Hi Anita,

Today, Tee wrote: “I feel true conflict resolution can’t come about without accountability on both sides.”-

Would you like to elaborate on accountability on your side, Tee- in regard to the nature of your participation in this thread as well as what preceded it?

Anita, how about you starting first? How about showing some goodwill that you claim you possess? Remember, I am angry (Angry Tee). I don’t have goodwill. (But no empathy and no goodwill from you, Tee—only accusation, repeated accusation.)

And besides, you haven’t addressed any of the points that Jana made in her last post, or that Brandy made (you already dismissed those), or that Lucidity made, or that Peter made (he made some excellent points about conflict, e.g. to have a look at ourselves when we feel triggered).

You haven’t addressed any of the real issues, which were brought up by various members of this forum. Any of their concerns. You’ve only expressed you were angry at them, but now you feel affection towards them. How charming!

But let’s get real, Anita. Let’s address the pain points… and leave the carrot cake for later…

Hi Alessa,

It may not seem that important to you, but it was important for me to explore how my neurodivergence affected conflict.

Oh I’m sorry, Alessa. I didn’t want to dismiss your neurodivergence and exploring how that affects conflict. I just felt that the conversation completely shifted to the mental health aspect of the conflict, and how you can support Anita in making this space as comfortable as possible for her (and yourself, as someone who struggles with autism and C-PTSD).

The topic of her accountability was dropped in the process, and the effect was that she kept engaging from the perspective of the only victim, refusing to consider how her words and actions might have affected others. This stance was confirmed in her replies to Brandy and me. That’s what I was concerned about.

You and I, simply have different priorities, perspectives, needs and conflict styles. That is not to say that one is more valid than the other. That is not true, we are just different people.

I’m sorry you feel like I’m enabling Anita by not discussing my feelings right now. I disagree, I’m simply prioritising my own needs.

I think I understand you better now. You prioritize de-escalation of the conflict, and then discussing things in a calmer environment:

I don’t want to discuss my needs in a heated environment, I don’t feel like that is healthy for me. I would prefer to focus on deescalation and creating a calmer healthy environment first.

And you felt that it’s more important to establish rapport with Anita, to engage from a place of empathy and understanding, rather than insisting on her accountability. I understand. Whereas to me, I feel true conflict resolution can’t come about without accountability on both sides.

Okay, I get it. I do believe that sometimes insisting on de-escalation without accountability can lead to false peace, where things are swept under the rug. Those unaddressed issues can easily lead to another conflict, sometime down the line.

At the same time, I respect your needs in this conflict and understand where you’re coming from. Your need at the moment is for a peaceful environment, not for the past hurt (that was inflicted upon you in this conflict) to be repaired. Would that be a fair statement?

I feel like your feelings about how you were affected are more important to me than mine

Please don’t feel like my feelings are more important than yours. You’ve explained what your priority is at the moment, and I respect that. I understand why you feel the way you feel ❤️

I don’t know how this conflict will end, what will be the outcome, but to be honest, I’m glad that certain things were discussed openly, even if it wasn’t comfortable.

But I don’t have the need to keep discussing it and proving my point. I’ve mostly said what bothered me, and I also felt I’ve been heard, and that’s what matters the most. I admit, things are not ideal, but that’s okay, I can deal with less than ideal outcomes 🙂

Hi Alessa,

I know your intentions are good, you’re trying to be caring and accommodating to everyone.

But I think there has been a misunderstanding. I wasn’t trying to accommodate anyone by setting a boundary. That boundary was for me.

Sorry, I wasn’t necessarily talking about the boundary you set, but in general about shifting the focus of the discussion to Anita’s sensitivity, asking her questions about her mental health and why it might contribute to her sensitivity during conflicts, and taking care of her needs, so to speak.

That’s all fine, but I felt it failed to address the “elephant in the room”, namely that Anita hasn’t acknowledged any wrong-doing towards you, hasn’t apologized for any of her actions, and has portrayed herself as the victim ever since she came back.

I felt that this enabled Anita to remain in her victim narrative, not acknowledging any harm that she’s done (which you previously expressed and are aware of). You kind of let go of the need for her to apologize, and remained hopeful that she would do it later.

And so she continued with her version of the story, implying that she is the “most wounded” and therefore we need to respect her “boundaries”, which might include not saying anything she finds unsettling or threatening. This is from Anita’s reply to Brandy:

I understand your longing for a space where people don’t tiptoe. I share that longing. But I also know that emotional safety isn’t created by asking the most wounded to be more resilient—it’s created by honoring their boundaries without pathologizing them.

Or her reply to me:

I’ve named harm with clarity, offered repair where I saw fit, and refused to collapse into emotional labor for those who bypass accountability. That’s not a lack of empathy—it’s emotional sovereignty.

She claims she offered repair, but she’s done none of that, because she hasn’t acknowledged any wrong-doing. She is claiming that others are bypassing accountability, while that’s exactly what she is doing.

So what’s the result? If we want to respect her “boundaries”, we need to silence ourselves. We need to tiptoe. We need to respect her pain, but dismiss our own.

And this is how a space becomes unsafe, how it becomes stifling for those who might have issues with some of Anita’s words and actions.

I would encourage you to talk to me directly if you feel hurt about something I have done.

Dear Alessa, I’m not really hurt, but rather, I’m sad. What happens is that by being very accommodating to Anita and focusing on only her pain and her discomfort while putting yours aside – you’re enabling more of this behavior. Not that you want it, but that’s the result.

But please know that I’m not judging you at all. I see your struggle and your good intentions. You truly believe that this conflict can be worked out at everyone’s satisfaction, if we’re just patient enough. I’m afraid I’m not sharing your optimism.

Hi everyone,

I’d like to share my perspective of what happened in the last few days.

Anita rejoined the discussion on this thread, with this stated intention:

I’m sharing this not to reopen conflict, but to reclaim truth.

However, her “reclaiming truth” consisted of insisting on her version of events, in which she was the only victim – the party that was harmed – and hasn’t done anything wrong.

Some of the members responded with general openness and a call for a mutually respectful dialogue, and lessening of the tensions, I assume. Anita appreciated that:

Following my return to this thread yesterday, the first time I addressed the conflict, Peter expressed goodwill: “We all come from the same place: wanting to help and wanting to be seen. I hope we can continue our dialogue from that space… In a World where you can be anything, Be Kind.”

So did Jana: “I’ll let you explain the conflict to each other… I just needed to remind us… we all need the same, love, feeling of security, understanding.”

And so did Alessa: “I appreciate the gesture of goodwill that you are trying to soften things with some positivity… I appreciate that you have done your best to talk about these things despite it being difficult for you. I appreciate you being respectful and understanding. I can see that you are trying your best.”

Since I on the other hand insisted that true conflict resolution cannot happen without all parties taking responsibility for their part of the problem, and I couldn’t accept that Anita refuses any accountability for her actions – I was accused of having no empathy or goodwill, and of remaining in a battle mindset:

But no empathy and no goodwill from you, Tee—only accusation, repeated accusation. Not even once did you give me any credit for returning to this thread and addressing the conflict as best I can.

It feels like you’re locked in a battle mindset, Tee—focused on winning, not understanding.

Anita re-evaluated her previous judgments about several members. Those members who haven’t challenged her since her return, now returned to her good graces, and she apologized for being judgmental towards them:

I was wrong in regard to Alessa and Jana.. and Peter. I was judgmental, I realize now, looking back.. I interpreted some of your imperfections through a lens of judgment, rather than understanding. That showed itself in my silence, if not otherwise. I regret that.

I on the other hand was confirmed as a villain and a pariah, and indeed, resembling her mother:

I would say that your anger, Tee—the way you go after me, the way you don’t let go, while having absolutely no empathy for me—does remind me of my mother.

In short, I remained the bad guy, while others, who haven’t challenged her, returned to her good graces.

When Alessa accommodated her even more, wanting to protect her from discomfort and taking into account Anita’s possible sensitivity to conflict due to her past trauma and her mental health problems, past and present, Anita was overjoyed:

I am so positively impressed with you, Alessa.. so… grateful to you being you! This boundary is more than fair!!! And it’s a relief, for me. It makes me feel safer here.

Thank you so much, Alessa, for making this thread, this space, feels like less like an enemy territory!

So now, this became a “safe space” for her, because she isn’t required to have any accountability for her actions and can continue business-as-usual.

She got her narrative confirmed: she is the victim, and those who dare to oppose her or express anything displeasing to her, are the villains.

Of course she was overjoyed…

But, where does this leave this forum? Perhaps in the category of those “safe spaces” which are not really safe, which Peter was talking about. Where people are walking on eggshells around a certain “very sensitive” individual. Where all dissenting voiced are silenced.

And Brandy, I’m so grateful to you for speaking out, both now and before, during the original conflict. I would like to quote what you said back then about a certain pattern repeating with Anita (you posted this on August 9):

I still struggle with how things played out between you and other members here on this forum over the past couple weeks. As an outside observer, what occurred seemed hurtful and unfair. And this has happened before…and the hurtful posts get deleted, Tiny Buddha loses caring, well-meaning, helpful contributors, and things go on as if nothing happened, that is, you move on to the next member who is looking for advice. And I do recognize that you yourself are a caring, well-meaning, and very helpful contributor, and that you’ve done a lot of good here.

It seems that we’re on the path of this scenario happening again. My hope for this forum is similar to yours:

I hope these forums don’t become a place where members are constantly tiptoeing around each other in fear of being humiliated or rejected.

But it doesn’t seem to be going in this direction, so far.

I am sad about it, but also willing to accept it and move on.

Hi Alessa,

I have a question, what does an apology mean to you? I feel like apologies can mean different things to different people.

For me, apologies are about being respectful and showing a commitment to trying not to repeat mistakes.

Apology, for me, is when the person has acknowledged their mistake and the pain it may have caused to the other person. But the acknowledgment of mistake/wrong-doing is key.

Anita hasn’t acknowledged that she did anything wrong to us. On the contrary, she is now denying (pretending not to remember) that those words and allegations were about us.

So how do you expect her to apologize for something she refuses to acknowledge even happened?

I noticed that Anita is trying to offer you some empathy here.

“Tee—I regret that things escalated to this point. I imagine this has been painful for you too.”

This is not real empathy, but just words that sound good. She hasn’t acknowledged any wrong-doing, any harm that she caused. On the contrary, she even tried to gaslight me that I am the real abuser, who caused her harm by asking Lori to intervene. Forgetting that I asked Lori to intervene, because Anita wouldn’t stop posting those allegations and insinuations about us.

In her mind, I am the abuser because I did something to protect myself. While she did nothing that might have warranted my wanting to protect myself. Go figure.

Anita,

But no empathy and no goodwill from you, Tee—only accusation, repeated accusation. Not even once did you give me any credit for returning to this thread and addressing the conflict as best I can.

Well, have you, Anita? Have we expressed any words of regret or apology for repeatedly accusing me and Alessa on your thread? You only expressed your own pain, your upset when you were told to stop posting, but completely disregarded how your words and actions might have impacted us.

Is this how you show goodwill? To keep talking about your own pain, but dismissing the pain caused by your own actions?

But I owe you one thing, Anita. You said that my post from August 7 disturbed you the most:

The post I submitted:
Anita: The objective event that distressed me most was this post by Tee (Aug 7):

“Excerpt from Anita’s post: ‘I was thinking: if I share this here, will some people rejoice in my pain? Will some people go: Yea! The **** got hurt!? This is what crossed my mind, following recent interactions here, in the forums.’

The above is called projection. Projecting one’s own hateful thoughts and feelings on others, believing that others harbor the said thoughts and feelings. Well, they don’t. But the person is convinced they are. And so they launch an attack, a smear campaign, throwing dirt on their targets. Should that be allowed in a public space? That one member throws dirt on other members, based on their distorted thinking? I don’t think so. Lori has been informed.”

When Tee accused me of “projecting”—suggesting I would rejoice in others’ pain—that disturbed me deeply. It wasn’t true.

Anita to Tee: Would you be willing to reconsider the content of the post you submitted on Aug 7? Perhaps you were wrong.

I am willing to rephrase what I said:

I don’t want to claim that you were projecting, but that you were insinuating (that we might rejoice in your pain and would call you derogatory names). I apologize for using the term “projection”, when it wasn’t true.

I don’t want to claim that you launched a smear campaign, but that you repeatedly, in multiple posts of yours, over a period of a week, spoke badly of us, accusing us of mistreating you (judging you, invalidating you, criticizing you, misusing you and being dismissive of you).

I don’t insist on calling this behavior a smear campaign. However, I do believe that “throwing dirt” is an appropriate colloquial expression of what you have been doing.

So to answer your question, I might have been wrong, i.e. not precise enough in the use of those specific expressions (projection and smear campaign). However, I don’t feel wrong about seeing your accusations as unfair and hurtful, and wanting to protect myself (and Alessa) from them, by asking Lori to intervene.

* that can all be attributed

Anita,

regarding naming harm:

My SOCJ thread isn’t just a journal. It’s a reclamation of voice after years of emotional silencing. It’s a space where I assert boundaries, name harm, and integrate my story.

Yes, I was talking about myself when I referred to someone naming harm. That’s a central part of my healing process. I don’t see naming harm as criticism, though I understand that others might. For me, it’s about reclaiming my voice and protecting my emotional clarity.

You do realize that you listed me and Alessa as people who abused you, similarly like your mother did? (people who continue my mother’s work of invalidation and judgment).

Whereas I’m not denying that you were truly harmed and abused by your mother, and you have a legitimate need to talk about it and name that abuse (i.e. name the harm), the fact is that me and Alessa weren’t really abusing you. It is your perception that we were.

You are claiming that we were, because that’s how you felt. But perhaps you should ask people on this forum whether either me or Alessa behaved in an abusive manner towards you? Whether we really participated in those deeds that you’re accusing us of?

Were we really abusive, or you perceived us like that?

Were we really your abusers, or rather victims of your false perception and emotional reasoning? (emotional reasoning is a cognitive distortion where the person concludes something is true based on their feelings rather than on facts or logic).

Perhaps we should introduce a little reality check in this whole endeavor.

I would actually like to ask those who are reading this, if you care to answer: do you feel that either me or Alessa were abusive to Anita, i.e. that we criticized, invalidated, judged, dismissed, misused or tried to hurt Anita – all of which she claimed that we did?