Thursday, March 4, 2021

Addendum: Policy concerning judgment of prejudicial pedophiles/abusers of pedophiles

I have a certain line of judgment for survivors here with two layers, the line of intent itself, and the perceived desire in the other person to have their traumas listened to, judging by the statements of the plaintiff/defendant.

I start out listening intently and actively on a children's rights screen, and showing the fellow survivor my welcome. When they show that they don't want to listen, I listen to that, and instead interrogate, using "presume" gaslighting in harsh, brusque application, in either the positive or the negative.

Most insults I just brush off and don't react to. I'm not a snowflake like that.
at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization

will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

The word "no": Why children need to hear the word "no" seldom (meaning almost never)

Many parents think that children need to hear the word "no" frequent and often. This is a common attitude on the part of American ...