So Will You Appease Or Confront?

by Englishman 8 Replies latest jw friends

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    It’s been getting pretty lively on this board of late. At the moment there is a great diversity of opinion as to how anti-social behaviour should be handled. 'Course, it’s easy when someone like YK posts his umpteenth attack on the ex’s. And we all applaud when his bluff is called and he’s told to either shut up or have his identity revealed to his local congregation accompanied by a full report on his conduct on this site.

    But how do we handle people who are not so black and white in their behaviour, those who can be charming one minute and foul mouthed the next? Should we appease them? Or would direct confrontation be more suitable?

    I must confess that I was once an appeaser. For years after leaving dub-dom I would try to prove to my aloof parents that I was really still a good person, I even finished up giving my 3 sons Bible names. Eventually, after a particularly galling bout of “You only have these problems because you have turned you back on Jehovah”, I railed on them both and informed them that I was a far better parent than them, because my love for my children wasn’t based on the way that they performed as witnesses. OK, they were appalled, gob-smacked even, but several weeks later they made first contact and agreed not to go into “critical parent” mode again. Confrontation worked, appeasement didn’t.

    Then there’s the famous tale of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains appeasement of Adolf Hitler, the more he appeased, the more of Europe Hitler gobbled up. Only when an astonished Adolf was faced with war being declared on him did he decide to hold back from what would of, at the time, have been an easy invasion of Britain. Once again, it was only when appeasement was binned and replaced by confrontation that progress was made.

    If we turn our attention to a poster who behaves very childishly on this site, we can see that appeasement only makes his behaviour worse. Suggest getting a job, the reply is: “No-one likes me”. So that means he doesn’t have to earn a living? Say anything that he doesn’t like and the posts become littered with “F” words and insults. Some of the appeasing words that are offered up to this ne’er do well are sickening and cloying.

    I’m of the opinion that when we have to deal with this sort of behaviour that a policy of appeasement is better when it’s restricted to one encouraging reply. If there’s no positive response forthcoming, it’s time to pull out, guard your heart from those who would suck out your happiness, and confront the perpetrators of misery head on.

    Englishman.

    ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

  • joelbear
    joelbear

    Most antagonistic posts are made for shock value. Just like with an obscene phone caller, ignoring is the best tactic. It keeps the antagonizer from getting his buzz.

    Reaction is exactly what they are after.

    hugs

    Joel

  • Tina
    Tina

    Hi Eguy,
    Interesting thoughts. I think there is another option rather than just the appeasement,confrontational one.
    It's in comfs thread to Simon,the last post(so far anyway lol)
    hugs,Tina

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR

    Englishman,

    My motto is 'To The Death.' Put me in the arena with this impostor and I'll run him through.

    Got to go now the nurses are ready with my medication.

  • Uncanny
    Uncanny

    Englishman,

    I like the fact that the Board has been getting lively of late.

    There are some highly developed minds throwing in their two cents worth at the moment. Appease or confront - stand and deliver - isn't that what good debating is all about? There is also a lot of help, guidance and love being shown to those who need it most.

    I'm also enjoying the way You Know is getting up to his old tricks again, back to his vitriolic best. How he loves to harrangue all us doomed apostates and ex-JW drones with his judgmental Watchtower doctrine and neat turns of name calling and comndemnatory phrase.

    It all reminds me of the good old days of H 20 about a year ago now, but thankfully, without the erstwhile threats of being banned or censored by trigger happy moderators whose personalities were/are still steeped in WT-style control freak mode.

    However, the toleration of the 'f' word and other vile profanities by this Forum is something I can do without. At least H20 got that one right by not tolerating dirty words. I was on the board that awful night when dear old Milky lost it completely with his tongue and repeatedly hurled insults and swear words at an opposing female poster. Not a pretty sight, and although Milk was going through a hard time then and was virtually inconsolable, I'm sure he felt terrible about his behaviour the next day. Was it worth it? No.

    It's great for all of us to enjoy free speech in anonymity, but why do people have to resort to insulting obscentites when they want to verbally attack somone else or challenge a conflicting point of view? Can't they come up with their own damn words? It's also a shame that vile cursing and other streetwise gutter speak seems to have become acceptable on this Forum; like an everyday thing. To me personally, it shows a lack of respect for the privilege the site's hard working founder, Simon, has presented to all of us for free. I also believe seeing coarse language here also detracts from our collective dignity as posters and lurkers, while possibly doing more harm than good to those people who come here looking for help and guidance.

    How quick some of us are to forget that most of the new arrivals here are bruised and battered Witnesses or ex-Witnesses who maybe not yet comfortable with bad language and could be quickly stumbled back into the Truth which is not the Truth by concluding that we are just an unholy, unruly bunch of foul mouthed heathens. Maybe some of us are. But those who want to poison, offend or contaminate others in this fashion must have "a really nasty side to their thought process", as Christian Slater's character remarked in the recent black comedy movie, 'Very Bad Things.' (I highly recommend this movie for those who can tolerate cursing, gross sinning and may need an insight into out of control male behaviour.)

    So please, without trying to sound overly preachy - I had 20 years of that trip and it got me nowhere but here - let's show a little more class and dignity to ourselves and the ones who might need us most.

    Uncanny

    P.S. ENG, I also recently watched a TV documentary concerning the ongoing plight of farmers in your country affected by the fall out of Mad Cow disease. I can only offer my condolences and/or encouragement for those relatives of yours who may also be likewise doing it tough these days. Like one of your nation's favourite sayings goes,
    "Pick yourself up,
    dust yourself off,
    and start all over again."

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Englishman,

    I couldn't agree more. Although even better than confronting, in most cases, is ignoring.

    Ignore with extreme predjudice. lol.

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Cheers, Uncanny,

    I agree, the F word is a total no no.

    Re the farm, it belongs to my brother in law and is in Dumfries, Scotland. (I had to tell Farkel not to call people Dum***ies).

    So far about 500 sheep and 140 pigs have been destroyed, but we've not had to cull the cattle yet.

    Englishman.

    ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

  • DB
    DB

    Englishman, you caught my attention with what you stated about love for children being 'performance-driven'. It seems that way sometimes, indeed.

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    I try as best I can to live my life online as I would in person. If I met a person who seemed troubled and depressed, I would ask why, and see if there was anything I could do to help. I would also strongly suggest that this person seek professional help.

    If the person ignored my attempts to help and seemed to wallow in his martyr role, I would either ignore or confront. If the person was a danger to himself or others, I would try to get him committed.

    One of my sisters went through a "wallowing in her woes" spell. She was in a relationship that caused her much grief, loved to call and cry and sob about it, but wouldn't do anything to change the situation, even when appropriate suggestions were offerred. One of the definitions of insanity is 'banging your head against a brick wall again and again and expecting different results.' If I tried to be soothing and caring when she'd call, she'd talk on and on, but afterwards would do nothing. I finally started being terse, "Well, you know what to do to fix this." "What did you expect?" The situation eventually became painful enough that she did something to change it.

    It's hard to watch people suffer, but I'm with COMF on this one. Enabling childish behavior is not a kindness. Of course, it's up to each person to decide where to draw the line between an attempt to help and codependent behavior.

    What if childish behavior disrupts a public place? I don't really believe in punishment, but I do believe that children and adults should accept the natural consequences of their behavior. If a person's behavior is disruptive, perhaps that person needs a time out from the privilege of mingling in this place. Until then, I try to ignore the tantrum.

    One thing that worries is the tendency towards collectivism in situations like this--"we" should do this, "we" should do that. I'm all for supporting and helping each other, but we are a diverse group of individuals and will have differing opinions. As best I can, I try to interact with people individually and not clump them into groups.

    With childish behavior, appease or confront are not the only options. We can also ignore or distract. I have mostly opted for ignore, since I think what these folks crave most is to be the center of attention, as they are just now.

    Ginny

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit