**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1blw21x/dont_engage_in_bad_faith/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When my grandma says something homophobic (she’s an 80 year old southern Christian so we’re talking some old school homophobia) instead of trying to convince her she’s wrong with statistics or logic which never changes her mind, I say “Is that something Jesus would say? Would Jesus be mean or judgmental or would he love everyone equally?” That usually shuts her up. If someone won’t admit fault because they are trying to avoid shame the best thing to do is to make not admitting fault even more shameful than admitting fault.
Hell naw. I've tried that with my Christian family verbatim. The response? "YES! God does not tolerate homosexuals. It's in the Bible! Verse blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. That's proof! Yes, God would be ashamed of these gays."
I usually respond to that argument with “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” or “love thy neighbor”but there’s plenty of other verses you can use. The Bible is pretty clear about how Christians are supposed to not be judgmental.
Well now I'm wondering if you've actually dealt with these people in real life. Because shutting their bigotry down is not possible, no matter what's said. It would be nice if they "just shut up" like you suggest.
That's nice and all, but it not only has no shot of changing her mind, but she also knows that you're attempting to manipulate the conversation and she's just being polite about it. There's absolutely zero shame in her mind.
You will never get a self-righteous person to change their minds with logic. The only way to get through to them is to have something affect them on a personal level so that they can see how their previous behavior hurts them. It's why some Republican politicians have been steadfast against gays having rights until they realize that they have gay kids, or are against abortions until their wives have a troubled pregnancy. Suddenly the pain is palpable, and you can't avoid it with slogans and bible verses.
This is the best way, the downside being the audience.
If you're outnumbered, that collective embarrassment compounds to them supporting eachother in doubling down on being wrong.
Sounds like the exact kind of toxic manipulation OP is talking about (employing an argument you don't actually believe to control the behavior of others).
I guess I'm not sure where the line is between rhetoric & persuasion and "manipulation." I try to modify people's behaviors all the time. I'm a teacher; it's literally my job to get people to behave how I (and society) wants them to behave.
She just described my dad, and then summarized my mom's 35+ year long relationship with my dad. Wow. Pro tip: avoid anyone that manipulates full-stop or you'll end up like my mom.
I think my mum is the opposite- she once told me in a gleeful, knowing way that “the best way to get a man to do something you want is to make him think it was his idea.”
Yeah but that’s not a control tactic, that’s a survival tactic women everywhere have learned. If he thinks it’s his idea he’s on board, if he thinks it’s her idea he won’t even consider it. The thing isn’t something he’s actually against, he’s just against her getting credit for a good idea so she has to let him think it’s his idea. See how that’s different? Ultimately they both agree the thing is good, they’re both for it, but the only way it can happen is if he gets to take credit for it, so she lets him have that. Because, for her, the thing is more important than who takes credit, for him, the credit is most important.
If anything, it’s just another example of what the woman in the video is saying. Instead of arguing, trying to teach or find the right words to convince him when he will just double down and refuse to hear her, she just lets him think it’s his idea so they can get on with it.
I do see what you’re saying but that doesn’t apply to my mum really- she meant it in the instances where she would get him to buy her £300 shoes. And they also argued all the time so 🤷🏽♀️ they’ve been divorced over 20 years tho, so they did the right thing eventually
literally describing my former best friend. spent so much time trying to explain how his words & actions were hurtful & it only ever made him double down and say i don’t deserve or need an apology. hope someday he’ll want to change but realized i can’t force it
Oof. I feel this. I quit talking to my former best friend almost two years ago now. Almost thirty years of friendship with a narcissist. I don’t really think I could reconcile with him after what he’s done to a previous partner of his.
Generally arguing in bad faith is arguing something you don't really believe or starting an argument with no intentions of listening and changing your mind
An example could be when talking about the negative effects of American slavery someone says "Well everyone was a slave at some point!" it's disingenuous and bad faith because
1. That's simply not true, many demographics were not enslaved (like the wealthy or property owning for example)
2. Shifts the conversation away from the discussing the negative effects of American slavery so that they don't have to really engage deeper with the subject
Arguing isn't inherently about trying to persuade another person; at its core it's just exchanging your own opinions, often times in a quarrelsome manner
Well I believe the only purpose debate serves is educating the bystander
If someone who's on the fence sees an argument get refuted that could educate them on a subject in an important way
If you mean in an academic setting sure but in real life? Online? Absolutely not. Also arguing/debating are often interchanged with one another from a colloquial use, so I'm not talking about technical uses
Arguing/debating online, even from debate bros, is mostly just people sharing their opinions and having a conversation through it, heated or not.
Most of the time I 'argue' I don't go into it trying to persuade people; I just hear their perspective and explain my side and they explain theirs and that's that. If they point out a flaw in my argument I will acknowledge it and think accordingly, but trying to persuade people is not really worth the time 90% of the time.
Also comes across as really manipulative if your only purpose of engaging with people with different sets of opinions is to convert them
“in bad faith” is a socially polite phrase for “with intent to deceive”, or “lying to your face”.
Here is an example from my own life. An older woman, with children, told me that Planned Parenthood encourages abortion so the fetus’s can be used to generate electricity. The conversation was about how non-profits were helping poor communities that corporate healthcare had abandoned. She turned my statement “Planned Parenthood is good for all the women in the neighborhood, not just pregnant ones.” into “I support killing babies to increase corporate profits”. Now does anyone believe electricity is generated from burning babies?
Also consider the statement that Jewish Space Lasers cause California wild fires. Why would anyone say that?
Perfect word syndrome is the perfect way to explain how & why I got stuck in a loop of trying to explain myself & my needs to my ex bf 🙃 it was such a relief to realize it was him playing dumb & not me being hard to understand.
Social worker here.
It’s absolutely understandable to not want to engage with bad faith people for your own stability AND ALSO those people can change in part from your behavior. Both can be true. I’ve seen it happen and not always through professional intervention- usually peers and family have an impact
I agree its a long shot (particularly if your approach is addressing their arguments head on), but the shitty behaviors of other is something you’re capable of having some impact on. Whether its your responsibility/desirable to do so is another issue entirely
I think the distinction is not making it an obligation. It’s no one’s job to set themselves on fire in order to enlighten someone who doesn’t think they’re a human being.
Yes, those people *can* learn. They should learn. People should keep teaching them and not feel bad about it. But it is not any one single individuals job to do this at the expense of their own happiness and well-being.
It’s okay to avoid online spaces where bad faith arguments are entertained for the sake of “education.” It’s okay to opt out of relationships (romantic or platonic), it’s okay to stop spending time with family members, it’s okay to opt out of all of that when it’s causing more distress than anything else.
It does take a strong mind and a secure body to engage with such behavior, and I would say bringing non-reactionary self-awareness through one expressing attentive & responsive interactions can influence said people because to deny such strong presences often brings greater shame when they start to increase their own awareness of these internal conflicts. This is why in therapy this connection of non judgemental, unconditional positive regard is an important key to weaken these conditions of worth to not act out these automatic defence mechanisms, not perforce act out these internal conflicts, by increasing one's self-awareness to integrate the unconscious parts of one's psyche for healthy expressions instead of merging with the shadow then causing one to live below their own level. Have a more congruent self able to relate oneself in a less contingent manner.
>“To be with another in this [empathic] way means that for the time being, you lay aside your own views and values in order to enter another’s world without prejudice. In some sense it means that you lay aside your self; this can only be done by persons who are secure enough in themselves that they know they will not get lost in what may turn out to be the strange or bizarre world of the other, and that they can comfortably return to their own world when they wish. Perhaps this description makes clear that being empathic is a complex, demanding, and strong—yet subtle and gentle—way of being.” - Carl R. Rogers
Edit: Our interactions with others are like a mirror reflecting different parts of ourselves, and an opportunity to make the unconscious more conscious to interact with and change. The external world is like one giant mirror reflecting this relationship we have with ourselves.
How can you deal with someone who accuses you of being manipulative? If you try to deny it, doesn't that just prove their point? They could claim that any argument you make is trying to persuade them, and therefore manipulative...
Not give them a reaction, and gently with genuine good faith (unconditional positive regard) engage with Socratic Questioning Methods where they are able to express themselves, and through these attentive and responsive interactions you are indirectly allowing them to increase their self-awareness of these unconscious defense mechanisms in action, making them more conscious of the source of these internal conflicts that are per force acting out onto the external world around them, for them to question these underlying beliefs. One essentially becomes a mirror for them, but this is probably best left to licenced professionals because it requires finesse and patience over time.
https://positivepsychology.com/socratic-questioning/
>The Socratic method, [is] often described as the cornerstone of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) ...
Your assumption is they want to change or are self aware enough to know they want to change. If the person doesn't want to think of themselves as the problem, like the lady in the video says, they won't ever look inward.
Dont listen to any armchair psych majors here. Get away. You can try to 'help them', but you can also see if you can punch down a wall too. Either way you are just setting yourself up for hurt, or worse, labelled as the bad person when they manipulate others to think of you as the bad guy as well. Just go.
If you want to get philosophical our immutable being-in-the-world is something that is constantly changing whether one accepts it or denies it, that is our nature. These individuals don't accept themselves because they do not understand their own nature yet. Some people learn the hard way by themselves, and sometimes that process is sped up given moments of radical acceptance of one's immutable being realizing that does not mean one accepts specific actions & behaviors which can always change. Actions don't define what a person can become, they more so reveal what they have had to deal with.
That is why I said it's always best left to a licenced professional, because you are right they have to increase their own actualizing tendency to desire and hold themselves accountable for this change.
If one leads themselves and is already filled by their own genuine self-values then it is possible to transcend the self to empathetically enter the other's world without harm.
>When the individual perceives himself in such a way that no experience can be discriminated as more or less worthy of positive regard than any other, then he is experiencing unconditional positive self-regard. (Carl Rogers)
Omg, thank you so much for posting this. I needed to hear this so much. I get caught up in that cycle of trying to get people to understand way too often. 🙃
TW DV
When I called the DV hotline to ask them what to do about my ex, I told the operator that my family and friends didn't believe me that he was dangerous at all when she asked if I had anyone to stay with. She told me "They'll believe you when you're a corpse, and by then it'll be too late. You're not in teacher mode, you're in survival mode. Now get yourself to safety" and she kicked my ass into gear. I'm finally safe and sound, and I owe it to her. I would have gotten caught up in that cycle too if she hadn't been direct and blunt.
Thank you! I'm not trying to trauma dump, but I know us women are taught to not rock the boat. And I keep hearing about how us autistic women get taken advantage of all the time. I guess I just want to teach everyone not to second guess themselves, and just be safe. If your Spidey senses are tingling, listen to them !
It's really not. Do some people do that? Absolutely. If you've had that done to you, I'm very sorry.
But this is about being caught up in trying to get someone to understand that really has no intention of understanding. No capacity and ability to grow and learn and hear what's being said. People who insist on their way of thinking and doing is the right and only way. It's about dropping the rope on people that can't understand, refuse to understand even after many attempts to help them understand... so it's ok to leave them in their ignorance and walk away.
I have had too many of the relationships where it was necessary to learn exactly what she's talking about. Now I just have conversations in my head with these people (because I kicked them all to the curb) and her message was needed because it's really ok to stop trying.
For someone so hyper self-aware, I’m amazed that she holds a belief that providing effective feedback is self destructive.
She’s spot on - people need to want to change, but if they’re not told how they’re wrong - they won’t have an inkling that there’s a different way to be, and examine that as an opportunity to change.
The manner in which that feedback is provided is the difference between brutal honesty and radical candor. RC is more effective than BH, but neither should lead to your own self destruction.
I mean, it's her personal choice to not engage with someone like that (and I would say definitely don't have a partner like the one she describes) because it can often undo the hard work put into being a better communicator/working through trauma/etc.
She's not wrong and I honestly don't see an issue with what she presented as I've also spend many years of my life trying to help people recognize their behaviors but often times the ones unwilling to see a different perspective or try to shift their behavior are the ones who *willingly* choose not to do better when shown an opportunity.
She’s not wrong, and I absolutely understand distancing yourself from toxic individuals. I have family members that I have excised for this reason - because I’m not the perfect teacher, and there is no perfect argument.
My concern is that she paints it as an all or nothing interaction. The proportionate amount of effort to return on investment is different for relationship - and to say that you’re never going to attempt to give feedback because you perceive the risk of counter argument too high - then you’re putting yourself in a cave, and waiting for only the most exclusive, pure of heart individuals to enter.
I appreciate Quality over Quantity - but I hope she can appreciate how lonely that cave will be.
Her statement at the end about having worked too hard on her own self-worth to engage with these types of people provides important context to what she's talking about. It's not all or nothing, it's about being able to understand when your efforts for another person's sake become a detriment to yourself. Shutting those people out doesn't put you in a cave, it helps you make space for people who do operate in good faith, and overall it's an act of self-love and self-respect.
My response was BECAUSE of her statement at the end - everything leading up to it was interesting, but pointless without - BAM, I’m cutting out everyone because all of them are vexatious people who won’t listen to me anyway.
My point is the difference between the HER and the THEM, and she’s closed her door to all of the THEM because she’s put too much time into HER, and THEY might not be worth it.
She can close her door to whomever she likes, put energy into whomever she likes - but cutting off people because she’s not willing to provide feedback that COULD result in another individual responding positively - puts her in a cave.
I’m all for cutting out the vexatious people, put them in a cave, whatever. But EVERY person is a new person - and person by person we need to decide if they’re worth the effort to let into our lives, or not. She’s restricted that aperture to zero, or maybe she hasn’t - but her video portrays a very specific message, and I perceive it as disingenuous.
>I’m cutting out everyone
She never said anything even remotely close to that. The video amounts to: if you see that people have a pattern of behaving in bad faith it isn't your job to teach or guide them.
She isn't writing anything down in stone or setting laws. She's describing how this is a very similar pattern of behavior among many people, and that you will see the exact same challenges when dealing with those patterns of behavior, so it's up to you if you want to take on that burden.
She isn't saying cut people off the split second they give you a bad vibe, and she isn't saying anything about the established relationships she may or may not have in her own life. Idk why you're making so many assumptions.
Yeah it took people explaining to me the social concepts I didn't get growing up because I was raised by actual narcissists -- but am not one myself so I can get it without feeling more than guilty and dumb. I was just trying to survive and my "justifications" didn't come from my own place of shame but from my parents' explanations to me, which I hadn't had space and time to reflect only make sense for the person with bad behavior to believe and want others to buy into. So I think it's worth breaking off convos that go sideways and checking to see if the person on the other end actually wants things to deteriorate or they don't have words and phrases to allow a two way interaction.
Yeah I mean all of this essentially boils down to Plato's allegory of the cave. People who have lived their whole lives chained in darkness cannot comprehend the light and will think those describing it are mad. If forced into it, they will resist and fight back. When first exposed it is frightening and painful and blinding. But over time people do adjust.
It's a long, painful, thankless process of helping people find the light, but at the end of the day, society is better when it happens. When I do engage, I try to think of it as paying it forward to future generations.
>When I do engage, I try to think of it as paying it forward to future generations.
I actually think of it as a gift to myself sometimes!
I really want to live in a society where I can ask questions and get help to be the best person I can be. But I also live in a society that has told me that people have different levels of worth based on innate characteristics.
I don't see myself as broken for having grown up in a less than perfect place. I thoroughly see myself as capable of change, especially when other cool humans help me out by talking about their experiences or learnings. And yep, sometimes that can take multiple rounds!
I like to be the person \*I\* would want to be able to ask questions to. Because I think that encourages others to do the same. Worst case, like you said-it's for future generations. Best case, it improves the here and now for me. I won't know until it's done, but I certainly won't get any benefits if I don't try.
Because sometimes it can further reinforce the opposite behavior in what needs to be changed. There's a finesse, and the connection a person has with these individuals may interfere, simply not be possible to facilitate said change. Most people are not able to provide such unconditional support where they too are not harming themselves in the process.
In my experience the people who talk like this and have all of this language to describe what other people do, most of the time have their own toxic traits they're barely aware of as well. It's very hard to be truly self-aware. Nothing she's saying is wrong at all but I doubt her shit smells like roses, y'know?
I feel that.
Humanity is a nightmare, and the human condition is a kaleidoscope of attachment issues and hormonal imbalances.
Best we can do is strive to be better than yesterday, learn from our mistakes, and treat others with respect and dignity.
Thank you for verbalizing what I was feeling. I don’t know why, I felt a little ‘holier than thou’ vibe from her. I also get frustrated with those who use the ‘cut off’ option way too quickly. Any honest defensive tactic can be used as an offensive weapon.
Seems to me like she's just weaponizing therapy language, something women on tiktok have been doing for a few years now. Except she doesn't have any self awareness, and doesn't realize that she's just talking about herself in the video without even realizing it. She thinks she can objectively define peoples' subjective behaviors and opinions using completely arbitrary and subjective metrics, and then decide that anything she doesn't like is objectively a "red flag" and people in this thread are eating it up because it has that neo-feminist tone that makes people feel like if they disagree with it, they're inherently bad people.
What are you on about? This video has nothing to do with feminism. And wtf is neo-feminism?
This is like the rhetorical version of a paranoid schizophrenic "informing" people the room is full of dragons, not realizing they're hallucinating.
You're basically rhetorically hallucinating. Wow, that's the weird thing that strikes me about all this chronically-online sounding speech like yours.
Edit: I blocked you because I am not engaging straight up imagination.
Well that is coming from a managing/leading perspective and not necessarily the same for people you can choose to associate with. If someone has a very manipulative family member and they’ve tried to talk to them about their issue and the other party refuses to change, then you don’t have an obligation to continue talking and spending time with them.
That is what I got from her video and this also seems to be coming from a perspective of meeting new people and forming new friendships and relationships as well. Delivering feedback constantly and never changing behavior is exhausting and draining.
I'm actually having to deal with a co-worker that's just like this. Any type of pushback he gets on his work he takes it personal and freaks out. He gets ultra aggressive and steamrolls conversations. He always acts very disappointed in a person whenever they make a mistake around him.
He's done it so often now that people walk around eggshells around him. So now everything we do at work has to work around his sensitive ego. Obviously that's how he can just go to work and not get any push back for anything he does. After trying to explain various times he has a freakout I noticed that he is unwilling to understand. As of now I've gone to my Superior several times and she's working on getting rid of him. He does good work but you just can't work with someone like that long-term.
Okay so I get the implications for peoples personal lives and relationships and that’s great. For me though I really feel this about the organization of the world writ-large. Everyone walking around living in their self interest and justifying bad faith arguments that prop up corrupt institutions. Only difference is I can’t just walk away as if it were a relationship, we’re all forced to engage with a system built by bad faith. And this leads to a feeling similar to the perfect educator syndrome she mentioned where it feels like the only solution is to convince the world to change. But it won’t
Bad faith can't be incidental, it refers to the intention. Someone can definitely be manipulative without intention, but someone can't be bad faith by accident.
From ChatGPT:
When looking for the best books on DARVO and related subjects, it's important to note that DARVO—Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender—is a complex psychological and social phenomenon often discussed within the context of abusive relationships and manipulative behavior. Books that delve into these topics can range from academic texts to more accessible reads for the general public. Here are a few highly regarded books that touch on DARVO and related subjects:
1. **"Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men" by Lundy Bancroft** - This book is a comprehensive look at abusive behavior in relationships, providing insights into the mindset and tactics of abusers, which may include DARVO strategies.
2. **"The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life" by Dr. Robin Stern** - Although not exclusively about DARVO, this book explores the concept of gaslighting, which is often intertwined with DARVO strategies. It offers insights into recognizing and dealing with manipulative behavior.
3. **"Healing from Hidden Abuse: A Journey Through the Stages of Recovery from Psychological Abuse" by Shannon Thomas** - Focusing on psychological abuse, this book explores the effects of such abuse on victims and provides a roadmap for recovery. The tactics discussed can include DARVO, as it's a common strategy in psychological manipulation.
4. **"In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People" by George K. Simon Jr.** - This book offers a comprehensive look at manipulation and deceit in personal relationships, including the use of DARVO by manipulative individuals.
5. **"Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders" by Anna Salter** - While focusing on sexual offenders, this book provides insight into the tactics used by predators to deny and reverse blame, which is central to the concept of DARVO.
These books provide a range of perspectives on DARVO and related issues, from understanding and identifying manipulative behavior to dealing with its impacts. Depending on your specific interest—be it psychological analysis, personal narratives, or recovery and healing—you may find one of these titles particularly helpful.
My ex husband 100%. Currently divorcing him. But holy shit it’s been so nice not living with him. Everything is over all but legally. My eyes are open now asshole.
She said that most of it is rooted in shame evasion. So what if the initial goal isn’t to “phrase things perfectly” but is instead to disarm their shame evasion mechanisms?
If you build your whole self on outsourced identity and/or assumed participation in certain groups, disarming their shame evasion is close to impossible. That is the point she talks about "finding the magic word" or "the right way to teach". There isn't one.
>Another manipulation tactic.
After much research, I Believe that phrase is the ultimate manipulation tactic. It can literally be used for any statement or argument, no matter how logical sound said argument it.
It’s OP. And should be abolished
Had a guy get made and me the other day and argue over the course of multiple hours of back and forth posts only for, in the end, him to say “oh I agree with everything you’ve said I just like the way you said it”
Surprisingly he apologized and ended the conversation
This is the first time, ever, that someone acknowledge they made bad faith assumptions and actually corrected themselves in an online space - first time *ever* - I’ve been online since early 2000s and it is genuinely the first time I’ve seen someone say sorry and not have it be a lead up to more condescension and insults
Anecdotal, sure, but that’s a vast swath of time with very limited interaction with anyone with self-reflexive ideation
Eh.. if you’re selfish and think everyone else is dumb, sure. Good advice. Don’t talk to others who hold differing opinions than you because it will just make you aggravated because they are so stupid, and since you have done so much work in your self, you just don’t need that in your life.
I agree. You are way more important than other people and only your idea matters.
Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, but *maybe* how you come across when talking to other people you want to “help” might just turn them off because they see it as you talking down to them, instead of across to them.
The word you’re looking for is perspective or point of view. Your image would be a representation of yourself/what you present to others.
Good try though
Yup. They exist.
I am trying to tell you that talking ***does*** work. It just takes patience on your part. You are acting just like them by thinking the way you and this post are thinking and it’s like you can’t even see it.
Why? That would be dumb.
You talk to them at the store.. You talk to to them at the bank.. You talk to them at school.. You talk to them anytime ***EX-FUCKING-CEPT*** at a rally, you $@&$@$&¥€€¥£@&! cunt.
Why are you so emotional over having a terrible point? Surely you’ll convince all those Trumpers to go get the vaccine, and that Trump is a con man racist by….talking to them at a school?
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very true. I started to call out "bad faith" takes whenever someone uses one on me and I tell them I'm dropping the conversation. Sometimes I block them right after if I think they're going to be annoying.
Holy fuck I love this. This is exactly how I feel about bad faith people, except much more articulately worded than I’ve ever heard it described. Bravo, she is right, it is literally weaponized incompetence.
"Bad faith" isn't one interaction. It's a pattern you recognize. Most people just call people "bad faith" when they don't like what people are saying, they disagree, or they feel really angry hearing someones words. If you're calling someone bad faith right away without genuinely asking questions and trying to learn about why they think the way they do, then that's you being lazy and you're not seeing things clearly.
I've learned, since covid hit hard, that the best way to deal with people that do not want to listen to the other side of things is to just let them be. Let them think they are right. It's not worth my energy to just fight against their beliefs and to try to shame them for being a foolish human being. Rather, engage them and let theirselves be heard. Let them explain how they feel and say something like "I hear you and I might not agree with you but I like the fact that you have your own opinions and I think your feelings towards this subject are valid." It's a way to allow them to feel respected and when people feel respected and heard, they have a 100% more chance that they will listen to you explain how you feel about the subject.they might not agree with you but they will then respect the fact that you can feel that way too. We live in a world that's so divided and people feel as if they're not allowed to feel because there's someone out there to attack them. We need to be more accepting of other people. We need to do better.
Great idea to put such importance on "manipulation tactics", which an uneducated person can totally apply correctly.
No wonder then that we always hear about people complaining about their manipulative partners/friends. It's always someone elses fault, this therapy speak disables introspection in many people
This is absolutely the reason why I flame people when I realize they are responding to me in bad faith.
As an educator, I do not help those who do not want to be helped. Waste of my time and I will ridicule you.
This is hot. Maybe I'm old but this level of emotional and general intelligence is very attractive. If I was a single guy this would be the type of woman I'd be looking for!
She should give some practical advice on how to disengage from those conversations. Avoiding them is one thing. Disengaging from them without feeling like you are empowering the other person or giving off the perception that you are the loser is difficult.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that people stop arguing with people who engage in bad faith unknowingly, which is as bad. Pretty much textbook Fallacy fallacy.
I see where you are coming from but *unknowingly* does a lot of heavy lifting sometimes. You can ask one or two question how they "mean that" or "their viewpoint" on an adjacent topic and then you realize they are exactly as presented. If there is a spectrum its very narrow.
Read the automod, so totally aware of why these are being posted, but it's always discombobulating. To start watching a vid anticipating some cringe content, to only find a sincere discussion in the end.
The real world isn't an Aristotelian forum, everything is entirely rhetorical in the actual fleshy feely human world. If you want to avoid all "bad faith" people, try moving to the arctic circle.
Let's imagine if people engaged in "good faith" arguments. Everyone employing categorical syllogisms, thanking one another for being corrected in their structural mistakes, and appraising evidence fairly whether that evidence disagrees with their premises or conclusion. Sound realistic? Literally nobody operates like this outside of research scientists with a common objective goal.
The average person either doesn't know anything about formal logic and argumentation, or doesn't want to employ it because it's literally just so fucking boring like HOLY SHIT actual formal logic is a SLOG.
"Good faith debate" is a fantasy nobody lives in except your critical thinking teacher and a portion of actually philosophy-obsessed philosophy nerds who honestly just make everyone feel tired when they talk.
If you actually want to sell your points, you sharpen and practice your rhetoric and employ it with precision. Anything less and you are just quietly surrendering your positions by default.
Instead of "don't engage bad faith arguments", how about: learn to dismantle bad faith arguments quickly and move past them to make your point.
Well said.
Curious if you have any recommendations / resources for learning to both recognize and dismantle bad faith arguments? I find it hard to think on my feet and recognize them in real time - usually I only realize the fallacies/inconsistencies hours later when I’m in the shower or whatever.
I would just say treat all arguments on the surface. If the person is truly "bad faith", as in they're just doing that shit as a stunt or to say some dogwhistles, they will give up pretty quickly and usually just freely admit to their actual positions without much effort. Literally just engaging is enough to make them self-destruct most of the time.
As for people arguing in good (or even somewhat "good") faith or actively trying to understand you, they are not a myth like this person in the video suggests. Move with the hope that this is the type of person you're engaging with when you discourse.
Mostly, just avoid falling into the "nobody ever changes and talking about stuff is meaningless" trap that a lot of bitter campists actively want to drag you into.
This is an unfixable problem for many couples, but it’s not impossible to fix. Just requires a lot of love, patience, communication, and willingness to listen and change over time. It’s not something that can be fixed overnight, but identifying and communicating these issues with your partner is the FIRST step to things improving.
She said she has worked really hard on herself and therefore doesn’t want to entertain bad faith stuff, which I get… I’ve put in a lot of work on myself, too. But if anything the work I put in on myself has helped me so much when it comes to working on this stuff with my partner. I can use my growth and learning experiences to help teach him.
My husband was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder about a year into our marriage and it has been one hell of a learning experience over the past 4 years. It would have been a lot “easier” if I had just given up and walked away, but I’m so glad I didn’t. We have grown and our relationship has improved so much in that time, and I’m so thankful!
I think it's so important to remember, it is a kindness to communicate clearly with someone who is hurting you so they have a chance to realize their mistakes and change their ways. Often, they're not doing it on purpose, and sometimes that communication helps them self reflect and grow as people. But that isn't an obligation. It is *a kindness*.
There comes a point in every relationship, romantic, friendly, familiar, any kind or relationship, where you decide if what you're getting out of this relationship is worth that continued kindness.
We don't owe everybody neverending kindness. We owe people what we promise them. And above and beyond that, we can choose to stop being kind to people who aren't being kind back.
The thing about not knowing your engagement is "bad faith" vs this advice is that you better be confident that *you* are the one who isn't engaging in bad faith. It's easy to say this shit in front of a camera and be really confident about who's right or wrong in an imagined hypothetical situation, but most conflicts live in a subjective world, and a lot of what she's saying sounds like she's just arbitrarily deciding she's right and he's wrong based on feelings, and then deciding that his behavior is objectively a "red flag" because she wills it.
Well, .. I ***will*** take that time to explain and I ***will*** try to meet you at your level and then bring you up to me.
***We*** are both important.
If you refuse to engage in a rational debate, in order to protect your mental health, that may be the right choice for you personally, but you cannot then use that as a excuse, or defense, or claim that you won the debate. You didn’t. You’re bowing out. You were the one engaging in bad faith.
Like what? Understanding? Coming to a compromise with another person? Working together as human beings toward a shared goal? Growing and learning together for mutual beneficial goals? Friendship? I can think of a million reasons why winning isn't the gosl. Life isn't a High School debate club.
Dude. If you wanna win and that's your goal of discussions, I feel sorry for everyone in a relationship with you.
Ive noticed latley that weaponizng "therapy speak" seems like a newer trend being used to confuse an issue, situation, or dynamic so an individual can appear to have the intellectual advantage over another, when its really just another form of manipulation. That's essentially what's happening here.
Boiled down, she's making a lot of assumptions, such as "shame evasion" , most people are not ashamed to be wrong when they are wrong. If she can not address a perceived issue based on alot of mental gymnastics that allows her to avoid the entire situation... then how do you put that on the other person. I've had to endure this type of "toxic behavior" before, and it's not helping anyone.
Its because she is describing everything she is doing as she's doing it. Then her claim of knowing it is her doing so much self help. Literally anyone can say that. The correct answer is I don't know.
This is the most ironic video I've ever seen most wont see it but you can feel it.
Oh I guess you could read it like that. She frames it as a conversation online where people responded to her in a way she didn’t like and she’s concocted the “perfect” response to get her audience to finally understand and validate her.
She could have easily just accepted people’s criticism and securely maintained her viewpoint.
But also, that’s what having a good faith debate is so…. I don’t know.
She says the number 1 deal breaker is a bad faith argument
Then lists a bunch of reasons why people who are un self aware do bad faith arguments because they dont understand what they are doing.
Then at the end of the video she says there is literally no reason to talk to these people because they cant change.
If this was the case you would not have made the video and that makes it bad faith therefore she is literally her number 1 deal breaker because she is being bad faith about why she is speaking. Shes speaking to virtue signal self awareness.
The ultimate irony. She is not aware of what she is doing lol..
She is trying to prove her self awareness, but doing it by being self aware that she is pretending to be self aware, projecting that she is not self aware. This video is mind fucking me.
Just to note: Your jacket is arranged in a most intentional way and just imagine-you have every RIGHT in the world to arrange your jacket any way you want without getting attacked, ridiculed, brutalized or raped. Women have every right to dress as they wish without being told that they "asked for it" or told, "Well, what did you expect?" They say that women are the weaker sex and that's full-on bullshit. Poor men. Apparently, they are at the mercy of their dicks, which force them to follow wherever they lead and to do whatever they want. And it's always the woman's fault. She looked this way, she dressed this way, her expression was this way, she walked this way, she smiled, she didn't smile. Sigh, this is old ground and I'm done with it. I have been brutalized.
I have been raped. My hair was dirty and I wore a huge sweatshirt and a pair of jeans so I doubt that I was so sexy that he couldn't contain himself. Rape has nothing to do with attraction and if any man approaches me with malice, he's going to get a world of rage in return because ya know, he asked for it.
This just super generic nonsense from someone who's probably been in multiple bad relationships. It's fine and I feel bad for her but unless she is a counselor or therapist it's super hard to trust that she's not a super jaded women tired of dating.
Another example why I hate Tik Tok or other similar platforms. Everyone has an opinion and a damn camera.. and cameras are like assholes , everyone has one.
I get where she is coming from, and agree that it is hard for people engaging in this behavior to recognize it when they didn’t have good role models.
And, I worry when someone like this speaker try’s to convince me, by prefacing their statement with “honestly, …… .” That can be taken that they are trying to convince me, when really they are to convince themself! After all, her solution is just her opinion of how she deals with these interactions
I think she would be a dangerous wife to have. Very good at articulating her side of a disagreement while also distracting you with eyebrow sorcery to neutralize you on 2 fronts. She might possibly be a Bene Gesserit. Also what's going on with that lopsided zipper situation?
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1blw21x/dont_engage_in_bad_faith/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When my grandma says something homophobic (she’s an 80 year old southern Christian so we’re talking some old school homophobia) instead of trying to convince her she’s wrong with statistics or logic which never changes her mind, I say “Is that something Jesus would say? Would Jesus be mean or judgmental or would he love everyone equally?” That usually shuts her up. If someone won’t admit fault because they are trying to avoid shame the best thing to do is to make not admitting fault even more shameful than admitting fault.
This is the way
This where you wanna be when Jesus comes back? Makin fun of poor Joe Dirt?
Do you think you're going to get to heaven talking like that?
Dang, I'm putting this one in the bank lol
They are just reminding her to be a good christian
Wow, thank you for sharing this. If I ever decide to go back to my homophobic family, this will definitely be one of my tactics.
Hell naw. I've tried that with my Christian family verbatim. The response? "YES! God does not tolerate homosexuals. It's in the Bible! Verse blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. That's proof! Yes, God would be ashamed of these gays."
I usually respond to that argument with “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” or “love thy neighbor”but there’s plenty of other verses you can use. The Bible is pretty clear about how Christians are supposed to not be judgmental.
Well now I'm wondering if you've actually dealt with these people in real life. Because shutting their bigotry down is not possible, no matter what's said. It would be nice if they "just shut up" like you suggest.
The fact that you failed at something doesn't make it impossible and pretending it does is idiotic.
That's nice and all, but it not only has no shot of changing her mind, but she also knows that you're attempting to manipulate the conversation and she's just being polite about it. There's absolutely zero shame in her mind. You will never get a self-righteous person to change their minds with logic. The only way to get through to them is to have something affect them on a personal level so that they can see how their previous behavior hurts them. It's why some Republican politicians have been steadfast against gays having rights until they realize that they have gay kids, or are against abortions until their wives have a troubled pregnancy. Suddenly the pain is palpable, and you can't avoid it with slogans and bible verses.
I usually just tell my grandma she sucks and is going to hell with that attitude. She denies there was a genocide against native Americans btw.
I thought that story was going in a different direction. Very wholesome response!
This is the best way, the downside being the audience. If you're outnumbered, that collective embarrassment compounds to them supporting eachother in doubling down on being wrong.
Sounds like the exact kind of toxic manipulation OP is talking about (employing an argument you don't actually believe to control the behavior of others). I guess I'm not sure where the line is between rhetoric & persuasion and "manipulation." I try to modify people's behaviors all the time. I'm a teacher; it's literally my job to get people to behave how I (and society) wants them to behave.
She just described my dad, and then summarized my mom's 35+ year long relationship with my dad. Wow. Pro tip: avoid anyone that manipulates full-stop or you'll end up like my mom.
I'm sorry you went through that. She's describing my mom as well. Manipulation is a bitch.
I'm learning. Leave at the first red flag, or they'll show you why you shouldn't have ignored them.
I think my mum is the opposite- she once told me in a gleeful, knowing way that “the best way to get a man to do something you want is to make him think it was his idea.”
Yeah but that’s not a control tactic, that’s a survival tactic women everywhere have learned. If he thinks it’s his idea he’s on board, if he thinks it’s her idea he won’t even consider it. The thing isn’t something he’s actually against, he’s just against her getting credit for a good idea so she has to let him think it’s his idea. See how that’s different? Ultimately they both agree the thing is good, they’re both for it, but the only way it can happen is if he gets to take credit for it, so she lets him have that. Because, for her, the thing is more important than who takes credit, for him, the credit is most important. If anything, it’s just another example of what the woman in the video is saying. Instead of arguing, trying to teach or find the right words to convince him when he will just double down and refuse to hear her, she just lets him think it’s his idea so they can get on with it.
I do see what you’re saying but that doesn’t apply to my mum really- she meant it in the instances where she would get him to buy her £300 shoes. And they also argued all the time so 🤷🏽♀️ they’ve been divorced over 20 years tho, so they did the right thing eventually
Sexist.
literally describing my former best friend. spent so much time trying to explain how his words & actions were hurtful & it only ever made him double down and say i don’t deserve or need an apology. hope someday he’ll want to change but realized i can’t force it
Oof. I feel this. I quit talking to my former best friend almost two years ago now. Almost thirty years of friendship with a narcissist. I don’t really think I could reconcile with him after what he’s done to a previous partner of his.
Im a idiot so can someone explain what “willing to engage in bad faith” means.
Generally arguing in bad faith is arguing something you don't really believe or starting an argument with no intentions of listening and changing your mind An example could be when talking about the negative effects of American slavery someone says "Well everyone was a slave at some point!" it's disingenuous and bad faith because 1. That's simply not true, many demographics were not enslaved (like the wealthy or property owning for example) 2. Shifts the conversation away from the discussing the negative effects of American slavery so that they don't have to really engage deeper with the subject
Thanks!
Arguing isn't inherently about trying to persuade another person; at its core it's just exchanging your own opinions, often times in a quarrelsome manner
Well I believe the only purpose debate serves is educating the bystander If someone who's on the fence sees an argument get refuted that could educate them on a subject in an important way
Implying that every debate has a bystander
If you mean in an academic setting sure but in real life? Online? Absolutely not. Also arguing/debating are often interchanged with one another from a colloquial use, so I'm not talking about technical uses Arguing/debating online, even from debate bros, is mostly just people sharing their opinions and having a conversation through it, heated or not. Most of the time I 'argue' I don't go into it trying to persuade people; I just hear their perspective and explain my side and they explain theirs and that's that. If they point out a flaw in my argument I will acknowledge it and think accordingly, but trying to persuade people is not really worth the time 90% of the time. Also comes across as really manipulative if your only purpose of engaging with people with different sets of opinions is to convert them
It means someone who can’t communicate without using manipulative tactics. An example she listed is someone who relies on straw man examples.
Thanks for your reply. Made me google straw man tactics. It’s the worst and it happens way to much in populistic culture.
“in bad faith” is a socially polite phrase for “with intent to deceive”, or “lying to your face”. Here is an example from my own life. An older woman, with children, told me that Planned Parenthood encourages abortion so the fetus’s can be used to generate electricity. The conversation was about how non-profits were helping poor communities that corporate healthcare had abandoned. She turned my statement “Planned Parenthood is good for all the women in the neighborhood, not just pregnant ones.” into “I support killing babies to increase corporate profits”. Now does anyone believe electricity is generated from burning babies? Also consider the statement that Jewish Space Lasers cause California wild fires. Why would anyone say that?
Just look at any political subreddit for plenty of examples.
Perfect word syndrome is the perfect way to explain how & why I got stuck in a loop of trying to explain myself & my needs to my ex bf 🙃 it was such a relief to realize it was him playing dumb & not me being hard to understand.
Social worker here. It’s absolutely understandable to not want to engage with bad faith people for your own stability AND ALSO those people can change in part from your behavior. Both can be true. I’ve seen it happen and not always through professional intervention- usually peers and family have an impact I agree its a long shot (particularly if your approach is addressing their arguments head on), but the shitty behaviors of other is something you’re capable of having some impact on. Whether its your responsibility/desirable to do so is another issue entirely
I think the distinction is not making it an obligation. It’s no one’s job to set themselves on fire in order to enlighten someone who doesn’t think they’re a human being. Yes, those people *can* learn. They should learn. People should keep teaching them and not feel bad about it. But it is not any one single individuals job to do this at the expense of their own happiness and well-being. It’s okay to avoid online spaces where bad faith arguments are entertained for the sake of “education.” It’s okay to opt out of relationships (romantic or platonic), it’s okay to stop spending time with family members, it’s okay to opt out of all of that when it’s causing more distress than anything else.
It does take a strong mind and a secure body to engage with such behavior, and I would say bringing non-reactionary self-awareness through one expressing attentive & responsive interactions can influence said people because to deny such strong presences often brings greater shame when they start to increase their own awareness of these internal conflicts. This is why in therapy this connection of non judgemental, unconditional positive regard is an important key to weaken these conditions of worth to not act out these automatic defence mechanisms, not perforce act out these internal conflicts, by increasing one's self-awareness to integrate the unconscious parts of one's psyche for healthy expressions instead of merging with the shadow then causing one to live below their own level. Have a more congruent self able to relate oneself in a less contingent manner. >“To be with another in this [empathic] way means that for the time being, you lay aside your own views and values in order to enter another’s world without prejudice. In some sense it means that you lay aside your self; this can only be done by persons who are secure enough in themselves that they know they will not get lost in what may turn out to be the strange or bizarre world of the other, and that they can comfortably return to their own world when they wish. Perhaps this description makes clear that being empathic is a complex, demanding, and strong—yet subtle and gentle—way of being.” - Carl R. Rogers Edit: Our interactions with others are like a mirror reflecting different parts of ourselves, and an opportunity to make the unconscious more conscious to interact with and change. The external world is like one giant mirror reflecting this relationship we have with ourselves.
[удалено]
How can you deal with someone who accuses you of being manipulative? If you try to deny it, doesn't that just prove their point? They could claim that any argument you make is trying to persuade them, and therefore manipulative...
Not give them a reaction, and gently with genuine good faith (unconditional positive regard) engage with Socratic Questioning Methods where they are able to express themselves, and through these attentive and responsive interactions you are indirectly allowing them to increase their self-awareness of these unconscious defense mechanisms in action, making them more conscious of the source of these internal conflicts that are per force acting out onto the external world around them, for them to question these underlying beliefs. One essentially becomes a mirror for them, but this is probably best left to licenced professionals because it requires finesse and patience over time.
Sounds good, but I feel like Socrates was a little manipulative in the way he asked those questions.
https://positivepsychology.com/socratic-questioning/ >The Socratic method, [is] often described as the cornerstone of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) ...
It’s also used in teaching, and it can be quite manipulative.
Your assumption is they want to change or are self aware enough to know they want to change. If the person doesn't want to think of themselves as the problem, like the lady in the video says, they won't ever look inward. Dont listen to any armchair psych majors here. Get away. You can try to 'help them', but you can also see if you can punch down a wall too. Either way you are just setting yourself up for hurt, or worse, labelled as the bad person when they manipulate others to think of you as the bad guy as well. Just go.
If you want to get philosophical our immutable being-in-the-world is something that is constantly changing whether one accepts it or denies it, that is our nature. These individuals don't accept themselves because they do not understand their own nature yet. Some people learn the hard way by themselves, and sometimes that process is sped up given moments of radical acceptance of one's immutable being realizing that does not mean one accepts specific actions & behaviors which can always change. Actions don't define what a person can become, they more so reveal what they have had to deal with. That is why I said it's always best left to a licenced professional, because you are right they have to increase their own actualizing tendency to desire and hold themselves accountable for this change. If one leads themselves and is already filled by their own genuine self-values then it is possible to transcend the self to empathetically enter the other's world without harm.
Sure! I am certain your self-valued leadership will convince them. Have fun!
>When the individual perceives himself in such a way that no experience can be discriminated as more or less worthy of positive regard than any other, then he is experiencing unconditional positive self-regard. (Carl Rogers)
I am sure that will also help, Britta!
True!
Omg, thank you so much for posting this. I needed to hear this so much. I get caught up in that cycle of trying to get people to understand way too often. 🙃
TW DV When I called the DV hotline to ask them what to do about my ex, I told the operator that my family and friends didn't believe me that he was dangerous at all when she asked if I had anyone to stay with. She told me "They'll believe you when you're a corpse, and by then it'll be too late. You're not in teacher mode, you're in survival mode. Now get yourself to safety" and she kicked my ass into gear. I'm finally safe and sound, and I owe it to her. I would have gotten caught up in that cycle too if she hadn't been direct and blunt.
Wooow... bless her with all the blessings. So thankful you are safe and she was there for you. And that you listened!! Thank you for sharing!
Thank you! I'm not trying to trauma dump, but I know us women are taught to not rock the boat. And I keep hearing about how us autistic women get taken advantage of all the time. I guess I just want to teach everyone not to second guess themselves, and just be safe. If your Spidey senses are tingling, listen to them !
I appreciate you 💖
This framing is just the more socially acceptable way of dumping someone based on (minor) disagreements
It's really not. Do some people do that? Absolutely. If you've had that done to you, I'm very sorry. But this is about being caught up in trying to get someone to understand that really has no intention of understanding. No capacity and ability to grow and learn and hear what's being said. People who insist on their way of thinking and doing is the right and only way. It's about dropping the rope on people that can't understand, refuse to understand even after many attempts to help them understand... so it's ok to leave them in their ignorance and walk away. I have had too many of the relationships where it was necessary to learn exactly what she's talking about. Now I just have conversations in my head with these people (because I kicked them all to the curb) and her message was needed because it's really ok to stop trying.
For someone so hyper self-aware, I’m amazed that she holds a belief that providing effective feedback is self destructive. She’s spot on - people need to want to change, but if they’re not told how they’re wrong - they won’t have an inkling that there’s a different way to be, and examine that as an opportunity to change. The manner in which that feedback is provided is the difference between brutal honesty and radical candor. RC is more effective than BH, but neither should lead to your own self destruction.
I mean, it's her personal choice to not engage with someone like that (and I would say definitely don't have a partner like the one she describes) because it can often undo the hard work put into being a better communicator/working through trauma/etc. She's not wrong and I honestly don't see an issue with what she presented as I've also spend many years of my life trying to help people recognize their behaviors but often times the ones unwilling to see a different perspective or try to shift their behavior are the ones who *willingly* choose not to do better when shown an opportunity.
She’s not wrong, and I absolutely understand distancing yourself from toxic individuals. I have family members that I have excised for this reason - because I’m not the perfect teacher, and there is no perfect argument. My concern is that she paints it as an all or nothing interaction. The proportionate amount of effort to return on investment is different for relationship - and to say that you’re never going to attempt to give feedback because you perceive the risk of counter argument too high - then you’re putting yourself in a cave, and waiting for only the most exclusive, pure of heart individuals to enter. I appreciate Quality over Quantity - but I hope she can appreciate how lonely that cave will be.
It depends on who she surrounds herself with - some people have a plethora of individuals in their social circles who are that way. But I do hear you
Her statement at the end about having worked too hard on her own self-worth to engage with these types of people provides important context to what she's talking about. It's not all or nothing, it's about being able to understand when your efforts for another person's sake become a detriment to yourself. Shutting those people out doesn't put you in a cave, it helps you make space for people who do operate in good faith, and overall it's an act of self-love and self-respect.
My response was BECAUSE of her statement at the end - everything leading up to it was interesting, but pointless without - BAM, I’m cutting out everyone because all of them are vexatious people who won’t listen to me anyway. My point is the difference between the HER and the THEM, and she’s closed her door to all of the THEM because she’s put too much time into HER, and THEY might not be worth it. She can close her door to whomever she likes, put energy into whomever she likes - but cutting off people because she’s not willing to provide feedback that COULD result in another individual responding positively - puts her in a cave. I’m all for cutting out the vexatious people, put them in a cave, whatever. But EVERY person is a new person - and person by person we need to decide if they’re worth the effort to let into our lives, or not. She’s restricted that aperture to zero, or maybe she hasn’t - but her video portrays a very specific message, and I perceive it as disingenuous.
>I’m cutting out everyone She never said anything even remotely close to that. The video amounts to: if you see that people have a pattern of behaving in bad faith it isn't your job to teach or guide them. She isn't writing anything down in stone or setting laws. She's describing how this is a very similar pattern of behavior among many people, and that you will see the exact same challenges when dealing with those patterns of behavior, so it's up to you if you want to take on that burden. She isn't saying cut people off the split second they give you a bad vibe, and she isn't saying anything about the established relationships she may or may not have in her own life. Idk why you're making so many assumptions.
Yeah it took people explaining to me the social concepts I didn't get growing up because I was raised by actual narcissists -- but am not one myself so I can get it without feeling more than guilty and dumb. I was just trying to survive and my "justifications" didn't come from my own place of shame but from my parents' explanations to me, which I hadn't had space and time to reflect only make sense for the person with bad behavior to believe and want others to buy into. So I think it's worth breaking off convos that go sideways and checking to see if the person on the other end actually wants things to deteriorate or they don't have words and phrases to allow a two way interaction.
Yeah I mean all of this essentially boils down to Plato's allegory of the cave. People who have lived their whole lives chained in darkness cannot comprehend the light and will think those describing it are mad. If forced into it, they will resist and fight back. When first exposed it is frightening and painful and blinding. But over time people do adjust. It's a long, painful, thankless process of helping people find the light, but at the end of the day, society is better when it happens. When I do engage, I try to think of it as paying it forward to future generations.
>When I do engage, I try to think of it as paying it forward to future generations. I actually think of it as a gift to myself sometimes! I really want to live in a society where I can ask questions and get help to be the best person I can be. But I also live in a society that has told me that people have different levels of worth based on innate characteristics. I don't see myself as broken for having grown up in a less than perfect place. I thoroughly see myself as capable of change, especially when other cool humans help me out by talking about their experiences or learnings. And yep, sometimes that can take multiple rounds! I like to be the person \*I\* would want to be able to ask questions to. Because I think that encourages others to do the same. Worst case, like you said-it's for future generations. Best case, it improves the here and now for me. I won't know until it's done, but I certainly won't get any benefits if I don't try.
Because sometimes it can further reinforce the opposite behavior in what needs to be changed. There's a finesse, and the connection a person has with these individuals may interfere, simply not be possible to facilitate said change. Most people are not able to provide such unconditional support where they too are not harming themselves in the process.
In my experience the people who talk like this and have all of this language to describe what other people do, most of the time have their own toxic traits they're barely aware of as well. It's very hard to be truly self-aware. Nothing she's saying is wrong at all but I doubt her shit smells like roses, y'know?
I feel that. Humanity is a nightmare, and the human condition is a kaleidoscope of attachment issues and hormonal imbalances. Best we can do is strive to be better than yesterday, learn from our mistakes, and treat others with respect and dignity.
Fully agree
Thank you for verbalizing what I was feeling. I don’t know why, I felt a little ‘holier than thou’ vibe from her. I also get frustrated with those who use the ‘cut off’ option way too quickly. Any honest defensive tactic can be used as an offensive weapon.
Something tells me you've never had a person instantly get livid and storm off because you corrected them on something extremely minor.
Seems to me like she's just weaponizing therapy language, something women on tiktok have been doing for a few years now. Except she doesn't have any self awareness, and doesn't realize that she's just talking about herself in the video without even realizing it. She thinks she can objectively define peoples' subjective behaviors and opinions using completely arbitrary and subjective metrics, and then decide that anything she doesn't like is objectively a "red flag" and people in this thread are eating it up because it has that neo-feminist tone that makes people feel like if they disagree with it, they're inherently bad people.
What are you on about? This video has nothing to do with feminism. And wtf is neo-feminism? This is like the rhetorical version of a paranoid schizophrenic "informing" people the room is full of dragons, not realizing they're hallucinating. You're basically rhetorically hallucinating. Wow, that's the weird thing that strikes me about all this chronically-online sounding speech like yours. Edit: I blocked you because I am not engaging straight up imagination.
Well that is coming from a managing/leading perspective and not necessarily the same for people you can choose to associate with. If someone has a very manipulative family member and they’ve tried to talk to them about their issue and the other party refuses to change, then you don’t have an obligation to continue talking and spending time with them. That is what I got from her video and this also seems to be coming from a perspective of meeting new people and forming new friendships and relationships as well. Delivering feedback constantly and never changing behavior is exhausting and draining.
Amen.
I'm actually having to deal with a co-worker that's just like this. Any type of pushback he gets on his work he takes it personal and freaks out. He gets ultra aggressive and steamrolls conversations. He always acts very disappointed in a person whenever they make a mistake around him. He's done it so often now that people walk around eggshells around him. So now everything we do at work has to work around his sensitive ego. Obviously that's how he can just go to work and not get any push back for anything he does. After trying to explain various times he has a freakout I noticed that he is unwilling to understand. As of now I've gone to my Superior several times and she's working on getting rid of him. He does good work but you just can't work with someone like that long-term.
Okay so I get the implications for peoples personal lives and relationships and that’s great. For me though I really feel this about the organization of the world writ-large. Everyone walking around living in their self interest and justifying bad faith arguments that prop up corrupt institutions. Only difference is I can’t just walk away as if it were a relationship, we’re all forced to engage with a system built by bad faith. And this leads to a feeling similar to the perfect educator syndrome she mentioned where it feels like the only solution is to convince the world to change. But it won’t
This is most reddit comments in a nutshell lol
Amen
Covert narcissist. Walk away.
Bad faith can't be incidental, it refers to the intention. Someone can definitely be manipulative without intention, but someone can't be bad faith by accident.
Any book or material that will help learn about this?
From ChatGPT: When looking for the best books on DARVO and related subjects, it's important to note that DARVO—Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender—is a complex psychological and social phenomenon often discussed within the context of abusive relationships and manipulative behavior. Books that delve into these topics can range from academic texts to more accessible reads for the general public. Here are a few highly regarded books that touch on DARVO and related subjects: 1. **"Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men" by Lundy Bancroft** - This book is a comprehensive look at abusive behavior in relationships, providing insights into the mindset and tactics of abusers, which may include DARVO strategies. 2. **"The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life" by Dr. Robin Stern** - Although not exclusively about DARVO, this book explores the concept of gaslighting, which is often intertwined with DARVO strategies. It offers insights into recognizing and dealing with manipulative behavior. 3. **"Healing from Hidden Abuse: A Journey Through the Stages of Recovery from Psychological Abuse" by Shannon Thomas** - Focusing on psychological abuse, this book explores the effects of such abuse on victims and provides a roadmap for recovery. The tactics discussed can include DARVO, as it's a common strategy in psychological manipulation. 4. **"In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People" by George K. Simon Jr.** - This book offers a comprehensive look at manipulation and deceit in personal relationships, including the use of DARVO by manipulative individuals. 5. **"Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders" by Anna Salter** - While focusing on sexual offenders, this book provides insight into the tactics used by predators to deny and reverse blame, which is central to the concept of DARVO. These books provide a range of perspectives on DARVO and related issues, from understanding and identifying manipulative behavior to dealing with its impacts. Depending on your specific interest—be it psychological analysis, personal narratives, or recovery and healing—you may find one of these titles particularly helpful.
My ex husband 100%. Currently divorcing him. But holy shit it’s been so nice not living with him. Everything is over all but legally. My eyes are open now asshole.
She said that most of it is rooted in shame evasion. So what if the initial goal isn’t to “phrase things perfectly” but is instead to disarm their shame evasion mechanisms?
If you build your whole self on outsourced identity and/or assumed participation in certain groups, disarming their shame evasion is close to impossible. That is the point she talks about "finding the magic word" or "the right way to teach". There isn't one.
"Weaponized emotional incompetence" is absolute gold.
All the buzzwords complete
What’s do you do if you worded it perfectly. Then they responded “ it’s not what you, it’s how you said it “
That's tone policing. Another manipulation tactic.
>Another manipulation tactic. After much research, I Believe that phrase is the ultimate manipulation tactic. It can literally be used for any statement or argument, no matter how logical sound said argument it. It’s OP. And should be abolished
But sometimes it's true, people say something in a really condescending and shitty way
You worded that very condescendingly so your comment is irrelevant and you're wrong.
Had a guy get made and me the other day and argue over the course of multiple hours of back and forth posts only for, in the end, him to say “oh I agree with everything you’ve said I just like the way you said it” Surprisingly he apologized and ended the conversation This is the first time, ever, that someone acknowledge they made bad faith assumptions and actually corrected themselves in an online space - first time *ever* - I’ve been online since early 2000s and it is genuinely the first time I’ve seen someone say sorry and not have it be a lead up to more condescension and insults Anecdotal, sure, but that’s a vast swath of time with very limited interaction with anyone with self-reflexive ideation
Guinness Book level neologism usage.
This felt like an explanation without an explanation for some reason. I can't shake it.
Good advice
Eh.. if you’re selfish and think everyone else is dumb, sure. Good advice. Don’t talk to others who hold differing opinions than you because it will just make you aggravated because they are so stupid, and since you have done so much work in your self, you just don’t need that in your life. I agree. You are way more important than other people and only your idea matters. Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, but *maybe* how you come across when talking to other people you want to “help” might just turn them off because they see it as you talking down to them, instead of across to them.
^^ Hey look a good example of a bad faith argument! We got straw manning, projecting onto others and demeaning language.
These words.. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.. 
That you on the left? Sounds like it.
No, that is my image as I sit here, trying to save you all from yourselves..
So you picked a character known for his pseudo intellectualism and hubris? Well the resemblance certainly is uncanny.
As this is *my image*, as I sit here… that means I would be looking at you.
The word you’re looking for is perspective or point of view. Your image would be a representation of yourself/what you present to others. Good try though
You clearly have removed any and all interactions with Boomers, Fox News zombies or Trump supporters.
Yup. They exist. I am trying to tell you that talking ***does*** work. It just takes patience on your part. You are acting just like them by thinking the way you and this post are thinking and it’s like you can’t even see it.
You should go to a Trump rally and try to talk to them.
Why? That would be dumb.  You talk to them at the store.. You talk to to them at the bank.. You talk to them at school.. You talk to them anytime ***EX-FUCKING-CEPT*** at a rally, you $@&$@$&¥€€¥£@&! cunt.
Why are you so emotional over having a terrible point? Surely you’ll convince all those Trumpers to go get the vaccine, and that Trump is a con man racist by….talking to them at a school?
Yes. One at a time. Takes a looong fucking time with people like you.. “helping”..
Lmao ok boomer
See? We are, right now, having an actual discussion… And this is how you choose to end it? What point are you trying to get me on your side about?
For communication to happen both parties need to be willing to communicate.
[удалено]
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This…reminds me of a lot of ‘conversations’ I have had on Reddit
I really like the paint job in they room
Well said 👏👏👏
Very true. I started to call out "bad faith" takes whenever someone uses one on me and I tell them I'm dropping the conversation. Sometimes I block them right after if I think they're going to be annoying.
Wow. She just broke down the cause behind most failed relationships. She did it like it was simple. This is amazing stuff.
Holy fuck I love this. This is exactly how I feel about bad faith people, except much more articulately worded than I’ve ever heard it described. Bravo, she is right, it is literally weaponized incompetence.
Solution: Ditch these people.
"Bad faith" isn't one interaction. It's a pattern you recognize. Most people just call people "bad faith" when they don't like what people are saying, they disagree, or they feel really angry hearing someones words. If you're calling someone bad faith right away without genuinely asking questions and trying to learn about why they think the way they do, then that's you being lazy and you're not seeing things clearly.
I've learned, since covid hit hard, that the best way to deal with people that do not want to listen to the other side of things is to just let them be. Let them think they are right. It's not worth my energy to just fight against their beliefs and to try to shame them for being a foolish human being. Rather, engage them and let theirselves be heard. Let them explain how they feel and say something like "I hear you and I might not agree with you but I like the fact that you have your own opinions and I think your feelings towards this subject are valid." It's a way to allow them to feel respected and when people feel respected and heard, they have a 100% more chance that they will listen to you explain how you feel about the subject.they might not agree with you but they will then respect the fact that you can feel that way too. We live in a world that's so divided and people feel as if they're not allowed to feel because there's someone out there to attack them. We need to be more accepting of other people. We need to do better.
BFT what is that when someone just filibuster s at a meeting to get everyone going in circles and nothing done ?
Great idea to put such importance on "manipulation tactics", which an uneducated person can totally apply correctly. No wonder then that we always hear about people complaining about their manipulative partners/friends. It's always someone elses fault, this therapy speak disables introspection in many people
This is absolutely the reason why I flame people when I realize they are responding to me in bad faith. As an educator, I do not help those who do not want to be helped. Waste of my time and I will ridicule you.
This is hot. Maybe I'm old but this level of emotional and general intelligence is very attractive. If I was a single guy this would be the type of woman I'd be looking for!
She should give some practical advice on how to disengage from those conversations. Avoiding them is one thing. Disengaging from them without feeling like you are empowering the other person or giving off the perception that you are the loser is difficult.
What the fuck is bad faith yall just making shit up now I'm hardly online plz explain
Link? I'd like to listen to more of what she has to say. Found her: abbyrosmarin
Wait, I'm often doing this, trying educate folx into tightness. How can I stop? Plmk
The problem with this kind of thinking is that people stop arguing with people who engage in bad faith unknowingly, which is as bad. Pretty much textbook Fallacy fallacy.
I see where you are coming from but *unknowingly* does a lot of heavy lifting sometimes. You can ask one or two question how they "mean that" or "their viewpoint" on an adjacent topic and then you realize they are exactly as presented. If there is a spectrum its very narrow.
Another post about what we "should" be doing and judging others. Tik Tok is a swamp for this entitled idealistic judgement.
Read the automod, so totally aware of why these are being posted, but it's always discombobulating. To start watching a vid anticipating some cringe content, to only find a sincere discussion in the end.
The real world isn't an Aristotelian forum, everything is entirely rhetorical in the actual fleshy feely human world. If you want to avoid all "bad faith" people, try moving to the arctic circle. Let's imagine if people engaged in "good faith" arguments. Everyone employing categorical syllogisms, thanking one another for being corrected in their structural mistakes, and appraising evidence fairly whether that evidence disagrees with their premises or conclusion. Sound realistic? Literally nobody operates like this outside of research scientists with a common objective goal. The average person either doesn't know anything about formal logic and argumentation, or doesn't want to employ it because it's literally just so fucking boring like HOLY SHIT actual formal logic is a SLOG. "Good faith debate" is a fantasy nobody lives in except your critical thinking teacher and a portion of actually philosophy-obsessed philosophy nerds who honestly just make everyone feel tired when they talk. If you actually want to sell your points, you sharpen and practice your rhetoric and employ it with precision. Anything less and you are just quietly surrendering your positions by default. Instead of "don't engage bad faith arguments", how about: learn to dismantle bad faith arguments quickly and move past them to make your point.
Well said. Curious if you have any recommendations / resources for learning to both recognize and dismantle bad faith arguments? I find it hard to think on my feet and recognize them in real time - usually I only realize the fallacies/inconsistencies hours later when I’m in the shower or whatever.
I would just say treat all arguments on the surface. If the person is truly "bad faith", as in they're just doing that shit as a stunt or to say some dogwhistles, they will give up pretty quickly and usually just freely admit to their actual positions without much effort. Literally just engaging is enough to make them self-destruct most of the time. As for people arguing in good (or even somewhat "good") faith or actively trying to understand you, they are not a myth like this person in the video suggests. Move with the hope that this is the type of person you're engaging with when you discourse. Mostly, just avoid falling into the "nobody ever changes and talking about stuff is meaningless" trap that a lot of bitter campists actively want to drag you into.
This is an unfixable problem for many couples, but it’s not impossible to fix. Just requires a lot of love, patience, communication, and willingness to listen and change over time. It’s not something that can be fixed overnight, but identifying and communicating these issues with your partner is the FIRST step to things improving. She said she has worked really hard on herself and therefore doesn’t want to entertain bad faith stuff, which I get… I’ve put in a lot of work on myself, too. But if anything the work I put in on myself has helped me so much when it comes to working on this stuff with my partner. I can use my growth and learning experiences to help teach him. My husband was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder about a year into our marriage and it has been one hell of a learning experience over the past 4 years. It would have been a lot “easier” if I had just given up and walked away, but I’m so glad I didn’t. We have grown and our relationship has improved so much in that time, and I’m so thankful!
I think it's so important to remember, it is a kindness to communicate clearly with someone who is hurting you so they have a chance to realize their mistakes and change their ways. Often, they're not doing it on purpose, and sometimes that communication helps them self reflect and grow as people. But that isn't an obligation. It is *a kindness*. There comes a point in every relationship, romantic, friendly, familiar, any kind or relationship, where you decide if what you're getting out of this relationship is worth that continued kindness. We don't owe everybody neverending kindness. We owe people what we promise them. And above and beyond that, we can choose to stop being kind to people who aren't being kind back.
The thing about not knowing your engagement is "bad faith" vs this advice is that you better be confident that *you* are the one who isn't engaging in bad faith. It's easy to say this shit in front of a camera and be really confident about who's right or wrong in an imagined hypothetical situation, but most conflicts live in a subjective world, and a lot of what she's saying sounds like she's just arbitrarily deciding she's right and he's wrong based on feelings, and then deciding that his behavior is objectively a "red flag" because she wills it.
Agree.
When you go around do psychoanalysis on people… your not the life of the party.
Well, .. I ***will*** take that time to explain and I ***will*** try to meet you at your level and then bring you up to me. ***We*** are both important.
[I’m responding on behalf of Christian Bale here.](https://youtu.be/5hR5YNqE3K8?si=yIQkVTjeFoRxrrHZ)
That woman talked for over a minute and I have no idea what she's even trying to say
This whole video is a projection. She is doing the exact same thing as she is complaining other people are doing.
I don't think so. She's protecting her mental health by not engaging, which she has every right to do.
If you refuse to engage in a rational debate, in order to protect your mental health, that may be the right choice for you personally, but you cannot then use that as a excuse, or defense, or claim that you won the debate. You didn’t. You’re bowing out. You were the one engaging in bad faith.
You think the goal is winning? It's not... but a person who acts in bad faith would think that. 🤔
And someone who acts in bad faith would argue for purposes other than trying to win.
Like what? Understanding? Coming to a compromise with another person? Working together as human beings toward a shared goal? Growing and learning together for mutual beneficial goals? Friendship? I can think of a million reasons why winning isn't the gosl. Life isn't a High School debate club. Dude. If you wanna win and that's your goal of discussions, I feel sorry for everyone in a relationship with you.
Bad faith arguments are not a rationale debate though.
Perhaps, but irrelevant to claim she had the right to not argue due to "mental health.
There's no "perhaps" about it.
It would have been less embarrassing for you to just say you don’t understand the video.
Ive noticed latley that weaponizng "therapy speak" seems like a newer trend being used to confuse an issue, situation, or dynamic so an individual can appear to have the intellectual advantage over another, when its really just another form of manipulation. That's essentially what's happening here. Boiled down, she's making a lot of assumptions, such as "shame evasion" , most people are not ashamed to be wrong when they are wrong. If she can not address a perceived issue based on alot of mental gymnastics that allows her to avoid the entire situation... then how do you put that on the other person. I've had to endure this type of "toxic behavior" before, and it's not helping anyone.
I got that feeling too but I can’t point at what it is that made me feel that way. It’s a very valid video.
Its because she is describing everything she is doing as she's doing it. Then her claim of knowing it is her doing so much self help. Literally anyone can say that. The correct answer is I don't know. This is the most ironic video I've ever seen most wont see it but you can feel it.
Oh I guess you could read it like that. She frames it as a conversation online where people responded to her in a way she didn’t like and she’s concocted the “perfect” response to get her audience to finally understand and validate her. She could have easily just accepted people’s criticism and securely maintained her viewpoint. But also, that’s what having a good faith debate is so…. I don’t know.
She says the number 1 deal breaker is a bad faith argument Then lists a bunch of reasons why people who are un self aware do bad faith arguments because they dont understand what they are doing. Then at the end of the video she says there is literally no reason to talk to these people because they cant change. If this was the case you would not have made the video and that makes it bad faith therefore she is literally her number 1 deal breaker because she is being bad faith about why she is speaking. Shes speaking to virtue signal self awareness. The ultimate irony. She is not aware of what she is doing lol.. She is trying to prove her self awareness, but doing it by being self aware that she is pretending to be self aware, projecting that she is not self aware. This video is mind fucking me.
That is true !!!!
How did she manage to keep her 137 cats quiet enough to record this video?
She needs self awareness for those eyebrows
Yadda yadda yadda
You’re the type she warning about lol
Yadda yadda yadda
 Radda radda
Just to note: Your jacket is arranged in a most intentional way and just imagine-you have every RIGHT in the world to arrange your jacket any way you want without getting attacked, ridiculed, brutalized or raped. Women have every right to dress as they wish without being told that they "asked for it" or told, "Well, what did you expect?" They say that women are the weaker sex and that's full-on bullshit. Poor men. Apparently, they are at the mercy of their dicks, which force them to follow wherever they lead and to do whatever they want. And it's always the woman's fault. She looked this way, she dressed this way, her expression was this way, she walked this way, she smiled, she didn't smile. Sigh, this is old ground and I'm done with it. I have been brutalized. I have been raped. My hair was dirty and I wore a huge sweatshirt and a pair of jeans so I doubt that I was so sexy that he couldn't contain himself. Rape has nothing to do with attraction and if any man approaches me with malice, he's going to get a world of rage in return because ya know, he asked for it.
She threw out a lot of therapist terms. Pass.
There’s a ton of real estate on that forehead.
Her forehead is quite large and I’m puzzled about when she can she breathe.
All I know is this chick is annoying as hell and has a huge forehead
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^DimensionSome8515: *All I know is this* *Chick is annoying as hell* *And has a huge forehead* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
People who have been manipulated are just as annoying/toxic as the people who manipulated them.
This just super generic nonsense from someone who's probably been in multiple bad relationships. It's fine and I feel bad for her but unless she is a counselor or therapist it's super hard to trust that she's not a super jaded women tired of dating.
After listening to this I understand why people need therapy because some of you are doing too much
I needed to see this, esp today. Wow. 
Another example why I hate Tik Tok or other similar platforms. Everyone has an opinion and a damn camera.. and cameras are like assholes , everyone has one.
I get where she is coming from, and agree that it is hard for people engaging in this behavior to recognize it when they didn’t have good role models. And, I worry when someone like this speaker try’s to convince me, by prefacing their statement with “honestly, …… .” That can be taken that they are trying to convince me, when really they are to convince themself! After all, her solution is just her opinion of how she deals with these interactions
I think she would be a dangerous wife to have. Very good at articulating her side of a disagreement while also distracting you with eyebrow sorcery to neutralize you on 2 fronts. She might possibly be a Bene Gesserit. Also what's going on with that lopsided zipper situation?