Letting Friends Disagree

BinaryPulsar

FINE!!! No one likes my marshmallow idea! :grumble:

QueenBishOTUniverse

FINE!!! No one likes my marshmallow idea! :grumble:

What about souffle? Those are puffy...

delicious_cocktail

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.

SunofaBeach14

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?

PikaKnight

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.

Galatea_Stone

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.

Galatea_Stone

FINE!!! No one likes my marshmallow idea! :grumble:

What about souffle? Those are puffy...

I think that becomes a souffluffle.

DavPul

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

curlygirl513

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.

Derp_Diggler

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.

delicious_cocktail

So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?

Assception!
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.

SunofaBeach14

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.

Galatea_Stone

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.

Achrya

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

delicious_cocktail

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

Galatea_Stone

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.

Otterluv

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:

Galatea_Stone

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?

SunofaBeach14

So if two friends are being *kitten* to each other?

Assception!
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.

PikaKnight

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