![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Seriously, people, you have GOT to let people get out of discussions (i.e. arguments) when they become too emotional to be productive. Even better, let them get out before they become too emotional if either of you can see the warning signs. If they're not the type to recognize that they've lost too much control to be effective, then you may have to request that they take a break for them.
There's this weird fetishization of "communication". I put that in quotes because, in this context, it's not used in the sense that I usually use that word. To me, communication is an exchange of ideas, or, if not an exchange in two directions, at least the ideas flow in one direction and are actually received. To me, communication does not include one person talking to oneself, two people shouting at each other and not listening or "hearing" each other, or anyone shouting at what amounts to a brick wall. Nor does it include someone spouting gibberish or obscenities with no real content (as I have been known to do).
No, to me, communicating means that the ideas shared are actually shared, implying that there is someone on the receiving end actually getting the signal. So when it is no longer possible to share those ideas - when someone is no longer either transmitting clearly or receiving clearly and/or there is no attempt to discuss or debate in good faith, then there is no more communication happening. Insisting that the two sides remain locked in combat with each other past that point is not advocating communication.
I'm all for communication. Hell, I give workshops and private unofficial "counseling" sessions exploring alternate ways of communicating to improve relationships. But I do not agree with this "communicating" that means "talking at each other regardless of how each participant feels during the discussion and insisting that the talking continue indefinitely while accusing any attempt to end the talking as being censorship, silencing tactics, or blocking communication". Bonus points if you can accuse the person trying to end the talking of being a hypocrite for claiming to advocate communication but not wanting to talk about this *right now*, for insisting that the other person "teach" you why what you did was so wrong *right now*, or for using their own emotional state as a weapon against them, discrediting them and their position simply for their inability to keep their cool.
I get it, it's frustrating to be trying to express yourself and have the other person just end the discussion, without letting you get in the last word or to "be heard". But keeping that other person there is not the way to accomplish that goal. However, neither is ending a discussion at this point "censorship", "silencing", or a position against communication. In many cases, ending a discussion before it becomes contentious and tabling it for better circumstances is one method for salvaging the communication.
Often, when a person has reached the point that they are no longer able to communicate effectively (hang on here, I'm going to get complex), they have reached the point that they are no longer able to communicate effectively. Whoa, mind blown, right? This means that they may not be able to explain why they're so angry, or to patiently and calmly explain that they need some time apart to compose themselves and come back to the discussion later. They are angry, upset, hurt, emotional. So their request for time off may similarly be angry, upset, hurt, or emotional. At this point, stopping whatever is hurting them is the primary objective. It is not reasonable to expect them to be compassionate, respectful, articulate, or willing to teach you all about their emotional responses in a tone that panders to your own issues.
If someone needs to stop, just fucking stop. Recognize that they are upset and let it the-fuck go. Sometime later, you can ask them to explain what happened and how you can work with them to avoid a repeat performance. Sometime later you can explain that their reaction to stress is hurtful to you and you want to find a compromise between their need for space and your desire not to be hurt by their need for space. Sometime later you can address if this seems to be a pattern and what that means.
Get your head out of your ass and let go of your own inflated sense of self-importance and look at what's happening. Supposedly, you're the rational one here, right? I mean, you're not the one throwing the temper tantrum and storming off in a huff, so that must mean you're the rational one, yes? Someone is hurting and someone is acting out in their pain. And if you're not actually causing it, you're at least in the position to be perceived as having caused it, or contributed to it. So take a fucking step back and let the other person breathe. Give them the space necessary to calm down and come back around in a more rational frame of mind. Perpetuating the cycle will not achieve communication, no matter how much longer you manage to bully them into continuing the talking (or shouting).
Some things that can increase the odds of reaching this non-productive state are:
- Starting the argument late at night or keeping someone up past their natural (or necessary) bedtime to talk about distressing subjects.
- Starting the discussion or argument before they have to leave for another obligation, such as work, where they have to either choose to be late or end the discussion before you're ready to end it (and whatever consequences you might apply for doing so).
- Starting the discussion when hungry or not breaking for food when they become hungry.
- Starting or continuing the argument/discussion in front of other people where they might become embarrassed on top of whatever other emotional reaction they have to the topic, or where they might not feel free to express their thoughts as necessary.
- Having the argument in a place where they feel trapped, like a moving vehicle or at work where they can't leave or out someplace where you are sharing transportation and they can't easily leave.
- Threatening them with dire consequences if they don't want to have the argument/discussion at the time of your choosing, such as breaking up, destroying property, withholding favors, restricting access to other people, pets, or things, etc.
- Using a medium to communicate that they feel discomfort using or they have difficulty expressing themselves clearly using, like insisting on email when they express themselves better verbally.
I'm sure there are more, but I see these play out over and over again. In fact, I have personally been subjected to each of these on more than one occasion, even after I have clearly expressed my opinions on the subject. I once had someone start an intense discussion with me after I explicitly said I didn't want to talk about it because I had to go to bed soon and I had to wake up early, looking "fresh" and rested. I had a partner who repeatedly picked fights with me at work no matter how often I told him to leave the personal shit for home and I actually had to request to be scheduled on different gigs even after we broke up. My second fiance would molest me while I was sleeping and then threaten to break my possessions if I got pissed at him and tried to go sleep on the couch (wish I had known he would do this before I agreed to marry him!). My mother once kept pushing me on the subject of my Catholic Confirmation ceremony when I was in the car and I couldn't escape her screaming at me when I finally told her I was atheist so I couldn't go through the ceremony and would she please drop the subject? I once had a partner insist on having a very difficult conversation through email after I had made it clear on several occasions that I felt more comfortable expressing myself verbally because I felt that we both misunderstood intent when we communicated with each other through text.
I could go on but the point is that these are terrible things to do to someone. I've never read the book Emotional Blackmail, but I'd be willing to bet money that at least some of these tactics are mentioned in it somewhere, or in some book about emotional abuse. Keeping people from sleeping & eating properly while bombarding them with a particular message is a standard "brainwashing"* technique even. The reason why I have such an explosive temper is because I'm sick of people doing these things to me and I'm sick of then being blamed for the demise of the discussion when they've done it and I'm really sick of not even being allowed to do what is necessary to get back under control, so people can then continue to blame me for not "communicating".
I recognize that I have lost control and I'm taking responsibility for that by altering my circumstances such that I can regain control and become productive again. So let me do that and don't belittle me for it. Let me gain some perspective and some composure. Let anyone who who has lost control gain some perspective and some composure, especially if they clearly communicate that they need it (even if you don't like the tone they use when they express their desire). If they don't know themselves well enough to request it on their own, then you suggest to them that a break might be necessary. You might actually gain their respect and speed along their composure if you can acknowledge their efforts to get back on track, rather than faulting them for not subjecting themselves to your power trip.
*I put "brainwashing" in quotes because I'm aware of some of the controversy on the effectiveness of brainwashing & brainwashing reversal and I don't want to get into a debate about it. The point is that this is a technique people use when they are deliberately trying to indoctrinate someone against their will or to subvert their better judgement. Using these techniques during a discussion or argument where each person is supposed to retain their own agency is inconsiderate at best, unethical and cruel at worst.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 6/18/13 05:27 am (UTC)From:You, my friend, are a rock star. You also apparently have several dysfunctional acquaintances in common with me.
I wish I could take this post back in time and read it to my mother.
no subject
Date: 6/18/13 12:41 pm (UTC)From:Thanks for writing this!
no subject
Date: 6/18/13 06:01 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 6/19/13 05:43 pm (UTC)From:However, I have found these to be distressingly common. I know of all too many relationships where one partner picks a fight in the morning before work, or follows that bullshit rule "don't go to bed mad" to mean "we can't go to sleep until this disagreement is hammered out", or says "if you walk out that door right now, we're through!", or is willing to fight at a party instead of saying "I'm upset right now, but this is not an appropriate time or place to discuss it".
I also have observed that almost none of the people who do these things would see themselves as being emotionally abusive and every single one of them could give some kind of justification for why it happened "this one time" or "in this case".
We never think of ourselves as the bad guy.
So familiar :-/
Date: 6/19/13 11:12 pm (UTC)From:There have been several situations in which I've asked for a break in conversation because of this, but the person I was with was SO DETERMINED they just had to get their views across right there and then, it made the situation so much worse.
At least one row became a several week long time out on the relationship because my initial request for a short break from the discussion wasn't respected, and the more my need to back off wasn't respected the more time I needed to feel able to deal with it.
I'm still with that partner, and we've since learned to accommodate each other's needs better (me by carefully stating exactly how much time I intend to take and when I expect to be back, him by learning not to take my backing off as a personal slight or a sign I don't care) but I haven't found a reliable way to explain this to folks that isn't heard as an attack on them. People REALLY don't like to hear that they're not being rational or communicating well. :-/
Personally I feel lots safer dealing with folks in text format as a result. Much harder to get shouty on a written page, and I can re-read things if they don't make sense the first time, rather than ending up lost in loops of 'no, I didn't say that, I said this...'
Tricky stuff, dealing with humans...
Re: So familiar :-/
Date: 6/20/13 02:38 am (UTC)From:Have you tried putting your request in terms of you instead of them, and how has it worked? So, like, instead of saying "you're getting too emotional for me to understand you and your anger is making me uncomfortable", what happens when you say "I'm reaching a point where I can't process this conversation anymore and I need to take a break"?
I once got into an argument where a casual remark by one person led me to do something I thought was helpful for another person, only that other person took my efforts as a passive aggressive statement that I thought she was doing a terrible job doing it her way. When it was obvious that she wasn't listening to me and had no interest in hearing my apology (and she was arguing over email on a large group email list, where she couldn't hear my tone and others were "watching"), I suggested we take the discussion off-list.
Her partner then jumped to her defense and accused me of being passive-aggressive and, if I recall correctly, basically treating her like a child and ordering a time-out or something. Naturally I lost my own temper at that point, because if there's anything I'm not, it's passive-aggressive and on top of that, I was trying to be helpful and further trying to diffuse things when it was clear that I wasn't being helpful.
So I understand when you say you have difficulty telling people they're being too emotional to continue the conversation, and if you've tried, or you will try, the above suggestion, I'd like to hear if it works.
Re: So familiar :-/
Date: 6/20/13 09:41 am (UTC)From:Heh, this is nearly word for word my first line attempt at this. The problem comes when that person asks me 'why?', and then I'm basically fucked because apparently 'I am terrified of you right now and need to go hide' is incredibly insulting. Maybe I just need to learn to dig my heels in and not be pushed into explaining at all, but I'm also not great at thinking on the spot.
Re: So familiar :-/
Date: 6/22/13 06:20 am (UTC)From:I wonder if *keeping* the framing in terms of you, rather than them, might sort of derail their anger, at least long enough to get that breather? Like, if you can convince them that *you* are the one having the problem (not that you are having a problem because *they* are really the one with the problem), maybe concern for you could override, or at least tone down, the shouty anger?
I'm not sure if I'm really making any sense right now. Up past my bedtime.
no subject
Date: 6/20/13 05:16 pm (UTC)From:I also respect people who are cool with that and accept that boundary.
I have a LOT of respect for people who acknowledge that by doing so, they are taking control of the discussion (which is reasonable), and then accept the responsibility for restarting the conversation as soon as they reasonably can.
I am not overly impressed when this conversational control is exerted without the concomitant level of responsibility, at least somewhere in the timeline.*
This end-condition of the moratorium can take a lot of different forms. It can be "can we talk about this after a good night's sleep?" or "can we talk about this after the weekend?" or "Can we talk about this after I'm off the toilet?"
It's important -- I think -- to acknowledge that by taking control of the conversation, one is also taking responsibility for establishing the conditions under which the conversation will continue.
It might also be the case that the person taking control of the conversation won't or can't set up a condition, but simply halt it, such as "Look, I don't want to talk about this -- and I never want to."** It's good to be explicit. Of course, that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility, and should they kvetch later about how "we never talk" when it comes to such topics, they have no one to blame but themselves.
The reason why I mention conditions is that sometimes these requests aren't offered with conditions. For example, someone might say "Look, I just can't talk about this right now." That's perfectly okay. Just because we don't offer end conditions doesn't mean there aren't end conditions.
But...
...I think if the dynamic is "there is a thing we need to talk about" and someone takes control of the discussion by calling a halt to it and doesn't offer an end-condition...
...then an eventual*** request "Hey, uh, is this a good time to revisit this topic?" or even an eventual "Is there a time/place/condition when I can look forward to revisiting this topic?" is not at all unreasonable.
I think this is one of those litmus tests that can indicate a good partner match.
-=-=-=-=-=-
* Sure, it can be stages. First stage can be "I don't wanna talk about it!" and next stage can be "Okay, sorry I kinda freaked out yesterday. Can we talk about it Saturday morning, after my Hell Week is done?"
** Also, totally cricket!
*** eventual meaning after things have cooled a bit. I'm NOT talking about pushing for that in the heat of the moment.
no subject
Date: 6/22/13 06:12 am (UTC)From:That was assuming that the person calling a halt to the discussion really is too emotional to calmly and clearly explain what's going on and what they need, let alone schedule a time to revisit the subject. So I did want to make sure I allowed for the non-angry person to say "uh, look here, some shit happened and you just cut me off, so now that you're not as angry anymore, how about concluding this whole thing somehow?"
The vast majority of incidents that set me off on writing an LJ post about letting me out of an argument are online arguments with people I either don't know or people I only consider acquaintances. I think a "I'm getting pissed off, so drop the subject" is sufficient for relationships of that intimacy level, and any further pressing of the subject just makes the other person a jerk.
I've had romantic partners who wouldn't let me out of arguments before, and those always ended very badly. I nearly ran over one partner because he physically jumped through the driver's door before I shut it to prevent me from driving away and I had to physically shove him out, peeling out of the parking lot in a squeal of tires and smell of burning rubber (never physically threaten a race driver while she's actually in control of a vehicle). So it happens, but most of the time, I just end up walking out of the room when I lose it. The leaving of an argument is a sign that I have totally lost my shit and can't be trusted to speak at all, let alone calmly, rationally, or compassionately.
I take care of this by explaining it up front, when I start dating someone and we have the various get-to-know-each-other conversations. I have, on very rare occasion, come back some time later to say that topic ought to remain permanently off-limits if we are to maintain the current relationship. I had to put a blanket moratorium on the mac vs. pc debate with an ex because he just could not admit that pcs were more suitable for my requirements and I could not hear that without getting personally offended that he thought he knew what I needed better than I did. But, for the most part, my leaving the conversation just means "until I'm not pissed off anymore", with possible additions of "and I'm not in whatever situation we're currently in that's making this a bad time to speak" (see my list above of terrible times to start/have a discussion).
I could actually go on at great length about what *I* do and what my procedures are, including exceptions and if-then scenarios, but the point of the rant was to be more general, and my diatribe about letting me out of upsetting arguments is, as I said before, part of the get-to-know-each-other conversation, so not something I felt I needed to go into here.
no subject
Date: 6/22/13 05:31 pm (UTC)From:Okay, yeah, I see that. Sorry if I missed that bit first pass through.
"That was assuming that the person calling a halt to the discussion really is too emotional to calmly and clearly explain what's going on and what they need, let alone schedule a time to revisit the subject. So I did want to make sure I allowed for the non-angry person to say "uh, look here, some shit happened and you just cut me off, so now that you're not as angry anymore, how about concluding this whole thing somehow?""
I've seen that used as "this person won't leave me alone," cry-for-help before.
I agree it's not an unreasonable request after a while, I just felt the need to emphasize that once someone takes the power of controlling the conversation, it is THEIR responsibility (eventually) to bring things back (or decide that they won't participate).
"...online arguments with people I either don't know or people I only consider acquaintances."
Oh, those. ;)
"I think a "I'm getting pissed off, so drop the subject" is sufficient for relationships of that intimacy level, and any further pressing of the subject just makes the other person a jerk."
I have found that -- in the interest of keeping my own blood pressure down -- taking a slightly different tack works better for me (for me -- one's own mileage may vary!): "I'm pissed off at this conversation, so I'm leaving it and unfollowing the thread." Sometimes I won't even bother telling anyone. Life's too short to give a lot of power to Random Internet People.
Your mileage with such a technique may, of course, vary.
"I've had romantic partners who wouldn't let me out of arguments before, and those always ended very badly."
Riiiight there with you. My sympathies.
"I could actually go on at great length about what *I* do and what my procedures are, including exceptions and if-then scenarios, but the point of the rant was to be more general, and my diatribe about letting me out of upsetting arguments is, as I said before, part of the get-to-know-each-other conversation, so not something I felt I needed to go into here."
Gotcha! 8)
no subject
Date: 6/24/13 05:17 pm (UTC)From:When I'm in someone else's thread and having an argument with someone I barely or don't know, I will usually just say something along those lines. I think, most recently, I said "you're not getting it, I consider you a lost cause and I'm done with this conversation". And then I either unfollow the thread or I block that person, depending on whether I want to leave the whole conversation or if I'm just annoyed with that person.
When the argument is on my own feed, and it's someone that I may not be that close to but with whom I would like to continue some kind of civil relationship (i.e. a coworker), that's where I get to this point where I start ranting about letting me out of a conversation. I can't easily "unfollow" my own threads and/or someone is seeking me out on a topic or in a way that is pissing me off and I'm trying *not* to lose my temper at them or block them. I'm trying to say "the future of our acquaintanceship is in danger if you insist on pursuing this line of argument and your approach is hurting me so please give me some space and stop pestering me about it", only, as I was trying to say above, I'm already in too much of an emotional state to use that kind of dispassionate phrasing or to explain how or why I'm feeling hurt.
I don't think it's too much to ask that people shouldn't have to elucidate to that degree. We are social animals and, for the most part, have some ability to detect subtext. So if someone says, using any language or any tone, "leave me alone", it should not be difficult to understand or comply with the request. All the other details like finding out why or rescheduling a revisit can be handled later, depending upon the specific nature of the relationship in question.
no subject
Date: 6/24/13 05:23 pm (UTC)From:I guess in that case one can just delete all their responses, or block them temporarily until the tempest dies down.
I would feel weird insisting on someone else's behavior, when I could simply act on my own to either remove myself, remove them, or block them.
I guess it depends on what powers the venue permits, too.
no subject
Date: 6/24/13 05:52 pm (UTC)From:I do not believe it is at all improper to request that someone else stop treating me in a manner that I do not like, or to request that people treat me in a manner I prefer, before taking matters into my own hands. I do believe that requests to cease treating someone in a manner they have expressed a preference against makes that other person in the wrong. The whole fucking point of my rant above was to tell those people that they are in the wrong and the way to not be in the wrong is to listen to people's request for how to treat them and treat people how they want to be treated.
And I'm starting to lose my temper now at having to go around and around these little sorts of details that I have either already covered or should be clear from the context.
I am not asking for advise or suggestions. I am saying that people are hurting other people and to STOP FUCKING HURTING OTHER PEOPLE. There should be no argument or debate on that subject.
no subject
Date: 6/24/13 06:04 pm (UTC)From:One may do as one wishes in one's own thread, of course.
I appreciate you clarifying that these were conversations you initiated, as opposed to joining.
"There should be no argument or debate on that subject."
I don't believe there has been.
no subject
Date: 6/20/13 05:21 pm (UTC)From:http://www.petting-zoo.org/2012/05/23/on-civilized-discourse/
no subject
Date: 6/22/13 11:38 am (UTC)From:First, afaik, nothing like this is mentioned in the book "Emotional Blackmail." The book is a little bit more meta. I think whether this would be considered "emotional blackmail" would depend on *how* you tried to keep someone in the conversation.
I also must emphatically agree with Edward.
"I have a LOT of respect for people who acknowledge that by doing so, they are taking control of the discussion (which is reasonable), and then accept the responsibility for restarting the conversation as soon as they reasonably can."
(this was edited and reposted)