"So I'm Thinking of Moving Out" - 12/29/2014

[LadyObvious23]

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? HE'S PINING FOR SOMEONE WHO ISN'T INTERESTED IN HIM. IT'S UNHEALTHY.

And again, wasn't talking about it being unhealthy or healthy.

A french dip isn't fantasizing

...going by the only thing I know of dips, something you flavor chips with isn't a fantasy to begin with...

-_- "Nice Guys" are creeps who do that and believe women owe them something for being a friend.


Well, first off, that ain't a nice guy. Secondly, that ain't Jon.

He never treated Becca with respect. He. Never. Listened to her concerns. Or noticed how controlling she was when she forced him to have a date despite him hanging out with friends.

Oh he went more out of his way than he should have to respect her with how she was acting. It wasn't a good relationship to begin with, but they tried to make it work until they realized that yeah, it wouldn't.

His whole relationship with Becca. He never stood up for himself or anything. He's like a jellyfish. No spine at all.

And if he'd continued hanging out with Candi and not did what Becca said you'd complain about him being a bad boyfriend or being that towards Candi.

............


It's a dance move NOT FOOD.


I...this has been explained to you countless times. You're literally not trying to understand.


EXCEPT NO HE DIDN'T. HE DID NOT TRY. AVOIDING TALKING ABOUT IT ISN'T DEALING WITH IT. If he tried to talk to Becca about Candi being his best friend or anything like that it would be great. But HE DIDN'T.

[edward18]

It's a dance move NOT FOOD.

Well...I don't dance so...yeah...don't really know that stuff. Sorry.

I...this has been explained to you countless times. You're literally not trying to understand.

I just can't get over the fact that you guys say "Nice Guy" when you do not mean a nice guy. I literally never heard that term before I came here, at least not with the understanding of that context. I always just thought it meant a REAL nice guy. It's kinda...stupid to me that you choose to call people that when you don't actually mean it.

EXCEPT NO HE DIDN'T. HE DID NOT TRY. AVOIDING TALKING ABOUT IT ISN'T DEALING WITH IT. If he tried to talk to Becca about Candi being his best friend or anything like that it would be great. But HE DIDN'T.

Welp, I guess I'm probably not gonna manage to get to bed anyhow so let's see what I can scrounge up I guess.

...what am I lookin' for again?...sorry, been about 30 minutes I think...oh right...

http://candicomics.com/d/20061009.html

God Jess gets creepy: http://candicomics.com/d/20061121.html

Back on track.

http://candicomics.com/d/20061222.html

Becca being a jealous asshat: http://candicomics.com/d/20070109.html

Your total "doormat" Jon: http://candicomics.com/d/20070205.html

Rebecca's friend pointing out them being best friends: http://candicomics.com/d/20070208.html

I could go on but no. I'm tired and will try to sleep again. I think these alone prove well enough that it was clear as day that they were friends and Becca damn well knew that.

[Wi1dfire]

I...this has been explained to you countless times. You're literally not trying to understand.

I just can't get over the fact that you guys say "Nice Guy" when you do not mean a nice guy. I literally never heard that term before I came here, at least not with the understanding of that context. I always just thought it meant a REAL nice guy. It's kinda...stupid to me that you choose to call people that when you don't actually mean it.

It's a pretty common term, and that you don't recognize it as such is part of the divide.

So, I'll be more blunt than I was in my last attempt. The "nice guy" behavior that Jon engages in, including persistently putting himself in a situation where he is in daily contact with someone that doesn't care for him the way he care for her? That's the kind of behavior certain kinds of rapists engage in. And emotional abusers. And, really, abusers of every stripe. I really doubt he's ever going to go there, we see too deeply into his character for that to seem like a real possibility, but even with that possibility off the table the behaviors themselves are upsetting and look creepy to many of us.

It might seem strange that acting as unassuming as possible will mark you as a threat, but there it is. How can it be any other way, when so many act like this, believing all the lies that all they have to do is be patient/good/nice enough and they will win their love? Well, honestly, think that you can win someone other is pretty gross. If they aren't interested, give it up, move on, go away, whatever you have to do that isn't holding on tight to something that isn't going to happen.

As a further note, even if, as I said, Jon has no inclination to ever harm Candi, he's still acting like a loser in my opinion. Even harmless "nice" guys aren't really worth the time to bother with, because, as with Jon, that is often the most interesting thing about them and their personality. In essence, there is nothing interesting about them or their personality.

[edward18]

How can it be any other way, when so many act like this, believing all the lies that all they have to do is be patient/good/nice enough and they will win their love?
Because there's easily the possibility that that ain't the case?

If they aren't interested, give it up, move on, go away, whatever you have to do that isn't holding on tight to something that isn't going to happen.

Why would you give that up? For some it's better to dream than not have anything.

Even harmless "nice" guys aren't really worth the time to bother with, because, as with Jon, that is often the most interesting thing about them and their personality.

What do you mean bother with? Should society not recognize them or what? Why? Their desire is just part of their personality, as with anybody.

In essence, there is nothing interesting about them or their personality.

You probably aren't looking hard enough then.

[Wi1dfire]

How can it be any other way, when so many act like this, believing all the lies that all they have to do is be patient/good/nice enough and they will win their love?
Because there's easily the possibility that that ain't the case?

Not worth the risk, not worth the bother. There is indeed the possibility that they are harmless. But since rapists, emotional abusers, and others aren't dyed blue or sorted into Slytherin for easy identification, the possibility that they aren't harmless is too big to be ignored. Plus, why would I want to interact with someone that creeps me out?

I'm not sure if this has been sufficiently clear to you, but Jon's motive's aren't actually on trial here. Indeed, I've said repeatedly that he's probably harmless. But choosing to act the way he does makes him seem creepy to me, and apparently to others. You don't need to agree with that assessment, but quit trying to act like we're lying or stupid when we say it. Our emotional reaction is our own, not yours to judge right or wrong.

If they aren't interested, give it up, move on, go away, whatever you have to do that isn't holding on tight to something that isn't going to happen.

Why would you give that up? For some it's better to dream than not have anything.

Those people are creepy and gross, in my opinion. Again, you don't have to agree with that, just accept it as my honest reaction.

Even harmless "nice" guys aren't really worth the time to bother with, because, as with Jon, that is often the most interesting thing about them and their personality.

What do you mean bother with? Should society not recognize them or what? Why? Their desire is just part of their personality, as with anybody.

I meant guys that act nice in general, what you would refer to as "nice guys." And society at large can make its own judgment call, they aren't worth my time to bother or be bothered with.

In essence, there is nothing interesting about them or their personality.

You probably aren't looking hard enough then.

Don't need to, don't want to. If I'm not interested in someone, I'm not interested in that person. I'm not a charity, I don't give time freely to people that are boring and to whom I owe nothing. If you do, or someone else does, that's their decision. Mine is as stated above.

[shadowfey]

Talkin' about in general here. Just cause we're all human doesn't mean some don't have knowledge and experience others do not which could be of service. If she was dating say, a serial killer, for instance and he knew but she kept refusing I'd say he, or anyone else, would have any right to take action against it.

edward:

He would have the right to report it to the police. He would not have the right to make her decisions for her, still. People are allowed to make their own decisions, even really crappy decisions, provided that they aren't breaking the law, etc. This is pretty unambiguous. I recognize that you would like this to be otherwise, but I strongly recommend at this point that you seek the assistance of a professional in the mental health field.

This is not an insult, but rather, I say this both because you do seem to be acting in a fashion which deviates substantially from what the majority of what is, after all, an internet forum filled with a wildly differentiating set of individuals considers normal social and intellectual behavior; and also because even if you do not wish to seek professional help on your own behalf, professionals in said field may be better able to explain to you the legal, ethical/moral, and social underpinnings behind why it is never acceptable to force another rational adult to do things your way (no matter how much you disagree with their actions).

Also, Fereshte, thank you for the compliment!

[edward18]

He would have the right to report it to the police. He would not have the right to make her decisions for her, still.

....

.......

People are allowed to make their own decisions, even really crappy decisions, provided that they aren't breaking the law, etc. This is pretty unambiguous. I recognize that you would like this to be otherwise, but I strongly recommend at this point that you seek the assistance of a professional in the mental health field.


Yeah, don't quite have the money for that.

This is not an insult, but rather, I say this both because you do seem to be acting in a fashion which deviates substantially from what the majority of what is, after all, an internet forum filled with a wildly differentiating set of individuals considers normal social and intellectual behavior; and also because even if you do not wish to seek professional help on your own behalf, professionals in said field may be better able to explain to you the legal, ethical/moral, and social underpinnings behind why it is never acceptable to force another rational adult to do things your way (no matter how much you disagree with their actions).

I'm sorry, but...there's kinda a line. If your pal is gonna be dating THAT kind of person, I'd be stepping in simply for safety's sake no matter what the psychologist would tell me.

[shadowfey]

He would have the right to report it to the police. He would not have the right to make her decisions for her, still.

....

.......

People are allowed to make their own decisions, even really crappy decisions, provided that they aren't breaking the law, etc. This is pretty unambiguous. I recognize that you would like this to be otherwise, but I strongly recommend at this point that you seek the assistance of a professional in the mental health field.


Yeah, don't quite have the money for that.

This is not an insult, but rather, I say this both because you do seem to be acting in a fashion which deviates substantially from what the majority of what is, after all, an internet forum filled with a wildly differentiating set of individuals considers normal social and intellectual behavior; and also because even if you do not wish to seek professional help on your own behalf, professionals in said field may be better able to explain to you the legal, ethical/moral, and social underpinnings behind why it is never acceptable to force another rational adult to do things your way (no matter how much you disagree with their actions).

I'm sorry, but...there's kinda a line. If your pal is gonna be dating THAT kind of person, I'd be stepping in simply for safety's sake no matter what the psychologist would tell me.

There are free options out there. You have the power of the internet! Look for some of 'em.

Stepping in at that point is still crossing the line. Yes, it might be 'better', but you're still just as likely to lose that person forever. And that is a consequence of which you should be aware may happen. If I do this, this might happen. If I do that, that might happen. Yes, saving your friend from a perceived serial killer might be the better course - but, of course, you're assuming that the information at your disposal is always valid, true, and correct in all particulars. In reality, life doesn't work that way.

In Candi's case? She absolutely has the right to talk to Alex, and to - as she did do in that conversation - kick him to the curb and make it clear to him that they are never ever ever getting back together. Which if Jon had successfully interfered, would not have happened, and was a dose of humble pie Alex sorely needed - and a dose of truth and realization that quite probably helped Candi as well.

I encourage you to look at other ways of seeing things, because so far, your views on these subjects is definitely unique, but not particularly useful and often borders on the socially and legally unacceptable. Different perspectives may save you trouble in communication or other elements.

[edward18]

Stepping in at that point is still crossing the line. Yes, it might be 'better', but you're still just as likely to lose that person forever.

Better than them winding up hurt!

And that is a consequence of which you should be aware may happen. If I do this, this might happen. If I do that, that might happen. Yes, saving your friend from a perceived serial killer might be the better course - but, of course, you're assuming that the information at your disposal is always valid, true, and correct in all particulars. In reality, life doesn't work that way.

Again, far more concerned about the well being of the friend.

[Warrl]

Stepping in at that point is still crossing the line. Yes, it might be 'better', but you're still just as likely to lose that person forever.

Better than them winding up hurt!

If you don't step in and try to dictate their life, the other person MIGHT hurt them.

If you do, YOU WILL hurt them.

[Acidbuk]

I'm curious as to why you guys refer to it as a "parent" role.

Thank you, Shadowfey, I think you said it far better than I did.

Edward, the reason we see these actions as the "parent" role is because a parent can and will tell their child what is best for her/him, and then step in to ensure that what the parent feels is best is what happens. So a parent can tell a child who not to be friends with because the parent has the vantage point of wisdom, experience, and authority. The parent and child are not in equal roles (at least for as long as the child is not an adult). Once the child is an adult, the parent has to consider that the child now is in a position to make her own choices and suffer the consequences, no matter how much the parent may want to step in (within reason. Again, we're not talking about severe abuse).

For a "friend" to do this to another friend is to say "I have the vantage point of wisdoms, experience, and authority over you. We are not equal." The friend may mean well and may feel he/she is acting out of love, but it's severely overstepping, patronizing, and treating the other not as an equal. I may appreciate the sentiment but never the action.

Jon knew what Linda was up to and didn't tell or warn Candi. In my opinion, that is still being an active participant.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Aren't those two statements a bit contradictory ? seems like your saying if he intervenes he's a terrible friend....and if he doesn't...he's a terrible friend.

Not worth the risk, not worth the bother. There is indeed the possibility that they are harmless. But since rapists, emotional abusers, and others aren't dyed blue or sorted into Slytherin for easy identification, the possibility that they aren't harmless is too big to be ignored. Plus, why would I want to interact with someone that creeps me out? -snip-

Oh for Fu....are we are the point we're actually comparing Jon to a Rapist now? I swear this gets more ridiculous every time it comes up.

Ehh I don't think Jess would be okay with Jon's lusting after Candi. Jon is a bit too flighty for her too. Also personality wise they're more polar opposites than Chris/Candi. (Yes I ship but I'm even acknowledging that.)

Oh I dunno, Lady O. Jess' "No Bullshit" Approach might actually be what Jon needs to sort out his head space. Opposites attract sometimes.

[Wi1dfire]

Not worth the risk, not worth the bother. There is indeed the possibility that they are harmless. But since rapists, emotional abusers, and others aren't dyed blue or sorted into Slytherin for easy identification, the possibility that they aren't harmless is too big to be ignored. Plus, why would I want to interact with someone that creeps me out? -snip-

Oh for Fu....are we are the point we're actually comparing Jon to a Rapist now? I swear this gets more ridiculous every time it comes up.

Yes. That's why his behavior registers as creepy and gross to me. Mind, I don't think he is one, but quacking like a duck is going to upset someone afraid of ducks, even if its a human doing the quacking.

[Acidbuk]

Not worth the risk, not worth the bother. There is indeed the possibility that they are harmless. But since rapists, emotional abusers, and others aren't dyed blue or sorted into Slytherin for easy identification, the possibility that they aren't harmless is too big to be ignored. Plus, why would I want to interact with someone that creeps me out? -snip-

Oh for Fu....are we are the point we're actually comparing Jon to a Rapist now? I swear this gets more ridiculous every time it comes up.

Yes. That's why his behavior registers as creepy and gross to me. Mind, I don't think he is one, but quacking like a duck is going to upset someone afraid of ducks, even if its a human doing the quacking.

I'm not saying I agree with what Jon is doing either, (earlier point I made stands about it being his choice though, kind of big on free will) but never got a Rapey feeling off him . Alex feels far more likely to get Rapey

[ShadeTail]

Now that the main instigator (i.e. edward) is gone (i.e. Starline perma-banned him earlier today), I would like to request that we start relaxing the conversation again.

[Acidbuk]

Now that the main instigator (i.e. edward) is gone (i.e. Starline perma-banned him earlier today), I would like to request that we start relaxing the conversation again.

I Saw. Edward was never a particularly....constructive, presence. Lady O and I have had our disagreements but its always been civil and constructive. I seen to have missed the majority of the drama though. living in GMT