Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Dill]

(06-17-2024, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO
Do they?  I'm not seeing any.
One wonders why you haven't provided it then.  Using your own logic that would indicate you fear to do so.

Lol well, no. You are not "using [my] own logic." I've already explained that I frequently take time to 
think through responses before posting them. 

As far as trends, notice the frequency of abusive and denigrating language.

Also how many times have I had to repeat that saying reporters generally do not have to explain the collection methodology 
of a source is not the same as saying reporters do not have to vet sources. Yet you keep repeating the misreading error after two explanations.

I went a little further investing DARVO, listening to therapists discuss how this behavior manifests itself in abusive bosses and spouses. 
One source had an interesting story about an abusive boss who didn't like to put orders and comments in writing; apparently it gave 
him a kind of flexibility in abuse. He could revise discussions after the fact. The victim and other employees began creating a paper trail
of his orders and conversations--until he blew up and claimed they were all against him, like HE was the real victim. 

 I see how DARVO might apply to national politics, and one politician in particular. You invoked DARVO here, though, so I'm wondering how you think it could apply to forum debates. What sort of behavior would one be looking for? 

The notion of what constitutes "denial" would be interesting here. How does it differ from rejecting logically faulty arguments, which it is surely ok to do?

I think it manifests in deflections and diversions, spinning up red herrings (especially other posters' character), avoiding definitions--all in the hopes 
the victim will take the bait and turn the discussion elsewhere.  A narcissistic element can appear during this, an aggressor constantly measuring himself against others pronounced lesser. Not evidence-based argument, just a constant buzz of comments in which adjectives do most of the work.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-17-2024, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol well, no. You are not "using [my] own logic." I've already explained that I frequently take time to 
think through responses before posting them. 

As far as trends, notice the frequency of abusive and denigrating language.

Actually, outside of post #36 you couldn't provide an example of this.  I've been very patient with your deliberate obtuseness and circuitous arguments in this thread.

Quote:Also how many times have I had to repeat that saying reporters generally do not have to explain the collection methodology 
of a source is not the same as saying reporters do not have to vet sources. Yet you keep repeating the misreading error after two explanations.

You've never had to say as I've never claimed it.  Again, your reading comprehension in this thread has been subpar at best.

Quote:I went a little further investing DARVO, listening to therapists discuss how this behavior manifests itself in abusive bosses and spouses. 
One source had an interesting story about an abusive boss who didn't like to put orders and comments in writing; apparently it gave 
him a kind of flexibility in abuse. He could revise discussions after the fact. The victim and other employees began creating a paper trail
of his orders and conversations--until he blew up and claimed they were all against him, like HE was the real victim. 

 I see how DARVO might apply to national politics, and one politician in particular. You invoked DARVO here, though, so I'm wondering how you think it could apply to forum debates. What sort of behavior would one be looking for? 

The notion of what constitutes "denial" would be interesting here. How does it differ from rejecting logically faulty arguments, which it is surely ok to do?

You're behavior in this thread is pure DARVO.  Ignore points, misinterpret points, accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, claim victimhood.

Quote:I think it manifests in deflections and diversions, spinning up red herrings (especially other posters' character), avoiding definitions--all in the hopes 
the victim will take the bait and turn the discussion elsewhere.  A narcissistic element can appear during this, an aggressor constantly measuring himself against others pronounced lesser. Not evidence-based argument, just a constant buzz of comments in which adjectives do most of the work.

My posts, outside of #36, have been point by point assertions or answers.  Yet you seem to be unable to handle this.  I'll certainly own that I can get a bit personal at times, this thread is not one of those times.  Your assertions to the contrary is rather compelling proof of how badly you're losing here and how vehement you are in denying this.  I'm very happy with letting my posts speak for themselves in this thread, especially in comparison to yours.

Now, if you have nothing new to add, and by new I don't mean reiterating your previous assertions, then I'd kindly request you give us all a break and put a lid on it.