Overcomplicated

Will everything I've just said be invalidated?

People might disagree with you. That's not invalidation, that's just disagreeing from my perpective. I accept your perspective is different.

Do they mean it when they validate me if they are encouraging others to invalidate me or invalidating me themselves in other ways?

Dont know really without examples. I think perceptions and misunderstandings play a key role in this, especially with differing views on validation/invalidation.

She was made to eat carrots despite not liking them, which I agreed at the time must have been upsetting. Force feeding is putting food into someone's mouth by force, which wasn't the case.

Yes I did see the comments before they were deleted Chewbacca. I hope GNHQ have dealt with it.

Friendlyghost I think that estranged children just refuse to validate the idea that estranged parents can be 100% innocent, especially when there is evidence that exists they are not. We can validate any other percentage of innocent but that's not good enough.

Talking about our abuse is seen as an attack by some estranged parents, perhaps because they have engaged in that behaviour themselves.

I actually do understand why that may be seen as an attack on them but it's actually an attack on our parents who of course would engage in many other different behaviours as well that contributed.

An example of how that can cause huge problems here:

There was an EAC here who told a story about her abuser and being force fed carrots while heaving and crying for hours. Some estranged parents laughed at this and others just stood back and allowed it or sent friendly comments to those laughing. She left in the end and she was not in a good way. This frightened me as I don't know if she is OK.

Yes some people validated her story but they also validated the people laughing at it. It's a confusing dynamic for someone who needs support.

Do they mean it when they validate me if they are encouraging others to invalidate me or invalidating me themselves in other ways?

Where do I stand with some people?

I can't tell so yes I am not engaging with them.

The evidence of bullying is here on this thread and is self explanatory FriendlyGhost.

I can understand your disappointment that "a discussion about bullying" has become a place of bullying. It always disappoints, angers and upsets me to see bullying where ever it occurs.

No it's not laughable Smileless but GNHQ has dealt with it.

Did you not manage to read the comments before they were deleted?

IMO the only reason we see arguments here is because of the way EP's are treated by the majority of EAC, and the constant claims by EAC that their 'truth' is being invalidated when they constantly seek to invalidate what EP's say, is quite frankly laughable.

Smileless I have seen many statements by yourself and others saying you are being bullied on my accidental discussion. I have read nothing addressed to you accept to agree and perhaps an unwillingness by some to enter a discussion with you. Could you please explain further so I might understand?

I don't know if just answering by saying the opposite is also true is ever productive to open discussion or takes steps to understand each other or resolve issues.

I would feel most disappointed to learn a discussion about bullying became a place of bullying.

These discussions move incredibly quickly but one must make time to really listen as a matter of utmost importance

I have not seen anyone invalidate the sad stories we hear from EAC or for being "called bullies for pointing out behaviour that destroys relationships". It's the accounts from EP's that are treated with scorn, invalidated and not believed.

It makes no logical sense to me at all to make such a claim on a thread where it's posts from EAC that have been seen as bullying to one EP in particular.

The evidence of who the bullies are is here for all to see.

Will everything I've just said be invalidated

Quite possibly. Just as as EPs experiences and opinions are invalidated, belittled and scorned are.

welbeck Holyhannah does not believe the world is flat. Thats the point

You know, I personally think there is realistically only one reason most arguments happen here.

Because people cannot agree what is abuse and what is acting defensively against abuse.

Some of us who have a lot of experience about the types of behaviour that drove us away from a parent are invalidated when we say what we know IS abusive behaviour because here is a list of the ways it harmed us. Non abusive behaviour would not have caused harm. We have worked hard to fix that harm so if it wasn't real harm we could not have fixed it. If it wasn't terrible harm we would not have needed a professional and a professional would not have agreed to help us.

To my mind this is only then invalidated by people who are bullies as OP would say but does a bully have to be a bully forever? Can a bully look back at past behaviour and say "I have to fix this"? Yes some can, so I will keep explaining but I won't engage people who harm my mental health.

Yet estranged children are called bullies for pointing out behaviour that destroys relationships? That makes no logical sense to me at all.

Will everything I've just said be invalidated? Will I be told yet again that I'm the real problem? Will I be told I am imagining it? Maybe but everything I say about how I feel is the truth and those who are able to make room for how I feel despite how they feel make it worth it here for me. I am also able to do the same for them in a fair balanced way.

As MamaBear posted earlier, taking issue with someone saying 'we'll have to a agree to disagree' is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. It is not telling someone what they should or should not agree with.

PF your reference to a tree that breaks if it doesn't bend is very apt. If someone is only prepared to accept their own truth, and is not prepared to listen with an open mind to an alternative, what's the point of joining in on an open forum.

If what is wanted is an echo chamber, where only like minded people gather, surely a closed site for like minded people is the place to go.

When you witness the refusal from some to even listen to what others have to say, that goes a long way IMO to explain a lot of the issues surrounding estrangement.

Madgran77 - please don't go away, stay and chat with us, let us all learn together

Unless the arguments, point scoring and apparent desire to catch out, to not allow that we can just disagree and move on can stop, I fail to see how we can just chat, discuss, debate, learn...this thread is, in my view, a perfect example of the problem

*Welbeck - to me it simply means that, you think the earth is flat, i do not, and i doubt either of us are going to shift our position, so let's save our energy and accept that we have different views/ beliefs, and leave the matter there. end the discussion on that topic. it is not conceding that the other is correct.
that is what agreeing to disagree means, surely*

Welbeck , exactly, that is what it should mean and be taken as on a public forum in discussions between people on various topics. In other contexts, in "real life" relationships, particularly difficult ones it can mean something else, as Holy Hannah explains it for her context. On a forum it would be helpful if it was accepted as a means to avoid derailing threads by creating endless arguments , point scoring etc.

FriendlyGhost - I am pleased to see you back on this thread which you started and which has initiated a lively discussion. It has even moved on a lot since your post last night, so I think we must have a lot of insomniacs or GN members from across the 'pond'.

In terms of 'validation' or 'truth, my father always used to say that there were three truths in a situation - your own truth, the other person's truth, and the real truth. But it is all so subjective, isn't it? The problem is that when people can only see their own truth and take up polarised and inflexible positions, they become rigid, like a tree that cannot sway with the wind. The tree that cannot sway will ultimately break, whereas the one which is flexible will survive and grow tall, and will see a broader landscape. This is not just my personal theory by the way, although I do agree with it, but one of a number of things which I have learnt from my recent therapy, which have helped me avoid repetitive negative thought patterns which are harmful to me.

You and your DD have reconciled and rebuilt your relationship because you were prepared to see each other's truths and ultimately realised that they were both valid, so you found the 'real' truth and you have moved on. Thank you for sharing your positive story with us - it is lovely to hear of a happy outcome. I don't actually care that much whether the Earth is round or flat, so long as my loved ones are close.

Madgran77 - please don't go away, stay and chat with us, let us all learn together. I think that with these threads, it can sometimes be like reading a newspaper article or something similar, you can skim read and just focus on those parts which are interesting to you.

welbeck -- When I use the Flat Earth/Round Earth analogy it is in regards to my abuse and how it relates to my abuser (Narcissistic 'mom').

The argument is like this:

Me -- "Mom, the Earth is round." (You are abusing Me)

Mom -- "No. It's Flat." (I'm not abusing You)

Me -- "Here's a satellite photo of the Earth. It is clearly round." (Here's an example of something you do that is abusive.)

Mom -- "That picture is fake." (What you said never happened/doesn't exist is 'made up' or I never said/did 'that'.)

Me -- "Okay, then what about eclipses and moon phases?" (Provides more evidence and instances.)

Mom -- "You're taking 'that' out of context. It doesn't matter. I guess we'll just have to 'agree to disagree'."

Me -- "Well... No, We can't 'agree to disagree'. You can agree to 'that' but so long as you keep treating Me like my Round Earth theory is 'wrong' (abusing Me) and refuse to accept my POV I'm going to be gone."

Mom -- "The Earth is Flat because I say it is and if you don't believe what I am saying then YOU are the 'problem'."

So when I say someone is selling a 'Flat Earth' view, I mean they are trying to 'sell' something I just fundamentally cannot believe because I know the Earth is Round.

rosecarmel -- For me, there are absolutely times I will not "agree to disagree". As you said, it tends to be a conversation ender and it gives the person who said 'it' first rather a 'superior'/driver of what the other person should feel and when... When they say so...

Starblaze -- I honestly hadn't given it much thought specifically myself. That said, I do know it's one of those 'things' that husband and I never say to each other. It never occurred to Us as to the why. Perhaps it's because We have better communication skills with each other then Our 'moms' did with Us?

All I know is, I don't use the term myself because it is a slippery slope statement and I never want someone to feel silenced/dismissed/invalidated by using it.

HolyHannah wrote,
I am certainly not going to "agree to disagree" with someone who is trying to tell me the Earth is flat. "Agreeing to 'disagree'" with that is validating a falsehood and gives the Flat Earther the idea that their opinion that the world is 'Flat' legitimacy. It's called enabling. I don't enable falsehoods and I don't buy lies.

i admit i cannot follow much of this whole thread, but the above paragraph seemed deceptively simple, or so i thought.
but i literally cannot understand the point that is being made.
saying you agree to disagree to a flat-earther, how is that validating lies, or mistaken belief. i don't get it.
to me it simply means that, you think the earth is flat, i do not, and i doubt either of us are going to shift our position, so let's save our energy and accept that we have different views/ beliefs, and leave the matter there. end the discussion on that topic. it is not conceding that the other is correct.
that is what agreeing to disagree means, surely.
if not, why not??

HolyHannah

rosecarmel -- I agree. It's just too close to gas-lighting for Me when someone tells Me how I should think/feel or what I should believe.

I am certainly not going to "agree to disagree" with someone who is trying to tell me the Earth is flat. "Agreeing to 'disagree'" with that is validating a falsehood and gives the Flat Earther the idea that their opinion that the world is 'Flat' legitimacy. It's called enabling. I don't enable falsehoods and I don't buy lies.

It's simply a phrase / way of thinking that's dated- It was tried, and believed to be true for a while, but no longer has a place in the conversation- Whoever says it first determines when the discussion ends, and does so by dictating what the other person agrees to-

It has a creepy superior/inferior dynamic- Which I accept has been accepted, practiced and preferred around the world for a very, very long time-

It might seem like a drop in the bucket .. A small change ..
And yet ..

rosecarmel -- I agree. It's just too close to gas-lighting for Me when someone tells Me how I should think/feel or what I should believe.

I am certainly not going to "agree to disagree" with someone who is trying to tell me the Earth is flat. "Agreeing to 'disagree'" with that is validating a falsehood and gives the Flat Earther the idea that their opinion that the world is 'Flat' legitimacy. It's called enabling. I don't enable falsehoods and I don't buy lies.

Madgran77

*I know, I know .. When dogs don't perform cheap parlor tricks on command the audience sometimes triple-rolls their eyes .. slot-machine style*

It was raised eyes at the silliness and the pettiness. Nothing to do with cheap parlor tricks or dogs or slot machines!

Agreeing to disagree is a recognised respectful way to stop a conversation descending into an argument yet again, as keeps happening on this thread! It's not "validating", not "not validating", it's not "cruel", it's not "unkind", it's not "dismissive" , it's not "laughing out loud" , it's not "behaving like a child rather than an adult they are supposed to be" ..or all the other things that are a matter of concern for many posters apparently, all with different experiences and perspectives!

It is just agreeing that you don't agree respectfully and moving on rather than creating argument that might become some of those things above.

To dismiss it...what label would one give that?

Not debating this, just so tired of the circular arguments, the digs, the unpleasantness, the accusations, the endless point scoring, the ignoring some posters instead of discussing respectfully! So so tired of it.

Yes I could just give up and go away. But the subjects are potentially interesting, the posters are potentially interesting to talk to, I would like to offer help if I can from my perspective and experiences, I would like to hear others advice and support, I would like to give support if I can, I would like to chat, to discuss, to learn...I am beginning to think I am just expecting too much, nothing ever seems to change!!

What a shame!

It's up to me to determine what I agree to- I'm not ashamed of that- If declining to be told what to agree to requires a label anyone is free to create one of they choose-

As far as change is concerned, it's occuring- No friction, no growth- I see plenty of both-

Excellent post @20.54 Madgran; well said.

Holyhannah I hadn't thought of it like that before but yes!

This is purely a comment on my mum again because we are in estrangement and all sorts is bound to bring her to the fore. I can't believe I'm having to disclaimer what I say but here we are. I'm not adding disclaimers to everything though sigh

But yes, my mum could use that phrase as an invalidation tool to get her point across while not really listening to mine at all.

Its no good saying "here is what I think in huge detail" and then not allowing the other person to fully explain their position by giving them 30 seconds, overruling them and then saying "let's just agree to disagree". It's a totally unfair power balance.

I'd never ever even considered it until now! Yes that phrase can be a positive thing to stop people falling out but it can also be a powerful tool to invalidate and silence someone.

Bonus points my mum rolling her eyes, yawning and looking away and making it clear my thoughts on any subject were not important at all.

I am now going to be paranoid about using that phrase forever lol

It seems reasonable on a public forum to just take it as a way to accept you dont agree with each other and move on. I wont bother to repeat all I said above.

Somewhat different to a fraught relationship In "real life", where how its said would definitely be relevant.