[unaluna]

You said there werent any classes. Luv said there were. I suggested dbt. You are not interested in discussions. You just shoot everything down. How is that a discussion? Its really boring for the person getting shot down at every turn. So thanks but no, thanks.

[here today]

Originally Posted by unaluna

You said there werent any classes. Luv said there were. I suggested dbt. You are not interested in discussions. You just shoot everything down. How is that a discussion? Its really boring for the person getting shot down at every turn. So thanks but no, thanks.

I'm sorry that you are not interested. Again, though, the written record speaks for itself. This is what I said:

Many or most of us participating on PsychCentral have a history of trauma and/or mental health issues, and experience and knowledge about how to discuss differing opinions -- and disrespecting certain opinions, even -- without disrespecting others is something I know that I have lacked. There really aren't any classes anywhere about that, which I have found.

The classes Luvyrself referred to were not about the topic I had described, in the way that I understood what I had described. Undoubtedly Luvyrself understood it differently, from within her perspective and experience.

Nevertheless, when she responded to my questions with a contradiction of an assertion that I had made -- with the qualifier "which I have found", it felt like a slap in the face. Could I have taken a step back, analyzed it this way at the time, and gone forward? Perhaps. Why didn't I do that? All questions that I think could be up for discussion, if anybody was interested in such a discussion.

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by unaluna

You said there werent any classes. Luv said there were. I suggested dbt. You are not interested in discussions. You just shoot everything down. How is that a discussion? Its really boring for the person getting shot down at every turn. So thanks but no, thanks.

What it looked like to me was someone asking how to create a community dinner and being handed a handbook on bicycle repair AND being told that not wanting a bicycle repair book makes them ungrateful. The responses being given are not on the topic being asked about.

[unaluna]

If you just want someone to agree with you, that is not a discussion or a conversation.

If your ego cannot withstand someone having a different existence from you without it feeling like quote a slap in the face, then yeah you need to start waaaay back at step one and differentiate your newborn self from yo mama. Usually thats therapy.

[stopdog]

I don't see that as what HT is doing. I don't know what you are talking about.

[unaluna]

Originally Posted by stopdog

What it looked like to me was someone asking how to create a community dinner and being handed a handbook on bicycle repair AND being told that not wanting a bicycle repair book makes them ungrateful. The responses being given are not on the topic being asked about.

Good point. I have no idea what we're talking about.

Eta - huh, looks like we cross posted. And agreed on something again!!

[here today]

Originally Posted by unaluna

If you just want someone to agree with you, that is not a discussion or a conversation. . .

It seems clear that we have different opinions and viewpoints. It also seems to me that it's necessary to have some common interest or goal if we are to have a discussion about those differences. Back to the title of this thread, then. Does that question interest you? I don't expect that we would have the same opinions or ideas. In fact, it would be pretty uninteresting to me if we did! I'm looking for a solution or an approach toward a solution that I don't have an answer to.

So far, maybe what I've heard is everybody should go to assertiveness training. Or maybe DBT. Is that a fair statement of where you are coming from?

[unaluna]

No. I think people should work harder in therapy - yes, Im a client-blamer. I try to follow missbellas rule of saying things as, "this is what worked for me" but people just call me a cheek-kisser. So then i turn the other cheek and go to another thread.

[here today]

Huh? Now I have no idea what you are talking about. So if nobody knows what anybody else is talking about and nobody knows what common interest they have, then there's not much to discuss, is there?

[seesaw]

I was really trying to follow but then I got lost...

There was somebody really good at doing just what you are asking about but who has unfortunately recently left the forum.

One pattern I noticed are these subtle followings of people rather than the idea or point. What I mean is if A says C, a group is supportive, but if be B says C, a group does not support. Or no matter what D says, people support them. The person, not the opinion. People can speculate on how that can play out, but I see group culture in ways that can be harmful.

I think Miss Bella has a good strategy, and I appreciate your posts, but have opposing thoughts on unwritten rules. I totally disagree with the concept that people can't make generalizations or talk about things outside their personal experience (that are not disrespectful of the person as against the rules).

It's just as much a valid opinion to say I think all fast food is toxic as it is to say fast food is toxic in my experience. I am personally a very conceptual and more abstract thinker, so I can't even imagine trying to participate in conversations without using labels and symbols to express how I conceptualize thoughts.

One pattern that I will not fall into is expressing myself in a way demanded by another person or group or to appease others. If everything was unique to a person, language wouldn't exist. Sure, some may the see the sky as blue, some may see the sky as periwinkle or turquoise or some may not even see the sky at all. But I think if someone wants to say the sky is blue, rather than in my experience the sky is blue, that is ok. We are not facilitating scientific studies here, so it's ok to speak casually and at ease as long as respectful. I'd have a real problem if I took anything I read on a support forum as fact. Of course it's disrespectful to badger someone demanding they agree that the sky is blue if they choose not too. Overall it's controlling to demand someone change their opinion of the color of the sky. These dynamics seem to be common ways in which boundaries manifest.

Group think, forced conformity, and changing behaviors to appease others are not things I respect and so therefore will absolutely not participate in. I am also not a fan of peer pressure or social cliques, but thankfully have recently overcome any discomfort related to being myself 100 percent of the time.

Here today, by the way, I think you're a great conversationalist.

[seesaw]

Originally Posted by octoberful

There was somebody really good at doing just what you are asking about but who has unfortunately recently left the forum.

One pattern I noticed are these subtle followings of people rather than the idea or point. What I mean is if A says C, a group is supportive, but if be B says C, a group does not support. Or no matter what D says, people support them. The person, not the opinion. People can speculate on how that can play out, but I see group culture in ways that can be harmful.

I think Miss Bella has a good strategy, and I appreciate your posts, but have opposing thoughts on unwritten rules. I totally disagree with the concept that people can't make generalizations or talk about things outside their personal experience (that are not disrespectful of the person as against the rules).

It's just as much a valid opinion to say I think all fast food is toxic as it is to say fast food is toxic in my experience. I am personally a very conceptual and more abstract thinker, so I can't even imagine trying to participate in conversations without using labels and symbols to express how I conceptualize thoughts.

One pattern that I will not fall into is expressing myself in a way demanded by another person or group or to appease others. If everything was unique to a person, language wouldn't exist. Sure, some may the see the sky as blue. some may see the sky as periwinkle or turquoise or some may not even see the sky at all. But I think if someone wants to say the sky is blue, rather than in my experience the sky is blue, that is ok. We are not facilitating scientific studies here, so it's ok to speak casually and at ease as long as respectful. Of course it's disrespect to badger someone to agree that the sky is blue if they choose not too, but it's controlling ro demand soneone change their opinion of the color of the sky. I'd have a real problem if I took anything I read on a support forum as fact. These dynamics seem to be common ways in which boundaries manifest.

Group think, forced conformity, and changing behaviors to appease others are not things I respect and so therefore not participate in. I am also not a fan of peer pressure or social cliques, but thankfully have recently overcome any discomfort related to being myself 100 percent of the time.

Here today, by the way, I think you're a great conversationalist.

So well put. Thank you.

[unaluna]

.

Originally Posted by octoberful

There was somebody really good at doing just what you are asking about but who has unfortunately recently left the forum.

One pattern I noticed are these subtle followings of people rather than the idea or point. What I mean is if A says C, a group is supportive, but if be B says C, a group does not support. Or no matter what D says, people support them. The person, not the opinion. People can speculate on how that can play out, but I see group culture in ways that can be harmful.

I think Miss Bella has a good strategy, and I appreciate your posts, but have opposing thoughts on unwritten rules. I totally disagree with the concept that people can't make generalizations or talk about things outside their personal experience (that are not disrespectful of the person as against the rules).

It's just as much a valid opinion to say I think all fast food is toxic as it is to say fast food is toxic in my experience. I am personally a very conceptual and more abstract thinker, so I can't even imagine trying to participate in conversations without using labels and symbols to express how I conceptualize thoughts.

One pattern that I will not fall into is expressing myself in a way demanded by another person or group or to appease others. If everything was unique to a person, language wouldn't exist. Sure, some may the see the sky as blue, some may see the sky as periwinkle or turquoise or some may not even see the sky at all. But I think if someone wants to say the sky is blue, rather than in my experience the sky is blue, that is ok. We are not facilitating scientific studies here, so it's ok to speak casually and at ease as long as respectful. I'd have a real problem if I took anything I read on a support forum as fact. Of course it's disrespectful to badger someone demanding they agree that the sky is blue if they choose not too. Overall it's controlling to demand someone change their opinion of the color of the sky. These dynamics seem to be common ways in which boundaries manifest.

Group think, forced conformity, and changing behaviors to appease others are not things I respect and so therefore will absolutely not participate in. I am also not a fan of peer pressure or social cliques, but thankfully have recently overcome any discomfort related to being myself 100 percent of the time.

Here today, by the way, I think you're a great conversationalist.

Sorry, but I think you missed the whole point of these forums that DocJohn talked about. This is not a discussion forum. One's own experience and life is not like a fast food or sky color. In your examples, you are talking about things outside one's existence. Two people can look at them but see them differently. But when we start to talk about one's own experience and existence, there is not much discussion about it, because you cannot feel it and understand it.

[here today]

I think an issue for me is to try to be more watchful about when I am emotionally involved and triggered and defensive. Because then I am so caught up in my own experience and existence that it is near impossible for me to see anybody's perspective but my own.

But I actually also

Originally Posted by octoberful

. . .disagree with the concept that people can't make generalizations or talk about things outside their personal experience (that are not disrespectful of the person as against the rules).
. . .

It's just that when I'm stuck inside my own emotionality, it's difficult to do. Probably difficult for others, too.

Originally Posted by Cold Soul

Sorry, but I think you missed the whole point of these forums that DocJohn talked about. This is not a discussion forum. One's own experience and life is not like a fast food or sky color. In your examples, you are talking about things outside one's existence. Two people can look at them but see them differently. But when we start to talk about one's own experience and existence, there is not much discussion about it, because you cannot feel it and understand it.

I was writing about common themes related to how threads gets sidetracked and shut down.

[here today]

I don't know about anybody else -- I started this thread to try to address a situation in the community that bothered and upset me.

AND -- it looks like I've gotten some answers that may help me not to get so bothered and upset in the future, though in a roundabout way and not how I expected it. I don't know much about living in a community -- one of my many issues, faults, and/or failings, I guess you could say. I can fake it, but I don't have much experience, and don't know very well how to be myself, AND in a community. I got some experience here, thanks everybody for that, and some answers that may work for me personally.

Is there anything else related to the situation of differing opinions on threads that anyone would like to address? Venting frustration about common themes seems very related to the topic. Venting frustration about how people tend to overlook the stated purpose of the forums seems OK, too. But -- those are different topics.

AND, even though we're discussing stuff here, it's in the Community Feedback forum and in the interest, hopefully, of supporting people deal with differing opinions on threads.

[unaluna]

I try to keep caring about my fellow travelers here.

[Calla lily12]

Re: How can we discuss differing opinions and not get into verbal fights?

This thread has devolved into the definition of irony
Could we attribute this to human nature?

[Fuzzybear]

Thanks here today for starting this discussion. I haven’t read all of it yet but think it may be of value to many

I too try to keep caring about my fellow travellers here ....