re: #430 suchislife

Like I said, it is a candid admission of guilt. He is saying, I should have seen what you were trying to do, but I couldn’t see it at the time. All good so far. I didn’t dwell on this because he made that quite clear, and frankly, it’s not that stunning an insight. Many teenagers could say the same thing, or exes.

But intertwined with it is a more problematic message, that I was trying to highlight. Namely, if the person who treats you like that cannot see that you’re trying to give them love, if you are not, as I said, Ceasar’s wife, then this is what could happen: they could snap.

Some do, some don’t, and the difference, says the author, is whether the person they abuse is convincing enough. And now suddenly, the candid admission becomes a powerful tool. Because the abused person can no longer say, anyone could have seen I was trying, it was enough. They have to conform to an irrational, entirely subjective standard. Or else.

Again, why do you not think he’s saying the ‘or else’ is an honest warning of what can occur, rather than this cynical manipulation?

Some do, some don’t, and the difference, says the author, is whether the person they abuse is convincing enough.

Can you point out where he says this is the difference between the groups?

I assume he is both. Many of the best manipulators can yield sincerity like a weapon. And they are their own best audiences and greatest fans, as well as greatest critics.

This is sounding more and more personal.

He could have emphasized that sometimes, living with an abusive person is just too much to take. And that even though not giving up on someone you love is a wonderful thing, if you do give up, if you let go in order to safe yourself, that does not make you responsible. He could have emphasized that ultimatelly, we are each other’s friends, (which I believe, deeply, and consider to be a deep commitment), but we are not each other’s savior, even though sometimes, a friend’s commitment can save you.

He’s not talking about friends. He’s talking about a mother-son relationship. And our parents really are vastly important to us in a way nobody else can be.

It’s in the second part you’ll find linked. I think at the bottom of the page. And I never stop rethinking my take on anything.

Okay, I read that, and I think you’re overstating it. He does have muddled ideas about intelligence, as most people do, but he makes the point that for all how smart he was, he was smart about creating entirely wrong hypotheses— the Lindsey Lohan lawyer analogy. And it’s entirely true that being very smart in most public schools in the US will get a target painted on your back, and lead to social ostracism.

It is entirely possible this guy is entirely wrong that Adam Lanza’s story is anything like his. That doesn’t, however, invalidate his point: parents occupy a very unique role for us in terms of pscyhological help, and feeling that your parents have given up on you is devastating. You may see it representing a lack of empathy for the caretaker, but he acknowledges that often this can’t be done alone.

You really seem like you’re responding to the writer as if he is a manipulative sociopath. Is that your belief?