?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

You folks ought to be ashamed of how you acted. You ought to be wallowing in the shame for your utter lack of support for someone that was physically and vocally being attacked in your midst. Instead, you folks just got real quiet and watched the drama unfold and let it expand until I was forced to push my way out of the house entirely. I found it even harder to deal with that nobody at all even walked outside to see if I was ok. Instead, you all encircled the attacker and instigator and gave her your support. Nobody except my cousin came out after I came back for my jacket and shoes.

I found it apalling that my girlfriend felt she could do me more good by staying inside and defending me against the very fucking people that ought to have been supporting me in my right to say "I don't want to disucuss that at this party." Sure, one or two of you said that you thought she was projecting her own problems onto me, and they didn't think I had done anything wrong. Ok, great. NOW GO TELL HER THAT. Maybe if enough people tell her that what she did was not only illegal assault, but that it was --wrong--, then maybe she will realize that she did something that she shouldn't have, and might consider not inflicting the same treatment on the next poor hapless soul who happens to decide to stay openminded and respectful of the people that they call 'friends'.

So for my part of things, I stand like so: At least I had the human decency to -TALK- to William and hear his side of the story before condemning him to social death. I immediately regretted doing so, because it turned out that I was the one breaking the news of all of it to him. I completely ruined his night.

Now I ask you a question. You, those of you who have labelled William as a 'rapist', 'asshole', etc. You call yourselves adults? You condemn a man for something that the police don't even believe he did. If they did, there would have been charges. Stop and think about this for a minute. It's not as if he's a hard man to track down. Heck, I'll give you his phone number if you actually want to stop being a close-minded child and talk to him. I'm not saying that she is lying. I'm not saying that he didn't do it. I'm saying that I'm not going to take a side between two people I know, both of whom I considered friends before this. I'm pointing out the fact that none of you even gave him the benefit of a doubt. You just jumped on what she said, and ran with it. Every. single. last. one. of. you.

You should be ashamed.

Comments

tcharazazel
Mar. 15th, 2005 11:32 am (UTC)
Yes it is jill's prob not threadwalker.

friends usually want you to support them & tell them everything's ok & that theyre right, etc etc.

Definition: Those aren't friends, those are sheep and emotional drains. A friend is someone who won't just kiss your ass to make you feel better about yourself, that's just pathetic. A friend is someone who will tell you what they really think about you, and your choices, not just what you want to hear. People who only tell you what you want to hear, just want something from you and you can't count on them when the shit hits the fan or you fall. But then, my concept of loyalty is more like taking a bat to some jackasses head for attacking a friend. Rather black or white. The "grey" only exists for those friends who kiss your ass.

Disclaimer: Of course, I maintain a multilevel definition of the word friend and I only maintain such loyalty to those who are in the lower levels (lower because of the deeper connection). So, this doesn't apply to all my friends, only those of a certain rank, which I would normally help clarify by using a descriptor, ie new, old or close.
datamoon
Mar. 15th, 2005 11:46 am (UTC)
i can understand that. i mostly agree w/you. i think a friend *is* someone who doesnt always tell you just what you want to hear, but will tell you the truth, even if it sometimes hurts. but a friend is going to tell you this in a loving & caring way to help you...not in a way to hurt you. & a friend will know the difference. a friend also has to recognize that when they tell you something that you dont want to hear, they dont always know whats best for you, & they need to let you do your own thing also.

but when i say that a friend usually wants you to support them & tell them that theyre right & everything's ok, that is true. your friends do want your support. youre their friend, you usually do support your friends, & agree w/them, otherwise the friendship probably isnt that deep. that doesnt mean that you always will agree w/them & tell them theyre right, but even if you have to say theyre wrong, they still need comforting in any tramatic event. it causes conflict when you arent able to for some reason.

i dont mean this just in x & j's cases, i mean this w/other friendship scenarios as well.
tcharazazel
Mar. 15th, 2005 12:34 pm (UTC)
i dont mean this just in x & j's cases, i mean this w/other friendship scenarios as well.

Agreement: I figured that was a given.


Clarification: I didn't bother to mention the method of delivering the truth to the friend, ie diplomatically, with love, or brutal honesty, ect. I probably should have, included that aspect. However, that can get into a long list of possible methods, each applicable in different situations, ranks of friends and personalities of friends. For me the results would justify the method.

Understanding: Yes, I agree that sometimes friends just need your physical, mental/emotional or spiritual support. However, such signs of weakness generally churn my stomach and I am used to weeding out the weak with regard to friends. There are of course times when I believe it is acceptable, however, I still view it as weakness. Weakness not because you are willing to express/share your feelings, rather weakness in that you allow them to control you and completely cloud your judgment. For kids I consider it acceptable, however, after a certain age such behavior is not. Of course, I believe in supporting my friends, and have infinite patience when they need to rant, I just don't support placating them.

Basically to me, it revolves around the idea that some people like to surround themselves with themselves. But then you never learn anything about yourself if you surround yourself with yourself.
datamoon
Mar. 16th, 2005 07:06 am (UTC)
i'm not sure i follow you. do you mean that you find someone needing emotional support as weak? or do you mean that someone allows their emotions to control them to the point where they seek emotional support?

to feel emotion & to sometimes become irrational bc of it is to be human. to be human, we are all subject to human weakness. this is why we are human & not vulcan. those of us who are unaccepting of human weakness will always have disdain for the human race, which is to have disdain for ourselves, as we are also human. we cant be all rational all the time.

i like to surround myself w/myself. but that's mostly bc i dont like the group, & what comes w/it. i cmptly ignore group think & only stay w/the closest of friends in small groups. that way nobody is ever afraid to be brutally honest w/me. ...?
tcharazazel
Mar. 16th, 2005 09:41 am (UTC)
do you mean that you find someone needing emotional support as weak? or do you mean that someone allows their emotions to control them to the point where they seek emotional support?

Clarification: Basically, I believe it is weak to allow their emotions to control them to the point where they need to seek emotional support. As humans feel it makes sense they would be emotional at times. Further clarifying my point is that to allow the emotion to cloud your judgment so that you can no longer function, resulting in your need to seek support, is weakness.


Question: Is your close group of friends a group of individuals all with their separate interests, philosophical ideas, life paths, ect or are you a group of like minded people who are basically the same, just with superficial differences?

Possible Response: If you are group of individuals, then your statement saying you surround yourself with yourself was inaccurate. Because, you surround yourself with people who will no fall subject to the group think as they make their own decisions instead of following the group think mentality.

Conclusion: As your friends are not afraid to be brutally honest with you, in my opinion they are good friends. However, if you all agree on everything, then you are not growing and they are in fact bad friends by helping you fall to the group think. This latter possibility doesn't seem likely given your stance on the issue. Further clarification from you would likely show this to be true.

Appreciative Statement: It's good to meet someone new who likes to discuss such matters, as I rarely have had friends since high school with inclination or time to do so.
tcharazazel
Mar. 16th, 2005 09:52 am (UTC)
Possible Response: If you are group of individuals, then your statement saying you surround yourself with yourself was inaccurate. Because, you surround yourself with people who will no fall subject to the group think as they make their own decisions instead of following the group think mentality.

Late Clarification: Thus, it would preclude the fact that as you do not all agree on things as y'all don't follow group think, that y'all are not like yourself, unless you constantly disagree with yourself and have multiple personalities.
datamoon
Mar. 16th, 2005 08:42 pm (UTC)
i disagree w/you. i dont believe seeking emotional support is weak. i believe not being able to express your emotions is weak...w/the addition that of course there's a balance. those who never show emotion & those who show too much emotion [who can't get a grip & are always whiney bitches] have some issues to deal w/. of course, some ppl are subdued in how they express emotion, but none at all signals a problem.

to add to this, fair weather friends, those that are only around for you when youre in a good mood, or are only around when theyre in a good mood, are not friends at all. those who can show you all sides of them, including the emotional, i'm upset & i need some help, are those who actually trust you [again, aside from the melodramatic type thats always this way in front of even aquaintances].

you might even think about some of your closest friends & see if any of them have ever come to you for your opinion or to discuss a problem they have. maybe they werent crying & freaking out, but they wouldve been concerned enough about something & valued your input for the situation. ...if none of your friends come to you for advice...then that's something else.

as far as my friends, we are both. we have our own interests & dont always agree on everything. but we're friends, so of course we have a lot of similar interests & things we do agree about. usually, ppl dont just hang out w/someone that they have nothing in common w/, there's usually some kinda initial thing in common that brings them together. but we thrive on our similarities that allow us to respect ea other for our diffs. so we can violently argue about the president &...well, mostly that these days...but not be upset at ea other.

my main requirement for a friend is that they be of the utmost quality of a person. i will not hang around those that are not genuine, are concerned w/an image, or who do things that i find fundamentally wrong & would never do myself [like drive drunk] bc i figure of all the things to be hypocritical about, the things you find ethically wrong for yourself are things you should never accept for someone that you hold to just as high a caliber of as yourself.

so as far as you saying i dont surround myself w/myself, i understand what you mean, but i present it in a diff way. one, i dont spend much time w/anyone but myself & my bf, so yes technically i do only surround myself w/myself. but my friends are all similar to me in their core of being upstanding respectable ppl, & I will only bother to surround myself w/ppl that i find as good as me in that respect.
tcharazazel
Mar. 17th, 2005 05:46 am (UTC)
Agreement: I also believe a person who cannot express their emotions is weak, as they lack self knowledge.

Clarification: What I was saying is that, those people who let their emotions cloud their ability to function, ie they're no longer able to think or act coherently, are weak. These people lack self knowledge and self control.

Agreement: Those friends who bring you into their world are good friends.

Amusement: Heheh, yes friends have come to me with problems on many occasions. However, as most of my friends disagree with my methods for resolution they usually only ask me about financial issues now, except a couple who are melodramatic types. The thing is that, when I was in high school we weeded out the weak and we continually tested each other, and taught each other how to be independent and deal with our issues by ourselves.

Understanding: Of course there must be some similar interests and basis for friendship. However, I meant surrounding yourself with cookie cut people that are basically a group of followers, ie sheep, with no real will of their own. Seeing how you describe your friends it seems like you are not surrounding yourself with yourself, which is what I expected. But you also say that at your core you all are similar, which is typical. You are taking what I was saying and applying it to a deeper level than I had stated, namely superficial. Thus, it doesn't apply. However, having friends, who at their core differ from you, teaches you even more.

Agreement: Of course, I also have sets of standards for the different ranks of friends, however, I don't believe in judging them for their choices. I do believe their choices have consequences and sometimes I help them see what those will be if they don't, but generally I prefer to not interfere with their choices. So, if someone does something that I wouldn't do, I do not automatically no longer consider them a friend. Accepting them for who they are is a part of friendship. In my eyes, once you have achieved a certain rank of friendship, you will never slip back to a lower rank no matter what you do. The only time you can loose you rank is if you betray me, but then I no longer consider you a friend and in my eyes you no longer exist.

Amusement: I thought that may have meant you were alone more often now, but I wasn't certain.

Curious: So are you and your bf one and the same? :D
datamoon
Mar. 17th, 2005 07:13 am (UTC)
i believe it was plato who once hypothesized that there once were super humans w/two heads, four arms & legs, & god thought that they were too powerful, so he split them up. since, everyone has been searching for their "soul mate." although we are two very diff ppl, in this respect, my bf & i are one & the same.

i think, in these respects, we will simply have to agree to disagree. i believe my friendships are static mostly bc i'd never spend time w/someone who doesnt hold the same ethical core values i do, bc i'd never have a friend who'd do something like risk others' lives in a drunk driving accident. if someone drives drunk, they may harm someone. that someone could potentially be me or someone i care about. if a friend of mine drove drunk & injured someone i care about as a result, their negligence & irresponsibility would force me to no longer be their friend. however, if a friend of mine drives drunk, it is more likely that if they injure someone, it'd be someone i dont even know. but to empathize, that person i dont know is still a loved one to someone else. as such, i cannot allow anyone who could be that irresponsible in my life. similar aspects go for those who break the law in negligent uncaring manners, or who would perform other unethical acts.

i'll also have to diagree w/you on what you consider weak & how ppl deal w/their problems. in a relationship, ppl should act as partners, & thus share good & bad situations w/ea other, as their lives are entangled w/ea other. my friendships are also relationships, in a diff respect, but i treat them thusly. i've seen weak & i've seen strong, i know the diff, & i'll never agree w/you on this respect. but we are allowed our diffs.

i also dont believe that someone has to be drastically diff from you to teach you more & help you grow. this is all subjective.
tcharazazel
Mar. 17th, 2005 08:50 am (UTC)
*Grin*: I am glad you found your soul mate.

Clarification: I believe that conflict and resolution are one of the best means for growth. Hence, befriending those who differ from you, knowing that you will differ on several levels, will help you both lead to growth as you expose each other to various aspects of life that you would have never sought out before. Thus you test each other, revealing your strengths and weaknesses, learning from them and enhancing your strengths, while removing or overcoming your weaknesses. If you never test yourself and your friends never test yourself, then you will never really be certain of who you are, because you will never really be certain of what you are capable of understanding and achieving.

Desired Understanding: I understand you core ethical values, however, what I was curious about is: are drunk drivers and hypocrites the only people you would exclude? What about those who endanger only themselves, like people who sky dive or swim with sharks? Or what about those with different codes of ethics, like some that are stricter than yours? Basically, what are the limits to your acceptance and how would you determine it if you do not test it?

Agreement: We have different values, as such it makes sense we have different definitions of what makes a friend and what does not, what is strong and what is weak.

Assessment: It appears like you and your friends are share the group spirit, which is much better than the group think, as it is based on a deeper level instead of the physical or mental which are more temporary. Thus, on certain levels you will disagree but on some core principles you will always agree. Like our brief comments on the English language, you have multiple dialects (friends) but all share the same basic principles thus allowing for all to communicate and agree on some level.
datamoon
Mar. 17th, 2005 09:32 am (UTC)
drunk drivers are the easiest example. everyone knows its wrong & knows why, but some ppl still do it anyway. the lines are sometimes fuzzy bet what is & isnt accaptible levels of intoxication to drive at, which makes this all the more important. hypocricy isnt always bad, like parents' 'do as i say not as i do' to children. i just mean that i cant allow others around me to do unethical things that i wouldnt do, i'm not hypocritical in the sense that i hold everyone to the same values.

as far as those who engage in risk/thrill seeking behavs like sky diving: it's not as big of a deal. you cant say that someone can only harm themselves, bc if anyone cares for them, then when that person is hurt, it hurts also those who care about them. if someone dies skydiving, their family is upset. but it's not the same as engaging in unethical behaviours that dont have a purpose [one cannot argue that unethical drunk driving for thrill seeking purposes is the same as skydiving bc of the ethics/values involved in the possibility of senselessly hurting someone else who didn't ask to be in that situation, but was rather forced into it].

as far as diff codes of ethics--no prob, we all sometimes have diff standards. but my cores are pretty simple & involve not harming others for no reason or by irresponsibility.

Latest Month

November 2008
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30