![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kellinatorThere'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.
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.
Re: You're kidding, right?
Date: 2005-01-26 11:19 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 2005-01-26 11:58 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 2005-01-27 12:50 am (UTC)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:
Date: 2005-01-27 12:04 am (UTC)Re: Comment from a person who has no vested interest here:
Date: 2005-01-27 12:40 am (UTC)Re: You're kidding, right?
Date: 2005-01-27 02:28 pm (UTC)Word use
Date: 2005-01-27 03:09 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2005-01-27 03:44 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2005-01-27 03:56 pm (UTC)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!