(no subject)

[danaeris]

For EVERYONE's future reference...

If you EVER have a complaint about me, tell me.

If you particularly WANTED to make me cry, be angry with you, want to throw my arms up in frustration and give up on whatever is at issue, walk away, go ahead. Talk behind my back. Let me hear it from someone else.

Fuck you all anyway. I don't know why I bother, why I try.

Is this a California thing? I thought I was through with this in HIGH SCHOOL.

Comments

[zunger.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know what the current round of trouble is. But for the record, I've never had any complaints about you at all.

*hug*

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

Sometimes, it takes a while to figure out that you are angry, and then a while longer to figure out why. It's no good ranting until you know exactly why you are upset. Also, sometimes it's better that someone with a softer touch speak for you, so long as it's not of gossip and rather of genuine concern.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

um, sure. Maybe for YOU. For me, you should NEVER EVER do that. You should ALWAYS tell me once you know what your complaint is. I am VERY angry with the person(s) who have voiced complaints behind my back, and honestly, conversation and apology need to occur before I will be ok.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

Personally, if I've gotten to the point where I'm angry enough to voice concern to someone else, I'm also probably angry to the point where I would come across as exceedingly overharsh to the person in question. So, for me, it's better if I don't talk to whomever I'm upset with right away lest I destroy what I only meant to discuss. I often get angry like newspaper fires, so it's best to let it flare down before I burn everything to ash. It's best if I get a handle on myself so I don't tear someone to pieces on accident. Believe me, it's happened before. Would you rather deal with someone who is not very rational and extremely angry, or would you rather deal with someone who has thought things over first and has an intelligent list of what they're upset about? You can't make anything better in the former case, only worse. As for talking to other people... think of it as a reflecting pool, a way of figuring things out. That's how I work, anyhow. I can't say the same of whomever all you're upset with.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Well. There's a difference between confiding in someone about how upset you are, and actually asking that person to talk to the other person for you. For that matter, telling me that someone else has been bitching about me behind my back is a bad idea in cases where the bitchor will actually tell me eventually. If it is someone who is pretending to be my friend, telling me is good to save me from finding out in worse circumstances.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I don't see a problem with asking a third party to say something if you don't trust yourself not to go totally off the deep end. Especially when it's either that, or say nothing at all. Which would you rather, a rational conversation with a caring third party, or a somewhat incoherent rant from the person who is actually upset with you? or no communication at all?

*shrug*

I tend to cut people off if/when they seriously annoy me. I tend to not tell them what's upset me at all, and just decide they're not worth my time and go away. Maybe that's not fair, but it's not really my duty to help everyone become a better person. Sometimes I think the issue is fixable and therefor worth talking to the person about. Sometimes, I don't think the issue is fixable, and therefor talking to the person about it is just likely to get both parties upset and not actually help anything. In that case, I just tend to go away.

As far as someone pretending to be your friend, well yeah, that's not cool. But, I don't think this really happens much except in cases where someone is using you for something or is a low-key acquaintance and doesn't want to make a big deal about disliking you. I don't think people actively pretend to be other people's friends for any other reasons, though there could be something I'm missing there.

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

I tend to cut people off if/when they seriously annoy me. I tend to not tell them what's upset me at all, and just decide they're not worth my time and go away. Maybe that's not fair, but it's not really my duty to help everyone become a better person. Sometimes I think the issue is fixable and therefor worth talking to the person about. Sometimes, I don't think the issue is fixable, and therefor talking to the person about it is just likely to get both parties upset and not actually help anything. In that case, I just tend to go away.

I think I'm having a little trouble understanding you here, but - cutting things off doesn't solve things, either for you or for anyone else. (I know; I used to do that too...) As for "helping other people become a better person..." that sounds a bit like you're unwilling to admit there might be a fault perceived on your side (again: I used to cut people off, partly out of anger, partly out of fear of that being the case).

I don't think there is a fault on either side of this, just a massive gap in communication and understanding. Not attempting to bridge that gap might be considered a fault -- even if understanding isn't reachable, it would probably be easier for people around y'all if you could find a way to at least be polite and social to each other and work together - thus avoiding ugliness and side-takings and hard choices by everyone around y'all.

[tyrsalvia.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why this became about me. It didn't, imo, start out that way, nor is it meant that way.

I don't see this as a particularly 'sided' thing. *shrug* As I've said elsewhere, just because I don't like something doesn't mean I judge it as *bad* or need anyone else to. Still, I don't entirely see this as my quarrel, or even a quarrel at all.

As far as cutting things off... no, it doesn't solve things. It's intended as a "I don't like this so I'm going to leave" sorta thing rather than deciding it makes everything better. If I don't like a movie, I walk out. It doesn't make it a better movie, but it puts me in a better mood having not had to have dealt with it, if it bugged me that much. This is an extreme example, but is that clearer?

[rigel.livejournal.com]

I agree that sometimes it's a good, stabilizing thing to talk to a third party before approaching someone with whom you're upset. You know, get things off your chest, find someone you consider really trustworthy and release things in raw format before they've had the chance to cool down, maybe even gain some insight that way.

From the tone I'm reading in questioner's text, though (and I could be misreading), it's not so much the simple talking to someone else as the way it was handled. As she mentioned, having a third party come to her simply doesn't work for her. And I don't think it would work for me, either, though I'd much prefer to know than not.

So, yeah. This is probably all common sense, to both you and Questioner. But in my own soapboxy way, I'm saying this: Talking to others about your raw bits involving someone else is not inherently a problem. But if one does that, one should keep in mind how that information is going to be used. Can the third party keep it to themselves? Will the third party understand and respect that this is information in the heat of the moment, in its raw format? Will the upset party and the third party, neither of whom may be in the best state for making decisions about the situation (hence the need to talk to a third party in the first place), decide to take a course of action which may actually make the situation worse? Like, say, having the third party approach the 'offender'?

All of these rammifications are possible when others are involved in stressful interactions. Which is why it can be safer not to involve others at all. If one is going to, then, one has to know the possible outcomes for their actions. This is one possible outcome.

[adoor.livejournal.com]

i don't think, unfortunately, that this is a california thing. i'm pretty sure it's a stupid people thing. that said, it often seems as if we have breeding programs in place here or something....

[merovingian.livejournal.com]

Actually, I disagree with you on that, Ari. I think it is a California thing, or, to be more precise, a Silicon Valley thing.

I think Silicon Valley culture is largely corporate culture, and I think there's an ideal of avoiding criticism and confrontation, and sounding as positive as possible even when you want to tear someone's throat out.

I could be worng on this, but it seems like it's something regional.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

without really knowing you, or the issue at hand (I'm reading this via browngirl's friends page), there's a saying about Californians:

In New York, they say "screw you" when they mean "have a nice day."
In California, they say "have a nice day" when they mean "screw you."

Substitute "Boston-Washington megalopolis" for "New York" and you're pretty well dead on. It sounds flip, and like any broad, gross generalization involving large numbers of unrelated people there are large instances where it's very wrong, but there's a grain of truth to it.

It's a very different scheme of personal interaction, distantly related to the Southern "Oh, how nice" meaning "screw you." It's very jarring to East Coast people who are used to more direct, less phony-polite, ways of interacting with people.

It's why I don't think I could ever be happy in California.

[lawbard.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know anything about California, but that does sound like leftover highschool crap. Now I don't know the people involved, but I have observed personally that a lot of people, especially among the general mundane category...NEVER GET OUT OF IT.

So, its always lurking around somewhere, and we can just try to minimize exposure while kicking people towards meaningful communication. But *hugs* I love you and if I ever had a problem with you, beleeeive me you'd be the second to know :)

[gaaneden.livejournal.com]

*hugs* I'm sorry for your pain. I know this sort of thing hurts terribly.

[musae.livejournal.com]

Whoa, girl.

I don't know who did this to make you so upset, but remember that there are at least 5 people who care for every one who isn't worth it. I'm serious- don't hate everyoine because of one person's indescretion- or lack of forthrightness.

We care!

[kaidevis.livejournal.com]

*hug*

</loss for words>

Hey, I'm not sure what your plans and schedule and stuff are, but... I'll be in SF most of this evening hunting costume parts for Halloween a few places including some around the Haight, and I owe you sushi, so if you're free on short notice...? Write back here, e-mail, or call my cell (415.515.1329) (or textmessage it via my LJ userinfo) if you're up for it, otherwise I'll assume timing and/or other factors negate the possibility.

[digitalsidhe.livejournal.com]

A California thing? I thought it was a pretty-much-everywhere thing.

If you've recently been amongst people who don't do this, I'd count you as lucky.

Suggestions.

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

First, I bang my head repeatedly against a blunt object, then I pray to deities of communication.

Now:
May I suggest a few things, to both sides of the conflict:

If you're too freakin' angry to deal with someone or something (and I do this too), yes, by all means calm the heck down about the situation first, and if that includes venting to someone, that's fine. HOWEVER: clearly labeling such as venting rather than "you should fix this now" is important. Also, it's generally a pretty unfair thing to ask someone to step in between two friends and referee, *especially* if they're also closely involved with the issue and care a lot themselves. (If they volunteer, that's dandy. Don't ask them, though.) (And by the way, yes, I'm volunteering. If this is what I think this is, then I have no particular emotional involvement and think I can referee and facilitate communication without making things worse.) ALso, make sure that the person you're venting to isn't going to carry this to the target of your anger.

I also feel that having someone else come to me to say that a friend, or worse, an anonymous friend, has a problem with me and won't tell me what, is massively uncool. It stings to the heart of many people's insecurities (most of us care a lot what our peers think, even if we don't like to admit it). If you're too angry, 1)calm down first, 2)try something like a phone call or e-mail instead of a direct confrontation, if you're still having trouble keeping a lid on it. I love e-mail for this stuff because it lets me edit myself, it lets me get down all of what I'm trying to say without interruption or sidetracks, and it's easy to edit out the anger. Plus people can respond carefully, point by point, and you can read back to see what each person said ealier. (I tend to sputter and lose the ability to argue clearly, or even to speak, when angry. But I can type.)

If it's really not working and y'all can't communicate clearly or without anger, find a neutral friend who can facilitate and referee a discussion - either e-mail or in person.

As for East Coast - West Coast: Yeah, drinking the California tap water has caused me to say things like "facilitate communication and dialogue" instead of "fucking go talk to the freak". West Coast less confrontational a lot of the time; East Coast more confrontational. Both approaches have their merits. But trying to use East Coast anger on a West Coast passive, or vice cersa, doesn't tend to work worth a damn.

[bester.livejournal.com]

It seems to be fairly prevalent at MIT, too. It's even more "fun" when I get hate mail from someone [I think] I don't even know because I supposedly did X, Y, and Z horrible things; things I would never even consider doing.