Open thread, Jan. 25 - Jan. 31, 2016

username2

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

Analysis of a mind game.

Any comments as to the internal workings of A and B are welcome.

Note that, in the US, a person has the right to confront his/her accuser. In the exchange below, B has done that but the specific accusation has never been clarified by A. Very tricky. I have definitely learned from this exchange.

B: ". . .women are biologically superior. . ."

A: This says far more about you than you could possibly imagine. I suggest being more cautious going forward.

At this point it is not clear how exactly B can guard against whatever beliefs he holds that are dangerous. In any case A has decided that B is incapable of comprehending the problem. Note that "defining" someone is a form of verbal abuse according to Satir, and possibly others. "Going forward" makes me think that A is a Brit. Since the Brits "invented" English I may be at a disadvantage here. But I'll go forward anyway.

B: It says that I take for fact what people say who study this type of thing. I suggest that your conduct in this post is offensive.

So B challenges A.
If A is a "sniper" (one who hides behind double or ambiquous meanings), the antidote is to smoke them out, just like a real sniper. Apparently that is what B instinctively did.

A: If that is all it says, you have nothing to be offended about.

A still has not said exactly what is wrong with B's thinking and tells B how B should feel. This is now framed as A the parent and B the child.

B: It's not your call. Who are you?

It's not up to A to decide how B should feel. Then B asks for ID, see "smoke them out", above.

TIA for reading. :D

Note to readers: this "hypothetical" scenario was actually this exchange.

You're reading too much into just a few words, and you seem overconfident in your ability to divine other people's intentions. Interpreting the above exchange as a "mind game" is ridiculously paranoid.