^^^^^^^^
I've gotta say that the way Mane worded this reminded me of what really bothers me about doorslamming.
To each their own...
I understand that cutting off contact may be a natural and valid choice if you're an INFJ. And that for the doorslamming INFJ it always seems like there is a valid reason.
(1) INFJs are not the only (MBTI) type(s) of people that
"doorslam" others.
(2) Your objections to other people using the
"doorslam" tactic are limited to your own personal experience, and do not/cannot possibly be unilaterally applied to any other person.
(3) There are two sides to every story. "Doorslamming" toxic, abusive and hostile people is a tactic that has merit. Not wanting to deal with toxic fucktards is vlaid reason enough for anyone to drop a doorslam if they deem necessary. Yes, there are other ways to handle such situations, but doorslamming is alot more civil than other ways to deal with fucktards.
But doorslamming still seems so unilateral.
So what?
If some total jerkoff is harassing you, do you feel that it is necessary for you and such said fucktard to have a
"commonly agreed upon, mutual understanding" that you don't want to have any further contact with them?
I doubt it.
This is an overly broad statement that is baseless and without merit.
It's your opinion, and that's fine, but your opinion doesn't bind the rest of humanity.
And frankly, it oftentimes seems shortsighted.
Well, if you wish to have longstanding relations with obnoxious and terribly difficult people, then you can deal with them however you wish.
What long-term strategy do you feel is an appropriate means of dealing with hostile idiots?
Maybe it's a P/J thing. But the idea of permanently cutting off one's options with another person (which is what doorslamming is all about) just feels offensive to me.
It's not a P/J thing.
There are some people in this world that are sick and dimwitted.
They do not understand the concept of an ultimatum.
You can tell them a hundred times to never speak to you again, and the next day they will continue to bother you.
Rather than going fully tatical and reading them the riot act, pressing charges, or beating them senseless, doorslamming can be the most civil of all potential options.
Again, if you don't care to utilize such a tactic, so be it. Wonderful! Do you as see fit.
But don't try to drop an imaginary bag of guilt on others for not sharing the same opinion as you.
THAT is short-sighted AND unilateral.
Why is there an assumption that it is always worthwhile to keep your options open with other people? I completely don't get that.
I agree.
Realising that some people are not worth (to me) having in my life has been a good thing for me. These people are a waste of space in my life and I am better off without them taking up that room.
Exactly. Once someone proves to be a vampiristic piece of human sewage I have no further need to associate with them.
Ask someone like Halla74. He's an ESTP and he's told me several times on this forum to divest myself of human deadweight in my life!
It works well, doesn't it?
Here's a question: do you think it's right to force a person to stay in a relationship (whatever its nature) that they no longer want to be in and that they may have put considerable effort into already - only to have things damaged beyond repair, or to receive confirmation that you and the other person will never agree on the parameters of the relationship?
No I do not. I think either party should be free to go their own way at any time. It's a friendship, not slavery.
Some people are users, emotional vampires, individuals who will never be satisfied until their unreasonable and violating demands are satisfied, people who assume that you will be happy with whatever spin THEY choose to put on the relationship...etc.
Exactly. Baby sociopaths, control freaks, and fucktards in general.
I've read nothing in this thread that has convinced me that keeping such people around indefinitely, and listening to their arguments indefinitely, is the right thing to do.
Absolutely, agreed 100%.
-Alex