stemelbow wrote:just me wrote:Yes, of course you do not want to clarify. You are not really here to learn and understand other viewpoints.
That's a lie. That's exactly why I'm here.
Actually, it's an observation.
You are only here to show us how we are overreacting to everything. You seem to desire a one-way street. This could all be over if you would deign to clarify, but you refuse.
I just clarified it all again, Just me. I'm playing along anymore though. And pointing out when someone over-reacts does not suggest that's the reason I show up here.
You haven't clarified. You continue to use the word "overreact." I am telling you what your words mean to me (and others) based on the dictionary definition of the word.
When you say that someone has overreacted you are JUDGING their reaction, and negatively. Judging someone's emotional reaction to a situation is the very definition of emotional invalidation that I posted earlier.
You can say that isn't what you are doing all you want, but by definition you are. In order to make me understand you mean something different you will have to tell me that you misused the word "overreact" and that you actually mean something different. Then you have to actually choose other words to say what you really do mean.
I know you say you are not going to talk about it anymore, but if I might be so bold as to ask one more question.
What does the word "overreact" mean to you? Because you claim that everyone is doing it....but you.
Oh I've agreed when I've over-reacted and others have pointed it out. Indeed I might be over-reacting a little, in exasperation, on this very topic. I can't figure out why you have plainly misread me. But we all do it at some point. Some of the psters here are just far more willing to place blame on others rather than accept the facts.
So, what does the word "overreact" mean when you use it? Do you mean it in a different way than the dictionary?
This isn't a game. Never was, never will be. This is how people try to have a meaningful converstation and gain deeper understanding of the other party.
Sorry, Just me. I disagree. You claimed I said Mrs. Consig's wife's reaction was not valid even after I explicitly denied that claim. There's no meaningful conversation to take place when one party insists the other party holds a position that the other party explicity denies holding. There's nothing meaningful in that. Peace be to you.
When you said that she "overreacted" you were invalidating her emotionally. If you don't actually mean to say that she overreacted then take the opportunity to use different words to tell us your opinion on the matter.
But, we emotionally invalidate people every time we judge their emotional reaction to a situation.
It would be very meaningful to me if you would try to understand where I am coming from and what your words actually mean to me and others. I don't know why that is asking so much.