Tumgik
#blame shifting
balkanradfem · 2 months
Text
religion will be like, it's because women talk to animals and eat fruit that childbirth is so painful, and the soil so hard to work! Not because we took away all of the midwives and created horrendous agriculture practices
429 notes · View notes
furiousgoldfish · 5 months
Text
Abusive parents make it so easy to forget what normal is, and have you believe that your absolutely normal child behaviour is actually outrageous. They snap at you for annoying them, with the rage that would be justified if you just stabbed them, and all you actually did was be a child, make noise, ask for attention, ask for care.
It is not outrageous to be a child and to be loud, and noisy, and to ask for care and attention. We're genetically set up to do that, to rely on our caretakers, to ask them for attention and care, and to be loud, to make noise. That's how all children are.
It's also not outrageous to sometimes react emotionally, to get scared, worried, angry, confused, to not know something, to not get things right, to misunderstand, to make a mistake, to do damage while having good intentions. Abusive parents can react to all of these as if you're the worst demon and have committed a mortal sin of annoying them, taking their time and energy to deal with you when they 'have better things to do' and for being inconsiderate selfish brat who doesn't understand they're not a priority.
But you didn't do any of that. You were just a kid. If they didn't want to deal with a kid, they didn't need to have one. You didn't put yourself in front of them on purpose. You weren't outrageous for being normal. Their reaction was outrageous. Their rage, contempt, blame, shaming, telling you that you and your needs don't matter, that's outrageous. You were just a kid. You didn't need to be considerate. You didn't need to be told that your needs don't matter. You didn't need to be shamed or blamed for anything you wanted or needed back then. They were responsible for taking care of that and you came to them and they failed you. They should feel ashamed, not you. Nothing you did was worth hurting you for.
160 notes · View notes
dyspunktional-revan · 4 months
Text
A narc abuse believer has reblogged from me so here's your Fucking reminder that no disorder is an abuser disorder. Your abuser(s) did/do not abuse you because they have an Abuser Disorder, they abuse(d) you because they believe(d) in their right to control you and had the means. And no, no disorder fucking creates that.
To abuse is a choice, and it's a carefully protected bolt in all the larger systems of oppression. To have a disability born out of being abused, that fucks You up, is not a fucking choice. And is certainly not a fucking protected bolt in the larger systems of oppression, rather the fucking opposite.
Yes, people with Any disorder Can choose to abuse. As well as people without that disorder! And people with that disorder are not fucking More Likely to abuse! And don't fucking armchair diagnose other people!
And the fucking case of parental abuse. You were not "raised by narcissists", you were raised by people whose literal societal role is to abuse you. Which Very Much does not absolve them. Parents are cops, and more. Read up on youth liberation and stop throwing *other survivors* into the fucking meat grinder.
And the fucking nerve to put anti-narc shit into the *npd* tags. You know well it's a Disorder, not an Abuser Personality Type that the abuser Chooses, and still demonize us.
143 notes · View notes
traumatizedjaguar · 1 month
Text
Emotional terrorism
Simply put, emotional terrorism is domestic terrorism that uses human feelings for ammunition. They use emotions as weapons and try to make you go mad.
It can be a friend, a spouse, a partner, a boss, a coworker or anybody.
A bully using emotional terrorism finds comfort in making others uncomfortable; they have a sadistic twist to their personality and enjoy seeing others going off or losing themselves.
They will scream, rage, belittle, argue relentlessly, and put you in positions to look bad and be attacked further.
Manipulation: They will make you doubt yourself, gaslight you which makes you doubt your reality or perception of events, making you feel crazy, delusional, unstable mentally ill like there’s something wrong with you that you don’t know about, or wrong.
Public humiliation: They will publicly humiliate you. They will demean you, belittle you, criticize you, or humiliate you in front of others. It can be in the disguise of humor.
They will continuously blameshift, use verbal aggression and try to provoke fear out of you, terrorize and rage to cause you to become weak, small, frightened, and full of dread. Then use that to blame you or make you out to be the bad guy or abuser while continuously justifying what they like to label as “revenge” against you.
Walking on eggshells: The emotional terrorist will get upset and offended at every little thing, and anything possible you say or do or don’t say or don’t do to try to make you out to be bad or difficult in some way; they will be hypersensitive meaning they get offended at perceived slights that don’t exist, imaginary slights, or act like they were offended and twist and manipulate reasons why they are offended by you in order to justify causing you harm. They seek “revenge” in twisted and distorted ways that doesn’t make sense to majority of people. They use this as leverage to gaslight you into believing things about yourself that isn’t true.
This is a form of “weaponizing feelings” in order to harm you and make you believe you deserve to lay there and take the abuse. They weaponize their feelings in order to make you believe you caused them to abuse you for a reason.
You either notice the abuse and try to stand up for yourself, sometimes becoming defensive. Or you don’t notice it and fall for the gaslighting, repeatedly apologizing to your abuser for your mistakes and wrongs that don’t really exist, wondering why you’re always doing something wrong; you believe you’re broken. Your abuser will keep pushing the idea that “you’re pushing them too far” that you’re “pushing them over the edge and making them react” “making them say things they have to say because you pushed them” this is placing the blame on you for their behaviors. Abusers often claim the idea that “some people deserve abuse” to further gaslight their victims.
19 notes · View notes
unwelcome-ozian · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
72 notes · View notes
Text
There’s a spectrum for how much you take responsibility for how you make others feel…
To take no responsibility for how you make others feel is narcissism (escaping accountability)
To take too much is self abuse (taking on too much accountability)
In dynamics where there is a power imbalance/emotional abuse you will see how one person chronically escapes accountability and the other chronically takes on too much
Taking your power back will not be responded to kindly by people who benefited from you being powerless
Holding someone accountable who is not used to being held accountable can literally be dangerous depending on how abusive the person is
Narcissists do not have empathy. There’s nothing holding them back from causing you suffering if it benefits them (and that can just be for their pleasure/amusement) and they won’t lose a wink of sleep over it.
Connection with others requires connecting emotionally thus we will always affect each other’s emotional regulation.
Healthy relationships strive for healthy boundaries where both people’s emotional balance is respected. Healthy relationships have a foundation of respect.
Boundaries are the narcissist’s kryptonite because they define where you end and they begin, thus preventing you from owning the projections of their misery/dissatisfaction/dysfunction. A toxic person can never truly be satisfied because they are avoiding work they need to do on themselves. They are avoiding making peace with themselves. They are just looking for someone to take out their misery on, someone who will take their shit. The more toxic they become over time the more wrong things they do to others that they have to hide/deny/run from/lie about. You can’t relax when you don’t have a clear conscience. “There’s no rest for the wicked.” You either own their projections and your emotional regulation and self esteem suffer in the process, or you set boundaries even if they hate you, punish you and smear your name for it. Even after you cease contact with them they will continue to scapegoat you, because they’re not able to face what the real problem has been all along.. themselves.
57 notes · View notes
dis--mayed · 19 days
Text
My mom hates Trump and doesn't really care that someone is, apparently, falsely accusing him of assault (most likely, she was just trying to tell me brother to fuck off by saying she "doesn't care"). My brother started yelling at her about how Trump is a victim and he doesn't want to see him prosecuted for something he didn't do.
My brother has spent THIRTY FUCKING YEARS blaming our mom for how HE was accused of rape by someone he chose to fuck and has spent 25+ years blaming her for encouraging him to take a plea deal, where he was made a tier one sex offender, after he repeatedly broke the fucking probation he was only put on, again, for RAPE. He's now tier two for refusing to register and sits in my home, smoking weed and vapes with the SSI my mom got him on.
This girl accused another boy of rape, btw, and he took the same deal as my brother.. don't know what happened to him.. but I guess my mom ruined his life, too, right????
2 notes · View notes
bwhitex · 3 months
Text
Democrat Party is The Party of Collective Narcissism
Recent footage from a CNN interview provides a compelling case study for the analysis of collective narcissism within group dynamics or political entities. This clip, serving as visual evidence, encapsulates the quintessential strategies that are indicative of such collective behavior. Specifically, it illustrates tactics such as changing the subject, blame-shifting, projecting, playing the victim, gaslighting, minimization, and rationalization. These strategies are emblematic of a group’s or political body’s tendency to mirror the behavioral patterns commonly associated with individual narcissistic personalities. The application of this framework to the observed interaction within the interview offers a deeper understanding of the underlying psychological mechanisms at play in collective narcissism.
Introduction
Collective narcissism is a psychological phenomenon where a group possesses an inflated self-conception, dependent on external validation and praise. Members of a collective narcissist group often exhibit selective outrage, particularly sensitive to criticism aimed at their own group while readily pointing out faults in others. For example, in the political realm, one might observe a collective narcissist group emphasizing historical racial injustices perpetrated by whites, holding white individuals or groups to rigorous standards of accountability for past and present racism, while simultaneously dismissing or downplaying the group's own racial biases or instances of discrimination. This is and has been manifesting into a one-sided narrative that all societal issues stem from historical white mistakes, often ignoring or minimizing the group's current missteps or potential for prejudices.
Democrats as Collective Narcissists
In-Group favoritism, collective narcissists exhibit extreme partiality towards their own members. It’s called identity politics and if you don’t vote instep or “identify” as such, well you’re going to have at minimum subtle forms of social control applied to you. Out-group erogation, they disparage heterosexual white folks, largely targeting the male population, who challenge their superiority through diving and showing up at their houses with borderline aggressive protests, and some actually call for acts of violence. For example the severed Trump head, by a former famed actress a few years ago.
They act with aggression in response to threatened ego, they react defensively, sometimes aggressively, when their group's prestige is questioned. Then there is this denial of reality and facts, they frequently deny or distort facts that do not align with their self-image. They seek constant admiration and affirmation for their “social justice” activism and beliefs. They crave and actively seek affirmation of their group's perceived grandeur.
Changing The Subject
The first strategy used is changing the subject, it is a common deflection technique to avoid uncomfortable topics. Holder reimagines a scenario in the conversation where the Republican Party acts like the Democratic Party's and instead of Democrats asking AG’s to investigate Trump. In this reimagined of what is really happening to Trump. Democrats are now the victims, these actions serve entirely different, purpose. It distracts the audience from reality of what is actually happening to Trump. Avoids highlighting their policy and related issue with the Trump administration.
Blame Shifting
Holder then blame shifts, after he re-imagines a real life political scenario where Democrats are weaponizing the Justice system and doing everything they imagined in this real life scenario to Trump. Instead Trump is doing it to them. The blame shift is so subtle and clever, but serves his agenda to shift blame away from any personal or Democrat party's past misdeeds, suggesting that it is actually the other party (in this case, President Trump and his administration) that is engaging in corruption. This blame-shifting moves the spotlight from his own actions or those of his political affiliates to the opposing side.
Projection
Holder may then project, accusing the Trump administration of engaging in the very behaviors for which he or his party are being criticized. This projection serves to muddy the waters, casting aspersions on the opposition while deflecting from his or his party's actions. Holder reimagined a scenario where democrats are not only victims, and saviors of Democracy but everything is actually happening to Trump now, is now being reimagined and projected on to the oppositional party as happening to them. This evident when Holder explains the relational scenario where high ranking officials ask a “compliant” AG or DOJ to investigate people they don’t like. This is exactly what happen to Trump.
Playing Victim
Which brings me to the next strategy, playing the victim. The interview on CNN (2023) demonstrates a classic instance of collective narcissism, where the interviewed party employs tactics such as changing the subject, blame-shifting but now plays the role of the victim, reflective of the patterns observed in groups with narcissistic tendencies. To Holder, the Democratic Party is the “real victim” here. This evidenced by Holder imagining the Democratic Party positioning themselves as unfairly targeted by Trump's camp, suggesting that they are the ones suffering under false accusations or partisan attacks. Nothing of real world evidence is being suggested as happening. For example, what is happening to Trump, now, like the law-fare, the lack of evidence to support two Trump impeachments, the Russian collusion of which the FBI agents involved in those investigations were convicted of actual wrongdoing, meaning the agents themselves who were in charge with investigating Trump, were actually the ones colluding with Russian Oligarchs.
Gaslighting
With a subtle display of gaslighting, Holder manipulates viewers by casting doubt on the integrity and intentions of the Trump administration, subtly diverting attention from concrete evidence of their actions towards President Trump. Former Attorney General Eric Holder commented on the issue, "Hunter Biden charges wouldn't have been brought in normal scenario" (CNN, 2023, 00:15). Before the blame shift, projection and playing victim, there was the truth. He’s correct these are not “normal times”, everything happening Trump now, is unprecedented. No one has used law-fare, to prevent an opponent from running for office. Why wouldn’t that rising political opponent not seek accountability? He reframes the discourse, suggesting that such criticisms are nothing more than partisan tactics aimed at discrediting the Democratic Party. This strategic narrative shift paints the Democrats as casualties of an "unjust" electoral process, besieged by authoritarian figures, rather than confronting the reality of the situation. The truth, as Holder veils it, is obscured by a narrative that avoids acknowledging the Trump administration's legitimate efforts to enforce accountability. This includes the invocation of program F and the dismissal of individuals who are excessively aligned with a regime characterized by pronounced collective narcissism. In essence, Holder is redirecting the conversation, insinuating that the push for accountability is an act of political aggression rather than a response to actual mismanagement or malfeasance.
Minimization
Which brings me to my third symptom, minimization. Minimization is evidenced when holder downplays the significance of any wrongdoing that he or his party might be accused of, which leaves the audience to assume that what he and the Democratic Party do are minor issues compared to the alleged corruption, and “authoritarianism”, within the Trump administration. When confronted with the notion of President Trump's reelection and the hypothetical appointment of a corrupt Attorney General, a figure like Eric Holder deflects the criticism by attributing the very issues present in the current administration to the hypothetical future one. This deflection serves as a mirror, reflecting the accusations back onto the accuser, a common tactic seen in political discourse.
Rationalization
Holder might conclude his defense with rationalizations, portraying any controversial actions from his term as unavoidable necessities dictated by the political environment. He asserts that these actions were the lesser evil compared to what he predicts would be the far more detrimental consequences of President Trump's potential appointees. Within this justification narrative, Democrats are depicted as the unwavering defenders of democracy. Conversely, Trump is labeled a racist, an accusation Holder presents as a clear-cut example of collective narcissism, implying that such a flaw could never exist within the Democratic ranks. This is underpinned by a mythology that claims people of color cannot be racist as they lack the systemic power to enforce such racism, a belief that shifts focus from individual prejudice to systemic injustice.
In this context, rationalization takes a more extreme form: the assertion that the Democrats must "save America from its voters." This is done through legal maneuvers and any means deemed necessary, painting the party as protectors in a dire situation. Such narratives echo classic Marxist ideology, which Holder suggests is also evident in the actions of the Chinese Communist Party. Both are seen as authoritarian entities that argue their overreach is in service of protecting the working class, the proletariat, from the resurgence of the bourgeoisie's dominance. In Holder's discourse, the collective narcissism of the Democratic Party is framed not as self-interest, but as a noble struggle to uphold the greater good against prevailing class enemies.
Conclusion
By deploying these tactics, Holder would be engaging in a form of collective narcissism on behalf of his political affiliation, effectively defending the group's image by deflection rather than by direct refutation of the claims presented. In this charged exchange, a CNN posed with a question regarding the impact of President Trump's reelection and his choice of a potentially corrupt Attorney General, someone like Eric Holder, with his contentious history, might instinctively employ collective narcissistic deflection tactics. This form of deflection would involve shifting scrutiny from his own past actions to the hypothetical scenario, thus avoiding direct confrontation with any personal allegations of corruption. By mirroring the current criticism onto the future possibility, Holder could artfully navigate the conversation, effectively accusing the opposing side of the very transgressions being discussed. This method subtly shifts the focus from his own controversies to those of President Trump, implying a "they do it too" narrative.
This maneuver is designed to sidestep direct accountability and instead redirects the conversation toward a critique of Trump's potential decisions, thus maintaining a strategic defensive stance. The suggestion here is that the hypothetical corruption of a future Trump-appointed AG is not only possible but is, in fact, a reflection of the current state of affairs — a tactic that serves to normalize and diminish the gravity of Holder's own past actions by comparison. Holder could respond with a variety of strategies typical of narcissistic deflection but tailored to a collective or political narrative: blame-shifting to other political figures or entities, projecting the administration's faults onto its adversaries, gaslighting the public into questioning the veracity of any criticism aimed at them, and rationalizing any questionable actions as necessary or misinterpreted.
References:
Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074-1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904
Golec de Zavala, A., Peker, M., Guerra, R., & Baran, T. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts hypersensitivity to in-group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility. European Journal of Personality, 30 (6), 532-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2067
Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., & Kossowska, M. (2018). Addicted to praise: The role of positive feedback in collective narcissism's link with intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000117
CNN. (2023, December 8th). Eric Holder: Hunter Biden charges wouldn't have been brought in normal scenario [Video]. CNN Politics. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/08/hunter-biden-eric-holder-reaction-sot-lcl-vpx.cnn
2 notes · View notes
immaculatasknight · 6 months
Link
Can Trudeau take a hint?
1 note · View note
Staff: “let’s ban porn”
Tumblr: *loses millions of users*
Staff: “lets keep porn banned”
Tumblr: *continues losing users, years after the fact*
Twitter: *implodes*
Tumblr: *continues losing users*
Staff: “huh, I wonder what we could do to fix this… I know! Let’s put out a statement saying it isn’t our fault and blame advertisers, transaction companies, and Apple!”
4 notes · View notes
maybebecomingms · 2 years
Text
food for thought
“Yeah, but he was kidding, right?”
“SAM. He wasn’t *actually* seriously yelling at you over it, was he?”
This was a few weeks ago, sitting next to my best friend* eating ice cream. (*I consider myself fortunate beyond measure to say that I actually have four people I consider my best friends. This one in particular is probably my longest-running best friend, for nearly 20 years.)
I had asked her about the food situation in her household, as her husband tries to eat a certain way to manage certain health considerations, and so does she. I (again, nonchalantly and almost humorously) brought up the time my husband had gotten angry with me about my cooking because he said it was “too good” and causing him to gain weight.
He wanted me to scale it back; to cook less or stop entirely and shift to freezer meals. “That’s how I lost all my weight in the first place,” he said. I was the primary grocery shopper; I told him I was not spending my grocery budget on freezer meals for him. If he wanted them so badly, he could buy his own. I also reminded him that he dished up his own plate and could simply choose a smaller portion, as most of the meals I cooked were at least fairly healthy.
I remember at one point I downloaded MyFitnessPal onto my phone and began recording my food as what I called “operation petty weight loss.” I wanted to prove a point that my food was NOT making him gain weight; he was doing that all on his own, because *I* could lose weight while eating my food. I tend to quickly devolve into disordered eating mindfuckery, though, usually in the form of exercise bulimia, so it did not last long. I have long since decided that being overweight is preferable to that whole game. I could not tell you what I weigh or anywhere near an accurate estimate of how many calories I’ve eaten today.
I am a good cook and legitimately enjoy cooking. I can cook a wide variety of ethnic meals, homestyle American classic type meals, things I don’t know how to define other than “weird stuff,” and everything in between. I’ve made my own salad dressings and granola. I’m very creative. I’m also a veteran at gluten-free food (I officially made the switch NINE years ago today, on 06-17-2013); I can bake almost anything and have it turn out as good as something made with wheat flour.
I haven’t cooked at all really since I moved 3 weeks ago. I mean, sure; I’ll heat up a box kit in a pot and add my own protein and maybe a handful of spinach to it. But I have not cooked anything from scratch in a long time. I’ve also been doing more takeout and delivery options, in part because I moved to an area where I have many, many more options than I did before.
I brought this up in therapy yesterday, explaining that I just don’t have the brain space for cooking right now. “But I’ll get it back,” I said. And surprised myself when I started crying talking about it. My therapist asked me why I was crying, and I couldn’t give a straight answer in the moment.
But now I know it is because this is a hobby I enjoy and excel at. I've worked at it, to be a good cook; I consider it a skill. And he robbed me of my joy of cooking, of my satisfaction in a job well done. He didn’t like how his choice (in this case, to overeat) affected him, so he made it my fault. Like he did so many things.
He took so much from me, and it’s gonna take me a while to get it back.
3 notes · View notes
furiousgoldfish · 10 months
Text
The phrase 'victim wanted it' paints a picture of the abuser as a completely spineless, obedient and moral-lacking person who only ever does things which others want. Surely they were only ready to violate, abuse and harm this person because this person asked them to, they did it out of pure altruism! In what fairy tale does this abuser live. Have you ever even seen anything like that in real life. Whenever you hear 'victim wanted it', you can be sure the abuser wanted it more, and was ready to groom the victim very hard in order to get to a place where the victim would allow it and not give resistance. Or, you know, the victim did resist, but the abuser decided to ignore it and convince the victim that was for 'their own good'.
Often the abusers who say this are way older than the victims, which put even more disbelief at the 'victim wanted it' statement. If a child asked you to throw it into a fire, is it your responsibility to know that it's wrong, or the child's? Stop believing bullshit abusers say in order to get away with abuse.
259 notes · View notes
michellemiyagi · 2 years
Text
Narcissistic Mind Games
Manipulative people are emotionally immature and have a fragile sense of identity. If you try to hold them accountable for their abusive behavior, they will defend themselves because they can’t admit they may be wrong, or that they have faults. When you address problems with them, they will play mind games with you and bring up the past, antagonizing and attacking you, so they put you on the…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
4 notes · View notes
traumatizedjaguar · 1 year
Text
What abuser doesn’t justify revenge bc they think they were abused.
71 notes · View notes
dougielombax · 22 days
Text
*looks at the unfolding mess that has been entirely of their design!*
*turns to their colleague in the corner of the room*
“LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE MADE!!!!!”
0 notes
Text
youtube
0 notes