maintaining a friendship... or not

[chedster]

I have a friend who's very hippy-liberal. We work together (and well) on a charitable organization that he runs. We've had many private conversations about our beliefs, which differ greatly, as we've agreed to disagree.

 

Until yesterday. He posted a definition of what "liberal" is on Facebook, which basically inferred that liberals had a monopoly on goodness. This led to a discussion between us about universal healthcare, in which he said that anyone who opposes it wants to allow uninsured babies to die. He also made repeated efforts to link me to Neanderthal Republicans who compare abortion rights to justification of rape, etc.

 

When I called him out on those comments on the thread, pointing out that he knows from our private conversations that I do not feel that way, he acknowledged that those aren't my beliefs, but of people who think like me (also untrue).

 

I was particularly bothered by the tone of this discussion in pseudo-public (Facebook), where between us there are about 1000 people who could have read it. He never cast such judgments on people with my beliefs in any of our private conversations, whether in person or on the phone.

 

At some point in this conversation I just hit a wall and decided that I don't want to maintain a friendship with someone who either thinks I'm that way or feels a need to paint me that way in front of others. I'm a big believer in freedom of association, and I have no desire to associate with people like this.

 

So my question... Am I taking this too personally by not wanting to be his friend (in both the real world and cyberspace) any more? Part of me says I should have avoided engaging him on this in the first place, but a bigger part of me feels that I've now learned what he's really like.

[TheRobin]

I wonder how it would be possible, that one coulnd't take it personally when one is being publicly insulted (by a person who calls himself a friend no less).Did he apologize for it afterwards at some point? Does he think this was perfectly fine and good behaviour on his part?

[chedster]

Thanks for understanding the "public" part of my issue here. I can have heated private discussions with friends that can slip into testy waters, and then when emotions simmer down we can apologize/explain and move on. When it's done in front of an audience, whether in 3D or online, it leaves a lasting impression on others.

 

I got apologies (a voice message and an email), but they didn't help rationalize any of this. He said that he wasn't trying to insult me, but he really gets upset when people criticize Obamacare before it's even had a chance to "work." He either can't or won't understand that whether or not the program "works," I still find the coercion behind it to be immoral.

 

I'm feeling down this morning, and I can't sort out if it's because I regret ending a friendship or because I'm so disappointed in someone whom I considered a friend. 

[jpahmad]

No, do not cut him off.  What is that going to do?  How is that going to be productive?  You are now in a position to change someone's point of view.  Why would you disengage from the opportunity?

[chedster]

I don't want to cut him off, but I don't have any desire to maintain a "friendship" with someone who publicly misrepresents me.

 

I'm not going to change his view. I had thought, based on our prior private conversations, that he understood my philosophy and we could agree to disagree. Clearly that's not the case.

 

I'm disengaging from the opportunity to use that time on more productive opportunities.

[jpahmad]

Well, if you don't think it's worth the opportunity cost to spend time working on changing this person's mind, then do something else instead.  However, you can't say that this individual has nothing to offer you in terms of friendship if you were friends already. 

 

I think that there is nothing more important one can do then to lead people away from irrationality and superstition.  If your aim is to help humanity, then what could be more worthwhile?

 

You've already got one foot in the door with this friend of yours

[chedster]

Those are very valid points. I only converted to this philosophy in my early-mid-40s (I'm now 50), so I am aware that people can always change their viewpoints.

 

The problem I have is with his public aggression toward me. I'm a husband and the father of a young daughter (he knows them both). When he tells an online audience that people with my ideology believe that abortion rationalizes rape, I think I have every right to feel offended to the point that I can no longer justify engaging him.

[TheRobin]

I'm really sorry to hear this ofc. But I'd assume going with your gutfeeling might be the most accurate. No random guy on the internet has any detailed knowledge of you, your friends and your shared history anyway, but our subconscious usually has all the info ready in the blink of an eye.

[jpahmad]

I think you give his power to influence people with those absurd simplistic statements like "believe that abortion rationalizes rape" to much credit.  These are just stupid political platitudes that everyone has already heard.  No epiphanies here.  I wouldn't worry about him influencing anybody. 

 

He has recognized what he did was inconsiderate to you.  He apologized with both voice message and e-mail.  So, it sounds to me that the relationship could continue to bear fruit.  You have to be patient and work at this.  It is incumbent upon us "free thinkers" to tolerate, empathize with, and then lead these  confused individuals to the light. 

 

They are like children.  You're not going to turn your back on a child.  Instead, you would take all measure to demonstrate the correct way of behaving/thinking.  These people don't have the experience to know any better. 

[chedster]

Yeah, there are all different parts of me feeling different things.

 

My gut tells me this is not a relationship worth maintaining. My heart is a tad broken because I really enjoyed interacting with him on other activities. And quite honestly, there's a bit of a pre-enlightened high-schooler in me that feels like belting him in the eye for badmouthing me in front of the entire cafeteria.

I can totally see how they are like children. But I have a boatload of such children in my life right now, and I need to use some kind of filtration method to sort through them.

[jpahmad]

I understand.  You have to pick your battles.  Can I ask what approach you took when engaging with him on the topic of liberalism and healthcare?

[chedster]

Sure. I said that having someone else pay for a product or service that you receive is a recipe for bloated pricing. I think buying your own insurance, which you can carry your entire life, would bring prices down and give people options to better reflect their own specific needs (e.g., I don't need pregnancy coverage, my wife doesn't need testicular cancer coverage, etc.). And the more people can keep their own money, the more they'd be willing to give to charity, in this case covering the uninsured poor.

 

In our private conversations, he said he understood and respected my position, but that he didn't think charity would be sufficient. It was only in our public, online conversation that he linked my position to Michelle Bachmann, Fox News, et al. And that's the part that really gets me - you can't see me both ways. I engaged him very civilly online and was actually looking to expand our previous discourse for others to observe and perhaps learn from, as opposed to the typical Dem/GOP hatefests we usually see. Instead, he forgot - or chose to forget - our previous discussions and went all Martin Bashir on me.

[jpahmad]

I wouldn't have engaged him online - in front of an audience.  That changes everything.  It adds an unnecessary component to the discourse.

 

Let me ask you this.  Did you empathize with him?  Did you acknowledge his concerns about society? 

[dsayers]

This led to a discussion between us about universal healthcare, in which he said that anyone who opposes it wants to allow uninsured babies to die.

 

Appeal to emotion. The truth is that people who oppose aggression want for everybody (including "uninsured babies") to not be aggressed against. What he's saying here is that if two people choose to have a child, then they've just entitled themselves to a little bit of everybody else's property. As in literally inflicted an involuntary positive obligation on EVERYBODY ELSE. Clearly this is irrational.

 

I do not agree that you HAVE TO try and convince this guy otherwise. If you can, that's great. To do this, you'll have to understand how he came to that conclusion. It wasn't by rationality as evidenced above. Have you checked out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series? We cannot influence the minds of others if we do not first understand how they work.

 

If the person is uninterested in the truth, then no amount of effort will change this. To answer jpahmad's question of what going your separate way would accomplish, it would disassociate you from somebody who supports violence (including against you) and would bring to them (hopefully) very real and meaningful consequences for holding that position. That IS a way to help humanity escape the shackles of perpetual violence.

 

See, the reason so many people support violence by proxy is because there's no consequences for doing so. Supporters do not have to satisfy the bill, so they welcome it with open arms. Losing people they care about in their lives suddenly places the consequences of advocating violence at their own doorstep. This will help them to see the gun in the room and if they choose it over you, it will make them aware of the expense they've suffered in doing so. This is very powerful and should not be underestimated.

[chedster]

Well, he threw out a general comment on FB, and asked for feedback. He welcomes the online engagement. I certainly didn't (and wouldn't) start such a conversation there myself; I just responded.

 

I did empathize with him, but he is rigid in his belief that people with money are greedy and don't care at all about the poor. And there's certainly a component of ego involved; with people like that, changing your mind is an admission that you're wrong, and that is just unfathomable. On a certain level, I can relate. It took me 7 years of listening to FDR before I finally gave up voting. But my transformation was a willing one, in that I was open to new beliefs. He is certain he is right no matter how much logic I throw his way.

dsayers - I'm having trouble quoting/copying text here, but your last paragraph is superb. After reading it, I finally do see a productive angle to my disconnecting from him.

[jpahmad]

dsayers, he doesn't knowingly support violence.  He doesn't have any clue what he is doing.  He is ignorant.  Why would you just write someone off like that.  In his mind, he thinks he is being compassionate and caring. 

 

 

As far as disconnecting from him, it will be only productive for for you, not for him.  That's not to say that you shouldn't do it though.  I'll bet my money on the fact that as soon as you cut him off, there will be no personal epiphany on his part, no self-reflection, and no analysis of his thought process.  You'll be just be lumped together with all the other people he defines as the enemy and he'll post about it on facebook.

[chedster]

When he brought up the "babies dying" without universal healthcare line of reasoning, I pointed out to him that he supports Obama's drone program, which has led to the same result. He had no problem compartmentalizing that as having to take the bad with the good when supporting the Democrats, because they're better than the Republicans.

 

I think he is compassionate and caring, but only about the groups he identifies with.

[dsayers]

@jpahmad: If somebody doesn't understand the subject material, then they have no business standing up before the whole world to make truth claims on the subject. If a friend talks to him about how his words are advocating violence and he rejects it, he no longer gets to operate under obliviousness.

 

Also, please do not put words into my mouth. I never advocated writing somebody off as a first step (except maybe in the case of direct childhood abusers). However, it is a sensible second step if the first step of trying to help them see the error of their ways is ill-received. The phrase "writing somebody off" is also deceptive as it places responsibility on the person reacting to the stimulus instead of the one providing it.

 

If somebody doesn't want people avoiding them, they can behave in ways that isn't off-putting to others. If I promoted rape, it would not be the fault of those who distanced themselves from me for holding such a position.

 

@cheddar: If somebody said to me that you have to take the good with the bad, I would ask them one of the most important questions you could ask anybody: How do you know? It's that old adage where if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. If group A is violent and group B is violent, but less violent perceptually, choosing group B and saying you have to take the good with the bad because they're less violent bypasses the question of having violence present at all.

[PatrickC]

Just going to give you some of my own anecdotal experience here. Which by the way, you definitely should take or leave.

 

I decided to take a hiatus from all my previous relationships several years ago as I went through therapy and the like. Interestingly of late some of those older friends have returned to me, with apologies for past behaviour and a demonstrable difference in their approach not only to me, but to others. I have decided to re-enagage with some of them because a part of me really enjoys some parts of them.

 

Not entirely sure where it will end up frankly. That said, you really should just ask yourself, 'how much am I enjoying these interactions currently?'. I think in there you will get an answer, albeit perhaps temporarily. See how they respond afterwards. But always ask yourself the same question each time you meet with them.

[chedster]

All good points.

 

In the last couple years that I've worked with him on his charitable project, a number of people who know him longer or better told me that he is all about self-promotion. From my experiences with him, that was not evident at all.

 

But this afternoon I got another email apology from him. He doesn't admit to any wrongdoing; he's just sorry that we had this difference of opinion. He stated that he uses FB discussions to educate people about their own inconsistencies. So apparently, the importance of his educational crusade justified smearing me by inferring that I vote for guys like the one who condoned rape (mind you, my friend is well aware that I last voted in 2012 and that before that, I voted Dem 95% of the time).

 

He and I are both married to women and have young daughters. I would never make such an inference (re rape) about him, especially in a public setting. So beyond everything else, I have to question how legit his friendship really is.

[dsayers]

Do you see the irony in his trying to help others with their inconsistencies before sorting out his own?

[jpahmad]

O.k., when you said he apologized I assumed that he recognized that what he did was inconsiderate.  From what you're telling us, this was obviously not the case. 

 

It's probably best to not associate with him any longer.

 

 

@dsayers:  I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

[chedster]

All good. It's not an easy things to sort out.  I appreciate everyone's feedback.

[chedster]

So after a few emails back and forth in which I tried (and failed) to get him to understand my viewpoint, we agreed to disagree and part ways. I'm sure I will run into him in the near future and I will be civil, but the friendship is gone.

 

I've lost a couple other friendships in similar fashion over the past few years. I can't really tell why. I had thought that I was having trouble articulating my beliefs to people, but I am an editor by trade and hardly ever have a problem getting my thoughts across on other topics.

 

The only thing I can surmise at this point is that people in their 40s and 50s are so set in their beliefs over the years that they simply can't or won't open their minds up to other possibilities. I can accept people telling me that they understand my philosophy but disagree with it. But I can't deal with the condescending lectures about the immoral consequences of voluntary (as opposed to coercive) behavior.

[jpahmad]

Cheddar, I feel your frustration.  It's good that you parted ways with this fellow.  I thought that there was a chance at reconciliation, but I guess not.

 

 

What have you learned from this interaction though?  I have gone through this, and as a result have decided that using reason is not the best tool in the toolbox when dealing with certain people. There is a sharper, more primal tool; emotion.  The fellow that you're dealing with seems to be wrestling with emotional problems, not reasoning problems.  I think you could have more success if you find out what moves him emotionally, and then appeal to that when making your case. 

 

It's too late now.  Just move on.  But you will encounter this problem again with someone else.

[chedster]

I have learned not to debate such topics online with people I know personally, that's for sure. In this particular case, my former friend is an entertainer by trade. It seems that for him, any interaction in front of 3rd parties is the equivalent of being on stage, so I think he felt threatened both intellectually and professionally on FB.

 

My wife has always recommended that I not talk politics with friends, and I see the point. But to me, this isn't two-party, us-vs.-them politics, it's philosophy. That's why I've tried to use reason.

 

That said, your point about emotion is well-taken. And I think ego adds another layer to it. This showed in his emails to me. He simply refused to discuss my main point of contention (his linking my voting preferences to a repulsive politician, when he knows that I don't vote), because he would have had to admit being wrong, or at the very least, forgetful. 

 

I know I'm dissing my own generation here, but frankly if I'm going to spend time trying to get someone to understand my ideology, I'd rather it be a younger adult. I've found them to be a lot less jaded and, therefore, more open to different viewpoints.

[dsayers]

My wife has always recommended that I not talk politics with friends

 

What does she mean by politics? To me, the term refers to the initiation of the use of force. I can scarcely think of a more important topic of discussion since it is a violation of objective morality.

[jpahmad]

Here is an idea I have been playing with.  One way to appeal to emotions, and/or get through the "ego shell"  is to put an idea out there that is logical, and then somehow make them feel like they came up with it!  I wish I could give you and example, but it would be hard to communicate the nuances of the technique through written words.  I'm not as savvy with my writing skills. I could try though.

 

I think, with people of your generation, you're going to have to cut through ego every time you have these sorts of discussions.

What does she mean by politics? To me, the term refers to the initiation of the use of force. I can scarcely think of a more important topic of discussion since it is a violation of objective morality.

I agree with dsayers, it is one of the most important things that need to be discussed.  But it has too be approached the smart way.

[chedster]

She's using "politics" in the generally accepted sense. I agree about the reference to initiation of force.

 

Let me use a real-life example. The charity that I worked on also has a few members who are local elected officials. Very nice in their interpersonal dealings with me. (And no, it's not for my vote, because I don't live in their district.) 

 

I don't believe that work (or in this case, charitable work) in the place for political/philosophical discussions. But a couple of times, a group of us went out for a drink. And inevitably, the topic of politics (again, in the generally accepted sense) came up. 

 

Had I interjected my opinion the fact about politics, most, or probably all, of them would have looked at me as if I had 3 heads.  Especially the elected officials, because such truth would be threatening to their ways of life. So I held off - not because I was afraid to discuss my views, and not because I don't fully believe them, but simply because it would make part of my life that I enjoy quite a bit (working on the charity) become uncomfortable at best.

 

I really don't care what others think of my views. I wear them proudly, and have no problem explaining them to anyone. But if I didn't restrain myself from doing so in most of my 3D life, I'd lose out on a lot of the more light-hearted activities that I participate in.

[jpahmad]

I see your point.  I would suggest, never go for the "knock-out punch" by grabbing the carpet and yanking it out from under them, philosophically speaking.  We have to be smart.  We all now what we're dealing with hear.  Approach the topic from odd angles, nibble at the edges, be very tactical.  There are ways.

[dsayers]

There is nothing wrong to chose not to give portions of yourself to others for the sake of self-preservation. To me, the important thing is just that you're aware of your decision and why.

 

I struggled with that sort of thing because one of the effects of the abuse I've suffered is I try to seek things out as either black or white. Like be honest with everybody or be honest with nobody. It was hard for me to accept the value of decisions like the one you've made. So kudos to you.

[chedster]

Well, I have to say that while I don't post here much, I really needed discussion with like-minded people for me to achieve the closure that I have now attained. 

 

I was a patient of Dr. John Sarno, a now-retired doctor of mind-body medicine in NY. (He has some fame for treating Howard Stern years ago.) His treatment literally saved me from having what would have been unnecessary back surgery. He focuses on how tension can cause chronic conditions. I attended a few of his "alumni lectures," in which a panel of cured patients would tell their stories of how they were healed. In the Q&A that followed one of them, an older woman, who had suffered extreme back pain for 20 years before being treated successfully by Dr. Sarno, said we had to find a way to spread this knowledge to all the people who were suffering needlessly and having unnecessary surgeries. Dr. Sarno got up and said, "I wish we could. But until people are able to intellectually and emotionally accept a treatment that is so radically different from what they've know for their entire lives, it won't work."

 

I think that's where I stand regarding people comprehending concepts like the NAP. Maybe I'd be more flexible if I were 20 years younger, but at 50 I don't have the time or patience to deal with very close-minded people any longer.

[jpahmad]

understood

[cynicist]

The only thing I can surmise at this point is that people in their 40s and 50s are so set in their beliefs over the years that they simply can't or won't open their minds up to other possibilities. I can accept people telling me that they understand my philosophy but disagree with it. But I can't deal with the condescending lectures about the immoral consequences of voluntary (as opposed to coercive) behavior.

 

The problem here is that your 'friend' was looking for a circle jerk while you took his invitation to debate seriously. It's duplicitous but maybe if he had apologized in private and said he was scared to discuss those ideas seriously for fear of being labeled by others it would be understandable. Instead, his approach was to be a jackass and try to fog you even more. 

 

I think that's where I stand regarding people comprehending concepts like the NAP. Maybe I'd be more flexible if I were 20 years younger, but at 50 I don't have the time or patience to deal with very close-minded people any longer.

 

I'm half your age and already sick of it.

[LovePrevails]

I just noticed there is no mention of you communicating how what he was saying made you feel to him

 

I would use that kind of thing as a better judge of character than a difference of opinion

 

if you express how you feel and he's empathetic that's a good sign

if he's more like "well that's just because you x y or z" or "well you're just to sensitive" or "well it's the truth, deal with it"

or something like that then he either isn't an emotionally intelligent person or isn't a caring person

 

that is valuable information which will help you decide whether he is worth being friends with or not