PSA/rant

[kellinator]

There's a big problem with LJ that I think should be addressed.

LJ makes us think we know people better than we really do. Yes, we read the inner workings of each other's heads. Yes, it's very intimate. Yes, you can get to "know" someone you've never met pretty well.

But you don't know someone you've never met as well as you think you do.

I've seen this play out on LJ what seems like a million times. Someone posts about something that's going on with them -- maybe a personality flaw, maybe an unhealthy behavior, something that people close to them are concerned about. And a bunch of LJers come out of the woodwork going "no! You're perfect just as you are! If they were REAL FRIENDS, they'd understand it! They'd accept you just as you are!"

And then a real friend comes along, someone who actually knows what's going on, and posts some real, useful advice. And then the sycophants dogpile on that person, accusing them of being "mean" and "not a real friend."

Stop it. Just fucking stop it.

If you've never met a person, if you only know what's going on on LJ, then you only know a tiny part of the story. What makes you think you're more qualified to pass judgment than people who actually know the story?

Friends aren't just people who post *hugs*. A real friend will tell you when you're being a jackass, or engaging in behavior that's unhealthy. A real friend will tell you when you're making a fool of yourself.

How do I know this? Because it's happened to me. Some of the best advice I've ever received has started with the words "You're not going to like this, but..." None of us are perfect. And sometimes we need that outside perspective. If close friends of mine had sat on their hands going "well, Kelly's doing some really stupid shit but I can't tell her because she'll get mad," I would probably have kept doing really stupid shit and would probably be in a really bad place right now.

Sometimes the words you don't want to hear are the ones that mean "I love you" the most. If somebody really loves you, they won't mindlessly pat you on the head while you ruin your life.

If you want to bite the hand that's reaching out, fine. Just don't be surprised when you're left with just the imaginary friends in your computer who post *hugs*.

So, next time you start to post a "you go girl/boy! Screw them if they don't like you just the way you are!" comment, think about it before you hit that button. Do you mean it? Or are you just saying that because you think it's what you're supposed to say? Are you really helping anyone? Or are you just being an enabler?

Friendship isn't just hearts and bunnies. It's having the guts to show you really care. It's called tough love for a reason.

Comments

You're kidding, right?

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

I don't want yes-men, but people that are willing to tell me that I'm being stupid, and tell me why.

Really? Because the last time I told you, in the politest and most civil terms I could muster, that you were being stupid, you responded with a list of justifications longer than my arm, including an incredibly self-serving interpretation of the Golden Rule.

If you're sincere in your desire to be a minister, I think you would be well-served to spend more time developing empathy for other people and less time justifying yourself. If, however, you would prefer to be a politician, then please, continue as you are.

And please don't give me the line you did that one time about how deeply you feel. I've seen you cause too many hurt feelings to believe that. "Faith without works is dead." So are words without the actions that show you truly mean those words.

You have a choice, Dwiv. You can become the person you have the potential of being, but that's going to involve humility, compassion, and admitting you don't know everything. Or, you can continue as you are, and then wonder why people say things like this to you.

And please don't start whining about how nobody understands you and I'm being mean to you. When you posted your comment, which does not fit with any of the behavior I've witnessed from you on LJ, on this post in particular, you asked for it. Basically, you made a comment that you thought would make you look cool, when that comment did not fit with any of your past behavior (and, in fact, your behavior in the replies to that comment). This post is me putting LJ on notice: If you post bullshit in my journal, I will call it like I see it.

Re: You're kidding, right?

[ariedana.livejournal.com]

*applauds*

Re: You're kidding, right?

[dwivian]

Nope. I'm not kidding.

I do want my friends to do this, as it forces me to deal with myself.

I never said I'd take it well, or that I wouldn't be defensive. And, yes, I do feel, and deeply, but I also screw up because I don't know how OTHERS feel.

So, how does one develop empathy? I have always thought of it more as a talent than a skill.

Thank you for your words.

Re: You're kidding, right?

[christine9600.livejournal.com]

Dave, you HAVE been told. Repeatedly. I told you in explicit detail what you were doing not too long ago. Yet I see you continuing the same bad behavior. You throw excuses up and you hide behind people who will protect you. But your most offensive mistake? Assuming that none of us would be able to see through you little Minister act. I don't want to hear about your lack of social skills. You DO have social skills, otherwise you would never have been able to snow so many people initially. Unfortunately, you are also a megalomaniacal, pompus jackass who seems to think that you can talk or force his way into any pretty girl's pants. I seem to remember you blaming your obnoxious behavior on both a lack of social skills and most women's inability to give a clear "NO" signal. Please allow me to enlighten you: Your advances are NOT welcome, no matter how much you push. Your claims of needing our "help" only disgust and annoy everyone. How in god's name can you call yourself a priest? You tread dangerously close to Predator and you KNOW it. Do NOT try to claim ignorance with me or anyone else here. Sorry, Dave. We aren't buying it anymore. Move on to another group of people who do now know what you are. And when the figure it out and shun you, please remember that we all Told You So.

You seem to have dug yourself a nice little hole here. Good luck climbing back out.

*GENERAL DISCLAIMER*
I'm not speaking for everyone else here, despite my use of the word "we". However, I stand FIRMLY behind every word I've said here. This is ME speaking, not a group of people.

Re: You're kidding, right?

[ga-sunshine.livejournal.com]

I don't know that one so much develops empathy as nurtures it. I think it's one of those things that we all have inherently that we open ourselves up to.

Re: You're kidding, right?

[dwivian]

Interesting thought. Any suggestions on how to do that? Apparently I've got no real clue...

Re: You're kidding, right?

[ga-sunshine.livejournal.com]

Well, I would presume it includes many of the things one would do when parenting a child and teaching empathy in a child. With our children we teach them and guide them, sometimes we must do this with ourselves, especially when we need to be reparented or parented differently. See http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/7/cu13.html and see if that helps any. *shrug*

Re: You're kidding, right?

[dwivian]

I would add one thing -- I said that I wanted people to tell me when I'm being stupid, and why.

Far too many people just tell me that I'm being stupid, and never get to the explaination. And, if I offer any defense of myself, they throw up their hands as if my self-justification was somehow a horrible thing.

The fact that I self-justify means I think about what I'm doing, and that a good argument could change how I see the world. If I acted without any regard I'd be a psychopath, and I hope that isn't the case.

I readily admit when I'm wrong -- people just don't seem to want to stick around long enough to see that.

Re: You're kidding, right?

[christine9600.livejournal.com]

It really is amazing how quickly you place the blame for YOUR bad behavior on everyone else. You are a grown man. Your bad behavior is your responsibility. It is NOT our responsibility to point it out to you, ESPECIALLY after it's been pointed out to you time and time again. It is NOT our responsibility to chronicle everything you've done. It is NOT our responsibility to "stick around" for you to admit when you're wrong.

Your bad behavior? Well, let's see here. I'll just give you a personal list:

1. Grabbing my breast and crotch in a car ride several months ago. This one ranks REALLY high with me. Don't you fucking DARE try to deny that you did this. And if you so much as breathe a hint of it somehow being MY fault that YOU placed your fucking hands on me, so help me god, you will never be able to show your face in this city again. I have no problems giving a "clear signal" to anyone, as you well know. You simply chose to ignore those signals.

2. Telling me that my husband had "jealousy issues" and he needed to "open his mind" when I told you in no uncertain terms that I would not sleep with you and that Thomas was not comfortable with the conversations you and I were having regarding BDSM training.

3. Your supposed intellectual superiority, *especially* over women. As I've told you once before, you are not special. None of us are special. Get the fuck over yourself already.

I'm just getting started here. Keep it up, jackass. Keep it up.

Re: You're kidding, right?

[dwivian]

1. I don't deny it -- we were in the preliminaries about negiotiation concerning BDSM, and I overstepped much further than I realized at the time. You didn't seem offended at the time, but apparently you were much more upset than I saw. I truly and humbly apologize for offending you.

2. I remember saying that some people are not open to sharing partners, and that unless they are poly-minded that there will always be jealousy. I was okay with the limit, and never saw that jealousy as a bad thing (it's normal) nor did I take it personally that there would be either no sexual nature to the play, or no BDSM play at all. I would like to think that I didn't intend to malign Thomas in that conversation, and if you interpreted that I did, I am also sorry.

3. I also regret if there is any perceived gender bias about how I present my intellect. I disagree that none of us are special -- I think we all are, in different ways -- and I know lots of women that are much smarter than I am. I also recognize that there are different measures of intellect, and while I may have some gifts, I also have some significant deficits. Maybe I don't talk about them a lot, but I do know I have them.

Thank you for letting me know these things. I am very upset at how badly I've treated you, and I have no idea what I could do to fix it, if anything.

Comment from a person who has no vested interest here:

[dorei.livejournal.com]

If you readily admit you're wrong, but still continue the behavior, it seems to me that's you saying, "I know I'm doing the wrong thing, but I just don't care."

Re: Comment from a person who has no vested interest here:

[dwivian]

A very good point.

Re: You're kidding, right?

[deza.livejournal.com]

Self-justification doesn't mean you think about what you are doing. Self-justification means you are finding excuses for yourself, so you can continue to delude yourself into believing your actions don't have consquences.

Word use

[dwivian]

I'll disagree, only because I apparently misused the word. For me, that justification is not to delude myself, but to find the reason for why I did something. It requires thinking about how I got there so I can explain it. It does not deny consequence, but may include the rationale for why end result came about. Inherent to the assessment is the consequent, as it is part of the question.

Having pulled up the handy dictionary, I see you're right in how the word is SUPPOSED to be used, so now I'm stuck for a decent descriptive. The question that comes to mind for me now, though, is if the process of assessment is generally used to avoid the issue of the consequent; that is, if solving the problem of the action superceeds solving the problem of the results. Is there a preference, socially, for one over the other? Is it better to figure out why we do things, or to pick up the pieces, first? I really don't know -- traditionally I try to solve the problem, but that may not be the best action to take.

wow what pomposity

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

since you want to play ignorant, i'll help:

Generally speaking, it is usually the socially accepted "way" to
1. recognize one's problem
2. acknowledge its effects
3. take responsibility for the results
4. resolve to solve both the puzzle of origin as well as the calamity of past grievances
5. attempt to make redress to all offended parties
6. begin personal self-examination in private

if you're being an ass, most times people really don't care to hear WHY you've been an ass. Perhaps after you've made good faith efforts to recompense offended parties they may, in the spirit of caring and helping be open to explanation of past motivations and origins of psychological conditioning but usually such interest is merely polite tolerance in a display of comeraderie, assuming the petitioner is undergoing selrf-examination.

If people are not convinced you recognize the need for change, they will not be interested in self-justification as it only shows that you are aware of your offense, not that you see a need for change.

Re: wow what pomposity

[dwivian]

Not playing ignorant -- I really don't understand most of the time.

I appreciate your comment -- I do have things backwards, in that I was looking at the process before the effect. In my work life I did that for a while before a company executive told me that getting the business working was more important than solving the problem. I'd not made the extension to social issues, but I see that it holds true.

I think I'm going to have to spend quite a bit of time turning this around, but I really like how you put your list. Thank you!