In many cases, parent-child estrangements are a cycle — "they'll re-engage, then they'll fall out again," Blake said. "One of the key things from the research is that adult children will reach out and if they see nothing has changed, they'll estrange again."

No, I actually think it's a pretty good article, and comes surprisingly close to outright saying the parents are the problem

I wouldn’t be shocked if they said to kidnap said adult children and send them to reeducation camps brought to you by PragerU

Even better, it was "hostage negotiation tactics."

If my in-laws watch this show the expert must be telling people to play the victim card whenever direct communication happens and post passive aggressive memes on Facebook.

and use any leverage you got, emotional or material. (It was both in my case)

No, seriously, I'd love to know what the "expert" said.

...

The article itself is boilerplate advice. Basic stuff: really listen, admit your own mistakes, don't get angry. Avoid labeling. What's of course more interesting is why adult children choose to cut ties with their FOX-infested parents. And that article is extremely problematic.

Yup, sorta “stand your ground” with that opinion so we can rule you via divide and conquer and your dependency on feeding your narrative.

Or taking responsibility, also feels like it manipulates the narrative. Reading some of this is giving me PTSD anxiety from dealing with my parents. Knowingly trapping you into proving how they make you feel. Because you can't come up with examples on the spot when they corner you means you must be making this up.

Nothing about politics=>ethics at all really. It's pretty boilerplate stuff for how to communicate constructively.

The article 5 reasons people cut off their own parents is much more interesting and, erm, problematic.

Im morbidly fascinated how mainstream media will pivot as their primary audience dies out. They aren't long for new media formats, so maybe they will die out as well

I'd just like to say that being from Texas by itself doesn't indicate anything. Many million people here are not Republicans

I shouldn't have read the comments.

Great article, part of a series of great articles.

*this

It's doublethink. They've been peddling it for like decades now.

I took it to mean that feelings are facts - meaning the parent should take it as a true statement about their child’s feelings and not try to argue with them about why their feelings are wrong.

Not well phrased at all.

Its manipulative, its like making someone cry and then telling them feelings aren't facts.

It seems poorly worded. I think they were trying to say that the person's interpretation of what happened is a fact. Basically that someone can't handwave away how a person says they feel as if it's not true; how a person says they genuinely felt about something is true to them. I assume it is supposed to be targeted towards estranged parents who constantly dismissed their child's emotions and literally cannot understand how that is a bad thing to do.

Without reading more, that last one seems pretty rational at least. I imagine the 'See More' label is hiding some absolute venom though, or maybe just "it's their loss, I've no need to reflect on how my actions led to this outcome".

That's the top comment under the article? Wow. Well, what else did we expect.