I don't mean to sound sympathetic in a weird way, i just see their abuse seeming mischaracterized, like called perfectly voluntary, given the f-yous of therapy commands, condescended to, not helped usually and in most cases.
I'm confused how to say the gentleness and strength of it, with responsibility and blame for example.
Maybe my economic limitedness is forcing me to think in this area, but it's not stockholm syndromic sympathy.
Is it?, if i see they're in pain or can generalize that denial and attacking and not making sense and not being constructive, is painful?
Not being constructive while not being abusive is to me, and when i did smaller versions of abusers, like snapping at people or trying to do 'comebacks', the pain was from the worst.
I don't know how to distinguish those abuses either, but the point seems about constructive relationships, which seemed possible by learning and apologies, and a better not pop psy word for boundaries, like respect? (Or, uh, that word gets abused too, like when people say Rodney dangerfield's line without good humor.)
So, uh, hm, does this make sense?
I thought alot more clarity was needed about explaining, and idk, is help possible for the pain abusers feel? I haven't seen reliable unabused methods, so idk.
In my case i thought of the bad i saw, then thought if i did it, and found ways to see how i related. Idk how better that made me, but it seems to go a long way. Getting bullied seemed to too, but that's not suggestable or ok on purpose?
Or is it?, if it's the only way to feel some things? I didn't consider if it was ok til now, i objected like 'wouldn't wish on anyone', and particular results aren't guaranteed,
but with the stakes of saving lives for the dependent people, is for example going to stay in homeless shelters, ethical? In some areas where there aren't waitlists, so a spot wouldn't be taken?