fuzzy post-it

this is actually a pretty good one if you’re following along, but i’m cutting because oops sorry for spamming everyone with this garbage

dewdropdaze:

You don’t have to say falsities to be gaslighting. Examples of gaslighting: 

• “I’m not listening to that crap again tonight.”
• “You see everything in the most negative way.”
• “Where did you get a crazy idea like that?”
• “You’re making that up.”

“Gaslighting techniques are used to hide truths that the abuser doesn’t want the victim to realize.”

assuming the victim is correct in your examples, i fail to see how repeatedly calling their words “crap”, “negative”, “crazy”, or “made up” are not falsehoods.

There is an unhealthy power dynamic between PK and other small artists because of PK’s visibility, fanbase, and influence. Artists can be pressured into silence because of it. It can be used against them. [It may or may not have in this case, but is still a very real thing. Google power dynamics if you need to.]

there is an unhealthy power dynamic between PK and Kanye West, who is far more visible and popular and influential. so goes the curse of infamy. i don’t understand what you expect to be done about this, if anything.

his condemning of PK ignoring his abuse is because it specifically contributed to his anxiety and triggered him. It directly contributed to what OP perceives as abuse. The post was about him, as a victim, and how PK’s actions affected him because of his past experiences. Mentioning PK’s mother would not contribute to the post at all, unless it was being used as an excuse for their actions

where exactly did she “ignore his abuse”? by reminding him of his ex? you condemn that, but not that he reminded her of her abusive parent?

but you are inadvertently correct about the post: a significant theme in it (as towards the end of their relationship) is to paint himself as abused because his tendencies were not sufficiently understood, but to completely ignore that mel has her own tendencies that he did not understand.

and this is critically relevant. they both had abusive pasts, they both have personal issues they do their best to deal with, they both were unhappy with how the convention went, they both felt slighted by the other. yet the conclusion is that she is abusive, and he is abused? why?

Someone who has paranoia can still recount that they felt they were hurt and mistreated in a relationship, their paranoia may contribute to those feelings, yes, but that does not make the feelings false.

but it leaves open quite a wide window of possibility.

It’s still condescending and dismissive to tell someone they need help in context of an argument or debate. It is not okay.

if that is how i came across then i apologize; the gesture was genuine.

PK was made aware of OP’s problems. PK was told. PK dismissed them as childish and unimportant. PK had the power to be helpful and supportive of someone they were close to but didn’t. PK is at fault.

you are stripping the OP of his agency again.

but from what i’m hearing, OP repeatedly went silent at ax, refusing to say what a specific problem was. OP continually did things that bothered her after being asked not to, then blamed her for not guessing what he was bothered about. OP blocked her immediately after their final conversation, before she wrote the post he is now replying to.

he actively and repeatedly shut her out. he rigged the game so it was impossible for her to help any more than she tried to do, and now is stringing her up for having lost. there was no way for her to have won.

if mental issues make him incapable of doing otherwise, that’s unfortunate, but understandable. but it does not excuse blaming other people for not becoming superhuman to compensate for his problems.

(and for what it’s worth, if you read that final conversation, the one where he multiple times says he “spent 6 hours apologizing”, you may notice it conspicuously has multiple consecutive hours where only mel is talking, explaining how she felt. he would have had to look at the same log to take screenshots of both the beginning and end, so there’s no way he could’ve not known this.)

He controlled his environment and was sent 16 text messages attacking his decisions and calling him childish and cowardly. PK’s influence in their shared environment was overwhelmingly negative. PK made the environment unsafe. I am agreeing with what OP said about the experience.

unsafe how? the 16 texts were sent after he left, after they would never see each other again.

i note you are basing a word like “overwhelmingly” on a report of some texts sent over the course of a day, when they had been together for months.

which all raises an interesting question: why? why would mel do this? what would she possibly stand to gain, by deliberately driving someone away, someone who she’d hoped would visit her days later and collaborate with her on projects far into the future?

it makes no sense. just to be mean, just because she felt like it? then why wait until the con? or why not wait until he was visiting? or if you think this had been going on for ages, then why is the vast bulk of the post about the convention?

NOBODY’S MEMORY IS PERFECT, and that INCLUDES PK’s memory. That includes yours. But OP has evidence, OP has someone who shares his experience, OP is the victim in this scenario. I understand you want to defend your partner, but I would rather side with someone who has likely been hurt than someone who likely hurt them. 

OP has nothing. OP has drawings of button arrangement. OP has logs with other, uninvolved people. OP has logs that actively contradict the conclusion he’s trying to draw from them. OP has logs that rephrase something no one is suggesting mel never said. merely taking a screenshot of someone else’s words does not constitute “evidence” of whatever paragraph you write below it.

who shared his experience? the friend-of-a-friend with the mysterious “ex-partner”, who broke up with the friend-of-a-friend before coming along with us? the “ex-partner” who the OP did not bother trying to contact before posting that he’s maybe being manipulated, based on the wild guesses of someone the OP doesn’t even know?

or do you mean all the people saying “i KNEW IT, for… some reason…” in the tags? the people who don’t have real stories of their own, but were inexplicably drawn to agree with the post? if only someone could give us some input on this. you like logs? then let’s ask the OP what he thinks about this situation:

[4/20/2013 6:31:12 PM] xxxx: yeah for real
[4/20/2013 6:31:17 PM] xxxx: youre only rude to rude ppl"
[4/20/2013 6:31:32 PM] xxxx: u can be short and blunt in ur reply but thats very different from rudeness
[4/20/2013 6:31:37 PM] xxxx: i hate ppl who dont get that

[4/20/2013 6:32:51 PM] xxxx: especially for women they expect u to be Nice and Gentle and Understanding
[4/20/2013 6:33:07 PM] xxxx: but the moment u say something straight up its WTF UR BITCHY or something uhsgjfdj
[4/20/2013 6:33:19 PM] xxxx: OK thats a bit of a derailment but its been on my mind

[4/20/2013 6:38:36 PM] purplekecleon: YEAH
[4/20/2013 6:38:40 PM] purplekecleon: also
[4/20/2013 6:38:42 PM] purplekecleon: i think i figured it out
[4/20/2013 6:38:48 PM] purplekecleon: people feel  uncomfortable by my words
[4/20/2013 6:38:51 PM] purplekecleon: so they automatically think
[4/20/2013 6:38:54 PM] purplekecleon: well she must be being rude
[4/20/2013 6:38:57 PM] purplekecleon: otherwise i wouldnt feel this way
[4/20/2013 6:39:07 PM] purplekecleon: i wouldnt feel uncomfortable if she werent being hostile
[4/20/2013 6:39:12 PM] purplekecleon: that's got to fucking be it

[4/20/2013 6:39:15 PM] xxxx: yeah
[4/20/2013 6:39:18 PM] xxxx: its also like
[4/20/2013 6:39:29 PM] xxxx: a lot of the time ppl are expected to keep quiet irl like
[4/20/2013 6:39:35 PM] xxxx: irl its a lot harder to be open i guess
[4/20/2013 6:39:43 PM] xxxx: so they expect that sort of behavior
[4/20/2013 6:39:44 PM] xxxx: online
[4/20/2013 6:39:49 PM] xxxx: and WTF A BLUNT PERSON MUST BE RUDE

it seems OP disagrees with the very reasoning that is on display in his reblog’s tags: “u can be short and blunt in ur reply but thats very different from rudeness”. and yet he’s willing to use this sentiment as further “evidence” now.

so what do you have? what, of the 86 pages, specifically, is your damning evidence that you wish to see struck down?

i still maintain that most of the people reblogging it aren’t even reading it all. after all, they themselves admit they’ve long been waiting to believe what the title claims. they wanted this to happen, and are reveling in it.