By changing your feelings, they want to change how you think and what you will do. It's bypassing your intellect and will, so that you can't evaluate things objectively; it's manipulation for the purpose of having you react instead of choose.

Even in privacy with my therapist, this felt unimaginable to utter aloud.

As children of immigrants, we learn to never criticize our parents or speak ill of them in any shape or form. To practice prioritizing my feelings, I needed to be honest about them — regardless of what others thought. Because parentification is essentially a parent-child role reversal, I didn’t receive the emotional support I needed. So I allowed myself the space and time to feel rage for the unfairness of it all and sadness for all that I didn’t get to experience. Eventually, I reached a different stage of my relationship with anger; I wanted to let it go. It was occupying too much space within me, and that feeling no longer served me.

My second therapist taught me about boundaries, another practice the Latin community tends to frown upon.

To set these boundaries, I had to come to terms with the fact that I was holding on to the false belief that I could save and heal my parents.

“How did your parents survive before you were born,” that therapist asked me.

The question was rhetorical. She was right; both my parents maneuvered life just fine before I ever came into the picture. I had to work on letting go of the fear that my parents would face harm or another negative consequence if I set boundaries for my own mental and emotional health.

-Kat Lazo

Oxford Dictionary

comment

People get bogged down with the idea that abuse (and manipulation) have to be intentional for it to be abuse or manipulation.

It's an abusers-are-predators framework.

So we can get 'sideswiped' by abuse from people we don't see as predators, or may not realize that we - ourselves - are being unsafe.

So how can we tell the difference between someone engaging in manipulation (intentional or not) and someone who is just sharing their feelings?

By whether they are trying to change our minds or change our actions.

Supporting the homeless in my area is actually what helped me narrow in on this distinction.

Because in the process of already giving them rides, tents, money, medicine, etc. they would also 'ask' me for other things and when I would seem hesitant or say "no", they would start telling me about their 'terrible childhoods'. Which: (1) it's not a real request or 'ask' if I can't say "no" or someone doesn't respect my "no" (it's a demand in the shape of a request) and (2) I've had a bad childhood, too? and I am not using it to essentially demand things from other people. But also, I've been giving plenty of things already?? At what point would it be enough?

The throughline was that they were trying to get me to do something I didn't want to do or give them something.

And it very much reminded me of what we see in abuse dynamics where perpetrators of abuse are trying to get the victim to think differently or change. But it's 'not controlling' because the abuser believes themselves to be 'right' and the victim as 'wrong', or believes themselves to be entitled to something from the victim.

It's one thing to express your feelings; it's another to demand someone change their mind or actions as a result of them.

At the end of the day, we get to have boundaries. We get to decide things for ourselves, we get to make decisions for ourselves.

We get to say "no".

We even get to be wrong.

Healthy boundaries are the guardrails of safety.

Safe people respect other people's boundaries (and we can even see that when they are uncomfortable when someone doesn't have boundaries for themselves) whereas unsafe people do not.

Safe people understand that not everyone has to feel or think the same way, and that people have differences, whereas unsafe people demand that everyone think and feel the way they do - the "right" way.

Safe people recognize when they are compatible with someone before they consider compromising, and unsafe people demand 'compromise' to 'create compatibility'.

Can sharing feelings (or experiences) create change?

Absolutely. But people don't get to try and change you.

Pay attention to whether someone wants you to do or think or agree with something you don't want to do when they are sharing their feelings.

That's a pretty good indicator that it's emotional manipulation because it's intent is to change (e.g. control) you.

Nick Wilson, a sophomore at Cornell University, came to Ithaca, New York, to refine his skills as an activist.

Attracted by both Cornell’s labor-relations school and the university’s history of campus radicalism, he wrote his application essay about his involvement with a Democratic Socialists of America campaign to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. When he arrived on campus, he witnessed any number of signs that Cornell shared his commitment to not just activism but also militant protest, taking note of a plaque commemorating the armed occupation of Willard Straight Hall in 1969.

Cornell positively romanticizes that event:

The university library has published a “Willard Straight Hall Occupation Study Guide,” and the office of the dean of students once co-sponsored a panel on the protest. The school has repeatedly screened a documentary about the occupation, Agents of Change. The school’s official newspaper, published by the university media-relations office, ran a series of articles honoring the 40th anniversary, in 2009, and in 2019, Cornell held a yearlong celebration for the 50th, complete with a commemorative walk, a dedication ceremony, and a public conversation with some of the occupiers. “Occupation Anniversary Inspires Continued Progress,” the Cornell Chronicle headline read.

As Wilson has discovered firsthand, however, the school’s hagiographical odes to prior protests has not prevented it from cracking down on pro-Palestine protests in the present.

Now that he has been suspended for the very thing he told Cornell he came there to learn how to do—radical political organizing—he is left reflecting on the school’s hypocrisies. That the theme of this school year at Cornell is “Freedom of Expression” adds a layer of grim humor to the affair.

Cornell is one of many universities that champion their legacy of student activism when convenient, only to bring the hammer down on present-day activists when it’s not.

Administrators have spent much of the recent past recruiting social-justice-minded students and faculty to their campuses under the implicit, and often explicit, promise that activism is not just welcome but encouraged. Now the leaders of those universities are shocked to find that their charges and employees believed them. And rather than try to understand their role in cultivating this morass, the Ivory Tower’s bigwigs have decided to apply their boot heels to the throats of those under their care.

The sense that Columbia trades on the legacy of the Vietnam protests that rocked campus in 1968 was widespread among the students I spoke with.

Indeed, the university honors its activist past both directly and indirectly, through library archives, an online exhibit, an official “Columbia 1968” X account, no shortage of anniversary articles in Columbia Magazine, and a current course titled simply “Columbia 1968.” The university is sometimes referred to by alumni and aspirants as the “Protest Ivy.”

One incoming student told me that he applied to the school in part because of an admissions page that prominently listed community organizers and activists among its “distinguished alumni.”

Joseph Slaughter, an English professor and the executive director of Columbia’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, talked with his class about the 1968 protests after the recent arrests at the school. He said his students felt that the university had actively marketed its history to them. “Many, many, many of them said they were sold the story of 1968 as part of coming to Columbia,” he told me. “They talked about it as what the university presents to them as the long history and tradition of student activism. They described it as part of the brand.”

As one experienced senior administrator at a major research university told me, the conflagration we are witnessing shows how little many university presidents understand either their campus communities or the young people who populate them.

“When I saw what Columbia was doing, my immediate thought was: They have not thought about day two,” he said, laughing. “If you confront an 18-year-old activist, they don’t back down. They double down.”

That’s what happened in 1968, and it’s happening again now.

-Tyler Austin Harper, excerpted from America’s Colleges Are Reaping What They Sowed

I recently stumbled across the band WakeFire (celtic punk? slavic rock? idk, but they are defiitely one of those bands that sounds way better live) and it hurt me in my soul to see them put on an incredible show, and people were just...sitting there.

They were opening a festival, and their set was FIRE and they did not have to go that hard at 10:30 in the morning but they absolutely did.

So when I ran into one of the band members (Bubba Wilson on mandolin) I was so hype to tell him to please ignore the fact that people weren't engaged with the show, that they were amazing, and I am STILL HYPE over the epic flute solos, and he said something that stopped me in my tracks.

He said that the band understood that - because of phones - people were basically trained to think of themselves as observers instead of participants, and that they have grace for that.

And I was reminded of that conversation after watching this comparison of Ibiza between 2000 and 2023.

Type 2 fun came out of the outdoor community. Backpacking I believe.

It has expanded to four types as a matrix fun during vs fun when reminiscing.

• Type 1 fun is something that you enjoy during and maintain those fun feelings when reminiscing. So a good party or hang out with close friends.

• Type 2 fun is something that is really not necessarily fun during but looking back you want to do it again. This is backpacking. During you are tired, sore, dirty, wet, cold, hot, etc. But looking back you love it.

• Type 3 is fun during, but not something you want to do again. Your last tinder date for example.

• Type 4 is just not fun at any point. So also maybe your last tinder date.

-u/mechanicalcoupling, comment

comment to Don't name your kids after your abusers: Hogwarts Edition

Gina Frangello

comment

In staying within the domestic sphere, the childhood orbit, you’re more protected from the judgments, the risks, the slings and arrows of the wider world — the things that catalyze growth, build strength, and develop character.

When you conduct all your communication through a digital device, you can carefully script everything you say instead of engaging in the dangerous dance of improvisation. When your parents are always close by to back you up, you’re never forced to figure things out on your own.

The less experience you have in being independent, the less capable you become of escaping a life of dependence — a life that’s small, sequestered, and anxious.

...while it’s truly weird we’ve arrived in a cultural place where this is needed, parents should encourage their kids to hang out with their friends.

-Brett and Kate McKay, (adapted)

Last year, I had a life-changing experience at 90 years old. I went to space, after decades of playing an iconic science-fiction character who was exploring the universe. I thought I would experience a deep connection with the immensity around us, a deep call for endless exploration.

I was absolutely wrong. The strongest feeling, that dominated everything else by far, was the deepest grief that I had ever experienced.

I understood, in the clearest possible way, that we were living on a tiny oasis of life, surrounded by an immensity of death. I didn’t see infinite possibilities of worlds to explore, adventures to have, or living creatures to connect with. I saw the deepest darkness I could have ever imagined, contrasting so starkly with the welcoming warmth of our nurturing home planet.

This was an immensely powerful awakening for me. It filled me with sadness. I realized that we had spent decades, if not centuries, being obsessed with looking away, with looking outside. I did my share in popularizing the idea that space was the final frontier. But I had to get to space to understand that Earth is and will stay our only home. And that we have been ravaging it, relentlessly, making it uninhabitable."

-William Shatner, excerpted from My trip to space made me realise we have only one Earth – it must live long and prosper

Psychopaths hate the sense that they have not succeeded in destroying their former partners.

They don’t want “their” women to regain their strength and lead much happier lives without them.

Picasso admits as much when he tells Gilot, “Every time I change wives I should burn the last one."

"...That way I’d be rid of them… You kill the woman and you wipe out the past she represents” (349). In fact, he partially accomplished this goal. He more or less succeeded in psychologically destroying all of his former partners: except, that is, for Françoise Gilot. No matter how hard he tried, he could not conquer her.

He experienced her freedom as a betrayal.

In his article on narcissistic controllers, Melton explains that psychopaths and narcissists don’t understand betrayal the way normal people do. They don’t regard it as a violation of mutual trust. After all, they don’t trust others and aren’t trustworthy themselves.

Instead, they view betrayal as an assertion of independence by those who were formerly under their control:

For most people, betrayal usually means a deep violation of trust inflicted by someone with whom a close, personal relationship exists. But, to a Narcissistic Controller, betrayal simply means that someone stopped pandering to his every want and need. In other words, when someone breaks away from his control, he feels betrayed. Since Narcissists do not have the capacity to develop close, trusting personal relationships, there can be no deep violation of real trust. When a Narcissistic Controller feels betrayed, contempt dominates his facial and verbal expressions. The insolent, aloof sneer commonly accompanies expressions such as, “He didn’t know who he was dealing with!” Or, Doesn’t he know who I am?” His real complaint—if he had the ability to see it—should be, “Don’t you know who I think I am?” (“Romeo’s Bleeding: When Mr. Right Turns out to be Mr. Wrong,” obgyn.net).

To reassert dominance, Picasso attempts to undermine Gilot’s self-esteem, so that she’ll lack the confidence to leave him for good.

He tells her that she’s nothing without him. He asks her, “You imagine people will be interested in you?” as if the very idea were preposterous (355). Fortunately, however, this time she doesn’t believe his insults. She chooses instead to believe in herself. She doesn’t see herself as only his shadow. Perhaps her own lucidity saves her. Most people made exceptions for Picasso’s bad behavior because he was, indeed, such an exceptional artist. Because Gilot saw who Picasso was as a human being—the emptiness within him—she moved on to a better life without him. ...

"From that moment on, he burned all the bridges that connected me to the past that I shared with him. But in doing so he forced me to discover myself and thus to survive... (367)."

-Claudia Moscovici, excerpted from A Toxic Love: Gilot describes her Life with Picasso

comment