at this point anyways, because things are split across two site accounts, multiple threads, the void, and the wiggler.
Bottom line up front, I'm not hurting, but I am very, very tired. I am not being facetious at all when I say that I'm full of regrets for engaging with townghost, but he hasn't hurt me.
And, I've gotta step back through a bit of history for this to make sense, agh. Townghost is the current account in use, where he had been using lvkz before, which I am comfortable with sharing because he was public and open about his own identity when he made the switch over. Under his lvkz account, he'd been in the middle of some heated arguments about a few issues, which I'm not going to rehash here, because I don't have time and the exact topic isn't that relevant. But shortly before he left, he asked us to move the threads with those arguments into the void. We've moved threads for people like that before, but in this case, given how things played out, I wish we hadn't. Then for good measure, he deleted nearly every single post he'd made on the site, many of which were posts where he'd said hurtful or harmful things directly to other people. And then he made a new account for a fresh start, though still owning up to his own identity.
Teal deer, I'm still not happy that I basically helped engage in mass gaslighting for the people he'd said these things to in the first place. Iirc, the posts were manually undeleted (literally hundreds of them), though the threads still live in the void, which is a compromise I'm still not super stoked about. I don't think this has come up explicitly since he returned to the site, but there are a lot of people who are not happy about this sort of thing. That (and his reaction to the un-deleting) is the most extreme example of this behavior that I can remember (because after that he lost his post-deleting privileges), but it's not the only time where he's acted in ways that read from the outside 'I will be angry if you remember things I don't want to remember'
I'm not going to rehash the rest, because it was a Lot. I archived some of it by hand, specifically because even if post-deleting wasn't an option, this has been a pattern. I have a lot of sympathy for memory problems and unreality struggles, but when he said X in a post, and later someone mentions that he said X, he so very frequently exploded at that person. If you didn't quote him, you risked being called a liar. If you did quote him, then you risked him getting upset because you quoted him. As one highly mild example I found while looking for the one thing I'm about to quote, he accused people here of telling him to "burn in hell". I had been reading all the conversations and following along with people's personal threads, because those are the joys of moderation, and I couldn't remember or search for any such thing. I asked him where that had been said, and he said it was metaphorical. I asked him where it had metaphorically been said, and I don't believe I ever got a response.
Anyways, some of the earliest, less-weighed-down-with-history threads are in the caring void dungeon, and later threads are flavored with people's memories of what happened in those initial threads, so reading the full history would be a long and unpleasant thing. But in one of the last threads he had before getting the six-month temp ban, he said some interesting things about why he doesn't like people remembering his history. That's the intent vs. impact and gaslighting thread in ITA. In retrospect, I'm not super duper proud of my own behavior in that thread, but I was much more exhausted and frustrated than I am right now, and that was a time where we were pretty actively having to filter which posts were okay to publish and which posts were for the wiggler (I do genuinely appreciate that he hasn't said anything this time around that needs to be wiggled).
This is a snippet of a longer post he shared about how he relates to memory, history, and growth. I understand where he's coming from in some ways, but when he's got a long history of yelling at people for remembering harmful things he said, this isn't a reassuring thing to read. In this thread, even though I should have known better, I tried to give him helpful social advice. He told me off for using "tactics" and "strategy", which okay, whatever. Not the first time he's yelled at people over word choice. And then he ignored a question about what words I should have used, then on the same page described his own behavior as a "social strategy". Given the other things he's done, that barely qualifies as something worth commenting on, but it is indicative of past toxic patterns, where he was willing to say, for example, toxic shit about trans women, then after a conversational pause, got furious at anyone who dared bring up that time he said toxic shit about trans women. Memory problems are an issue I feel a lot of sympathy for, but he has a long history of behavior that's heavily skewed on what he remembers, and has accused people of gaslighting him for remembering things he did, and then yelled at them more for being able to cite the posts where he did do those things.
So that's what I'm reacting to and where my responses were coming from. And I'm off to graduation now, I've got ten minutes to get dressed and do my makeup, and then I'll be mostly gone for the day.
HOO BOY okay that's a lot of words. i'm here and i'm gonna read it but it may take me awhile, and you're going off to do exciting things. ty for your time spock.
alright this is an actual behemoth of a post, even for my standards. viewer be wary.
i do have the very basic gist of the history! i've heard about it from others, seen posts, got the summaries and the like. i just have never personally interacted with lukas in heated debate / a controversial thread of his and so on. but this is a very good TL;DR for anyone who is a bit ? or murky on their history.
having the full, unadultered context personally... is not something i wish to do. considering how split together that history is, it would be a pain in the ass to do. i know i'm missing directs. i know i don't have the 'full picture'. thus, i really don't want to come across as approving of lukas' past behavior. i will never know the full context. i will never know the names of every single person he hurt, and why. i do want lukas to feel like he is being heard, understood, and treated with respect. i do want to help bridge the communication between him and other members on this forum. i wish i could do more.
that does seem like a shaky compromise, honestly. i don't know if it was the best course of action for everyone involved, or the best way to mitigate damage. it would be one helluva project reconstructing it to everyone's agreement.
--oh so THAT'S why i can't delete my own posts. the more you know!
i do think the explosions are a manner of conduct. not that it is anyone's fault. it could very well be that any particular subject that is X raises lukas' guard. it could be because of how the topic was approached, or the person's tone, or lukas' history with said person... i do believe that there are ways to raise attention to X without it being damaging. honest.
do i think it is a slow and gentle process? yes. but do i think that it's a process that people, on a forum-wide basis can adopt? of course not! hell, not everyone wants to interact with me on virtue that i'm a subaccount. some people have started to piece the puzzle together of who i was and what i did, and even though i'm blatantly different, they don't want to engage. that is okay. that is understandable. no one owes lukas their ear and shoulder, not at all. and recovery is more like seasons. lukas is going to regress and slip. it's not all uphill from here. however, i personally want to do what i can for lukas. i can't speak for him on all matters, but i can be willing to hear him out.
i am certainly not the first person who's done this. however, i do not think i will be the last. from my perspective, from what i know of the history versus now, i do think lukas has improved a lot. i do think lukas is in the midst of his recovery and becoming a healthier, more active, more eloquent person.
okay! so! ( claps hands together! ) communicative disorders! nobody fucking asked me but for context, literal segments of my brain Will Permanently Never Develop. this includes all of the communication things. so, i can sympathize a lot with lukas' issues with communication and think i am apt to.
before we start: no lukas doesn't do everything because of The Disorder. but The Disorder does have significant bleed into his life and how he operates day-to-day. i feel like it's worth talking about, therefore...
basically we're cooking with a very fun cocktail of: BPD, psychosis, and a communicative disorder. any one of these on its own is difficult. having them be comorbid is another issue entirely.
i'm not lukas, i'm not gonna say, 'oh he meant it was a metaphor from the start it's your fault,' but:
If you didn't quote him, you risked being called a liar.
how were the quotes raised? what context was this conversation in? what was lukas' mental state prior and after the conflict? with elements of psychosis, sometimes this does mean rewriting history. the person's perception of the timeline is skewed. there is a time and place to correct someone with psychosis and it can be very difficult, even when they are coherent and cognitive.
i'm pretty sure lukas genuinely thought people were lying or purposefully being obtuse about his posts. does that make it okay- no, not at all. but i think it's because of how lukas comprehends language & the sequence of events. i do not think he knew the truth and decided to be an asshole and paint people as liars.
If you did quote him, then you risked him getting upset because you quoted him.
yep, i can understand. more than likely, it was taken as a snide remark from lukas. i mentioned it in my earlier post, and if we want to go over this again we can. i do understand your argument, though, that the person is caught in a catch-22.
...he accused people here of telling him to "burn in hell"... I asked him where that had been said, and he said it was metaphorical. I asked him where it had metaphorically been said, and I don't believe I ever got a response.
from speaking with lukas, i've noticed that he will use turn of phrases & flowery language when he in particular is scared and disconnected. ( in dms, i mean! i know he does that a lot here, but i talked about why he's long-winded in my previous post. ) i would bet money that this was something he said in the midst of a dissociation episode. he drew it over a course of posts and was trying to shape his reaction into something more understandable.
no one told him to burn in hell, though. you are right. he shouldn't quote people on something they never said. but i get why he did it and i can tell you why.
altogether this paints together a picture of: a BPD person splitting who has a very split black/white morality, a person having a psychotic break, and a person with a communicative disorder being unable to communicate.
it makes... a mess, to say the least. it means you have to dissect his words and strip them of a lot of fluff. /rub temples-worthy. i'm sure you all know this, but i don't know if recontextualizing it hhhhhhhhelps? let me know.
before i continue - that's a massive improvement! i know there's been a lot of posts and a very wide range of emotions in his posts... but not having to be thrown into the wiggler is already a massive step forward.
i would love the full post, honestly. a lot of lukas' content needs to have the full context because otherwise you (i) can be totally off base. i really really want to comment on it, don't get me wrong, there is a lot to talk about re: that post you quoted, but i don't want to do it without the entire thing and without lukas' express permission.
he does. i cited a bit of what i think earlier on the whole aspect of lukas preferring how he sees events. this is another example, one i appreciate, but there's not a ton i could say without repeating myself.
i do value this post immensely though. i thank you for talking to me and giving examples and being very blunt. i do feel like there's more i could do, but lukas is out and i don't want to speculate publicly. these are all takes he's agreed with in the past, so i feel comfortable putting them out here.
when lukas comes back and if he wishes to continue, i would very much like to. but i do think this may not be the subforum for it. should we try a TCHGB thread, perhaps?
okay i’m genuinely trying to calm down and not be mad at people for not knowing the whole story. but there’s the fact that apologies are not excuses. this thread isn’t about why i did or felt such and such. people have somehow made it about me when it’s about all the people that had to interact with me.
it seems like people share my feeling that it was a regrettable waste of time. that’s why i’m sorry about it. it is regrettable that people felt like their time was wasted.
i’m gonna refrain from making excuses as to why i felt triggered or disrespected because this isn’t my forum and it’s my responsibility to be integrated into the culture. i came up wrong and i said too much when i shouldn’t have said it at all. there are some places that aren’t appropriate for discussion of certain topics.
Lukas, I'm trying to be gentle here, but: you made your apology dubious by withdrawing when you didn't get the engagement you wanted. This is the second time on this forum you have done such a thing. (yes i can provide quotes of this. I won't right now, but this history exists).
The thing is, the reason why you don't get the engagement? Is because people have put down the boundary of either non-engagement, or outright using the 'ignore' function. People aren't interacting with you because they don't want to. They don't have to. Retracting your apology because the people you were apologizing to didn't react the way you wanted to makes it look, at least from the outside, like the entire apology was a merely an attempt to get attention, instead of actually declaring your intend not to repeat the thing you were apologizing for. Because people are fully within their rights to be hurt enough by you to not want to engage anymore, At All. Including acknoweldging that an apology exists at all.
You might not have intended it that way. But prior history and the sequence of events make it a read that people got when several hours after posting your apology you decided that no actually, you're not sorry because of lack of engagement.
Edit: fixed some typos/wordings
thanks lukas. i'm taking that apology bit as in, 'even if i apologize i can't excuse my actions' and vice-versa for those who have hurt you? i think some people would appreciate an apology, even if it would not absolve you of what you did... but if you're not ready to do that, nobody can make you. as for receiving any apologies, give them time. acknowledging that you want one is a good first step of dealing w/ your feelings.
how do you feel about answering some of the questions that were raised earlier? in particular towards khan's question, me seeing the full context of the post that spock quoted, and maybe going to a TCHGB thread. if you'd rather talk to me abt that in private and i come back and answer, that's also fine.
re: @TheOwlet - lukas hasn't responded yet due to IRL complications. if i hear anything, i'll post after he does so we all stay on the same page. i will say that this is a problem with BPD/RSD; perceived rejection can make one lash out. BPD brain does not care for 'logistics' and 'emotional reasoning' - it cares not about being hurt. i do thing this is a very well thought out response to him, though.
i get that. i just was & am an a very bad place & yeah, i have disorders. if i have to take it back then i take it back. but to those people that are ignoring it it probably doesn't matter at all, they don't need an apology because they've already decided not to forgive.
Small point of order: an apology doesn't require foregiveness? At least in my understanding, 'apologizing' and 'asking for forgiveness' are two separate concepts.
An apology is the 'i recognize that I did something hurtful and hereby i state that I'm sorry it happened and i won't do it again (or at least try very hard not to)'
Asking for forgiveness takes the above lines and adds a 'and therefore i would like you to stop being mad at me'.
For an apology, the foregiveness of the party you're apologizing to doesn't matter. It's not what's asked for, and it's also not really the purpose. The idea behind the apology is just to acknowledge that something hurtful happened, and that you (general you) are sorry. Nobody needs to forgive anyone for anything. That doesn't mean that the apology wasn't necessary.
Personal example: I broke up with my boyfriend because he cheated on me. Him apologizing for that was necessary. Me forgiving him for it wasn't. The fact that he acknowledged that he did something hurtful does not inherently require me to not be angry with him anymore, and it also doesn't mean I didn't very much need the apology from him.
i don't think that's how it works. i think now, what's happening could be described as, "give an inch, they'll take a mile." you seem to not understand that my behavior and how i portray myself exists for me, to gain trust of members and peaceful interactions for my own benefit. i literally have never, and will never owe you shit. there's no necessary. you deal with your own feelings. the reason you forgive me is because you decide fair game, you'll help me try to interact peacefully here. we're not dating, i'm not your boyfriend.
To me, An apology serves the social function of communicating that you did something harmful and hurtful and are trying to not do that again. There is no give and take. No negotiation or trading. It is a fundamentally self-focused action, you merely let the outside world partake in that you recognize that you caused harm and will correct your behavior for the purposes of not causing further harm.
@townghost Can you define what you think the "give an inch and they'll take a mile" applies to specifically? Generally what people I think mean when they want apologies is that they want to have it on paper that you know what the precise issue was and that you are committed to trying to not commit that same harmful act in the future.
If withholding your own growth as a person is a successful way to have peaceful interactions with others in other places you socialize then I'm truly sorry, that sounds very stressful. Feeling the need to hold yourself hostage like that seems quite horrible to me.
You hurt people. You recognized in your first post in this thread that you hurt people. You have then threatened to withdraw your acknowledgement that you hurt people. Why should anyone risk you immediately going back to the same behavior? If you want to phrase this in terms of debts and owing, what have you so far offered without withdrawing within 24 hours that would make it seem productive to people here to either help you or communicate with you?
I'm truly trying to figure out the logic here, because I always try and like. i don't know how to properly describe it. I try to bring something to the table when I start socializing? I try to heighten the net gain for every participant to the best of my ability, be it by knowing interesting facts, or offering my expertise in an area or just by attempting to be pleasant to be around.
It is entirely possible we are operating on different communication theories here! Would you be willing to explain how you generally perceive successful talks and socializing and such going?
I'm having trouble understanding this part, can you rephrase this if possible? I don't think anyone was looking for you to help with emotions. That's precisely the point of how I read Owlet's post, actually, that people's forgiveness and your apology are entirely seperate and unconnected! An Apology only has to do with you recognizing behavior that caused harm on your part! No one here needs to forgive you because you apologized, but it makes it a significantly harder sell for them to do so if you hold your recognition of harm hostage.
I am pretty sure Owlet never meant to imply anything of the sort. Hence why the statement was prefaced with personal example. It was an anecdote of how she perceives the difference between an apology and forgiveness to work.
I'm sorry for butting in so suddenly and I can leave again if I am not welcome but I have a little bit of time and I wanted to offer another mind to bounce ideas off of so we can try and solve the communication breakdown happening here.
As a person who suffers from rejection-sensitive dysphoria, occasionally intense bouts of such, I think Kichi (and to be fair, I was the one who brought the remark up to him so I'm glad he agreed enough to mention it) is right to say that this is a factor that people are not lending enough weight to as they debate over how genuine the apology is, based solely on a single remark he made after. I'll say it myself as well: RSD does not care about logic. It is an entirely selfish symptom, caring only about the perceived response to a topic. Lukas poured his heart out, displayed his vulnerabilities and tried his best to make amends when the problem in front of him probably seemed insurmountable and got... nothing for a day.
With my own RSD, I have poured my heart out about concerns and after twenty minutes with no response, my brain already has interpreted it that I am hated, I am unworthy to be in the same space, and has even led to suicide ideation. And I do not have BPD; I don't have a condition that is defined by the extremes in emotions it brings. Vulnerability is sensitive, is painful, and sometimes a lack of action hurts more than even a negative one.
And yes, he was vulnerable, he was telling everyone here what he's struggling with in the hopes that he could get a sympathetic ear or someone to try meeting him at his level. The very first line of his apology reads as follows:
So, after explaining that he has problems with being perceived, what do people immediately do? Perceive a purely emotional response as negative. They use the term 'strategy', like he had this entire thing planned out. This is a way of ascribing motive to his actions, something that - from viewed experience - serves to be a massive trigger. Something that steps over the boundary that was just established as trying to be set. And here we are, still doing it and still trouncing that boundary.
I can't speak for Lukas, but I know that if people - multiple people - were still using a statement I echoed from the slimiest depths of my mind and using it as proof in a debate or telling me about all the problems with it, it would come off as... not quite dogpiling, but close to it. Like proof in its own right against them, that I'm not suited to be sharing a community with them because I'm the outsider and that they hate me because they're focused on the ugly.
Can you really, honestly blame him for giving what can be amounted to a, 'Why do I even bother apologizing to people who hate me?' or expect an apology for simply feeling the way he does? Emotions aren't rational either and while yes, apologizing for the effects of those emotions is the nice thing to do, he's already stated in the above quote that it takes a while for him to first process them, and then move into the impact they've had. It takes time.
That doesn't mean he isn't genuinely sorry though. I think, especially with the communication issues, we need to take into account that actions speak louder than words. We're too busy finding fault, zeroing in on the ugly, that we're not paying attention to anything else.
Nobody - aside from Kichi and myself - has really stopped and gone, 'That's some major progress' in this thread, other than a one-off remark from Spock. Everyone's so caught up in claiming that Lukas is 'withholding' his growth that they don't see how much he already has grown. He's keeping to personal threads in Holler Closet and Bijou, he's keeping away from inviting others to discussing topics he knows to be triggering. He's doing his best to make amends and when he's not triggered, when there's not a heavy filter of emotion and psychosis overtop, he's able to communicate more clearly. Again, that's progress. That's something that should be lauded.
As for the part you're quoting, I don't see anything about him expecting others to manage his emotions. To me, it reads more akin to, "I can't change how you think or feel towards me, but if you haven't blocked me, here's what I've been dealing with on my end of the spectrum. I hope you can have a bit more understanding into why I do what I do, and that you will keep it in mind when we interact so that we can both minimize harm done to each other."
He isn't holding the apology hostage. It's been said, it's been explained, and at this point its out of his hands. He's recognized the harm he's done in the past, and what people do with that is on them at this point. Yes, he's expressed frustration when he had absolute silence but we just finished going over why I believe that was.
I won't speak to his views on communication; to me that skims a bit close to the line he stated towards Khan about explaining his views and definitions. If he wishes to, then by all means. I'm just here to talk about this discussion re: the apology.
part of the problem is that any of the progress he has made is obfuscated to people who cannot understand lukas. it’s a problem with no easy solution, since despite his best efforts, he can’t wield language effectively enough to communicate himself successfully.
it’s something i can sympathize with, as i too deeply struggle with communicating myself verbally. i only communicate successfully through text because i am capable of manually filtering my thoughts into language that is coherent to others. it took me a lot of effort to learn how to do this, and it’s tedious, so i mostly lurk without speaking, and rarely speak vocally offline at all.
Thank you for your insight! I do have to point out that while I sympathize, this kind of reaction being symptomatic of RSD does not mean it's just Entirely Okay And Totes Cool Now. I don't expect perfect coping all the time, obviously, from anyone.
To me this seems similar to my own lashing out when I am in sensory overload. Yes it is an understandable reaction. No it is not logically related to the stressor necessarily, and is entirely emotional. HOWEVER this does not mean it's okay for me to do it. And it is my responsibility as a member of society to do my best to try and minimize harm in those situations, and manage my own issues.
At least for me I'm not using that statement as proof of anything. It's the current issue under discussion though. A lot of people have been hurt and hurt badly by maliciously withheld apologies or the threat of them being withdrawn again. For some it is a full on ptsd trigger. I've luckily not been a situation that would form such a trigger but I've had a couple bad friends who've done such things and it really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. And it is also indicative of a pattern as this is now the.... third? i think third time lukas has offered an apology and then withdrawn it again based on people's reaction or lack thereof to it. Which is why I explained that to me apologies don't have shit all to do with other people, and that I apologize for myself, so I can become a better person.
But when it was pointed out to lukas in the past that this is a harmful pattern the answer seems to invariably (at least i read it that way, I don't presume to speak for others, or assume i'm necessarily reading lukas' posts how he intends them) be something like "It's not my job to manage your reaction to me" [heavily paraphrased]
Which is to a degree correct, yes, but then the same standard needs to apply to everyone else on the forum. It is not our job to manage lukas' reactions to interaction or lack thereof. RSD is an explanation, not an excuse.
Kintsugi is based on the premise that nothing anyone can do or say makes it okay to treat them like trash. By logging in, you affirm that you understand this to be the foundational premise of the community. More on our community philosophy here.
Separate names with a comma.