![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That I can easily slip into arguing from a character's point of view, which is only partly a deliberate coping mechanism from me, but it's also an invlountary one.
Going in too deep into an argument prevented me from seeing the irony of the fact I:
* Was making a point about dissociative mechanism while also being on the verge of disconecting myself.
* Made the mistake of arguing the manifestation of dissociating against someone who may honestly misinterpret a sense of discomfort with oneself as a 'lack of having a personality' in how they characterize people.
Did I honestly think I would make an impact by stating my case? I'd actually thought so, I think I really believed that the other person was arguing in good faith, and for that matter I had also assumed that if they didn't want to consider my angle they would have said so, rather than use the fact I trusted them to turn my argument against me and present my position in a different way than I'd intended.
My issue isn't, I think, with boundaries - apart from the fact I'm DYING to know how some people get other people to really listen when they're doing something which gets too much for you, I'd love to know it for myself but I wouldn't know how to articulate my point on it right now; I think my problem is with the type of discourse which is made out of baiting and moving the goalposts and making sure only the argument-stirrer's boundaries are respected because they won't give you any closure about the part where they dicked on a strawman from what you said, with a dash of projection (you having a favourite doesn't mean I argue from favouritism when I consider your unfavourite, and arguing your favourite character's merits over the other has a time and a place and that time and place isn't with someone who has no interest in prioritizng a canon character over others).
Going in too deep into an argument prevented me from seeing the irony of the fact I:
* Was making a point about dissociative mechanism while also being on the verge of disconecting myself.
* Made the mistake of arguing the manifestation of dissociating against someone who may honestly misinterpret a sense of discomfort with oneself as a 'lack of having a personality' in how they characterize people.
Did I honestly think I would make an impact by stating my case? I'd actually thought so, I think I really believed that the other person was arguing in good faith, and for that matter I had also assumed that if they didn't want to consider my angle they would have said so, rather than use the fact I trusted them to turn my argument against me and present my position in a different way than I'd intended.
My issue isn't, I think, with boundaries - apart from the fact I'm DYING to know how some people get other people to really listen when they're doing something which gets too much for you, I'd love to know it for myself but I wouldn't know how to articulate my point on it right now; I think my problem is with the type of discourse which is made out of baiting and moving the goalposts and making sure only the argument-stirrer's boundaries are respected because they won't give you any closure about the part where they dicked on a strawman from what you said, with a dash of projection (you having a favourite doesn't mean I argue from favouritism when I consider your unfavourite, and arguing your favourite character's merits over the other has a time and a place and that time and place isn't with someone who has no interest in prioritizng a canon character over others).
