Jan. 9th, 2015 10:39 pm
Adieu, mon non-ami
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muckefuckYou could say I've lost a friend over the fallout from the Charlie Hebdo murders.[*] You could, but it wouldn't be accurate on either count.
You can tell the second part is false by how quickly the discussion became personal. I'm not sure we even differ that substantially, given that he's also opposed to increased dissemination of the offensive cartoons. I'd hardly begun to explain my position before he took me to task for "never EVER agreeing" with anything he's posted on his Wall. So the politics is simply the trigger; the real issue goes deeper.
How deep it goes is hinted at by the fact that his contention is demonstrably false. I know this is a sore point with him so in the past I've made a point of liking and commenting positively on his posts where possible. The fact that he's never noticed (and can't be bothered to check even after repeated urgings[**]) is evidence for the falsity of the first part of the proposition: I'm not "losing a friend", I'm finding out that I either never had one or lost him long ago.
His parting shot to me was that he's "not interested in disagreeing civilly", and I personally don't see how any friendship can survive that. I can see making certain issues off limits--there will always be some things that cut a lot closer to the bone for one person than another. But that's entirely different from holding the other person's ideas in complete contempt. From my own experience, I know that when someone's views inspire violent intolerance in me, then the chance of making or maintaining a personal connexion is nil.
In the end, it all comes down to charity. Like most geeks, I used to have a range of litmus tests for friendship. But over time, what I've come to realise is that ultimately it all comes down to goodwill. Either this is a person you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to even when they feel they're deeply in the wrong in a particular situation or they aren't. And if they aren't, then at most they're a friendly acquaintance.
So this guy isn't a friend. He's someone I once felt a connexion with because we both love languages and big furry men. Despite living in the same city, we only see each other rarely and then by chance, so this shouldn't bother me and it's only my tendency toward sentimentality that makes it do that. At least I can take pride in how dispassionately I handled it: no outbursts, no ultimatum, no snappy putdowns. Just a shrug before getting up from the computer to do something rewarding.
[*] Not only am I not talking about anyone here on LJ, I don't think I'm talking about someone anyone here even knows. Calm down people!
[**] Ready for irony overload? His career is "journalist".
You can tell the second part is false by how quickly the discussion became personal. I'm not sure we even differ that substantially, given that he's also opposed to increased dissemination of the offensive cartoons. I'd hardly begun to explain my position before he took me to task for "never EVER agreeing" with anything he's posted on his Wall. So the politics is simply the trigger; the real issue goes deeper.
How deep it goes is hinted at by the fact that his contention is demonstrably false. I know this is a sore point with him so in the past I've made a point of liking and commenting positively on his posts where possible. The fact that he's never noticed (and can't be bothered to check even after repeated urgings[**]) is evidence for the falsity of the first part of the proposition: I'm not "losing a friend", I'm finding out that I either never had one or lost him long ago.
His parting shot to me was that he's "not interested in disagreeing civilly", and I personally don't see how any friendship can survive that. I can see making certain issues off limits--there will always be some things that cut a lot closer to the bone for one person than another. But that's entirely different from holding the other person's ideas in complete contempt. From my own experience, I know that when someone's views inspire violent intolerance in me, then the chance of making or maintaining a personal connexion is nil.
In the end, it all comes down to charity. Like most geeks, I used to have a range of litmus tests for friendship. But over time, what I've come to realise is that ultimately it all comes down to goodwill. Either this is a person you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to even when they feel they're deeply in the wrong in a particular situation or they aren't. And if they aren't, then at most they're a friendly acquaintance.
So this guy isn't a friend. He's someone I once felt a connexion with because we both love languages and big furry men. Despite living in the same city, we only see each other rarely and then by chance, so this shouldn't bother me and it's only my tendency toward sentimentality that makes it do that. At least I can take pride in how dispassionately I handled it: no outbursts, no ultimatum, no snappy putdowns. Just a shrug before getting up from the computer to do something rewarding.
[*] Not only am I not talking about anyone here on LJ, I don't think I'm talking about someone anyone here even knows. Calm down people!
[**] Ready for irony overload? His career is "journalist".
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Sounds like confirmation bias on his part—or maybe I'm being overly charitable and he was just looking for an excuse to tell you to shove off.
So this guy isn't a friend.
Nope. :-(
no subject