this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
26 points (96.4% liked)

ADHD

11630 readers
137 users here now

A casual community for people with ADHD

Values:

Acceptance, Openness, Understanding, Equality, Reciprocity.

Rules:

Encouraged:

Relevant Lemmy communities:

Autism

ADHD Memes

Bipolar Disorder

Therapy

Mental Health

Neurodivergent Life Hacks

lemmy.world/c/adhd will happily promote other ND communities as long as said communities demonstrate that they share our values.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When I challenge something the other person said then they get upset and we start arguing. But then they change their position to agree with me. And claim to have held the same position as I do from the start.

So now I am the asshole for arguing when we agree on everything!!

Everybody has ADHD and I don't think it's on purpose. I just won the argument very thoroughly and this is what it looks like. I feel like I have to get a written record of what the other person is saying before I respond so they don't accuse me of starting an argument over literally nothing.

(And I have 3rd party witness who confirms my view of the situation is not skewed.)

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I mean there is he dialectic. I have had arguments were as the person restates their meaning it sorta seems like we are saying the same thing but there is some nuance on language that we seem to be hung up on. Like it seems the idea is the same but we just can't rely on the appropriate language to express it. Its hard to describe because it only happens once in awhile and I will sometimes be like. You know we are sorta saying the same thing but oftentimes the person just gets more annoyed and will sorta double down on the language and usually I just give up at that point.

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

most arguments happen because of silly semantics. that's why debate clubs and courtrooms start every discussion with word definitions, so they can skip the 3h argument that ends in "side A understood [the word] differently from side B. and it turned out there wasn't any actual conflict as both sides agreed with each other when that was cleared up". well, the argument sometimes gets skipped, but honestly, it's just as likely to morph into an argument about the definition

[–] work_towards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

in this case we WERE disagreeing. but basically I was right so the other person changed their position. which is what I wanted, except then they immediately forget that they held the opposing position but we are still in an argument when that happens so it must be my fault for starting the argument over nothing.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You changed their mind. You won.

Wasn't that the point of the argument, or was the point for someone to shower you with congratulations?

Take the victory. You know what happened, and if the other person doesn't want to acknowledge it, you can't control that, so just remember what kind of person they are and move on.

[–] work_towards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I know. but by that time everybody already feels bad and it's my fault because I raised the initial disagreement which now never existed in the first place. So I just stirred up the whole situation out of nothing apparently.

Since the actual issue is resolved, but everything is still escalated, then we just transition to arguing about who said what. Which is tiresome and pointless. And I am accused of lying when I am not. I don't like that and it's very difficult for me to deescalate.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I understand completely. I'm the same way. Just gotta let that shit go. It's only as important as you want it to be.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] work_towards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

that's not what gaslighting means.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You start a conversation by arguing. Once it becomes clear that your argument is not the winning argument you change your tune and act like it was not in fact your argument so you don't feel like you've lost.

This is literally you deliberately manipulating the situation in order to affect the other person's view of reality. That's the definition of gaslighting.

Edit: Just wanted to make it clear that when I say "you" I don't mean you, op. Just my way of phrasing the hypothetical.

[–] work_towards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I have no reason to believe it is deliberate. If it is deliberate, it is very poorly executed because my reality is unscathed. I think it is a self defense mechanism about the other person's internal stuff than it is about controlling or abusing me. It isn't abusive, so much as very very annoying.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

You: 

A. sought another third party out to verify your view of the situation (not including the people in this forum). 

B. have stated that you always end up feeling like the jerk in these interactions because they make you feel like you're the one who did something wrong by "starting an argument with them when they agree with you". 

C. made a post asking for the input of people who don't know you, or this other person and don't have the intimate details of the situation to get our take on what is happening . 

There seems to be an assumption here that gaslighting must be a deliberate act where the person doing it is aware of exactly what they are doing and why. That's not really how it works though. There's two parts to gaslighting and they're pretty simple. The person who is doing it is trying to change the other person's view of reality and somehow that change results in a payoff of some kind for that person. 

However I am willing to admit that there is the potential for something else to be going on here and several other people have brought up alternative POV's that may be more relevant to your situation.

[–] monkeyman512@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A possible way to interpret it since you said you both have ADHD, is that they got so invested in the argument that they literally don't know what their original stance is. Then they just accept whatever "feels" correct in the moment and assume that is what they have been saying the whole time. I used to get frustrated by someone a lot because it felt like they where always complaining. Then I found out they have a degenerative condition and they are almost always in pain. This understanding changed my view on their behavior. It's possible the person has a limitation where they can not keep track of things while be emotionally elevated. Anyway, that's just a guess with very little data.

[–] work_towards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

that is correct probly

[–] Almonds@mander.xyz 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Everyone has ADHD

Was that what you were arguing about? That's such a crazy statement that if anyone says that to me, I just kinda walk away lol

I've honestly never had someone tell me they agree with me during an argument. Is that something that happens to you often, or just this one person?

[–] work_towards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean both of us have ADHD

We were arguing about personal matters that we are both involved in.

This just happens with this one person. I'm not like, delusional. Or such a big bully that people back down to placate me.

[–] Almonds@mander.xyz 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ah, OK. The way your post is written is a little confusing to me, but if I look at it as a steam of consciousness or a vent I can see what you mean

[–] work_towards@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

I was trying to avoid writing 40 paragraphs long history of the relationship since the beginning. :)