zentigger comments on Not too much to ask for

Not too much to ask for (thelemmy.club)

submitted 3 months ago by Picasso@sh.itjust.works [M] to c/Couplememes@sh.itjust.works

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zentigger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

That’s a very healthy behavior for sure.

I added this as an edit to my previous response, but it does directly address your response so I’ll put it here too:

“You came out swinging stating that this tweet is categorically unhealthy, and then arguing your point by reading “silent” as “bad mood” which is not in any way implied by the tweet. All the tweeter wants is a partner whose response to a change in behavior is curiosity/concern/empathy instead of anger/blame.”

It appears to me that the entire conflict in this thread is due to the interpretation of silent as bad mood and asking why as being the point instead of the reaction being the issue.

Edit: Does that seem like an accurate read to you?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Do you not understand what the word "either" was doing in my initial statement?

I was adding to the discussion.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Silence ≠ stonewalling

The “either” in your initial response implies that the silence is the problem, not the response to it.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

The silent treatment is a known abuse tactic, so yeah it can be a problem.

Both can be problems.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

It can be for sure, but that is not what the tweet is about. You are making a false equivalency, tis that simple.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

The tweet is vague enough to be open to many different interpretations.

I can just as easily tell you that you’re giving too much grace to OP.

Its meant to spur conversation and that’s been accomplished.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

I disagree that your initial response added anything meaningful to the conversation, other than to stoke further discussion, which if that is what you were hoping to accomplish you did so with aplomb. And that’s great, and welcome. My position is that responding to silence (whatever the reason) with violence is abuse. That in no way undermines your point that using silence as a tool for manipulation is also abuse.

The tweet though simply states a desire for a partner who reacts with empathy instead of anger as something to build towards in partnership, and is actually pretty un-vague about it. That feels pretty healthy and uncontroversial to me personally. Perhaps it is merely a difference of interpretation, but the language of the tweet is pretty cut-and-dry in my opinion.

I appreciate the discussion, and agree with your stance about abuse in relationships, I just disagree that the silence in the tweet is the abuse, and not the anger at it.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

My initial comment was offering the perspective from the other side.

I’ve had immature partners who fume in silence and resentment because of some unspoken expectation that I had no idea I was failing to meet.

And your personal experience with your wife similarly colors your interpretation of the tweet.

That’s it.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

Sure, I have trauma from being abused by past partners because I was silent for 30 minutes. My spouse (not wife) does as well. Silence is not inherently abusive, getting mad at someone’s silence in the context of this tweet is absolutely abuse. You are not providing an “other side” to this tweet- you’re inserting your unrelated personal experience into a statement about desired relationship dynamics, which is just a healthy desire for an empathetic partner instead of an abusive one.

Tweet: “I want a partner who treats me with respect and empathy instead of violence when I’m quiet”

You: “Stonewalling is unhealthy too”

That’s false equivalency, and a known abuse tactic.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

You are also inserting your unrelated personal experiences into our conversation about the tweet.

One can desire an empathetic partner and still have unhealthy relationship habits. Feeling anger is not violence.

Now you're accusing me of using abuse tactics when we're just having a conversation on the internet, so we're absolutely done here.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] zentigger@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Replying from a different instance as sh.itjust.works stopped working.

No accusations, simply using the same language you used previously directed at a statement I made.

My personal experience IS actually related to the tweet, whereas yours is related to an assumption made about the tweeter. Not the same thing.

And I wanted to rephrase my statement with regards to trauma: my experience in relationships with NTs (neurotypical) has been one of being told I am mad or upset when I am simply being quiet, in other words they imposed emotions onto me without ever asking why I was silent (oftentimes I merely went nonverbal for a period of time), even after being made aware that that was a normal thing for me. On the flipside, in ND (neurodivergent) relationships I have generally been asked why I am quiet without the assumption of fault by the asker. Perhaps it comes down to that difference. But you are imposing emotion/intent on the tweeter silence, while I am taking the tweet at face value. Now, does that face value happen to reflect my personal experience? Yes. Does that mean I am inserting my unrelated personal experience by including my related person experience? No.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

I’m not neurotypical myself, but this weird assertion that NT people are abusive because they respond differently than ND people is an odd conclusion.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

What? Where do you get that from?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

You've already framed the partner that gets mad at OP acting different when they're in a mood as abusive. You've firmly put NT people in that category with your previous comment while elevating ND people as having the correct response.

We all have different experiences with relationship dynamics and that colors our views of the world. Your experience isn't any more special or more correct than anyone else's.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

You've already framed the partner that gets mad at OP acting different when they're in a mood as abusive.

Not what I said, but that actually is abusive. No mood anywhere. The “partner” in the tweet is getting mad and accusing the tweeter of “acting different” when they are simply silent. More is not stated, nor can be assumed with the given information. You are the only person going on about this “mood” that supposedly exists. Let me be clear, this “mood” is your invention and not implied anywhere.

You've firmly put NT people in that category with your previous comment while elevating ND people as having the correct response.

Where did I do this? I said that in my experience in relationships with NT people, I have experienced abuse due to a lack of empathy for a different way of existing (going silent for periods of time), and have generally (but not always) not had this response in ND relationships. This has more to do with a shared experience than anything else.

We all have different experiences with relationship dynamics and that colors our views of the world. Your experience isn't any more special or more correct than anyone else's.

While this is true, it has no relevance with the discussion at hand.

You are making a lot of assumptions in this thread that are not supported by the information available.

Edit to add: Unsupported assumptions and bad faith arguments do not an interesting discussion make, and I have to go anyways, so again I will wish you and yours the best and be on my way.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

Feeling anger isn't abuse. It's what you do with that anger that can be abusive.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

No argument there.

Becoming angry that someone is being silent without ever asking why they are silent is unhealthy emotionally immature behavior (note: assuming there is no previously established pattern of using silence to manipulate). Expressing that anger by making accusations (again, without ever finding out why said person is silent) is not only emotionally immature, but assumes that the angered person is at fault to the silent person, where no such fault is necessary or implied. This is when it becomes abuse.

It is the “your change of behavior makes me angry and therefore it is your fault that I am angry” instead of “your change in behavior makes me concerned and so I will check in with you” of it all that you seem to be missing and is in fact the whole point of the tweet.

The tweeter desires an emotionally mature response to a change in behavior as opposed to an emotionally immature one, and you seem insistent to defend the emotionally immature response because of an unsupported assumption.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

I'm not defending the emotionally immature response. I'm suggesting that OP is also being emotionally immature by not being forthright with their feelings.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] zentigger@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago

They’re not though. There is no mention of withholding anything at all. In fact, the only feeling mentioned is that of the person who gets mad. Assuming a reliable narrator (which one must in order to have any meaningful argument about this), the only thing that elicits the reaction of becoming mad is the silence throughout the day. Nowhere is there any indication of intent or emotion on the narrators part, therefore none can be assumed. You however have made this assumption and based your entire conclusion and argument around it, and therein lies the rub.

You are arguing something that is not what is actually contained in the post, which while what you are saying may be true in the case you are presenting, it is not what is presented in the post and the tweeter is not doing anything abusive by wanting an emotionally mature partner. And for you to suggest that it is abusive so adamantly undermines a healthy relationship dynamic.

parent

[–] zentigger@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago*

Went back and read through your responses to other folx in this thread, and it’s clear you arguing in bad faith over the assumptions you’ve made about the tweeter and commenters, so I’ll just wish you good day and farewell to you and your husband.

parent