[Appauling attept at humiliation]

I told him that I am not catholic and so don’t really understand what I am supposed to do as far as some ceremony, but that I would go. I didn’t feel pressured by him, and did not feel threatened at the thought of simply being in a church.

After I was sat alone and was actually in there during mass I felt very uncomfortable and pressured, but I think it had a lot to do with my feelings about religion and my lack of it as a child, and perhaps this added to my experience of trauma.

 

The funny thing about this is that you are describing the experience of going to church for a catholic. They don't really know what any of that shit means either, like why you would symbolically eat the flesh or drink the blood of the savior of the human race. Or how jesus is the son of god, but also is god (his own father), and where exactly the holy spirit fits into this trifecta of crazy. Most of them are just imitating whats others do.

 

Source: Me, being raised catholic as well as going to 'bible study' classes 0_o

[Why are Some Able to Break Out of the Matrix?]

 

 

Why is it that we have been able to break out of our mental conditioning, while others flounder? Wasit our upbrining? Dissillusionment? It seems like man can not be reduced to a theory as far as enslavement goes. But it really interests me. It seems we arecapable of such high reason as the Reformation and the Enlightenment, yet many time wewaste it.Why is this? And why can't we as a so called society overcome this?

 

This is even more interesting to me in the context of siblings because the background is similar. These are good questions that I have pondered many times.

 

 

If they choose the first option, they suffer, but not so much consciously because they are so dissociated, however it lasts the rest of their lives. If they choose the second and start to work on themselves they suffer pretty severely for a shorter period of time, but they become more connected with themselves as a result and are ultimately happier. I think that this is a place that really requires a good therapist.

 

I agree that a therapist or another free person is necessary, otherwise it's like trying to find your way through darkness. You may feel a familiar texture or trip over something recognizable but it is hard to connect everything together and get a clear picture in the way someone outside of your head can. 

[A reason I'm avoiding getting a job.]

It's not just parents. I remember hearing that stuff all throughout school. "Oh don't complain, you have it easy, wait until you get into the REAL world". Working is not as bad as I thought as a kid but it does concern me what kind of crap people were saying around me when I was younger. Good to hear you made the connection though, it is certainly satisfying to separate what is you from what others put into you.

 

 

 

They weren't distraught with their work, rather with the idea of having to go to work to sustain the kids they don't even interact with.

 

Doesn't that seem so weird? Sounds like your parents (like most people) are on autopilot doing what they think they are supposed to do instead of what they want. Like the 'American Dream' programming, as if getting a house, career, and kids is part of some voodoo checklist that once completed will fill the empty voids where their hearts are supposed to be. I don't mean to exaggerate I just remember thinking as a kid that my mom was a robot, that she was trying to stick to the 'mother' script as much as possible and any deviation from it would lead to a short circuit in the brain. 

[Friends are annoyed at me]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts cynicist! 

 

There has been a misunderstanding here, to many persons to keep track of her. But I'll try to explain it better now.

There are two girls I am writing about here. The first one is the one that approached me yesterday and now doesn't want to see me 1on1 anymore. This first girl reminds me of my mother, in that when you are not in agreement with her, she'll usually become frustrated, contradict herself and lash out in anger. As mother, I'd say she never really wants to admit mistakes or errors, usually when one confronts her on mistakes/errors she have made, she'll first laugh about it and still claim that she is right, and if one is to press on that she might be wrong, she'll get angry. Yes, in group situations, she usually don't want to break it up with talking about something that could be negative. But, if something is really bothering her, she'll bring it up with the person in question (like she did yesterday).

 

The second girl is the girl that described herself as showing of different personae to different people. 

 

Ah ok, without names it was harder to follow. The multiple personality thing is a problem I had several years ago and I will tell you right now it is a really bad sign of anxiety and fear around the judgments of others. I would do it because I wanted to be seen in a positive light and avoid criticism and just generally fit in. I feel sympathy for her because that comes from having to hide who you are over many years (and being attacked by many people for who you truly are).

 

One thing that sounds strange to me is why did your guy friend tell her your criticisms in the first place? I'm happy to hear legit criticism myself but most people take it as a personal attack so I'm sure he could have predicted her response.

[Fear of rejection: Asking a girl out]

This is an interesting point, thanks for bringing it up! Well, when I have spoken with her, I have liked it, She has (like me I'd say) a lot of energy, is not afraid to act goofy (like me). Also, she is kind to me.

 

I have thought about this before in particular: I have a tendency to fall quickly in love with girls that are just being kind with me. And this can happen just after a few minutes of talking with the girl in question. A theory I have about this is that in my past, most girls have been mean to me, and now that I am meeting girls that at least are kind to me in a social-first-meeting kind of way, I just fall in love with them. Ahh, that thought feels incomplete, but I don't know atm what to add to it.

 

The one issue I have with her is that I  am fairly certain that politically, she is a socialist. That's the only thing I can think of atm.

 

Oh no, I know exactly what you mean. It's like you were starved for positive attention in your life so when someone shows you positive attention they just immediately become special to you.

 

The socialist thing isn't great but none of us are perfect She sounds nice, I hope your date goes well.

[My snippets (the inner voice)]

I too have done wrong as a child. I didn't even know as I had repressed the memory; It came back as a sort of nightmare while I was lying awake in bed one night. It felt almost like someone else's memory, though I knew it was mine, because I could not reconcile what I saw with what I know now to be my nature. The rage I felt back then was frightening to me, and I could feel tears coming to my eyes as I asked myself how I could do such awful things. I accept my responsibility for my actions, but I also had to ask myself, where did I learn this behavior? Why did I choose to hurt rather than love? As children we learn by example, we can't speak languages we were never taught. If you are responsible for your actions as a child, then surely your parents deserve even more responsibility? If none of the criticism is aimed towards your parents, is that truly just? You certainly cannot change the past but that should not mean you are condemned to live in agony, not when that prevents you from the good you can do as an adult.

[Applying RTR goes wrong]

Briefly, this was the scenario about 3 months ago, and the whole chain took place over text messages: I was sick and my sister knew (we live separately), but she didn't check up on me, so I just shared with her that I felt sad and like she didn't care. I told her about wanting to be more honest and have a better relationship. First, she was curious and asked me what I wanted her to say to me, but the next day she completely freaked saying how dare I to say she doesn't care, and went of on a tangent about how "my" parents poisoned me and that I always hated her. I told her maybe I wasn't doing RTR correctly, but my intention was just to be honest and that she seemed angry and maybe we should continue when she's ready to talk, she was fine with that.

 

Yeah I already see the problem here. Since RTR is so unusual for people it is better to have the conversation in person because it can lead to misunderstandings quickly. So for example when you said that you, "felt sad and like she didn't care", what you were saying is that you felt like she didn't care, but what she heard was that you were calling her inconsiderate. This is avoidable in person because you can clarify, "I'm not saying this is true or anything, I'm just saying this is how I feel". This is harder to do in text, that's why it's called Real Time Relationships And why tell her you are doing RTR? It basically just means being honest about your feelings while in a conversation, so I would say that instead because it is easy to misunderstand and think someone is trying to manipulate you using some technique they learned on the internet instead. Like those pickup artist guys.

 

 

So I reached out shortly after. I decided to be an example of RTR-ing and we got into a conversation about her mother (we have different mothers, same dad) and childhood. I tried to empathize and show support, then I asked her for feedback on it and if she saw the value. She said she felt like she was a psychologist's patient, and was confused why I was "doing it", and what was "wrong" in our relationship before that I had to "fix" it with RTR. She wanted me to talk about our previous argument, and I said that I felt anxious and (not saying that's what she was doing, but) I felt attacked and afraid to be open and vulnerable again. She started the accusations. I stated this was irrelevant and she was attacking, and that I felt frustrated. In the end, I asked her how she came to those conclusions/accusations, and she said "too much to type", so I was at the end of my wits and said "this was useless", and we haven't spoken since.

 

 

Oh man is this over text again? At least use skype or something. I had a similar issue with my brother around using terms like "feedback" and "value", my solution was just to translate that into something that sounds more natural. Something more like, "Was that advice helpful or did I totally lose you there?" or "What did you think of what I just said?". Using language that is different from your normal chats will make you sound different, especially in text. (more clinical or corporate in this case) The way I understand it is that being honest is enough of a change already, using different language too just makes it all too alien for people to handle.

 

I'm not sure what accusations she made (hope it was nothing too serious) but if you are certain you want to try again I would setup a video chat if you can't do it in person. This is up to you but I would start off by apologizing for trying this new way of communicating over text rather than doing it face to face because it led to a number of misunderstandings between you two. And then going on to explain how you just want to be more open to talk about your feelings with each other because you haven't felt able to do so in the past and see how she responds. Then you two can hopefully have some meaningful conversation.

 

 

 

But as soon as I think this, I feel resistance because I would be opening up and feeling vulnerable while she has a tendency to go on a blaming trip and hence feeling superior since I was "wrong" per se.

 

But being vulnerable is what RTR is all about! Be honest with her and if she decides to put you down in order to feel superior, then let her know how that makes you feel. If she continues to attack you and you continue to be honest about your feelings, at some point you will want to end the conversation. If she has any empathy at all she will not feel good about her behavior when you didn't return her abuse and will want to apologize to you. If not, then at least you know the truth about whether your sister is capable of talking about anything real or not. What you do with that information will be entirely up to you, but at least you will know.

 

 

I would like to have my sister back in my life, but what she said can't be unsaid, and even though she's also into personal growth somewhat, I'm questioning if there's any depth that I thought she had, or if she's sensible enough. She's also had a pretty rough childhood, and she hasn't learned the tools that I have. Actually, this reminds me- I mailed her RTR CD among other Stef's books as she has asked me- a rather kind gesture on my part. I cringed to send it, but felt it was for the better.

 

 

I wouldn't write her off immediately, (well, depending on what she said exactly lol) remember that it wasn't easy for you and she doesn't have your level of knowledge or skill at this point, so you can't expect her to be able to communicate like you right away. That said she also may not be capable either, I would just remain open to both possibilities. My own brother made some mistakes but I was at least somewhat hopeful that he could change until he started mocking my interest in philosophy. I would definitely ask your sister what she thinks of what she has read so far the next time you two chat, if she has any interest at all in Stef's books then there is definitely hope

[Has anyone ever overcome procrastination?]

Has this ever happened? Has anyone gone from finding it difficult to approach meaningful tasks to just getting into it all day every day? I have never seen a single person do it. I've seen them get slightly better, or go through phases, but i've never see someone sluggish with tasks become and extremely proactive person.

 

If you have or you know anyone who has lets here the story.

 

I still have it. I think procrastination is a sign that a part of you is trying to push yourself to do things arbitrarily (have to) while another part is resisting. (resentment) We get trained that way by parents with their arbitrary rules that we try to resist and then continue that pattern of behavior as adults by trying to force ourselves to do things that we think we should be doing. I think the key is retraining ourselves to do what we want instead (or explaining how doing this thing we don't like will allow us to do what we want to later), and reminding ourselves of that continuously, but it's easier said than done. I often find myself thinking that I should do something and then not having a good reason why, it's like catching myself on autopilot. Often when I sit down and take the time to think about what I'm doing and why, it's easier to be motivated but I don't do that often enough.

 

It seems like a skill that I never learned growing up; Since nobody sat down and explained why I should do anything when I was a kid I now have to teach myself how to do that, otherwise I just go on autopilot and try to make myself do stuff like my parents. At least that's how I see it, could be different for others.

 

 

 

So, what's changed for me? Well, I've started trying to negotiate with myself more. I have strong desires to play video games and watch television, and I also know that there are other activities that may be least pleasant in the moment, but will provide the same or greater rewards. So, I respect the two desires, and I try to find a balance that works.

 

Yeah that's how I feel. Like there is still this younger part of me that wants to do certain things, and then other parts of me that want to do other things and I need to negotiate and find a balance between them all or explain how it is in their interest to do something.

[Fear of rejection: Asking a girl out]

I don't think overcoming the fear is a good idea. You are feeling anxious for a reason, a good reason whatever it is. I'm not going to guess why because I don't know enough about your history to do so but I want to share a possibility that has not been mentioned in this thread so far. A number of times in the past I felt extremely anxious around asking particular women out, not just nervousness but something akin to fear, and I wasn't sure why. Only years later did I realize that these women were very dysfunctional and that my anxiety came from trying to go against my values (it was a warning and it saved my life) because they were attractive and I was only a man

 

I would ask her out again for coffee and monitor your feelings during the conversation. If you continue to remain nervous after getting to know her better I would respect your feelings and not go on a second one.

[Friends are annoyed at me]

 

 

Now that I think about it, the principle ''Speak only to the person/s involved'' could possibly serve to isolate a person, and make it more unlikely for the person to actually bring up something the one that claims to hold to that principle doesn't like?

 

I guarantee you that comes from her family, I have a similar history (including the multiple personas thing) and that tactic is one that families use in order prevent you from learning the truth about a particular situation (that an outside perspective can give you).

 

 

 

Thank you for your response Jiminy. I agree with the second part of your post, but not the first part. As I said, I have trouble remembering saying these things about my former friend, but I am pretty certain that I didn't criticize her. I think that I just stated that I thought she'd have trouble with getting into a romantic relationship.

 

You stated your honest opinion of her situation. I don't know the motivation for telling the others about it, maybe you just wanted to hear a second opinion, but I'm sure the reason people have a problem with it is that they perceive it to be a criticism. You see, even though it may be true it is an uncomfortable truth (one that she doesn't want to hear in particular, because her multiple persona thing comes in part from being dishonest with herself and wanting to avoid issues rather than confront them directly) so you are right in assuming that things would have gone wrong even if you had spoken to her directly. You are saying something about her which is negative, and she already has self-esteem issues for sure, and she is now mad at you for it. I can tell you also that she feels lots of anxiety when it comes to being honest with other people. (due to be punished for it by her family)

 

I'm guessing she is a passive, go-with-the-flow kind of person? Probably likes to get along with the group, not talk about anything that could be negative, changing subjects if necessary.  She doesn't like to take a stand on anything or if she does she will contradict herself often, has a hard time admitting mistakes or errors, is passive aggressive, drops hints and holds grudges and rarely will tell you directly what she is mad about.

 

I could be wrong but this is a particular pattern of behavior that I'm familiar with.

[How do you know if you're being pretentious?]

Great topic, personally I have had a tendency to pretend knowledge that I wasn't certain of in the past (due to issues around self-worth stemming from family history) and the way I managed to deal with it is that I realized having to try and back up claims when I was questioned by people was really hard. (when I didn't know for certain I mean, didn't have logic or evidence on my side) Usually I got away with it anyway due to skill in other areas (language, technical aptitude, etc) but I always felt bad about it afterwards and it was stressful so my old strategy was to just try and forget about it. Once I realized how much energy I spent on it (and why I was doing it) I just decided it wasn't worth it anymore. I think a key part of solving the problem is that when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning or brings up an idea you didn't think of previously, stop and consider it before responding. If you find yourself trying to rush forward it is usually because you would rather be right than accurate. Now that I don't feel like I have to be right all the time I'm more comfortable with backpedaling if I make too broad a statement, though I'm still careful not to do that in the first place. (I also distinguish my opinions more clearly now)

 

If you are open to correction then you are the opposite of pretentious. I think the concern you have comes from mistaking ignorance for pretension. If you say something that happens to be out of your depth and you realize that once someone points out your error, then you were merely ignorant. (It can take knowledge to be aware of your own ignorance) If you persist in your argument after you realize you are incorrect, then you are pretentious. (I think this can be unconcious; you may find yourself becoming flustered or really upset and not know why, or you can have this feeling that you are missing something in your argument but continue regardless)

 

I also think the word is tainted by people who use it to attack you, like you experienced with your siblings. If you can recognize that they aren't addressing your arguments it is easy to avoid self attacking. If you are truly being pretentious they need a reason to suggest that.

 

 

 

And I have this weird feeling like if I say something like "I understand psychology, economics and philosophy better than most people on the planet" that some kind of hammer is going to come down on me like: "you can't say that!"

 

Weird right?

 

 

I don't think that is weird. It's likely true but you can't prove it so I would hesitate to say something like that myself. And what would be the value in a statement like that anyway? Talk is cheap and too many people make claims about knowledge that they don't have, and you know that yourself, which I think is the reason you would feel uncomfortable saying it. To me it makes more sense to demonstrate your knowledge through sound arguments or action, then there is no need for the claim. Now that I'm older I just can't take anyone who relies on job titles or things of that nature seriously.

[I can't ask for help.]

 

• She had a desire to please others
•  
  in spite of her kids

 

because kids are like property so she can sacrifice her property

 

My own mother is like this. It's because when we were younger we had no choice but to listen to her while others can just ignore her or leave if she becomes abusive. We've been trained to be afraid and our natural feelings and assertiveness were constantly opposed. I think the conversation you had with Wesley is insightful. Keep in mind that even though you feel afraid just like before, things really are different now. You're an adult, which doesn't mean you have to do anything at all, but it does mean that you have possibilities that didn't exist when you were a child. You can stand up for yourself and take care of yourself and you couldn't do that before.

 

Pushing yourself will make it harder, try to show yourself the patience and gentleness you never received when you were young. It's ok to make mistakes and fuck up, because if someone turns their back on you it doesn't mean the end of your life like it used to with your mom. Remember there is nothing fundamentally wrong with you, you were just badly taught and that is a problem can that be solved

 

(I think you are right in rejecting that 'shy' label, people that use it are just telling you that they would rather not use their minds to think because labeling you quiet is easier)

[Regarding self esteem]

Thanks for answering finally.

Be careful with analogies. I try to use first principles rather than analogies. There are two problems with looking extensively in the past:

• There are a lot of possible associations, and none of them scientific because it cant be replicated. (reminds me of dream analysis)
• And the second is that it takes a lot of time and resources without a clear return. For more on this you might want to see the success rate of Psychodynamic methods.

I definitely agree with the objective of self knowledge that it makes you think more clearly, by knowing what kind of distortions you have in your head. (e.g. relationship to the state and relationship to the family)

As i said, i am far from making a concrete statement on the matter. At the moment i am doing history and thinking, emotion analysis; but im staying far from IFS for the reasons i mentioned.

 

Also you may find interesting another book with the same Author and main idea: Therapy Breakthrough. I havent read it yet.

 

I take issue with the idea that historical analysis can't be scientific because it can't be replicated in lab conditions. Don't forget that science is not just evidence (which requires reproducibility), it includes reason as well. So if I take the premise that hitting is bad, I can logically come to the conclusion that if my parents hit me, then they did something bad, and that will be true without any experimentation at all. In my opinion the value of dream analysis and IFS is the same as the value of emotions; it doesn't need to be objective in order to be useful. You can't rely on them to the exclusion of objective standards of truth, but as you work through correcting your misconceptions it becomes much more efficient to trust your instincts rather than reason your way through life. (which is why I think both approaches are valid and important, and focusing on one to the exclusion of the other is a mistake)

 

If you have any data on the success rate of psychodynamic methods I would be interested in seeing it, but I would keep in mind that therapists are not philosophers and part of the issue of exploring history in therapy is that many therapists are averse to taking clear moral stands or principles in their analysis of a patient. (which makes it easy to get lost in your subjective experience of your history without accomplishing anything in particular) So I wouldn't be surprised if CBT was more effective simply because it lets therapists avoid fundamental questions around the family/state/society in favor of focusing on the less volatile work of pointing out inconsistencies between certain thoughts and reality. (where there are no moral concerns to sidestep) In fact if you look at the reviews for that book on Amazon, a least one person mentions mentions exploring childhood and parental treatment as a waste of time and money. (no doubt because without established principles/morals its hard to do anything practical with that knowledge)

 

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll add it to my reading list.

[Man Hopping Part 3: Closure]

I've been there with the white knighting an immature, overly sexual hot chick thing. It's like I knew she had nothing good to offer, but she was hot and I thought I could turn her into what I wanted. Almost like here is a good clay base, certainly I can work it into a masterpiece with the right combination of words. I was naive and assumed that since I changed my own mind with new info that she was capable of the same.

 

I just want to assure you that your judgment is sound and nothing you said would have changed anything. (and jesus from that last bit you mentioned I think you seriously matrix dodged that one)

[My snippets (snippet number 1)]

Lol, the best part for me is that I would have guessed it was Russian anyway.  (polish background, I've had russian/slavic friends in the past)

[mother issues and life stories.]

You never said that you were shutting them out of your life forever; you said you needed some time. You were simply expressing a genuine emotion and her reaction is like firing bullets, at your manhood no less.

 

“ So put that in your craw and chew on it.”

 

This part is so ridiculous. It’s immature and combative.

 

Yeah I felt the same, like she is switching between attack and defense constantly. It's all about protecting her emotional integrity at all costs.

 

 

And to answer your question about how my wife feels about this.- She was the one who helped me to realize who my mom really is. I've always had open problems with my dad and never have I felt they raised me correctly, however, with my mom that was completely different. Whenever my wife would point out inconsistencies with stories of my mom's or how I felt about it, Iwould become enraged and defensive of her. It eventually got to the point where I thought she was attacking my mom for no reason. After she introduced me to Stefan's podcasts, I began to see the reason more clearly. Even still I can feel myself becoming defensive of my mom's parenting "style" or her actions though I logically know they are not correct. I both would not nor could not get through this without my wife.

 

 

It really warms my heart to hear that. This world can be a tough place to navigate without people watching your back.

 

 

I think it included everything I needed to say to her. I was attempting to remain as neutral in aggression as possible as to not stir up another angry fueled text from her. I'm not positive I need or want anymore time to inwardly look on my younger self. Have any of you had these conversations yet? How do you know you're ready for them? And how did you prepare?

 

 

I think being neutral is a good idea, it's easy to get back on that treadmill of the past so keeping a clear head is important. As an example I tried to have a similar conversation with my mother not long ago and I ended up feeling angry and was distracted by her from the more important issues, though I still found the conversation valuable.

 

For preparation it's helpful (since we know our parents so well) to imagine their responses so we can be ready for them when they come up. Also try to focus on your feelings instead of the events of the past. This is important because while memories can be hazy and disputable, they can't logically tell you that your own feelings are wrong. During my own childhood convo, my mom kept saying that she remembered things differently from me, so I had to continue to go back to something like, "Ok, well I understand that you may think things were fine, but I remember feeling terrified as a child.".

 

As far as continuing the conversation with your mother, Stefan has some good advice that I will repeat here. He suggests that if you still have lingering feelings of uncertainty regarding your parents, that it's important to continue talking to them (taking breaks is fine, but putting it off indefinitely is not) because from those conversations you will either break through and find something salvageable in the relationship or you will gain closure from the realization that it's not possible. If your mom continues to ignore and belittle you, keep talking (it will be painful) until you just absolutely have nothing you want to say to her anymore. That's how you will know that it's over.

 

 

I'm not positive I need or want anymore time to inwardly look on my younger self.

 

 

I won't tell you what to do but this part alarms me. Do you mean because it is hard/scary? Or that you just don't think it will help you? I'm not an expert in this area by any means, I have a hard time doing it myself, but my understanding of psychology is that this younger self inside you is not gone or dead just because you are older. There are certain perspectives we have that remain within us as we age; an example of this is when someone is described as looking at a rainbow with a child-like wonder. Those parts can get locked away or suppressed inside our minds because of traumatic events, and it is important to reintegrate these aspects of ourselves in order to have access to the full range of human emotion and spontaneity that we are capable of. I think freeing these parts of ourselves that are trapped in our history and which can provoke us to repetitive, destructive actions is the whole purpose of therapy. This is not to suggest that you should do anything, but if you find yourself repeatedly in similar, negative situations that's a good sign that you have something unresolved from your past that is playing itself out in your present in order to get your attention. (This warrants further exploration of your past, and possibly therapy depending on the severity of the issue)

[Regarding self esteem]

In short the "new", some crucial things that are part of the self-knowledge understanding here on FDR as "old" (childhood experience, IFS) are said to be irrelevant to getting better.

From what i see now its mostly based on your current way of thinking as being the thing that needs a change. It sounds reasonable, but what do you think about the differences?

 

It's hard to comment without having read the material. The claim you posted though sounds strange to me. It would be like telling an overweight person that he needs to stop eating unhealthy foods and not exercising if he wants to be healthy and that trying to examine why he became fat is irrelevant to attaining a healthier weight.  I mean yeah it is true that correcting your misconceptions on reality is the thing you need to do in order to be mentally healthy, but examining where these ideas came from is a good way to help people do that. If someone has a false belief about his self worth that causes him to experience social anxiety, then the way to solve that is not to merely tell him about his false belielf, he has to experience and understand it himself. CBT is based on actions that enable you to do this while the IFS/childhood experience approach is based on understanding the past. I see them as complementary approaches that work well together rather than being at odds with each other.

 

That said Warren Farrell wrote a blurb for the book and I respect that guy's opinion so I'll definitely check it out.

[Man Hopping Part 3: Closure]

 

Three years ago, one of those guys were my former friends and even though I didn't like him, I disliked her 10x more for having done a crappy thing to him. So despite of our individual friendship, I couldn't stand for that.

 

Fast forward to this year, I felt like I never really showed her much of who I really was and that I never took the time to really understand her.

 

Not to make light of your situation but this part made me literally laugh out loud. It's like, "My friend totally betrayed me by having sex with my girlfriend, which was a really crappy thing to do, and I just couldn't stand for it. Fast forward to this year and I felt like I never showed him much of who I really was and never took the time to really understand him." Sounds like you just entered bizzaro world and everything white is now black. (could be just a lack of info on my part)

 

Also it feels strange to me that you want to explain yourself to her after defriending her. I know that if I had a friend I cared about and they decided to defriend me and stop talking to me I would absolutely want to find out why, so the fact that you don't mention her reaching out to you is noteworthy. (again maybe a lack of info)

 

The whole situation seems odd to me, as if I'm missing a big part of a puzzle, namely the motivation for a relationship with this woman. I mean I noticed you didn't say a single positive thing about her, not that you should have. Sounds like it's all about understanding her and her problems, and trying to get where she is coming from, so that you can try to change her through your sage advice. (and prove to her that you have value because of your wisdom, so that she won't get bored and dispose of you)

 

I don't want to project (this sounds similar to my own history) but does any of this remind you of your relationship with your mother? (having to prove your worth, trying to fix crazy, being focused on her needs over your own, trying to connect with someone who isn't very empathetic) To be clear I don't mean anything oedipal, just that you may be acting out certain parts of your past.

[mother issues and life stories.]

Oh my god that was difficult to read, and not because of your grammar. I found myself feeling enraged during much of that story. The arrogance of this woman to claim that she did nothing but "try to help you" while at the same time abandoning you to abusers as a child (you didn't mention why but it doesn't really matter) is an astounding feat of denial. She is more concerned about her own feelings (being "hurt and pissed off") than she is about why you may be angry about your history. I mean honestly if she really had no idea what you were talking about, and was this perfect angel of mother, would she not be curious as to what you mean by it?

 

 

My question is can I have a meaningful and self-helping conversation with her over text messaging or should I just call her and out myself into a situation in which I can become enraged.

 

Just based on that text she sent you I see denial, defensiveness, minimizing, distortion, manipulation, put downs, and all sorts of passive aggressive behavior with absolutely no curiosity or interest in you as a person, so no, you absolutely will not have a meaningful conversation with her, text or otherwise about this particular issue. You already know what she is going to say about it based on what she sent you. She will deny and make excuses, pretend as if you are crazy and then act as though your anger is a confirmation of that if you have a problem with her abusive behavior.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your history but happy to know that things are changing for you at least. I think a more productive thing to do would be to continue exploring where things went wrong on her end as a parent and trying to realign this story that you have about her with reality. (The only reason I am suggesting you have a story about your relationship to her is that a part of you is excusing her behavior) It might help to look at the actions she took and imagine hearing about a friend doing the same with his kid and seeing how that makes you feel. I'm curious what your wife thinks about all this as well. I think her view could help put things in perspective for you. (I can totally empathize with how hard it is to see things from inside yourself, don't kick yourself for it we all have this problem)

 

Another thing that might be helpful is just to send her a text saying that she might be absolutely right about things and it could just be your issue but you need to take some time to sort things out for yourself and to do that you are going to take a break from the family for a while. Then take a few months to sort things out in your own head and see how you feel about seeing her again. Remember that it doesn't have to be a permanent break, and if she truly "supported whatever you wanted to do, right or wrong" then she should be able to support you here in your difficult struggle with your past. I think her response to that idea may also help you.

 

Regardless of what you decide to do I just want to say you are not alone and I'm also having difficulty with this. It is a hard thing to recognize that what you thought to be true was actually manipulation and lies, and that your parents could have been abusers. Part of the hardship of this conversation is that you begin to see that most of what people are doing in society is an attempt to hide this information from themselves and pretend like none of it happened. Anyway I wish you luck.

[We may already live in an Ancap world]

Yeah this seems like a cogent argument until you examine how property rights originate, which is that you own your body and the effects of exercising it. The problem with saying the government owns things is that the government doesn't actually exist in reality, it is just a collection of people who use violence to steal from others. So since the government is just an abstract concept that refers to a collection of individuals it can't actually own anything anyway, even before getting to the issue of whether taking things by force is legitimate or not.

[Stop Stealing to Pay for Hobbies!]

Telescopes are a hobby, though can predict civilization ending asteroid collisions, can be used to discover about global warming in other planets (and then find out it also happens here).

 

The Sun and Supernovas are fancy things, until we are hit face on by Gamma Ray radiation and die, or a huge EMP destroys all our electronics.

 

Atom smashers are a hobby, except all modern technology is based on the understanding of the inner workings of atoms, from computer chips, to lasers, to GPS and the Internet.

 

So you see, our life depends on those very hobbies you question the legitimacy of.It is ok to say you don't understand what these people are doing, no need to attack their profession out of ignorance.

 

I think you are reading too much into what Stef was saying. His argument wasn't that nobody should use telecopes or that science isn't important, he's just saying it shouldn't be funded by stolen money because that shows people don't want to pay for it.

 

 

Also, would like to point out that Microsoft had the surface tablet about 10 years before Apple had the iPad, though it was the size of a dining room table and cost as much as a car. And ever wondered how touch screens actually work? You might find is directly related to peering at sparkly useless things nobody gives a shit about and won't part a penny for.

 

Sure but that's why Microsoft has their own research division, because they don't expect other people to pay for it. I notice people like to point at things like NASA and DARPA and say how we wouldn't have space travel or the internet without government research, without considering that the same things could have been discovered without using stolen money. It's not like nobody would ever have figured out electronic communication or propulsion, because these are still interesting questions with or without the existence of the government to fund the answers to them.

[What is structural violence?]

It's just redefining words.  War is Peace, freedom is slavery, poverty is violence, etc... Once you've put the violence label on something that then justifies violence (as a self defence mechanism) to solve it.

 

That sounds accurate to me. Similar to how there isn't necessarily any direct violence involved in poverty so they add the word "structural" to make it sound more legitimate. It is somewhat amusing to me how the state is basically direct violence that has been abstracted through language, and how it could be described as structural violence in the sense that it is violent but depends on social structures/institutions to support its continuation, but I would never expect anything that clear as a definition.

[Why Is Peaceful Parenting Possible but Peaceful Government Not Possible?]

The issue here isn't power but monopoly of power. Adults will always have power over children. Frankly, some adults will always have power over other adults, even if simply because some of them are bigger and stronger and could use it. What we try to avoid is allowing too much power to concentrate too centrally. That is why Stefan says that it is too dangerous to have an entity like the state with too much concentrated power. Surely he isn't under any illusion that without a state nobody would have any power over anyone. It's simply that when it's not so concentrated it's not as big of a catastrophe in his view. Similarly, spreading power over children amongst 100 adults is far different than concentrating it amongst 1 or 2.

 

Government can do plenty of things without using force. For example, when you pay more than you owe in taxes, the government sends you back a refund. It doesn't use force to keep the extra taxes. And it doesn't use force to give you back the extra. It may threaten force to get the taxes it does keep, but it doesn't use it to refund the extra. It just sends you your refund. The government has a volunteer military right now and many people volunteer. It doesn't use force to get those people to enlist as it currently stands. Now I'm not saying once they are in they don't use force in their job in the military. But military recruitment, currently, doesn't use force. I could continue listing example after example. It's too easy when you give an extreme statement like "government can't even do anything without initiating force." Or did I misunderstand what you mean by that? Because certainly governments don't use force in every single specific thing they do. And, no matter how much you and many others may dislike government, there are also many people who are generally ok with it and willingly go along with it without any force necessary. The threat of force may always be there in a general sense, but some people go along even without it because they actually want there to be a government and see it as beneficial.

 

"because the government can't exist without people accepting violence as a way to solve social problems."

 

If the government can only exist if people accept violence, then are you actually saying the government cannot force people and the people are the ones in control? Isn't the idea of violence that it allows you to force someone to do something regardless of whether they accept violence as legitimate or not? You seem to be saying violence only works against those who think violence is legitimate, which I think is false. Violence works against anyone who is too weak to protect themselves against it, whether they accept it as legitimate or not.

 

No it's not the concentration of power that bothers anarchists, after all google has a lot of concentrated power over data but we don't view that as immoral, it is the monopoly power to initiate violence that is immoral. Once again you seem to be missing the point. If I have a boss because I work for a company, he has quite a bit of power over whether I have the job or not, and an anarchist wouldn't say that is problematic and we need to diffuse that power or whatever, because force is not involved in that interaction. The parent/child relationship has the potential for abuse, the government guarantees abuse.

 

When a government sends you a refund, where does it get the money from? Oh right theft. How does the government have the ability to hire volunteers for its military? Oh right it needs to steal money in order to pay for their salaries. When I say the government can't do anything without force I'm saying that any action they take is only possible because of force. Without theft there would be no military or tax refunds or whatever.

 

Wow I'm starting to understand where you're coming from, that argument is one hell of a twisted logical pretzel. Of course government can force people to do things against their will, but if people (to clarify, I mean society, not necessarily the individual person) view the government as legitimate authority or necessary like you argued one paragraph prior, then they will go along with it. I'm not arguing that violence only works when people think it is legitimate, I'm arguing that violence on the scale of the government is only possible if it is viewed as legitimate by the majority of people. The reason being quite logical, those in charge of the government are vastly outnumbered by the people they rule. If I try to control you with violence it is certainly possible if I'm bigger and stronger. If I try to control your whole neighborhood with violence it becomes much harder to do on my own, but a whole lot easier if your neighbors think that what I'm doing is actually morally good.

[Why Is Peaceful Parenting Possible but Peaceful Government Not Possible?]

It is a false dichotomy to talk as if the options are "nuclear family with one or two parents" vs. "kids survive on their own." Nuclear families of the sort we have today didn't even exist for 99% of human history. What anarchists really want is decentralization of power so that no small group ever has too much of it. Well that's how raising of children was done for hundreds of thousands of years. More decentralized with influence and input and constant presence of an entire tribe of biologically-related extended family, not one or two parents in a closed up house with the kids behind closed doors, out of witness of everyone else most of the time.

 

So then parents parent peacefully, so up comes a generation of people who do not approve of violence and oppression.

 

Somehow, apparently, their disapproval ends up culminating in there being no government?

 

If government cannot restrain itself, then what is the mechanism that translates the values of this more peaceful generation into the non-existence of government? Because the way I'm seeing it, the government is still there as they come up, and if you are saying it is not possible for government to wind down its oppression, then how does it dissolve?

 

No it's not a false dichotomy because I'm not suggesting that the options are "nuclear family" or "kids on their own", the options are "adults have power over children" or "children manage their own lives". Clearly since children aren't capable of living on their own adult power is always a risk. You talk about mitigating it through decentralization, which frankly is irrelevent to the point, which is that there is no situation where children can be on their own while the same is not true for adults and their relationship with government. You glossed over my point entirely and didn't address the fact that government can't even do anything without initiating force, which is not true for parents, which indicates to me that this is probably something emotional going on in the background for you.

 

What you are not understanding about how government is supposed to dissolve is that once people stop approving of violence they will stop approving of the government by extension, because the government can't exist without people accepting violence as a way to solve social problems. (because anything the government does involves violence)

[VPN, encryption and anonymity online]

Way too expensive. You can get vpn services with servers in a variety of countries which don't even keep log files for around $80 a year (some of them even accept bitcoin!). Of course if you don't particularly care about speed and only want to use something free for occassional traffic you can just use the (tor network).

 

(Here) is a list of vpn providers that take anonymity seriously. I like IVPN and Privacy.io but definitely do your own research. I would definitely recommend looking at Tor first because it is completely free so there's no risk to try it out.

 

 

Edit: Bleh just had to edit because I forgot to mention that it's not enough to secure your connection with encryption or obscure your location, your browser settings are equally important. Tor has a browser bundle that handles that for you but if you use a VPN I would recommend using extensions like NoScript and AdblockPlus to handle social media trackers, javascript, and cookies that can be used to identify you or your pattern of browsing activity.