"You missed the whole point of my comment,"
Eternally-Grateful lamented (
link), which is yet another instance of projection—because he then, ironically, proceeded to demonstrate that I didn't miss his point. "All people cannot be right," he went on to say. "Some people are probably right—although I have yet to find any who are completely right."
Indeed, and that is precisely the point I had addressed—which means I didn't miss it. Some views ("-isms") are mutually exclusive, I said, which means that at least one of them is wrong. "In other words, some are right and some are wrong." And I even went so far as to rhetorically underline the crucial element of this point, trying to grab his attention, which is that
some "-isms" are right (e.g., trinitarianism).
That is why calling something an "-ism" is a futile exercise, I said, because maybe that particular "-ism" is right.
Hence, his projection—for HE is the one who missed MY point, despite having underlined it.
And while it is true that trinitarianists cannot all agree on what it
means for God to be trinitarian—for example, is there subordination in the economic trinity?—that doesn't change the
fact that God is trinitarian, something that all trinitarianists do agree upon. There is a difference between the fact of an "-ism" and what the details and implications are of that fact.
So, one could say, "Yes, I am a trinitarian"—so it's not a false accusation—"but I have a perspective that differs slightly from the typical trinitarian"—whereby the person alerts others to pay attention because they will need to tailor their engagement to suit his unique view.
And I will end this post with an observation. "I never said there was no right ‘-ism’," he claimed—but he did, and I even quoted him saying it: "They [-isms] all can't be right."
He said they can't be right—all of them.
However, I recognized that this was almost certainly poor grammar, that he very likely meant
they can't all be right. It is a small change in word order—"all" switching places with "can't"—but it makes a big difference. And because it is a small change in word order, I assumed for the sake of charity that he meant not all views can be right, that some have to be wrong—and my assumption was correct (even though he said it was not).
This also goes to prove that it's a pointless exercise to identify when a person has assumed something because, in cases like this, assumptions can be correct. The issue is not "-isms" or assumptions, the issue is whether or not the "-ism" or assumption is correct.
Nevertheless, I am quite sure I wasted those few minutes of his morning, which was a loving, Christ-like sentiment he expressed.
Side note: Projection often manifests as criticism of traits a person dislikes in himself. It is a defense mechanism where a person unconsciously attributes his own undesirable thoughts, feelings, motives, or traits to someone else. Externalizing them enables the person to avoid confronting those aspects within himself. An example would be a dishonest person who insists that people around him are manipulative, lying, or cheating, or someone with repressed anger who claims that other people are always hostile toward them, or an insecure person who accuses others of being critical or judgmental. It is toxic defense mechanism and can harm relationships.
You may be engaging in projection if
- you experience disproportionate irritation or defensiveness to what others say or do, especially when their words or actions are incidental or even unrelated (e.g., seeing "-isms" everywhere).
- there is a consistent pattern of blame, where you not only impose responsibility more often than take responsibility (e.g., discussions fall apart because others are unreasonable or refuse to understand), but also consistently blame others for attacking you (e.g., seeing false accusations against you everywhere).
- there are recurring conflicts, where similar misunderstandings arise across relationships (and discussion forums).
- there is a pattern of refusing to acknowledge the role you play in such recurring conflicts, typically dismissing feedback with deflection (e.g., accusing others of attacking you).
- there is a hyperfocus on correcting the flaws in others (e.g., nitpicking a partner's habits), which might mirror one's own unresolved insecurities.
Eternally-Grateful provided a great example of evading blame when he said, "I am sure that I have falsely accused others when I do not take my own advice." This kind of language can be a form of self-protective distancing. It is a way of intellectually acknowledging the likelihood of wrongdoing without personally or morally confronting any specific act.
