Of course you are free to support abusive behavior but especially with friends and family it would probably be useful for your own sake not to do so, and it is factually correct to view (and treat) you as enabler if you continue to do so despite knowing about the abuse.
A popular perspective is that emotions are the result of quick analysis of a situation, trained on survival instincts originally but later mostly pattern matching and beliefs. By observing emotional reactions you can drill down to the underlying belief, and over time adjust to new circumstances. For example, based on this theory, anger is the result of an analysis that determines that something is deemed wrong and it is within your power to change it (or extract yourself from the situation). If it’s judged to be not within your power, the resulting emotion is sadness. And these judgments can be changed to have a different emotional experience - beyond feeling them or acting on them. This adjustment requires to identify the original deep pattern/beliefs, not just surface-level desire to do so. This introspection typically requires third party assistance, available in various therapeutic and coaching settings.
The word "pit" in "pit bull" refers specifically to a dog fighting arena where dogs are supposed to aggressively fight each other in a duel, possibly until one of them dies.
"pit bull" refers to a dog breed that was optimized for its performance (=more aggressive and dangerous) in the "pit".
Honestly? Maybe that’s part of the solution, not the problem. I already see people including me going back to real world, local interactions and connections.
One side publishes words, the other DDoSes. One side could just ignore the other and go about their business, the other cannot. One is using force, which naturally leads to resistance and additional attention, the other is not.
Both sides look like they have been bullied in the past and not found their way out of reproducing the pattern yet.
Words can have influence and can come from a place of authority, which does carry responsibility. Words of a president are very different from words published on a random blog by some random person, and different yet again from words published by a newspaper. Some presidents words are opinion, the same words in different context are commands and not acting on them comes at a price.
Context matters. Which is why also different rules apply, and laws exist to guard these rules. DDoS is not an acceptable response in any jurisdiction, no matter what triggered them. We’re not in the Middle Ages, even if some behave like we are. Violence does not justify violence. Unjust action does not justify unjust responses.
Ah yes I can see the misunderstanding: I meant “acceptable” in a broader sense than just legally, but I can see how the use of “jurisdiction” implies law. It was not my intention to just reference the legality, but more in terms of what is considered “violence” by the society, where law is one level you can look at to get an idea.
Then, again: one persons illegal actions do not warrant another persons illegal actions. That’s not how society works, and not how law works.
It’s not the tone. It’s how you perceive the tone to be. Be careful, especially in a culturally diverse and international environment. Plenty of cultures cringe when they receive overly friendly phrased words, as it will not sound honest and curious to them but condescending and fake (in this context it may be perceived as sarcasm); whereas others will experience and mean it as straightforward openness.
Communication is hard. Even harder in writing. A usually working approach is to assume friendliness.
reply