Letting Friends Disagree
Replies
-
FINE!!! No one likes my marshmallow idea! :grumble:0
-
FINE!!! No one likes my marshmallow idea! :grumble:
What about souffle? Those are puffy...0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
Sure, I think sometimes if someone is being an *kitten* it's worthwhile saying "hey, you're being an *kitten*." Then again, it's often wise to let two people realize for themselves that they're bickering over something inconsequential and let them figure it out and come to their senses. It avoids escalation. But hey, if there's jello (or, creme brulee I suppose) in the room, by all means.
I realize based on this response and re-reading the title of the thread (letting friends disagree) that I was misunderstanding the core point. Because disagree all you want, just don't be an *kitten*, and not to one of my firiends. Type thing.0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
Sure, I think sometimes if someone is being an *kitten* it's worthwhile saying "hey, you're being an *kitten*." Then again, it's often wise to let two people realize for themselves that they're bickering over something inconsequential and let them figure it out and come to their senses. It avoids escalation. But hey, if there's jello (or, creme brulee I suppose) in the room, by all means.
I realize based on this response and re-reading the title of the thread (letting friends disagree) that I was misunderstanding the core point. Because disagree all you want, just don't be an *kitten*, and not to one of my firiends. Type thing.
So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?0 -
I feel strongly that men shouldn't be wrestling in the jello.
I think they need a separate wrestling area filled with either whipped cream or pudding. Marshmallow optional.0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
See, even in that situation it can be difficult. Sometimes it isn't obvious who is being ****ty to whom. There are circumstances where there is mockery that is over the top and unwarranted, but then there are other circumstances where someone says one off-hand remark that is blown out of proportion. What happens when everyone and his brother feels the need to defend the friend who is perceived as being wronged, not because of obligation but because they don't want to be left out of what is now an offense and not a defense? At what point does the belief that one is defending a friend become a feeding frenzy because there's one drop of blood in the water?
On the internet, this is generally the way things go.0 -
FINE!!! No one likes my marshmallow idea! :grumble:
What about souffle? Those are puffy...
I think that becomes a souffluffle.0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
Sure, I think sometimes if someone is being an *kitten* it's worthwhile saying "hey, you're being an *kitten*." Then again, it's often wise to let two people realize for themselves that they're bickering over something inconsequential and let them figure it out and come to their senses. It avoids escalation. But hey, if there's jello (or, creme brulee I suppose) in the room, by all means.
I realize based on this response and re-reading the title of the thread (letting friends disagree) that I was misunderstanding the core point. Because disagree all you want, just don't be an *kitten*, and not to one of my firiends. Type thing.
So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?
Lock them in the Thunderdome0 -
Here is my 2 cents for what it is worth. Take it or leave it.
I'm glad you who wrote the original post are finding wisdom. Some people never learn this wise way. The thing you are talking about is called "triangulating" It is an unhealthy (codependent) way to interact with others and harms by damaging our relationships with ourselves and others.
I also had to learn about the Karpman Drama Triangle. There is no victim and perpetrator for the most part. For the most part rescuing adults is not a good thing, except in cases like a burning building, when they are being chased by a predator. Stuff like that. In nearly all interpersonal relationship issues most adults can take care of themselves. That does not mean we cannot be supportive but we should avoid taking sides. If one person person is really out of line, that person needs time to learn and maybe some help, but it really isn't our job to lead them to what we think is best for them. Truthfully, that's arrogant because we don't know what is best for them. We do well instead to check in with ourselves and what is happening and how we are doing and what our needs are. Based on those results, decide if it is best for US to continue the relationship, i
I have also learned (thank you, finally!) that it is only good to approach the other person who I personally have a problem with, if I must have my say. But truly, most of the time I need to do a mental check with myself of what is going on, and put own care first.
This is because for the most part, people who are acting out believe they are doing others a favor, or just being controlling, and in either case they are unavailable and the more we spend time talking to them, sharing the error of their ways with them, or repeatedly telling them how they affect us, the more we give away our energy and feel drained. What we are saying to them, we need to hear ourselves and exercise the proper self care.
if one doesn't know what self care is, no making fun here, there is much help out there for that
Some situations are vampires. They drain our energy, our time, and our resources. Involving ourselves in other peoples disputes (rescuing) gives us an inflated sense of our own selves and disrespect others by seeing them as victims.
Triangulation is no good. there is a lot more to learn, and these are just a few of the bits of wisdom I have picked up. Haven't always been this way. Grateful to have grown and learned. And like most good things, it took time and effort to learn and change. (Grow) As Maya Angelou said so well, "We do better when we know better". Can I get an amen?
Again, this is my 2 cents for what it is worth. Take it or leave it.0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
See, even in that situation it can be difficult. Sometimes it isn't obvious who is being ****ty to whom. There are circumstances where there is mockery that is over the top and unwarranted, but then there are other circumstances where someone says one off-hand remark that is blown out of proportion. What happens when everyone and his brother feels the need to defend the friend who is perceived as being wronged, not because of obligation but because they don't want to be left out of what is now an offense and not a defense? At what point does the belief that one is defending a friend become a feeding frenzy because there's one drop of blood in the water?
On the internet, this is generally the way things go.
And in real life. Archduke Franz Ferdinand, while a swell guy and all, was not worth the trouble.0 -
Assception!So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?
If two friends are being *kitten* to one another then it is probably just a spirited debate or they're both *kitten*, which happens sometimes. That's a pretty broad field and I'm referring to cut-and-dried-type situations. Or at least subjectively cut-and-dried, to me.0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
Sure, I think sometimes if someone is being an *kitten* it's worthwhile saying "hey, you're being an *kitten*." Then again, it's often wise to let two people realize for themselves that they're bickering over something inconsequential and let them figure it out and come to their senses. It avoids escalation. But hey, if there's jello (or, creme brulee I suppose) in the room, by all means.
I realize based on this response and re-reading the title of the thread (letting friends disagree) that I was misunderstanding the core point. Because disagree all you want, just don't be an *kitten*, and not to one of my firiends. Type thing.
So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?
Lock them in the Thunderdome
When you finally decide to run for Generalissimo let me know. You have my vote.0 -
I'm glad you who wrote the original post are finding wisdom. Some people never learn this wise way. The thing you are talking about is called "triangulating" It is an unhealthy (codependent) way to interact with others and harms by damaging our relationships with ourselves and others.
I also had to learn about the Karpman Drama Triangle. There is no victim and perpetrator for the most part. People need to be responsible for their own self care. That does not mean we cannot be supportive but we should avoid taking sides. If the person is really out of line, they need help, and we need to decide if we can continue the relationship, if it is safe for us or good for us to continue.
I have also learned (thank you, finally!) that it is only good to approach the other person who I personally have a problem with, if I must have my say. But truly, most of the time I need to do a mental check with myself of what is going on, and put own care first.
This is because for the most part, people who are acting out believe they are doing others a favor, or just being controlling, and in either case they are unavailable and the more we spend time talking to the, sharing the error of their ways or how they affect us, the more we give away our energy and feel drained.
some situations are vampires. Triangulation is no good. there is a lot more to learn, and these are just a few of the bits of wisdom I have picked up. Haven't always been this way. Grateful to have grown and learned. And like most good things, it took time and effort to learn and change. (Grow) As Maya Angelou said so well, "We do better when we know better". Can I get an amen?
Amen.0 -
I feel strongly that men shouldn't be wrestling in the jello.
I think they need a separate wrestling area filled with either whipped cream or pudding. Marshmallow optional.
GET OUT0 -
See, even in that situation it can be difficult. Sometimes it isn't obvious who is being ****ty to whom. There are circumstances where there is mockery that is over the top and unwarranted, but then there are other circumstances where someone says one off-hand remark that is blown out of proportion. What happens when everyone and his brother feels the need to defend the friend who is perceived as being wronged, not because of obligation but because they don't want to be left out of what is now an offense and not a defense? At what point does the belief that one is defending a friend become a feeding frenzy because there's one drop of blood in the water?
On the internet, this is generally the way things go.
And on sitcoms.
I think the phenomenon you're describing occurs in many human societies when norms are violated, including online. The villagers in Frankenstein were not a flash mob coordinated via twitter0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
Sure, I think sometimes if someone is being an *kitten* it's worthwhile saying "hey, you're being an *kitten*." Then again, it's often wise to let two people realize for themselves that they're bickering over something inconsequential and let them figure it out and come to their senses. It avoids escalation. But hey, if there's jello (or, creme brulee I suppose) in the room, by all means.
I realize based on this response and re-reading the title of the thread (letting friends disagree) that I was misunderstanding the core point. Because disagree all you want, just don't be an *kitten*, and not to one of my firiends. Type thing.
So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?
Lock them in the Thunderdome
When you finally decide to run for Generalissimo let me know. You have my vote.
That's just stupid. You don't vote for a Generalissimo. Besides, it's Comandante.0 -
Hmmm, not big on jello, what about creme brule? Cuz I b classy. Plus, the shards of glazed sugar could be used as shanks.
I read this as "sharks" and then I was all "here we go again with the sharks!". It was gonna' get ugly, I thought I'd have to pull out this:
But, nevermind, shanks are fine. Carry on :flowerforyou:0 -
See, even in that situation it can be difficult. Sometimes it isn't obvious who is being ****ty to whom. There are circumstances where there is mockery that is over the top and unwarranted, but then there are other circumstances where someone says one off-hand remark that is blown out of proportion. What happens when everyone and his brother feels the need to defend the friend who is perceived as being wronged, not because of obligation but because they don't want to be left out of what is now an offense and not a defense? At what point does the belief that one is defending a friend become a feeding frenzy because there's one drop of blood in the water?
On the internet, this is generally the way things go.
And on sitcoms.
I think the phenomenon you're describing occurs in many human societies when norms are violated, including online. The villagers in Frankenstein were not a flash mob coordinated via twitter
Ah, but were the villagers right to chase him with pitchforks? Didn't you cry at the end of the book at the tragedy of his demise?0 -
Assception!So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?
If two friends are being *kitten* to one another then it is probably just a spirited debate or they're both *kitten*, which happens sometimes. That's a pretty broad field and I'm referring to cut-and-dried-type situations. Or at least subjectively cut-and-dried, to me.
I'm pretty sure that the field needs to be objectively dry if we're going to cut it.0 -
I feel strongly that men shouldn't be wrestling in the jello.
I think they need a separate wrestling area filled with either whipped cream or pudding. Marshmallow optional.
GET OUT
0 -
See, even in that situation it can be difficult. Sometimes it isn't obvious who is being ****ty to whom. There are circumstances where there is mockery that is over the top and unwarranted, but then there are other circumstances where someone says one off-hand remark that is blown out of proportion. What happens when everyone and his brother feels the need to defend the friend who is perceived as being wronged, not because of obligation but because they don't want to be left out of what is now an offense and not a defense? At what point does the belief that one is defending a friend become a feeding frenzy because there's one drop of blood in the water?
On the internet, this is generally the way things go.
And on sitcoms.
I think the phenomenon you're describing occurs in many human societies when norms are violated, including online. The villagers in Frankenstein were not a flash mob coordinated via twitter
Ah, but were the villagers right to chase him with pitchforks? Didn't you cry at the end of the book at the tragedy of his demise?
Well yes they were, because he was an undead creature stitched together from cadavers by a mad scientist. I am against that proposition. And he just floated around on an ice floe looking for vengeance on his maker, right? I don't really recall the ending.
But in general I am unsupportive of mobs; merely observing they're a human phenomenon that is a defining characteristic of our social behavior.0 -
I prefer to both grind and wield my own axes, and would almost universally prefer friends stay out of my disagreements -- unless they were somehow already party.
I feel a sense of duty to stand beside -- or in opposition -- to friends if circumstances merit.
Beach if you could clarify; I think I understand that you are saying the circumstances here seldom warrant. However in general if by my inaction I endorse the actions of another, and in my tacit endorsement stand to lose a friend, I feel I ought act. It's an undeniably evocative comparison, but if I stand there while one friend physically attacks another friend unprovoked, am I not already forced to choose a side?
Is it better to privately denounce despite public silence? Or not to denounce at all even when your feelings are unambiguous?
Yes, I am saying that on here circumstances seldom warrant action. What I often see are very minor disagreements over inconsequential subjects being spun out of control by people getting involved (or asking others to get involved) and making it more than it is. I would no more compare the events on MFP to physical attacks than I would such events to bullying.
If I think one of my friends is treating another of my friends in a ****ty manner, I feel a responsibility to say something about it.
My example was not intended to equate these things. The initial caveat was not "evocative" but "overstated". It just didn't really fit semantically.
Sure, I think sometimes if someone is being an *kitten* it's worthwhile saying "hey, you're being an *kitten*." Then again, it's often wise to let two people realize for themselves that they're bickering over something inconsequential and let them figure it out and come to their senses. It avoids escalation. But hey, if there's jello (or, creme brulee I suppose) in the room, by all means.
I realize based on this response and re-reading the title of the thread (letting friends disagree) that I was misunderstanding the core point. Because disagree all you want, just don't be an *kitten*, and not to one of my firiends. Type thing.
I disagree a bit on the "it's only virtual" aspect (edit: mentioned in another post) - people meet, interact in real life, and make, in some cases, long term links of great personal value. Some of the information or events we share are sometimes interwoven with deep personal meaning and it's not all just cat gifs. And all that is fine, the Little Prince and all that.
I expect disagreement to occur, but I expect them to be managed reasonably, not only without being asked to draw sides, but without escalation tactics and to be concluded and closed "reasonably" fast. My own attention span, and "life" on line and off is too short to deal with that for too long. I can't quit my own kids if they throw a tantrum at the mall (but I can certainly laugh at them when they do) but I'm not going to spend time to adopt new kids on-line.
Here, when things drag on for too long on-line, I walk away.0 -
All due respect, I think the "virtual" part is key. Altho I consider many people in this site as actual friends, most of the catty arguments that I see go down on this site wouldn't take place IRL.
Internet conversations aren't like real conversations. They resemble turn based strategy games more than IRL conversation. IRL, there's inflection, and physical cues and even a throat punch if someone takes a line of dialogue down the wrong path. Here, stuff is all blowed up before anyone realizes it wuz just jokes. IRL, when I'm having a serious conversation and I start crossing a line, I can usually see it on the other person's face and back down ***before I finish my sentence***. Here, all my ignorance is on full display for everyone to see forever (until Ninja mod edits, anyway).
For my money, most of the drama here stems from the virtuality of the place.0 -
See, even in that situation it can be difficult. Sometimes it isn't obvious who is being ****ty to whom. There are circumstances where there is mockery that is over the top and unwarranted, but then there are other circumstances where someone says one off-hand remark that is blown out of proportion. What happens when everyone and his brother feels the need to defend the friend who is perceived as being wronged, not because of obligation but because they don't want to be left out of what is now an offense and not a defense? At what point does the belief that one is defending a friend become a feeding frenzy because there's one drop of blood in the water?
On the internet, this is generally the way things go.
And on sitcoms.
I think the phenomenon you're describing occurs in many human societies when norms are violated, including online. The villagers in Frankenstein were not a flash mob coordinated via twitter
Ah, but were the villagers right to chase him with pitchforks? Didn't you cry at the end of the book at the tragedy of his demise?
Well yes they were, because he was an undead creature stitched together from cadavers by a mad scientist. I am against that proposition. And he just floated around on an ice floe looking for vengeance on his maker, right? I don't really recall the ending.
But in general I am unsupportive of mobs; merely observing they're a human phenomenon that is a defining characteristic of our social behavior.
He dies alone, in the cold north, mourning the loss of his creator even though his creator was the reason for the unwarranted torment that was his life. But then you also mourn Victor and the loss of his loved ones at the hands of the monster, who never would have killed had Victor not created him.
The villagers should have minded their own business and let Victor and the monster work out their differences. Maybe if they had, Elizabeth wouldn't have had to die.0 -
All due respect, I think the "virtual" part is key. Altho I consider many people in this site an actual friends, most of the catty arguments that I see go down on this site wouldn't take place IRL.
Internet conversations aren't like real conversations. They resemble turn based strategy games more than IRL conversation. IRL, there's inflection, and physical cues and even a throat punch if someone takes a line of dialogue down the wrong path. Here, stuff is all blowed up before anyone realizes it wuz just jokes. IRL, when I'm having a serious conversation and I start crossing a line, I can usually see it on the other person's face and back down ***before I finish my sentence***. Here, all my ignorance is on full display for everyone to see forever (until Ninja mod edits, anyway).
For my money, most of the drama here stems from the virtuality of the place.
Edited. TL:DR to simply say "I agree."0 -
All due respect, I think the "virtual" part is key. Altho I consider many people in this site an actual friends, most of the catty arguments that I see go down on this site wouldn't take place IRL.
Internet conversations aren't like real conversations. They resemble turn based strategy games more than IRL conversation. IRL, there's inflection, and physical cues and even a throat punch if someone takes a line of dialogue down the wrong path. Here, stuff is all blowed up before anyone realizes it wuz just jokes. IRL, when I'm having a serious conversation and I start crossing a line, I can usually see it on the other person's face and back down ***before I finish my sentence***. Here, all my ignorance is on full display for everyone to see forever (until Ninja mod edits, anyway).
For my money, most of the drama here stems from the virtuality of the place.
Edited. TL:DL to simply say "I agree."
+1. I think my "virtual" isn't so virtual comment needed Dave's caveat.0 -
I do not like jello.
I do, however, like marshmallows. But probably not for wrestling.0 -
All due respect, I think the "virtual" part is key. Altho I consider many people in this site as actual friends, most of the catty arguments that I see go down on this site wouldn't take place IRL.
Internet conversations aren't like real conversations. They resemble turn based strategy games more than IRL conversation. IRL, there's inflection, and physical cues and even a throat punch if someone takes a line of dialogue down the wrong path. Here, stuff is all blowed up before anyone realizes it wuz just jokes. IRL, when I'm having a serious conversation and I start crossing a line, I can usually see it on the other person's face and back down ***before I finish my sentence***. Here, all my ignorance is on full display for everyone to see forever (until Ninja mod edits, anyway).
For my money, most of the drama here stems from the virtuality of the place.
:flowerforyou:0 -
I do not like jello.
I do, however, like marshmallows. But probably not for wrestling.
0 -
I feel strongly that men shouldn't be wrestling in the jello.
I think they need a separate wrestling area filled with either whipped cream or pudding. Marshmallow optional.
I agree that men should not wrestle in jello.
I'm not sure about the whipped cream or pudding, though, so we may have to agree to disagree on this point.
I'm with BP on the marshmallow idea. Has anybody brought up cotton candy?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions