• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Psychological Violence?

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
In the USA the very silent hate-stare is used as a form of psychological violence by both AAs and Anglo Americans towards those that they find ethnically unacceptable. It is very convenient because the aggressor cannot be legally brought to justice and yet it conveys volumes in the process. There is also the denial defense and the claim of having been seriously culturally misunderstood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Received
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Ok, last thing first - simply because it may (or may not) illustrate my entire problem with your approach.
I don't get your last question. Can you rephrase?
I´ll try:
Initially, you were looking at a person whose fuse blew and who resorted to physical violence. You were giving her the benefit of the doubt, assuming that this mechanism (pressed button -> fuse blown -> use of physical violence) is not her own making, but has been instilled on her due to concepts and stuff that she had "learned" early in her life.
Still with me, so far?
Now, next you were looking at a person who resorted to psychological violence (and for the point I am trying to get across it doesn´t matter that this person was the one triggering the physical violence response). This person, obviously, has had a childhood, influences, concepts instilled in him that resulted in resorting to psychological violence, as well - just like the other person who resorted to physical violence.
I am wondering why you are ready and willing to acknowledge such "excuses" (limited freedom of behavioural choices) when someone resorts to physical violence, but not when someone resorts to psychological violence.
IOW: Why such an abundance of empathy with a person whose physical violence is triggered by something, but OTOH but a concrete judgement when a person can´t help but resorting to psychological violence?
Or, in again other words: With the first person you were ready and willing to consider her psychological background (and what may have been the external cause for the fact that she couldn´t help but act intentionally violent), and with the latter person you just stopped at "the violence was intended, so there´s responsibility", without looking at the external causes of his psychological wiring.


Why not assume for both persons alike that their destructive solutions are a result of their psychological make-up which is not their own making?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
I don't think the person whose fuse is blown has no responsibility in preventing his fuse from being blown. Quite the opposite. However, responsibility is by definition a finite domain, which can be seen even in the morphology of the term: response able. Can you imagine a saint who has an excellent character in holding responsibility over himself in attempting to prevent himself from blowing his fuse still having his fuse blown if he has a crappy enough month (mom dies, dog dies, bad traffic, boss breathing down his neck, etc. etc.) and someone comes along and tops things off with a crappy attitude and won't let down? I sure can. So what do we say here? The gas tank, which was well on its way to being emptied, finally empties, and the saint erupts in anger and maybe a small act of physical violence (e.g., a shove, a scream, etc.).
Let me try to cut things short here - because I feel we are mostly talking past each other.
I for one am assuming that any person who resorts to violence (be it physical or psychological) is in such a state as you describe above for your "saint". They are in a rough spot, and in their helplessness they resort to counterproductive solutions. Their needs aren´t met, they are at the end of their patience, they are at the end of their emotional fuel, they reach the point of their fuse being blown - we can call it what we will.
We will not reach these persons (or supply them with better solutions) by blaming/accusing them (and this whole "responsibility"-business is, in its essence, about accusing/blaming people.) What they need is empathy.

I am assuming that deliberate violence for violence´s sake is the privilege of sociopaths. Sociopaths, however, are a league of their own, and they will not be impressed by being shown "hey, you're trying to tick of Dave" (because that´s exactly what they want to do, and they know it).

Consequently, I am assuming that in 99% of all cases violence isn´t performed for violence´s sake, but as a ("suicidal") strategy of fulfilling one´s deep unmet need(s) and getting rid of psychological pain and hurt feelings. A person in that state isn´t responsive to accusations and "responsibility"-calculations.

As, in general, abstractions do not help us dealing with our own or other persons´ feelings. I will readily concede, however, that that´s the way we traditionally have been appproaching these things in our cultures for milleniums. It has never proven successful, though. It has always done nothing but amplifying the underlying problem: Namely, that we aren´t in lively contact with our feelings, and that we don´t allow ourselves to express our feelings. That, at best, we are used to expression our feelings in post-hoc rationalized justifications.

Or, in very short: If I find myself operating with concepts such as responsibility, I can be sure that I am somewhat removed from my empathy - the very thing you complain is missing in your society. :)
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Let me give you an example:

One of my closest friend´s family has a long tradition in interacting by means of aggressions, accusations, emotional black-mail etc. etc.
Her mother, most of the time, is complaining about her three adult daughters, about them not taking responsibilities for their lives, about making all sorts of fundamentally poor choices.
I have been the witness of many crisis talks in this family, and all they apparently do is blaming and hurting each other.
Since I´m friends with one of her daughters, I am more familiar with her perspective. Thus, whenever her mother started her complaints, I could easily understand my friend´s attempt to demonstrate how a lot of the things going wrong are partly her mother´s "responsibility". Which, predictably, resulted but in resistance, defensiveness and counter-accusations.
Yesterday, I passed by the mother´s house, and I thought it might be a good idea to just visit her, even though my friend wasn´t there.
She started complaining about her daughters, about how they hurt her, about how they don´t take responsibility yadayada. I just listened, asked some comprehension questions. I refrained from giving advice, I refrained from being smart, I refrained from questioning her mental construct.
It didn´t take ten minutes until she said: "You know what? I have so many guilt feelings because, ultimately, I as their mother am responsible for the way my daughters have turned out. I really don´t know how to get to terms with these guilt feelings."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ana the Ist
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Ok, last thing first - simply because it may (or may not) illustrate my entire problem with your approach.

I´ll try:
Initially, you were looking at a person whose fuse blew and who resorted to physical violence. You were giving her the benefit of the doubt, assuming that this mechanism (pressed button -> fuse blown -> use of physical violence) is not her own making, but has been instilled on her due to concepts and stuff that she had "learned" early in her life.
Still with me, so far?
Now, next you were looking at a person who resorted to psychological violence (and for the point I am trying to get across it doesn´t matter that this person was the one triggering the physical violence response). This person, obviously, has had a childhood, influences, concepts instilled in him that resulted in resorting to psychological violence, as well - just like the other person who resorted to physical violence.
I am wondering why you are ready and willing to acknowledge such "excuses" (limited freedom of behavioural choices) when someone resorts to physical violence, but not when someone resorts to psychological violence.
IOW: Why such an abundance of empathy with a person whose physical violence is triggered by something, but OTOH but a concrete judgement when a person can´t help but resorting to psychological violence?
Or, in again other words: With the first person you were ready and willing to consider her psychological background (and what may have been the external cause for the fact that she couldn´t help but act intentionally violent), and with the latter person you just stopped at "the violence was intended, so there´s responsibility", without looking at the external causes of his psychological wiring.


Why not assume for both persons alike that their destructive solutions are a result of their psychological make-up which is not their own making?

Most human behavior can be traced to socialization sincere as human MUST be socialized in order to survive. However, that doesn't nullify culpability. To be considered innocent of purposeful malice the person must be proven to be out of touch with reality due to a congenital inability to reason as is the case in severe cases of mental retardation or brain damage or insanity, resulting in a total inability distinguish right from wrong.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Most human behavior can be traced to socialization sincere as human MUST be socialized in order to survive. However, that doesn't nullify culpability. To be considered innocent of purposeful malice the person must be proven to be out of touch with reality due to a congenital inability to reason as is the case in severe cases of mental retardation or brain damage or insanity, resulting in a total inability distinguish right from wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be describing how it´s done in legal issues.
Received however had emphasized that he didn´t mean to talk about legislation, and consequently I wasn´t, either, when addressing his posts.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be describing how it´s done in legal issues.
Received however had emphasized that he didn´t mean to talk about legislation, and consequently I wasn´t, either, when addressing his posts.
I am aware of what both were talking about.
 
Upvote 0