Pity Parties

[p-no]

I haven't read all here, but want to add two things that Alba's posts made me notice/remember.

1. My t says there is such a thing as a connotation in words used that can be misunderstood. I don't agree. In my view, it's not about the words, it's one's own feelings.

2. There is a nice little "exercise" I came across a long time ago. I do not recall he original phrase that was used, but here goes with one anyways: I want a banana

Now try to get into feeling the following feelings when then reading the sentence.

happy - I want a banana
sad, regretful - I want a banana
full of anger - I want a banana
desperate - I want a banana

The feeling is in us. The words are the same all the time.

 

[anthony]

But you just did place a time limit on pity parties in your previous post anthony. I was speaking to you directly, not about people making time limits for their own pity parties. I don't think anyone does that.

Philippa, please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't done anything other than state an aspect of psychological indifference that is very common in people who've suffered trauma. Please cite the time limit I wrote! Was it a week, a month, a year, what was the time limit I cited that you are now trying to play upon words with me? Please don't try word games on me, I am quite adept to such bullshit games.

What you do with it is up to you. I honestly don't care if someone has themselves a pity party of not... I as the administrator of this site, I actually do get to have very much a say if it starts dragging other people into someones pile of self shit, that they have every right in the world to sit within. Just not upon this website.

Please don't confuse the two scenarios.

 

[anonymous]

Why is it that the people who object and detest the term Pity Party seem to be the ones that take it so personally?

Why is a 'mental health' forum not the place to use a common phrase when a lot of the time those with PTSD want to be treated normally but when are use their illness as justification as why certain terms should not apply to them?

Why is it that when people offer their cultural, social or local interpretation that some fight so fiercely to psycho analyze words and take the words by their individual definitions and not accept the expression in the context the poster says is their interpretation of it is yet want their own definition accepted without any contest?

Why is it that when people offer an opinion some drag out the thesaurus, reply as if they are high and mighty and attack what someone has written. For a mental health community, wanting to promote growth from the grips of a debilitation illness, its pretty messed up that people can't offer their opinion with being attacked - how can you heal if you only ever look at the world through your eyes and close your ears to what others have to offer... I mean what is it that is being defended... an opinion or a right to be excluded from an opinion which is disliked?

Why is it judgmental to share your opinion but then not be allowed to apply the same to those labeling you as such?

And finally.... why is it that those who fight fiercely not to label and judge, considering it mean, do the same to others?

 

[Shellbell]

Why is it that the people who object and detest the term Pity Party seem to be the ones that take it so personally?

I really don't like the term at all, but I'm not taking it personally. No-one has said it to me or directed it at me. I'm actually thinking of others being hurt by the term. I don't want to hurt others, so I wouldn't use it, especially on a forum like this.

 

[anthony]

Political correctness is not for members to really choose. Express... sure, but choose, no. As the administrator, if I began enforcing one thing, over another, then I would also be discriminating. Hence, discrimination is kept to the absolute minimum by the rules set and legal policy. Because one person doesn't like the word f*ck, should everyone then be enforced to not use it? So where does the line get drawn? Should we stop religious talk because it offends someone non-religious? People have asked me such things before, wanting me to stop people going on about their religion.

Can anyone say, discrimination to suit oneself? If a member choosing not to use pity party in writing here, that is for them to decide, not me. If another wants to use it and tell someone to stop having one, that is for them to decide, not me.

This is where these discussions seem to always lead. It started in one place, then people want to come out with all their political correctness bullshit. It has no place on this website. Simple as that. It is your opinion, neither right nor wrong, however; so is the next persons free expression to make their own decisions on what words they want to use to express themselves.

Pity party is not attacking in the context of the term, therefore, it is not against forum policy.

 

[Shellbell]

I agree that using the term pity party is not attacking. But it isn't being nice either. It's a negative term to use that is emotive. It is an opinion, but the user of the term cannot 'know' whether the term is correct in reference to anyone but themselves.

I guess it all comes down to whether someone is truly trying to help the person, or just being negative for their own reasons of being annoyed, exasperated or irritated at the person, which in itself is then a selfish intention to use the term. If it is for these reasons, the person could also chose a different method to release their annyance or whatever, by just ignoring the person and moving on.

It's a debate that can go on forever.

 

[Philippa]

I'm not playing word games with you anthony. Here is what you said...

Like I said above, Pity has a time, place and duration attached to it. After reasonable / normal pity is expired, a pity party ensues.

You didn't give an actual time limit, but you did say that it has to be reasonable, and in saying that you are defining what is reasonable according to you, aren't you?

What I am saying, which you seem to be totally discarding, is that what is reasonable to you might not be what it takes for some individuals to move past this phase. Since we are all individuals, it takes everyone different amounts of time in which to move past things, that is all.

What if that person isn't able to move past that phase yet, and people start lumping them in the pity party category? Getting annoyed with someone because they haven't moved past this phase when we think they should...is that helpful to the person?

That's all I am trying to point out. It has nothing to do with a play on words, and I'm sorry you think that's what is happening here, because it isn't my intention at all.

In any case, I don't really feel like I'm being heard here, so I will leave it there if you don't mind.

I'm done.

 

[anthony]

and in saying that you are defining what is reasonable according to you, aren't you?

I never said anything about being reasonable to me. You said that. I only said there is a reasonable time to it. You lumped "me", as an individual, into your statement.

As I said, playing on words. Now that is a play on words!

 

[Philippa]

I agree that using the term pity party is not attacking. But it isn't being nice either. It's a negative term to use that is emotive. It is an opinion, but the user of the term cannot 'know' whether the term is correct in reference to anyone but themselves.

Yeah, I don't see it as an attack as such, but it's kind of like dismissing someone and treating them like they are annoying you, which, when a person is not doing to well, can make it even harder for them to pull out of that place. I just don't see it as a helpful thing to say to someone, that's all.

I guess it all comes down to whether someone is truly trying to help the person, or just being negative for their own reasons of being annoyed, exasperated or irritated at the person, which in itself is then a selfish intention to use the term. If it is for these reasons, the person could also chose a different method to release their annyance or whatever, by just ignoring the person and moving on.

It's a debate that can go on forever.

Right. This is how i understand it as well.

I've not been told I have been throwing a pity party by anyone so far, but I can imagine it wouldn't feel too great if I were in pain and someone said this to me. And I've seen people do it on other sites, and wondered how helpful it was to the person they aimed it at.

 

[anthony]

the person could also chose a different method to release their annoyance or whatever, by just ignoring the person and moving on.

Well said. I do this most days here... I see self sympathy eating away at people more than I would like. I take that exact option you cited, I ignore it and them, and move on. People have to want to change, and they come to that realisation on their own typically.

 

[Philippa]

I never said anything about being reasonable to me. You said that. I only said there is a reasonable time to it. You lumped "me", as an individual, into your statement.

As I said, playing on words. Now that is a play on words!

So, you are saying reasonable, as in what reasonable is to...who then?

I don't think I am playing on words at all. I may be reading too into what you are saying, but it is not a deliberate attempt to play a game with you. To me it really seems like you are saying it is your judgement of what reasonable is.

If not, then whose?

 

[Nicolette]

I guess it all comes down to whether someone is truly trying to help the person

Why isn't telling someone what you see to be the truth not helping them? Sometimes people need to be stopped in their tracks to realise what it is they are doing. That is not mean - it is simply an opinion shared based on experience of that person being on a continual wave of self pity. A person can sit up, listen and evaluate it or ignore it - this is not a one way street.

If it is for these reasons, the person could also chose a different method to release their annyance or whatever, by just ignoring the person and moving on.

This swings both ways IMO as why does the one dealing with the person in a pity cycle have to be the bigger person all the time? This is what irks me to no end with PTSD.... some are so stuck in the thought process that those around them need to make all the concessions. Try walking on eggshells for awhile and you can't always just go through the pain so the other person can wallow for as long as they need. How long is a piece of string? No one knows but for the cycle to change something else has to change and IMO sometimes letting someone go on and on is just as selfish as someone who cares enough to tell them they are pushing a boundary to cause the other person to reach a point of frustration to say such a thing.