Replies

I've been following this all day. May I suggest you read a very little book with a long title:
HOW TO GET ALONG WITH NASTY PEOPLE WITHOUT BEING NASTY YOURSELF or Simply THE NASTY BOOK...Cheap used at amazon.

It explains in detail the “art” of invalidation.... Everyone does it at one time or another, most of the time we are not aware we are involved in it. It's unintentional.

OTOH it is a technique used to control and minimize people. (often used by bigots, abusers and misogynists)

Read it and then re-read this thread....Your opinion may change a bit.

Is this it? “Nasty People: How to Stop Being Hurt by Them Without Stooping to Their Level,” by Jay Carter.

I read a few sample pages on Google Books, and it looks interesting. I have to deal with a very nasty person on an unavoidable ongoing basis, and this book sure looks like it would help.

Wow! There’s a set of them!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Nasty+people&x=18&y=21

I find your post somewhat confusing. I understand what you’re trying to say about what some person or people are doing, but I’m not sure if you’re referring to my comments or some elses, perhaps both.

Would you mind explaining if you think I’m a misogynist? Do you think I am invalidation other people’s opinions?

Not trying to be difficult, but I’m not going to have that book soon, and I’m somewhat curious if I’m the target here.

To: DoughtyOne; Trisham; Lauren BaRecall

I've been following this all day. May I suggest you read a very little book with a long title:

HOW TO GET ALONG WITH NASTY PEOPLE WITHOUT BEING NASTY YOURSELF or Simply THE NASTY BOOK...Cheap used at amazon.

It explains in detail the “art” of invalidation.... Everyone does it at one time or another, most of the time we are not aware we are involved in it. It's unintentional.

OTOH it is a technique used to control and minimize people. (often used by bigots, abusers and misogynists)

Read it and then re-read this thread....Your opinion may change a bit.

417 posted on Sunday, July 05, 2009 8:23:49 PM by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)

Hoosiermama, I didn't really care for the BAM stink bomb you posted in response to my reply in 402. You didn't just post it to me, you linked others in. I asked you for some clarification in post 427. You failed to respond to me on point. Was I your target or not? Your response in 431 to my post 428 to Freepers other than yourself, did not directly address my concerns in 427.

I know you think you are remaining above the frey by conducting yourself the way you are, but it's not really a mature way to handle things.

You tagged me to other comments of yours on the same topic in posts 430 and 431. You linked others in to the post 430. All the while, you ignored my request for clarification.

You are trying to warn people of the tactics used on the forum. While that can be okay, if done properly, there are some tactics you didn't mention.

Instead of talking to a person directly and being straight up with them, you post extremely negative epitaphs in posts, then refuse to own up to the fact that you are either trying to judge the target guilty of these things, judge them guilty of defending someone guilty of these things, or judge them too stupid to realize someone was guilty of these things.

That's not something people with character do. People with character make their charges directly and plainly. This affords the person they are charging the ability to address the charges in a timely manner. You are urging folks to buy a book and wait until days later until a it is purchased and delivered to see what evil things I or someone else have been up to. And so I and someone else are supposed to wait days to refute the stink bombs you posted on the forum on point, while they sit there unaddressed. Meanwhile others drop by to read the thread and see the charges unresponded to. "Ah, she must have been right on target. They immediately went silent." Do you really think that is a reasoned thing to do? I think it's extremely unfair and consumately manipulative.

I've seen these tactics before, and they are shameful. If a person doesn't use the precise methods of debate you desire, you drop the BAM stink bomb. Another words, you fault others for not sticking to the debate without the name calling, then don't stick to the debate yourself to participate in name calling. If they respond they are defensive. If they don't buy the book and wait to respond on point, they're obviously doing what they did by design, an even worse infraction. And what was your name calling by inference, if not meant to completely invalidate Beckett's opinion? You did the same damend thing you're infering he's a bigot, an abuser, or a misogynist for doing.

If people don't play by Hoosiermama's guidelines (the ones you're addressing), they're either bigots, abusers, misogynists, or all three. (Don't give me the, "Oh I didn't charge anyone with this" line. You didn't post the comments without reason.) Then, if they try to explain they are not one of these three things, you dismiss them as being defensive because they are guilty one or all of these three things. Another words, they can't win. You toss out the epitaphs, and that's the end of it. They're guilty. Discussion is over. Verdict final!

I'm not convinced Beckett wouldn't have used the same terminology with a man, changing the name calling to suit the situation. Would that make him a misogynist? Would it make him a bigot? Would it make him an abuser? Hell no.

People get worked up and mouth off. That doesn't make them some sort of monster. It makes them temporarily worked up, intemperate for the moment as they shoot their mouth off. And yes, name calling can be part of that. It still isn't outside the bounds of common decency.

Do you think I may have called Bill Clinton some names back in the 90s? How about Hillary? Do you think I was being a bigot, an abuser, or a misogynist for having done so? Good grief! We had persons who were either abusing the office to which they were elected, or abusing power they achieved through marriage. The name calling was fierce and it was well deserved. Was it abusive? No. It didn't make folks who used those names anything other than righteously indignant. Here Beckett used names in relation to Sarah Palin. I didn't agree with their use, but I also don't think he's some sort of monster for using them. He is extremely critical of her, and specifically her decision to step down, because he rightly or wrongly thinks she used very poor judgment. He doesn't like her. So what? Refute his criticisms on point. Criticize the name calling. Link HIM to the books, or tell him straight up what you think he is guilty of. Don't link folks to some stink bomb he can't refute for a week.

Books can be wonderful things. The problem with some of them, is that people read them and then think they've instantly got a Ph.D. in psychoanalysis. They misinterpret or misapply the concepts provided, all the while thinking they're on rock solid moral high ground. Well this is exactly what I think you're doing here. Those tenets are something people should to be aware of. I'm not dismissing them across the board. The habitual inappropriate infraction of them would be cause for concern or even labeling. Even then, if the names are appropriate, they are not out of line. Bill Clinton IS an ass. Anyone saying so isn't gulty of anything other than being in the know. The intemperate string of comments along those lines in short burst are not necessarily an indication of a person being who you state they must be, if they use those tactics. And yes I know you said people do it all the time. You also said there is never an excuse for it. Wrong!

While I'm not going to specifically trash this book, I do want to point one more thing out here. Dr. Benjamin Spock wrote a number of books on child rearing. They essentially became the bible on the subject. Two decades later, Dr. Benjamin Spock said, "I have raised a generation of idiots." (pharaphrased) Just because somehing is in print, that does not mean it's infallible.

You're warning to the women on the forum specifically the ones I linked above, and the tactics you used in that post and a few others, were just plain sad, and manipulative in and of themselves.

Palin is going to get the same treatment any man would have gotten, if he had done the same thing. In reaction to this, you drop the Race Card and the Misogynist Card with perks tossed in. In a word, shameful. Don't we hate it when Jessie Jackson does it? I do.

Neither of the three of us approve of what Beckett wrote. I made my thoughts on his post perfectly clear, even if I didn't trash him unmercifully. Your reaction to my post, was just plain ignorant. It was uncalled for. It was also incredibly discourteous and compounded by your none response to my request for clarification, unacceptable. This to a person who took a considerable amount of time to be as forthcoming about another person's post as he could possibly be, as a courtesy to a fellow Freeper's request. This is the thanks you think I deserve.

One person asked me a question, and I stuck my neck out by responding honestly, on the point, and to the best of my ability.

I asked you for clarification and you crawed back into your shell and refused to ~~man~~ woman up.

I am urging you to quit trying to perfect others, until you've got your own house in order.

I don't take lightly being accused of terrible things unjustly, either directly or by inference. I will defend my character strenuously in every instance.