There's a funny feeling in the air this week.
Two of my friends have ranted on their weblogs about arguments, people who either don't understand or refuse to listen, and how it has negatively impacted their lives.
I've had an ongoing rant about this for years, and since two of my friends are choosing this week to air their views, I thought I might make the attempt at offering my viewpoint based on my experiences.
NOTE: This is not a rant. This is an observation.
First, check out what my friends have to say: Quixote at his website and Petra on her livejournal.
Quixote mentions a couple of things in his article. "Some years ago, before my exile, a group of friends and I..." followed later on with "...I have an undeserved reputation for being argumentative."
Now let's have a look at one of Petra's statements: "...don't you fucking sit there on your smug little twenty-something ass and fucking tell me I'm negative. You have no right to say anything at all until..."
To my mind, both of these people are actually talking about the same thing. Allow me to illustrate with a chapter from my own life:
A recurring theme with me used to be the Inability To Shut Up When Silence Would Best Serve Me. Most notably, these instances would involve my opinions about people, which is why it's relevant to the above two cases.
The first such case was a guy Quixote refers to as "Eeyore." The guy is fucking negative, okay? Also paranoid and damn anti-social. I was the first person in our circle of friends to say "Hey, this guy is always a downer and is always throwing cold water on everything." I confronted the guy about this-- and he stalked off in a huff, saying he was now "quitting the group" of friends. Well, fine and good, right? Not so fast. Half the people in the group ran after him to console him, and only the most passive stayed behind with me.
Later on, I was called immature and an asshole for being so "cruel," and was "socially disciplined" by being ignored for a few weeks.
Today, years later? Most people avoid this person and agree with my sentiments.
Another case: There was another guy I knew who hit on every single girl in our circle of friends, stole other guys' girlfriends, cheated on them, manipulated the guys so THEY felt guilty about him being bereft of the girl he'd stolen, while he then began hitting on the latest girlfriend of whoever happened to be in the room.
I called him a manipulative bastard and manage to catch him in a lie and prove, empirically, that it was so.
My best friend told me to quit being such an asshole and to grow up. And the kicker? This was the guy who'd had his girlfriend stolen. Once again, I was cast out of the social circle and avoided like the plague.
Years later, this guy is now again one of my best friends and Mr. Manipulative is commonly referred to as "an asshole", a "black hole," an "emotional vampire" or quite simply "the worst point in my life."
See the pattern here?
It's happened twice more since then. And both times, I suffered pain, ridicule, and scoffing-- with utterly NO support from my friends, leaving me alone and out in the middle of the lake where the ice is thin-- all because I spoke up.
So what's this have in common with Petra and Quixote? Hang on. I'm getting there.
In his classic The Prince, Machiavelli said: "...there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm (indifferent, uninterested) defenders in those who may do well under the new. "
Simply put: "If you rock the boat, be prepared to be thrown over the side."
Let's distill it down even further: "Don't rock the boat."
Which is really the crux of my problem, and Quixote's and Petra's. It's not that we were wrong to say what we said. It's not that we had a weak position to our arguments. It's, quite simply, that our timing was off.
Is it Newton's Laws of Motion that state: "An object at rest tends to stay at rest?" Regardless of who said it, it holds true not only for universal physics but for humans as well.
We don't want to move when we're comfortable. And yet, it's also easier to keep going once we've started. Put these two opposing factors in the same room and you have irresistible force meeting immovable object-- and well, you can see where this is going.
Quixote's problem of arguments is, to me, this: He may have been right, but he didn't weigh the cost of how much the argument was worth vs. the desire for his friends to remain undisturbed. His "exile," as he puts it, is directly the cause of the human "pack" mentality to shun those who disturb the peace, whether it's a false peace or not. Quixote rocked the boat and so Quixote was ostracized, as in the case with me and my friends.
Petra says negative things as a response to the negative happenings around her. Whatever else is going on, people notice only this: What she speaks makes them uncomfortable-- and so they'll do whatever they can to shut her up. The reasons for her negativity aren't important; only the fact that she says them out loud and so therefore she must be silenced.
Also check out her response to this stimulus: "You have no right to say anything until..." She does to others what is being done to her because what they're saying makes her uncomfortable. She's in motion, y'see-- and she's going to tend to stay in motion until the force that moves her is removed and she's once again at rest. Until that time, other forces moving against her are attacked.
Like me, she behaved in a manner contrary to her peer group's comfort-- and so she's been ostracized.
You may remember in a previous post I referred to a passive-aggressive Cult Of Lies.
This is a lot like that.
Was Quixote wrong to argue his point? No. Was Petra wrong to decry that which caused her pain? No. Was I wrong to point out the negative or destructive behaviour around me? No.
And yet we were wrong; we chose the wrong time to say what we said.
Human acceptance is, and always has been, a function of time. It's easy to say Vietnam was an unjust war NOW; sure, people will disagree with you but they won't try to censor you the way they would have done in 1968.
It's easy to say Hitler is a bad guy NOW, but try saying that if you were a German -- especially a JEWISH German-- in 1938.
What we say is accepted or rejected based on when we say it. So what we need to understand is this: If no one else seems to be voicing our opinion, then we must assume we are alone in it, and realize that the time isn't yet ripe to speak out.
If our opinion is being voiced and agreed to in quiet groups or behind closed doors, the time is not right to speak out.
If the situation is intolerable and we feel we must say something, we need to realize that such an outburst could cause us to be cut out of the herd, chased from the pack, ostracized.
It all comes down to picking your battles, and asking yourself how important the issue is to you. And what I've learned from my own experience is that most of these battles just aren't worth it-- so I keep my mouth shut and I stay happy and comfortable.
Just like everyone else.
In closing, I'll mention my latest encounter: I waited five years before I decided that the issue was important enough-- and I still got ostracized for it, although I was prepared for that eventuality. Once again, it involves a person-- this time the girlfriend-soon-to-be-fiancee of a former best friend of mine.
She is, and continues to be, the most immature, crass, classless human being I've ever met. She is utterly without intelligence, wit, or charm. She is devoid of worth. In short, she's a bitch.
Everyone agrees with me. Even when they're being nice! But since I spoke up first, all the evils of the world are laid at my feet. And they continue to whisper behind her back, to complain and rant about how disgusted they are with her and her behaviour, but they do nothing.
Eventually, though, I expect to receive a phone call telling me that the ice has been broken and everyone agrees with me and hey, how have I been all these years? And I can wait.
After all, I've got time.
Of course, this isn't necessarily so. It's just an OBSERVATION.
All rational men embrace the world as it is, while the irrational man tries to change it. Therefore all progress is the result of irrational men. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
I bring this meeting of the Mis-Understood Cadre of Underappreciated Shit-disturbers (MUCUS) to order.
Present are group president Agent-M, Secretary Quixote and Treasurer Petra.
The question before the group is this: "When should you pick your battles?"
Is it when we may piss people off? Frankly I think there are a lot of people in this world who need to be pissed off.
For example, we are often told The Customer is Always Right. For the most part this is true, but there are exceptions. Some years back, I was lucky enough to have a boss that believed enough was enough - if the customer clearly went over the line, get rid of them. I worked at his gas station for five years, and in that time I kicked out five people. Two of these people were damaging the washroom, two were explosion hazards (smoking by the pumps) and the last one was flat-out abusive.
All of these people were pissed off (one even tried to pick a fight with me - I pointed out that my job was in no danger from kicking him out, but I would get fired for beating the snot out of him). But who cares - I shouldn't have to put up with threats or vandalism, I certainly don't have to put up with people refusing to put out their cancer sticks when I'm sitting on top of twenty thousand litres of gasoline.
Posit #1: If the issue is your own safety, dig your heels in and fight.
How about if someone is just plain wrong. Well, that depends on the cost of them being wrong. The restaurant argument (about phases of the moon and its effect on human behavior) described on my web page is an example where I could have kept my mouth shut. If the people at the table wanted to believe something without evidence, why should I care? If they stay home more often during the full moon, thinking it will reduce their odds of being robbed and/or killed, what business is it of mine? Nobody's being hurt. Except, except, except - they're WRONG. Urban legends are one of my hot button topics and I do tend to argue them even when there's no profit in it.
Most recently, Project K-Ko was telling everyone to save the pull-tabs from their cans for some charity. I told her it was an urban legend and that she shouldn't waste her time. Naturally, she got all defensive about it and wouldn't listen. Should I have left it alone, knowing that she wasn't going to do anyone any good -instead giving everyone high expectations that were going to be dashed? What kind of a friend would I be if I didn't at least try to stop them? If your friend was going to drink bleach thinking it was Earl Grey you would stop them, and I think these situations differ only in scale.
Posit #2: If they're wrong, and being wrong is going to hurt them in some way, stick to your guns.
Addendum to Posit #2 - Make damn sure you're right before you make an ass of yourself.
How many times have you heard, after a friend has extracted themselves from a toxic relationship "Why didn't you tell me what a jerk my ex was?" Simply put, you wouldn't have believed me if I told you. Biding your time is the best thing to do in these situations. That and sticking around in the hopes that they will come to their senses. If and when it happens, they will need a friend.
Loyalty to friends being so important, you probably shouldn't go pointing out what a jerk some jerk is. His friends will only see your negative behavior, never your good intentions. In this way are friends and lovers similar. Agent M's comments about Eeyore are spot on in this regard, and I see him his Eeyore and raise him one Mouse. Mouse was a girl who was a giant sucking hole of negativity, She was also very talented at manipulating fannish men into feeling sorry for her. I was one of the first people to twig to it, and I caught merry hell from the others for saying so. Now of course, everyone agrees with me.
This is actually the reason for my (somewhat exaggerated) exile, although the person in question was not Mouse.
Posit #3: Don't go dissing someone's friends or lovers - they won't believe you and will resent the suggestion.
Which is not to say you should put up with their shit. Pointing out the bad behavior without insulting the person responsible is probably the best play in this bad situation.
Had I known then what I know now I'd probably say "Insulting me is rude - why do you feel the need to belittle me?" rather than "Go to hell you ignorant cocksucker." Of course, if you already have a rep for being obnoxious, it probably won't matter.
So there you have it. Make sure you're right-- and fight the good fight if the results will be an improvement over doing nothing.
Posted by: Quixote on August 18, 2002 08:46 PMI had an acquaintance who used to forward me every single piece of chain letter spam she ever received, including bogus virus warnings, "send Timmy a card" to get him into the guiness books, and "please sign this virtual petition" type crap. I researched every single one she sent me and pointed out (with references) that they were all hoaxes or useless chain mail crap. The result? In her words: "so you're saying I shouldn't send this stuff to you?"
Ugh, no, I'm saying "look it up" dumbass. 99.9% of the crap you're sending out is just that, crap... and the rest of us don't care about the remaining .01%
People will accept only what they want to hear. While it's worthwhile to point out the obvious things they won't listen unless they actually want to.
You can try, and on some rare occasions it will sink in, but for the most part all you can do is shrug your shoulders, roll your eyes, and walk away.
It is not anyone's responsibility to live someone else's life for them. Chances are you've got your hands full enough living your own.
Posted by: Rook on August 19, 2002 11:27 AMThose last two lines really do make sense, Rook. What a pity it seems our instincts as social animals cry out to contradict them.
By this I mean that although it is eminently logical to realize that we should Mind Our Own Damn Business, and let people live their own lives, still many of us are driven to put our noses in and say "Hey, y'know, that's damaging behaviour."
Whereupon we get firmly told to put those noses right up our own asses.
And what do you do? Do you fight and say, "Look man, I'm trying to help you," only to realize that "man" doesn't want your help, thankyouverymuch, and it was egotistical of you to poke your nose in, in the first place?
Mostly, that's what I get. Any attempt to correct what I see as damaging behaviour gets the old "you're doing this 'cause we're not enough like you" chestnut.
Whereupon I have to evaluate how vital it really is for me to speak up.
In my latest case I thought it was absolutely vital to speak up and point out negative aberrant behaviour, to the point that I was willing to risk the friendship I had over it.
I risked, and I lost the friendship. And now more than a year later I'm wondering if in fact I really lost anything other than constant aggravation?
Of course, I'm still TALKING about it, so there's obviously more to it that needs looking at, but that's a topic for another (self-)Observation.
M
Posted by: Agent M on August 19, 2002 03:36 PMThat raises a very good question. Why ARE you still talking about it, Michael?
Maire, my little snooper, still reads your site, and alerted me about the subjects of your last two rants. And now I'm more frightened of you than I was a year and a half ago. If I'd been SLEEPING with you, a year and a half would be too long to remain focused on me--and for the record, readers, I wasn't. So honestly ask yourself, Michael, why are you still wrapped up in this? You know the past is past. Don't you have better things to do with your future?
Posted by: Mike on August 20, 2002 09:24 AMWell, at least you're frightened of me. I guess that's something.
Seriously though, I agree with you. I really should move on. But why am I still wrapped up in this?
Maybe because, in odd moments, I still care about you too much to ignore what you're doing with your life.
Maybe because the very idea that you're living with that waste of humanity you call a girlfriend/fiancee/ whatever term you've invented irks me to the point of irrationality even when I know it's none of my business and for god's sake why should I even care?
However, my poor stunted boy, let me be clear on one thing: Yeah, I should move on and stop letting this bug me. That is the truth, amen, hallelujah, and you are in fact correct.
However, "the past is past" is a false model of human emotion; when you're as close to a friend as I felt I was to you, you don't ever forget or get unwrapped. Maybe you're underestimating the impact you had on my life.
For the record, readers, I have not stalked my former best friend, spied on him, or even talked about him excessively. But this was a guy I INVESTED time in. Not just Hung Out With. I was INVESTED.
So when Mike cut off our friendship (and right quick!) I was in shock. From my perspective, it was one argument that broke the camel's back, and this had never happened to me before-- left me reeling.
I'm tempted to say Mike is in denial about feeling anything about the friendship-- but then, I'm sure that could easily be turned into me feeling denial about letting the friendship go.
So who knows why I'm still talking about it? By all accounts, Mike and Keziah are a Colossal Waste of Time. Well, Keziah always was. Mike though...he was special.
And I don't forget special people, and I can't just "shut it off" even after a year and a half. There are people I cut out of my life five years ago that I still wonder about or inquire after.
To me, that's normal-- but yeah, the whole thing with you, Mike, I will admit is obsessive. Maybe it's-- aw hell, there's no maybe about it-- it's because you denied me any closure in the friendship.
An email doesn't cut it, unfortunately. "Dear Aunt Em, hate you, hate Kansas, left. Took the dog. Dorothy." does not a neat closure make.
For god's sake, ditch that girl before you realize you've wasted more years with her. Has she graduated from MRC yet? Has she made ANY progress towards the goals she's supposed to have? Probably not, I'm thinking. And she never will as long as you're together, because the co-dependency between you two is not just staggering, it's apocalyptically sad.
There, I said it.
One final thing: I post things to my website freely and publicly. And unlike you, I don't delete posts made by people I don't like. Your "little snooper," Maire, is perfectly free to read my site and tell you all about it. If I didn't want you to read it, I wouldn't post.
Ciao.
Michael
You know what you never have said, then or now? "Hell, Mike's an adult. Maybe he knows what he's doing. Even if he doesn't, it's his mistake to make."
Shows a hell of a lack of respect for my ability to be the captain of my own life. Ever wonder why that is? I sure did.
And I don't feel the need to defend my life to you. I don't care what your opinions are or what you do with them, although I am concerned that you still have them, and to this intensity. That IS excessive, in my opinion--and since it's about me I feel my opinion counts for a lot here.
What do you need for closure? Would the other person's perspective help? I can do that:
For you the split was right quick. For me it was months and months of banging my head against the wall. The fact that you didn't notice what I was going through was a strong factor in my eventual decision. Finally I had enough, said "that's it!" and left.
At the end, I told you in plain English not to make me choose between you and Kez, because that was a contest you would not win. And you went ahead and did it anyway. So I'm afraid you have nobody to blame but yourself for that one.
Since then, I've done you the honour of never mentioning to anyone uninvolved my TRUE reasons for the split, since it would be slanderous, damaging to you, and frankly none of anyone's business. I left it at "we broke up," if anyone cared to ask, which most people didn't. People who I am particularly close to had a pretty good idea anyway, and in the case of new people (V comes to mind) letting you give them your perspective went a surprisingly long way to giving them mine. I certainly have never asked anyone to choose sides--in fact, I've gone to great lengths (including, yes, deleting posts) never to think about you at all.
(Which may have now bitten me on the ass, as it appears that Tony has been a conduit back to you with the details of my life, and I in my blissful self-imposed ignorance never considered that possibility. My bad. Kez and I will be addressing that with him.)
For the most part you've stayed out of my life and I do appreciate that. I would appreciate it a lot more if you were doing it because you have let go and don't NEED to be in my life, rather than doing it because that's what I want, but I'll take either one, I guess.
Because when it comes down to it I afford you the respect you never afforded me: You're an adult and, as long as you're not hurting anyone, you have the right to do whatever you want with your life. Even if I don't agree with it. However, that doesn't mean I have to have it as part of my life, and I chose not to.
Posted by: Mike on August 20, 2002 11:28 AMWhich is fair enough; my own observation here is all ABOUT realizing that one should Butt Out when all elements in the equation are contrary to one's own thoughts and opinions.
I'll try to do that.
Do I NEED you in my life? No, or I would have pursued reconciliation with you more strenuously. Do I NEED closure? Yeah, which makes me feel foolish and obsessive. However, your words here are mature and rational, and moreover they make sense. I will endeavor to put this matter out of my emotional mind-- while I won't ever forget it, I can at least try not to let it affect me.
Thanks for the perspective. I'd like to think I'm done now.
Michael
I'm kind of late with this post, but I think that I have relevant comments to be made on the topic, as I am close with both Agent Ehm and Quixote, and know the persons they speak of.
As a dissasociated third party (of course 8) ), and witness to many arguments/discussions involving our principle characters, the point I want to make is that a lot of negativity flashed back at you two was not so much about the topic of discussion so much as the VEHEMENCE that you argued your points with, like it was a situation with DIRE CONSEQUENCES if your point was not made and understood. I heard many arguments between Quixote and Nosemonger, or should I say Walter and Donnie, in which I agreed with Q but thought, 'Geez, what an asshole.' To your credit, Q, you have mellowed out in recent years.
The second point I'd like to make is that perhaps it's not the timing that is in question, so much as your debating opponent. Taking the case of Eeyore, you both have known him for over a decade, you both knew he was a stubborn, belligerent downer, and yet you're shocked... SHOCKED!... to find him obstinate and set in his ways when having an argument. Time for the ol' 'WHATEVER', kids, cut your losses and get out.
Brucie
Posted by: The Bruce on August 21, 2002 01:26 PMMike and Agent M... sigh... you used to be so cute together.
Since our topic is saying the wrong thing at the right time, here is a good example:
"The fact is that you two are still friends.
You just have an odd way of showing it."
You are staring each other down, waiting for the other to blink. I have a feeling that when it all blows over, there will be such a cool Irish mist feeling of relief that you'll both have dew dripping off... well... stuff.
What made your friendship work was that you were both wise-cracking sidekicks to each other. That demands a fair amount of trust. What made it come apart was that you both eventually decided to assume the role of the always-correct steadfast hero. No laughter there, it's lonely at the top.
And what happens when two egomaniacal superheroes engage? A double issue sized climactic battle the likes of which even Stan the Man could not imagine. And true believers have been waiting for the exciting conclusion for some time now.
You are both stronger and smarter and more powerful than you have ever been in your pasts. You have to learn to respect each other's boundaries. It was easy to get along when you didn't pose a threat to each other. It's easy to trust someone who can't really hurt you. The real test of loyalty came when you started exercising your powers. And for the record, you both failed.
But life is nothing more than a constant series of recoveries. So get your asses out of the mud, hose yourselves off and decide what you want to do next.
Maybe you part ways for awhile, maybe you have a threesome with that cutie in the parking lot.
This time.
Just remember that life is like renting a video: No decision is forever, the new releases are always just around the corner, and you can always rely on an old favourite.
Parting shots:
Agent M - you've made your point. You don't like Keziah. You can stop now. He gets it. You don't have to count the ways. Either work around her or learn to stare at the ceiling and keep your mind on the money.
Mike - He ain't heavy, he's your brother. You're going to have to be the bigger man in this one, because it is in your power to forgive him. I'm not saying Agent M was wrong, just that you are the trigger man in this one. It's time to hit CMD-Z.
Or just kick the shit out of each other. Sometimes that works the best.
Your pal,
Fool
Brucie!
That's a very good point; I did have a tendency to be a bit of a Screaming Mimi-- as Glenn Close said in Fatal Attraction, "I will not be ignored." It's the fear of being ignored, I think, that made me overcompensate.
Foo': I'd like to believe you're correct. I think you're way off the mark on the possibility of reconciliation, but I'm an optimist, so what the hell.
...and I like having my ass in the mud. It's squishy.
M
Posted by: Agent M on August 23, 2002 12:31 AMQuote-"...and I like having my ass in the mud. It's squishy."
Eeeeuuuwwwwww!
Posted by: Garething on August 24, 2002 12:49 PMTake your time to take a look at some information in the field of poker system, casino no download, online casino fun, gambling online, blackjack statistics, roulette casino on net, gamble best, internet casino software, slot machine play, online casino bonus casino on net, online gamble bet, casino gambling 8888, casino game bet, las vegas money, video poker 3d, roulette online stake, slot net, blackjack online system, blackjack betting wagering, poker sites, gambling tips, blackjack table, poker best, casino virtual, casino no download, gambling virtual. .
Posted by: slot on January 29, 2004 10:11 AMer... whats up with THAT?
Posted by: Gerry Straathof on February 24, 2004 06:57 PM