"so you would think i'm gaslighting crow, or you? or both?"
It'd technically only qualify related to myself, since you keep trying to create the means of making me not trust what's going on, but the attempt to reshape the perceived reality of what's going on has the means to affect the forum as a whole.
This means that the scenario splits as such: Either all of the details are yielded defensively by either her or I to counteract the claims, or no more is said and some may assume you're right. When I correct you continue to try to find ways to mention how my perspective is flawed in order to keep favoring your version of the events.
"i guess it's more about how bad things are compared to how expensive it is. i'd think things were pretty bad if you were depressed or suicidal."
How bad something is won't change how effective they are or aren't beyond the chance of there being less walls out of desperation. In the height of my depravity during a point during college they seemed less capable of accomplishing anything when compared to more lucid times.
I've been suicidal for a fairly long time. This isn't something surfacing merely from who I'm dating, it's been a problem on and off for years now. The behaviors tend to appear more strongly during episodes, but the notion of it sticks around passively when not within the throes of one.
"i think that's a good thing(continuing to expand), cos it means i observe as things progress rather than making a snap judgment and working my analysis around it."
It's good as a principle, but what it's expanding from is a flawed base. As such, each expansion has an increased risk of further flaws.
"i just gave an honest assessment of what i think is happening."
Fair enough. The way this is expressed has it appear otherwise, but the presence of "I think" at least shows some level of self-doubt.
"but i don't know everything about either of you so of course i will assume."
Why is this an "of course"? Does there need to be a conclusion here for you to find peace in this event? Why not go with "I don't know more than what's been said"?
"whose 'perceived antagonism' are you referring to?"
Hers and mine. We're naturally going to find some level of offense towards what's being said when it abrasively doesn't fit the way we see it.
Just want to point out...
"i just gave an honest assessment of what i think is happening."
Fair enough. The way this is expressed has it appear otherwise, but the presence of "I think" at least shows some level of self-doubt.
Not necessarily "self-doubt" but an allowance for being incorrect. It's an acknowledgement of the limits perception has on knowledge. I won't accuse you of gas-lighting, but noted in case there is a future detour from intent vs. communication of intent. I would hate for anyone to be branded a hypocrite or exercising a double-standard, if they didn't knowingly intend to do so.
EDIT: And before you say "an allowance for being incorrect is a level of self-doubt" -- that's bass-ackwards. It's less inaccurate to say that self-doubt is more than an "allowance" for being incorrect, but almost acting as though it were a foregone conclusion.
"you know TC, i got the impression that crow no longer wanted me to take your accounts of her thought process as accurate from the last thread where i used your explanation of it 'being obvious she didn't wanna talk about it',"
You two are perfectly welcome to discuss your opinions on my thought process. I just don't care for them being taken as my own perspective. He may have some insight on the subject, but he and I are not the same person.
"if you still think i'm wrong then my bad for using that specific word."
I would say it's closer to perceptions than communication, but not entirely either. It's in no way meant to cast doubt on his opinions here. When it happens, it's generally something completely inconsequential and is typically glaringly obvious. For instance, if I ask him to pick up a box of cereal at the grocery store and he comes back with a bag of potatoes and a considerable monologue about the wonky train of thought that led him to believe that he should get me potatoes instead. XD Obviously this is a somewhat cartoonish and overstated example, but that's basically how it works. Without extremely specific instructions that cover any and all possible eventualities, his own way of filling in blanks is a bit convoluted. It's the same sort of process that leads him on the wild tangents he's been mentioning. However, this doesn't seem to affect any other area of thought. His assessments of people, situations, philosophies, etc. seems quite solid.
"also, i don't see how therapy (minus medication) could be a problem, and if it did turn out to be one, you could always...stop going to therapy."
The problem is the insurance. At the moment, we'd be paying out of pocket for someone who probably couldn't do a damn thing for him anyways. But I have brought it up on darker days, because I'm not sure how to help him beyond what I'm already doing.
"how about we stick to what's going on now rather than muddy the waters with past behaviors? just a suggestion."
And an amusing one. Coming from someone who started this conversation by once again, bringing up something that happened weeks ago, in another thread. This whole conversation is about past behaviours. But of course you wouldn't care for that, when the spotlight is turned on your past behaviours. ; )
No matter what I do there will always be stress, but from my experience? Digging my way out of past mistakes grants far less ease on my mind than risk-assessment and self control. Aftermath doesn't grant any breathing room and more than enough excuses to dwell on the past. I need breaks or I destabilize, and preventing mistakes from happening in the first place grants me said breaks.
Anywhere that I feel like I could impact the outcome of something is something that I feel responsible over in some form. How much I let myself care about that fact is based on how much weight I've put onto those within the scenario. My older puppet-master ideation from when I was younger centered around controlling other people to prevent what I saw as bad outcomes from happening, and while that made for more peace of mind in the moment, in the long run it was a mistake of it's own design I was too dumb to understand from lacking that necessary piece of widsom at the time. In it's place I've become more adjusted to letting other people make mistakes... as long as I am not responsible for them in some way.
Being "easy on myself" means I risk letting aspects of my disabilities come out, and it's a good deal of work to put that back in it's box once I've let it out. I could lose my job or all sorts of other things if I don't keep that stuff in check. It takes strict self-discipline to remain in control of my own life, as otherwise it has the ability to run away with me towards somewhere I don't even recognize. I don't want to descend into that again.
"that's the same kind of trickery you are dismissing therapy based on."
That sounds more like the ending of a Thanksgiving special. It'd have to be a bit more work than that or else all I'm really presenting is flattery, something she'd see through if it was done blatantly.
"wtf are you talking about?"
It's been a theme across a few topics now, but within this topic it's stuff like: "while simultaneously reinforcing the idea that TC cannot function cognitively using his own perceptions." It's not as direct as it was in other topics, but again, it matches the theme.
"That sounds more like the ending of a Thanksgiving special. It'd have to be a bit more work than that or else all I'm really presenting is flattery, something she'd see through if it was done blatantly." - it's starting to look like your cynicism is bordering on pretentious (no offense) to the point where you seem to dismiss things based on superficial ideas of it. everything needs to be deeper or it's laughable to you.
It's been a theme across a few topics now, but within this topic it's stuff like: "while simultaneously reinforcing the idea that TC cannot function cognitively using his own perceptions." - how about we stick to what's going on now rather than muddy the waters with past behaviors? just a suggestion.
"wtf are you talking about?"
It's been a theme across a few topics now, but within this topic it's stuff like: "while simultaneously reinforcing the idea that TC cannot function cognitively using his own perceptions." It's not as direct as it was in other topics, but again, it matches the theme.
Get back in your cage!