Since you asked so nicely, I'll go a little more in-depth. I wrote that at like 2 AM and my thoughts weren't so freely flowing.
In regards to the person recieving an injuring remark, I would say that their defensive mechanism of avoiding the subject altogether can be attributed to many means. It may be to avoid conflict with the person who said the remark, or it maybe an act of cowardice and inability to find inner resolution through construcive or even destructive criticism. I'm sure there are countless other reasons that the recipient can generate to avoiding the topic alogether.
Taking the avoiding conflict route first, since that's the easiest to reason, there are several even "sub-reasons" within the overall headline. Avoiding conflict can in itself be an escape mechanism because people don't wish to dwell on topics that cause them physical or mental duress. For some, not talking about subjects that cause them this duress can give them closure on the event. Simply forgetting about something may, in some non-realistic way, give them a chance to move past this said event. Now, if the friend in question says something that calls into question the recipient's character and the person wishes to avoid conflict on the basis of not potentially hurting the message sender's feeilngs accidentally during the course of discussing that, then I can see where avoiding the subject can be potentially appealing.
Now, on the subject of not being able to find inner resolution through discussion. Some people are afraid of criticism, in any form. You know as well as I do that especially in the adolescent to young adult group, that mental or emotional stress is often internalized by people in an effort to again, avoid conflict or find resolution. So when someone brings it up and someone elects not to talk about it to avoid criticism on their character that may make them seem like a flawed person. Most people are very reserved about their flaws and often hide them to avoid seeming less than desriable.
I'm sure I'll have more as this discussion moves on.
I appreciate your effort to provide balance there, but I feel I must ask you to walk a little farther in that line of thought, and include more than one perspective along the way, since there is more to that 'side' than the person potentially inflicting a wounding statement—and I must ask this because the entirety of my stance on the matter comes from an in-depth projection into both parties involved, and on both sides.
As example, let me take the point of view of the one giving the criticism, since I feel it is the more difficult role to actually perform.
I would argue that a friend, if they are a good friend, does not desire to harm his friends. I feel that a person who constantly looks for the weaknesses in others and the failures in their actions is incapable of providing support and honest fun, and is not a wholesome person to be around. This good friend will, like yourself, know that he has his own sensitive areas which could just as easily be brought up, and knows that it is not his duty to correct and reprimand everything he disagrees with because no one is a perfect being. So when faced with a potentially touchy subject, this friend will instinctually avoid it if there is another option—namely, waiting.
However, if this friend is then making such a poignant observation openly to his friend, I feel it safe to assume first that he knows his statement is broaching a sensitive area and may be ill-received, and second that, having weighed this knowledge, he feels it is still necessary to make the observation via whatever the surrounding circumstances, which are usually highly specific.
Therefore, this friend has taken on the responsibility for making an injuring remark, as James said, and he has done so with the intent of friendship; i.e., the person he is addressing is his friend, and so as a friend he may be better able to talk to the person while maintaining a needed atmosphere of nonaggression. In this situation the remark is justified by the intent.
On the other hand, you may have a person who fits most of the above descriptions, except where the first speaker is patient and longsuffering because of friendship, the second is unwillingly silent in an effort to 'remain the better man'. He does not desire to start a conflict either, but it is because he does not wish to risk dirtying his own name and appearing as the bad guy—which, I might add, the first speaker was willing to do, but for the sake of his friend.
So instead of feeling an open examination of the issue is necessary, as in the first case, this 'friend' speaks because he feels he has been provoked past the point of tolerance, and his end purpose is not to aid understanding, but to attack what he feels is no longer sufferable. But this to me is not a valid reason because the intent is to cause injury itself, whereas before the intent was to build the person up despite an injury being necessary. And this intent is not enough to justify the action, which traces to the point I made about the mere hurling of insults.
So there you have both sides of the issue (of an invasive remark) with respect to the speaker. Now what remains is to examine both sides of the same issue with respect to the recipient. And there again James' statement about responsibility over what one says will return again, and I feel you will find it a much more involved line of thinking than just "I might feel hurt in this situation so I would rather someone not open it with me".
But in terms of topics that are taboo or where people simply don't like confrontation, I've always thought that people should be responsible for what they say.
I agree. (And I think in a recent instance I've been an example of irresponsibility in just that manner, though openly I dodged the issue.)
The sulky reaction is, again, basically selfish. Whether they have no desire to be involved in the discussion or are ill-equipped to foray into it, their personality is reacting to the conflict present and wanting it to go away. I do not know why this is so; I can only assume that it is a fear on some level of a person becoming offended, or that it is them sensing the potential for bad reactions from those involved.
But even asking for everyone to just get along is involving oneself in the conflict. And when there is a topic being discussed which I find undesirable, I will not involve myself in it at all (beyond the level of spectator if I must) until it is over.
Ok, I'll play the other side here. Let's say I'm not comfortable talking about a situation because it would only breed anger from my part if this sensitive, touchy topic is brought up. Everyone has places they are not willing to go in conversation or things they don't want to talk about. I think that probing someone's emotions and forcing a response out of them when they are clearly not willing to talk about it can either hurt or help, depnending on the probing in question. I always ask politely and they say "No" then I'm good with that. I won't rack my brain over it.
I definitely agree that petty dirt throwing has no place anywhere - I think it's important for everybody to remember that.
But in terms of topics that are taboo or where people simply don't like confrontation, I've always thought that people should be responsible for what they say. I hate it when someone says something and then feels that nobody else can respond or question what they are saying. That isn't fair in any situation (much less an actual debate).
I am also bothered by people who aren't involved in a debate but simply jump in to whine about it ("Gosh, can't you guys all just get along?!") It's not only rude, but it's incredibly annoying.
Many people can't seem not to make a debate personal or to have some sort of personal sulky reaction to it.
Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
You can tie this concept back to an earlier post I made about disliking arguing for the sake of arguing because it is essentially civilised warmongering. Since I don't deal well with that, I certainly won't deal well with petty dirt-throwing. That has no place anywhere.
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/24/09 | Reply
Thank you for distinguishing that difference at the end there, 'cause then yeah I agree. Pretty much anytime I've tried to tell people to drop it is when they're being stupid and immature.
I read your post. So I may sound off or confuse but here it is. I understand what you mean. I agree. If ppl having problem they need to tell us on the issuse. On theO you guys are here to help on the problem whatever it is and understand them. They need to stop on the "Can we change the subject" and let them help on the issues.
I can understand and agree with that pet peeve. It's one thing if the discussion has turned into a fight but another when it's something that you want to understand. I really hate it when people try to shove things under the carpet because they're afraid of discomfort.
Korey
Gambino (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/25/09 | Reply
@Allamorph:
Since you asked so nicely, I'll go a little more in-depth. I wrote that at like 2 AM and my thoughts weren't so freely flowing.
In regards to the person recieving an injuring remark, I would say that their defensive mechanism of avoiding the subject altogether can be attributed to many means. It may be to avoid conflict with the person who said the remark, or it maybe an act of cowardice and inability to find inner resolution through construcive or even destructive criticism. I'm sure there are countless other reasons that the recipient can generate to avoiding the topic alogether.
Taking the avoiding conflict route first, since that's the easiest to reason, there are several even "sub-reasons" within the overall headline. Avoiding conflict can in itself be an escape mechanism because people don't wish to dwell on topics that cause them physical or mental duress. For some, not talking about subjects that cause them this duress can give them closure on the event. Simply forgetting about something may, in some non-realistic way, give them a chance to move past this said event. Now, if the friend in question says something that calls into question the recipient's character and the person wishes to avoid conflict on the basis of not potentially hurting the message sender's feeilngs accidentally during the course of discussing that, then I can see where avoiding the subject can be potentially appealing.
Now, on the subject of not being able to find inner resolution through discussion. Some people are afraid of criticism, in any form. You know as well as I do that especially in the adolescent to young adult group, that mental or emotional stress is often internalized by people in an effort to again, avoid conflict or find resolution. So when someone brings it up and someone elects not to talk about it to avoid criticism on their character that may make them seem like a flawed person. Most people are very reserved about their flaws and often hide them to avoid seeming less than desriable.
I'm sure I'll have more as this discussion moves on.
Allamorph
Spiritus Memorae (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/25/09 | Reply
@Korey:
I appreciate your effort to provide balance there, but I feel I must ask you to walk a little farther in that line of thought, and include more than one perspective along the way, since there is more to that 'side' than the person potentially inflicting a wounding statement—and I must ask this because the entirety of my stance on the matter comes from an in-depth projection into both parties involved, and on both sides.
As example, let me take the point of view of the one giving the criticism, since I feel it is the more difficult role to actually perform.
I would argue that a friend, if they are a good friend, does not desire to harm his friends. I feel that a person who constantly looks for the weaknesses in others and the failures in their actions is incapable of providing support and honest fun, and is not a wholesome person to be around. This good friend will, like yourself, know that he has his own sensitive areas which could just as easily be brought up, and knows that it is not his duty to correct and reprimand everything he disagrees with because no one is a perfect being. So when faced with a potentially touchy subject, this friend will instinctually avoid it if there is another option—namely, waiting.
However, if this friend is then making such a poignant observation openly to his friend, I feel it safe to assume first that he knows his statement is broaching a sensitive area and may be ill-received, and second that, having weighed this knowledge, he feels it is still necessary to make the observation via whatever the surrounding circumstances, which are usually highly specific.
Therefore, this friend has taken on the responsibility for making an injuring remark, as James said, and he has done so with the intent of friendship; i.e., the person he is addressing is his friend, and so as a friend he may be better able to talk to the person while maintaining a needed atmosphere of nonaggression. In this situation the remark is justified by the intent.
On the other hand, you may have a person who fits most of the above descriptions, except where the first speaker is patient and longsuffering because of friendship, the second is unwillingly silent in an effort to 'remain the better man'. He does not desire to start a conflict either, but it is because he does not wish to risk dirtying his own name and appearing as the bad guy—which, I might add, the first speaker was willing to do, but for the sake of his friend.
So instead of feeling an open examination of the issue is necessary, as in the first case, this 'friend' speaks because he feels he has been provoked past the point of tolerance, and his end purpose is not to aid understanding, but to attack what he feels is no longer sufferable. But this to me is not a valid reason because the intent is to cause injury itself, whereas before the intent was to build the person up despite an injury being necessary. And this intent is not enough to justify the action, which traces to the point I made about the mere hurling of insults.
So there you have both sides of the issue (of an invasive remark) with respect to the speaker. Now what remains is to examine both sides of the same issue with respect to the recipient. And there again James' statement about responsibility over what one says will return again, and I feel you will find it a much more involved line of thinking than just "I might feel hurt in this situation so I would rather someone not open it with me".
Allamorph
Spiritus Memorae (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/25/09 | Reply
@James:
But in terms of topics that are taboo or where people simply don't like confrontation, I've always thought that people should be responsible for what they say.
I agree. (And I think in a recent instance I've been an example of irresponsibility in just that manner, though openly I dodged the issue.)
The sulky reaction is, again, basically selfish. Whether they have no desire to be involved in the discussion or are ill-equipped to foray into it, their personality is reacting to the conflict present and wanting it to go away. I do not know why this is so; I can only assume that it is a fear on some level of a person becoming offended, or that it is them sensing the potential for bad reactions from those involved.
But even asking for everyone to just get along is involving oneself in the conflict. And when there is a topic being discussed which I find undesirable, I will not involve myself in it at all (beyond the level of spectator if I must) until it is over.
Korey
Gambino (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/25/09 | Reply
Ok, I'll play the other side here. Let's say I'm not comfortable talking about a situation because it would only breed anger from my part if this sensitive, touchy topic is brought up. Everyone has places they are not willing to go in conversation or things they don't want to talk about. I think that probing someone's emotions and forcing a response out of them when they are clearly not willing to talk about it can either hurt or help, depnending on the probing in question. I always ask politely and they say "No" then I'm good with that. I won't rack my brain over it.
James
Team | Posted 10/25/09 | Reply
I definitely agree that petty dirt throwing has no place anywhere - I think it's important for everybody to remember that.
But in terms of topics that are taboo or where people simply don't like confrontation, I've always thought that people should be responsible for what they say. I hate it when someone says something and then feels that nobody else can respond or question what they are saying. That isn't fair in any situation (much less an actual debate).
I am also bothered by people who aren't involved in a debate but simply jump in to whine about it ("Gosh, can't you guys all just get along?!") It's not only rude, but it's incredibly annoying.
Many people can't seem not to make a debate personal or to have some sort of personal sulky reaction to it.
Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
Allamorph
Spiritus Memorae (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/25/09 | Reply
@Miss Anonymous:
You can tie this concept back to an earlier post I made about disliking arguing for the sake of arguing because it is essentially civilised warmongering. Since I don't deal well with that, I certainly won't deal well with petty dirt-throwing. That has no place anywhere.
Miss Anonymous
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 10/24/09 | Reply
Thank you for distinguishing that difference at the end there, 'cause then yeah I agree. Pretty much anytime I've tried to tell people to drop it is when they're being stupid and immature.
Kimmeh
The Beautiful German | Posted 10/24/09 | Reply
...Was this today in chat? o_O;
"This is Schweinsteiger fashion. ZIS IZ FASHUNN."
Miracle Star19
Otaku Eternal | Posted 10/24/09 | Reply
I read your post. So I may sound off or confuse but here it is. I understand what you mean. I agree. If ppl having problem they need to tell us on the issuse. On theO you guys are here to help on the problem whatever it is and understand them. They need to stop on the "Can we change the subject" and let them help on the issues.
SunfallE
Nyaa~ (ZE MEANIE) | Posted 10/24/09 | Reply
I can understand and agree with that pet peeve. It's one thing if the discussion has turned into a fight but another when it's something that you want to understand. I really hate it when people try to shove things under the carpet because they're afraid of discomfort.
In the name of the tune I will punish you!