Opinion on the viewpoint 'there are two sides to every story' - Is my reaction is part of my PTSD?

LittleBigFoot

Confident
Personally I feel like there’s three sides to the story- yours, mine, and the truth. I also feel like each of those have equal weight and validity. In my opinion everyone has a slightly distorted point of view because of their own bias each person inherently has. Could she have been more tactful in making sure you felt heard? Probably. But I think it’s smart to not just jump on one persons truth and have that make all the decisions because we’re human and fallible. I think of people falsely accused- they’re entitled to have their side of the story heard. But by @ruborcoraxxx logic that would mean they wouldn’t be allowed to. Someone accused them and that’s that. I do recognize how often people aren’t believed in their own abuse stories (I’ve lived it) but human rights are human rights. The person accused has the right to be heard and defend themselves.
 

mumstheword

MyPTSD Pro
Yeah. I often find that line of "the truth must be somewhere in the middle" somewhat glib and, slightly, or outrageously, (whatever the case may be) ignorant.

More often, in my experience, anyway, if the two stories differ, IS that someone is telling the truth and the other person is NOT.

People who pull out such a pat, rote, answer, maybe, aren't so concerned with honesty and integrity themselves, and are content to obfuscate and obscure matters pertaining to honest recall of facts and the lack therein.

But, maybe, that's my trauma past/part talking.

Or my Aspie tendancy for black and white thinking.

Or maybe, I'm just wise and honest enough to be calling out something that needs it.

Dunno ...but whatever it is, I'd say YES, I find that kind of glib and offhand response more than a little irritating, but, then, Aspie; to me truthfulness and accuracy of facts are EXTREMELY important to me. Without which I, truly, can't even socially function.

So you see my bias and limitations.

The way I see it, some people (often, not very popular people, like me) are very honest, and some people (like my ex, who is MUCH more popular, bit like a politician, really) are NOT; so the truth is, no way, in the middle of that.

Someone is manipulating people with deceptive ploys and the other is subject to that manipulation and so is everyone else who is buying into and giving credence to the lies and manipulative framing.

NOT two sides, too valid stories, a genuine one and a fabricated one.

Just my take on such matters.
 

mumstheword

MyPTSD Pro
Actually, I shouldn't say "I'm very honest", that sounds disingenuous, just that, I, very much VALUE honesty and truthfulness and accuracy of fact, as much as is humanly possible.
 

LittleBigFoot

Confident
Yeah. I often find that line of "the truth must be somewhere in the middle" somewhat glib and, slightly, or outrageously, (whatever the case may be) ignorant.

More often, in my experience, anyway, if the two stories differ, IS that someone is telling the truth and the other person is NOT.

People who pull out such a pat, rote, answer, maybe, aren't so concerned with honesty and integrity themselves, and are content to obfuscate and obscure matters pertaining to honest recall of facts and the lack therein.

But, maybe, that's my trauma past/part talking.

Or my Aspie tendancy for black and white thinking.

Or maybe, I'm just wise and honest enough to be calling out something that needs it.

Dunno ...but whatever it is, I'd say YES, I find that kind of glib and offhand response more than a little irritating, but, then, Aspie; to me truthfulness and accuracy of facts are EXTREMELY important to me. Without which I, truly, can't even socially function.

So you see my bias and limitations.

The way I see it, some people (often, not very popular people, like me) are very honest, and some people (like my ex, who is MUCH more popular, bit like a politician, really) are NOT; so the truth is, no way, in the middle of that.

Someone is manipulating people with deceptive ploys and the other is subject to that manipulation and so is everyone else who is buying into and giving credence to the lies and manipulative framing.

NOT two sides, too valid stories, a genuine one and a fabricated one.

Just my take on such matters.

I’m sorry, did you just call me ignorant, a liar, and have no integrity because I have a different viewpoint than you?
 

internal

Sponsor
And generally if people are wanting to be impartial they want to hear both sides extensively and certainly not to cut the thing by saying an invalidating platitude.
i think this was the core of what i was getting at. for me i interpret that statement as a statement made by someone who is intending to be impartial (because i would intend to be impartial if i made that statement-stunning use of theory of mind, griefy. lol.)

I think of people falsely accused- they’re entitled to have their side of the story heard. But by @ruborcoraxxx logic that would mean they wouldn’t be allowed to.
i don't believe corax was saying that the person who makes an accusation must automatically believed.

she is saying, correct me if i am wrong, that assuming there is a victim and an abuser-and assuming we know conclusively which one is which-the correct place to put the weight of validity is on the victim's side.

(which, for the record, i agree with.) there are contexts where having an impartial account of what actually happened from both perspectives, is necessary. which is justice. which is history. which is science.

More often, in my experience, anyway, if the two stories differ, IS that someone is telling the truth and the other person is NOT.
in my experience this is not generally the case. sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. sometimes people straight up lie, but often times people just don't know what the truth is and they are filling in the details.

if you go based on what you've experienced, and not based on how humans behave, you will start running into problems the more frequently you engage with these types of situations.
 
Last edited:

mumstheword

MyPTSD Pro
I’m sorry, did you just call me ignorant, a liar, and have no integrity because I have a different viewpoint than you?
Nope. Not at all. Wasn't even aware of your viewpoint.
It only applies where it applies.
And I'm only talking about my own experience. I dont even know you. Not remotely, so how could I pass judgement on you, with any credibility?

I know absolutely nothing about you. Don't know who you are. Aren't even aware of any of what you think, believe, or value, so No, Nope, na uh. Noooooo.

See? This is where Aspie people can fall foul of others who don't get us. Why we need to mimimise our contact with others.

So often we upset, completely unintentionally, with our frankness.

Sorry @LittleBigFoot, for that. Not my intention whatsoever to cause you any upset.
I was writing my post before you had posted yours so ot wasn't, in any way, a response or teply tp what you wrote.
I was drawing on my own traumatic past and that of my, also Aspie, partner's.
 

LittleBigFoot

Confident
So let me clarify some things here,
i think this was the core of what i was getting at. for me i interpret that statement as a statement made by someone who is intending to be impartial (because i would intend to be impartial if i made that statement-stunning use of theory of mind, griefy. lol.)


i don't believe corax was saying that the person who makes an accusation must automatically believed. i think she is saying, correct me if i am wrong, that assuming there is a victim and an abuser-and assuming we know conclusively which one is which-the correct place to put the weight of validity is on the victim's side.


But that’s after all facts are known by everyone to be fact. I’m not at all trying to say a victim should not be believed but rather that a person should reserve persecution until they’ve had a chance to parcel out what they believe the truth to be. I guess I’m not being clear enough and I don’t have the brain space to go into a ton. I’m just essentially saying that I can understand someone not joining a mob to hang a person when one person says that person did this abuse and that victim knows it to be fact. Like there’s a reason the justice system has trials, and we should exercise the same judgement in our personal lives. Again, I’m saying this as a person who wasn’t believed either so I do get this side very much.

Also, @mumstheword believing there are three sides to a story does not make me a liar, ignorant, or lack integrity.
 

ruborcoraxxx

MyPTSD Pro
The person accused has the right to be heard and defend themselves.
Of course. And I mention this at the end of my post.

i don't believe corax was saying that the person who makes an accusation must automatically believed. i think she is saying, correct me if i am wrong, that assuming there is a victim and an abuser-and assuming we know conclusively which one is which-the correct place to put the weight of validity is on the victim's side.
For the case used in OP’s post absolutely yes, because the cost for the victim to bring it up is really high. It’s not the same as accusing your neighbour not trimming their tree often enough so you have branches on your garden. Which can be a brand of harassment. Or splitting with your boyfriend and saying he’s an asshole to your friends.

I’d add, I think what I’m trying to say is that finding out the facts and deciding of a sentencing are two distinct things. Establishing what happened, acknowledging someone’s guilt, attenuating or aggravating circumstances and, deciding what society as a whole has to do about it and how to provide compensation to the victim when still applicable are all different processes. That cannot be simplified in that saying.

However I’d tend to say that generally society as a whole, excepted when faced with no-brainer cases, tends to side up with abusers as long as facts aren’t established because the cost of seeing things as they are would be far too high in what they ask everyone to revise the way they do see things. Eg, seeing that father as a child sexual abuser is acknowledging that it happens, so that any father can in fact, possibly be an abuser, so it’s admitting that statistically, you might know more of these than what you would like to accept, and have to rethink a very great deal of what you believe.

But you can also see the reverse when a specific offense becomes widespread, because people build tolerance. And sexual abuse somehow falls in the in-between because as a social body, it is condemned, looked as being gross and horrific, yet at the same time everyone "knows" it happens all the time but it’s just not the same. Society collectively has blatant cognitive contradictions, not only distortions, that are astounding. Eg: men are violent, but/so you should forgive him. Or men are violent, but you’re exaggerating. Cases of paedophilia are very rare, however I don’t want my kids to be out alone. Rape happens all the time, but you wanted it. Coloured people are lazy, but I have a nice neighbour so the fact I can reckon that about my neighbour makes me not racist.

And when something structural isn’t at play, such as women’s abuse (in general, but even more dramatically against men), then it’s just unbelievable. (And this is how you see how structural things that are denied actually are, the fact that the reverse doesn’t work). Then you get in very tricky waters of what’s believable or not, who you should listen to, and so and on. So you just can’t afford not hearing all sides and make an actual investigation.

But of course everyone, even the most atrocious war criminal, deserves a fair trial and to be heard. That trials have hearings does say it. And still then justice can be shit in the sense of it’s not always effective to produce appropriate sentencing by failing to prove someone’s guilt or by having manifestly sentencing that takes the place of a lynching. So in fact, there are many many profoundly turbid areas in establishing procedural guidelines to have the fairer result, to the victim as well to the offender. I can’t conceive a justice that doesn’t take offender’s rights into account. Because if you don’t then yeah, it’s just going to move with the fastest, dominant view. That is, most of the time things aren’t listened to and then all of a sudden the opinion shifts and someone pays the high price for it. And as much as justice is supposedly designed to avoid this, it still does it.

So well, for me it’s a question of procedure more than sides. It’s the quality of the procedure that makes a fair trial, and in the specific case of OP’s, saying that sentence does kill the hearing, so doesn’t create any justice, it bypasses the procedure as the effect has been to stop the conversation. Actually, offender’s side hasn’t even been heard as a structured accusation didn’t even have the time to arise. A contradictory hearing is about specifics, and it’s also what makes trials a high psychological cost for victims, to the point of, and this I learned recently, it’s actually something that can favour the development of PTSD. As much as I understand the legal system (family of lawyers here and work in a law firm), civil justice and criminal justice really are very different beasts. And as much as a dinner table isn’t a court, being invalidated as a victim in such a context probably will contribute for that person not seeking for the support or help to make her voice truly heard, which is unfair.
 

internal

Sponsor
I’m not at all trying to say a victim should not be believed but rather that a person should reserve persecution until they’ve had a chance to parcel out what they believe the truth to be.
yes, that is why i corrected what you thought corax was saying, because i think that largely all three of us are on similar pages. 🙂

i think what corax is objecting to is the phrases themselves being used as mindless platitudes or in a dismissive manner, rather than by an individual who is actively trying to discern the truth of the event.
 

ruborcoraxxx

MyPTSD Pro
Yup completely. And even for my own situation, I do think my ex should be brought in front of justice and both sides all be heard, his guilt be established, and a sentencing decided that I do not decide because I can’t judge being a part of it.

But, as a judge, my job would be to see 1) if the victim is physically/psychologically safe and out of reach of the offender, and THIS takes precautionary enforcement that is in fact preemptive because you have to guarantee your first witness, the victim, isn’t threatened by violence or retaliation in any form -> and for this you need to have some faith in a victim’s side. 2) ensure myself that the victim is saying all they know. not a piece of cake. In fact, most victims tend to say the least they possibly can to have their case heard but not to cause too much fuss or endanger the offender’s reputation, and well being, would it be by fear for themselves or love or both. Often both. 3) ensure myself I can find all third parties that I can find to have other’s viewpoints, establish a profile, timelines and other useful information. 4) have external experts whose domains are relevant to the case, and have several of them. 5) update myself with current guidelines, jurisprudence and governing policies. 6) examine, in the frame of sentencing, what’s the most appropriate to the case and why.

And honestly the judges I did briefly know in criminal courts don’t look like they sleep well at night. I knew a woman who was a youth criminal judge. Frankly depressing. Because she heard it all, and knew she was sentencing them to something that was likely to make them worse, not better. But she couldn’t do anything against the frame she has, so she tended to drink till falling asleep on the couch.
 

mumstheword

MyPTSD Pro
So let me clarify some things here,



But that’s after all facts are known by everyone to be fact. I’m not at all trying to say a victim should not be believed but rather that a person should reserve persecution until they’ve had a chance to parcel out what they believe the truth to be. I guess I’m not being clear enough and I don’t have the brain space to go into a ton. I’m just essentially saying that I can understand someone not joining a mob to hang a person when one person says that person did this abuse and that victim knows it to be fact. Like there’s a reason the justice system has trials, and we should exercise the same judgement in our personal lives. Again, I’m saying this as a person who wasn’t believed either so I do get this side very much.

Also, @mumstheword believing there are three sides to a story does not make me a liar, ignorant, or lack integrity.
I'm sure it doesn't.
Sometimes, neither people are being forcoming with the facts and we all have blind spot, so both people could be not taking responsibility for their part in whatever has transpired.
And, I repeat, I didn't call you or anyone a liar. People tell lies. We all do if pushed into enough of a corner. I wouldn't reduce the magnificence of anybody by reducing them to that kind of label. I didn't do that. You did that to yourself.
Even my ex, who abused me horrifically for 20 years has his own magnificence and is much more than his convenient and controlly-over-other-people relationship with truth and facts.
I was referring to instances where facts are glossed over with a glib "the truth is somewhere in the middle", when, in my experience, if two stories GROSSLY differ, someone is being more honest than the other. If both parties are being evasive, projecting, not taking any responsibility, then yeah, sure, not much truth is coming from either party and the truth is out there somewhere. But if two stories are so incompatable as to be two completely different stories, more often than not, in my experience, one person has a more liberal relationship with truth than then other. Just my experience.
 

internal

Sponsor
even for my own situation, I do think my ex should be brought in front of justice and both sides all be heard, his guilt be established, and a sentencing decided that I do not decide because I can’t judge being a part of it.
this is what ultimetely happened with me and while i have my issues with what happened, those issues are due to the fact that i had information that i was not able to prove was legitimate.

the legal process is incredibly complex from all sides, and when it works well, it should be considering all pieces of information. the problem that happens is that being able to collect all of the information is not something that every human being is good at doing or even capable of doing.

so unfortunately, things slip through the cracks. the justice system is fundementelly a human system. and that means it can be prone to subjectivity and error even though it shouldn't be.

having partecipated in this system as an adult, the reality is actually a little grimmer: most people who are involved in this system, are doing their best. they want to do a good job. they're trying. they're not corrupt.

but things still don't always go the way we think they should. what is obvious to me as an individual-if i can't prove that legally, it is meaningless. and those two things are not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Top