To respond or not to respond

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

JayneWonders

Administrator
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
What do you do when you are the target of someone's anger? When you hear that they are saying negative things about you personally, or maybe what you do (your role)

It can be hard to ignore, especially if it is in writing, ie an email or a post.
Yet, if you respond, often you are just adding fuel to the fire.

I saw this quote online, when I was pondering about a comment made by someone, and it eased my soul.


FB_IMG_1685966450900.jpg
 
It's a lovely saying Jayne but having had this experience first hand, ignoring doesn't stop the abuse and answering to it, like it says in the quote, does just fuel the fire. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Still looking for a third option...if there is such a thing.
 
Eventually the cross person phoned me to say she was laying charges for defamation of character. Apparently 'someone said, I said' something I didn't say. After listening to the rant I told her to go ahead and do what she thought was best. Nothing happened!
 
Still looking for a third option...if there is such a thing.
Dox them? SWAT them?

No, not really. If you don't know what I mean, Google them. The second is actually quite scary.

Though if they are actually making threats, getting the authorities involved is not a bad idea.

But if it is just bullying and bad-mouthing, stand your ground, I think you make sure you speak your piece, providing support if available, but then let that stand and ignore them after that. A protracted battle isn't likely going to improve things and will probably be worse for your mental health.
 
Dox them? SWAT them?

No, not really. If you don't know what I mean, Google them. The second is actually quite scary.

Though if they are actually making threats, getting the authorities involved is not a bad idea.

But if it is just bullying and bad-mouthing, stand your ground, I think you make sure you speak your piece, providing support if available, but then let that stand and ignore them after that. A protracted battle isn't likely going to improve things and will probably be worse for your mental health.
It's a very complicated situation, to put it mildly. I wish I could tell the whole story, but I cant, it's not safe for me to do so....Its not a physical thing anymore, more psychological using lies.
 
You all know how I've traditionally responded. :censored: I fully agree that sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Sometimes addressing it makes it worse. Sometimes ignoring it allows it to fizzle out. Sometimes. I do know that there is no point in continuing when it gets to the no-win for anyone situation.

I really like the quote. I used to tell others to maintain their dignity and if the other person is truly an a**hole they will show that without your help. I haven't always been good at it. Hopefully I'm improving.
 
Being a target is so crappy - especially when unfair & unfounded. I think it naturally triggers defensiveness. If there has been a legit event, then to acknowledge & apologize if warranted is important. If it is unfounded, then a different scenario unfolds. To respond or not is a big and important question & I like your posted quote JayneWonders.

I'd look at questions like - Is this just more "baiting" from the other person? Is their post an established pattern of how they engage with me, with others? Who listens to them - does anyone put stock in such comments, or do they know you to be otherwise? Does this allegation/opinion actually impact you in some material way? What would you hope to achieve by responding, and by ignoring? Is your hoped for outcome likely to occur? Could you respond to the facts only once & resist further engagement?
 
What do you do when you are the target of someone's anger?
Work my way through the bewilderment and listen to what it is that I have done that makes such anger a reasonable response. Examine my words, thoughts and deeds that are lifted up as the genesis for the anger and consider what is valid and what is not. Sometimes I am just the last straw so I will not take responsibility for the whole load. Once I realize that there might be something that I did to generate the anger the next step is examining if reconciliation is wanted or even warranted.

As clergy I get the odd email from individuals who may or may not identify themselves. They will offer some preliminary about how I should be accountable to them and then launch in to a critique of something that I may actually or only imaginarily be responsible for. Depending on the issue I may point out that they are mistaken about the boundaries that they insist on, I am not accountable to them for the work I do for congregation X, thank them for their concern maybe raise a counter argument, wish them well, hit send and then mark their email as spam. Very few actually respond and are interested in a conversation/debate. Most are just ticking off a box on a self-righteousness check-list.

Apart from that I do make people angry, on occasion.

Most times I never set out to do that.

Some times I know I cannot avoid a job that is going to make someone angry.
When you hear that they are saying negative things about you personally, or maybe what you do (your role)
That is a tough one. If it is with me present then I may defend myself. If it is behind my back (so to speak) then I consider it a sign of cowardice and reflect upon how that impacts upon them. Again as clergy I am used to individuals claiming "most" or "many" feel this or that way about my abilities. I am content to let the "most" or the "many" speak up and voice their own concerns. The individual might have a point and it might be important. If it is they don't need an imaginary group of friends in their corner.

Constant sniping and grousing can impact group morale and so there is some action that needs to be taken. In my vocation I go to the M&P Chair and set down in writing what the issue is and what I believe is the genesis of the complaint and what I believe is the impact on the community as a whole. Then it is no longer my issue to worry about or control. If I feel the need I always CC the Regional Personnel Minister so that those I am accountable to are aware of something bubbling away.

Sometime turning the other cheek, as painful as it feels, is the path to greater peace.
It can be hard to ignore, especially if it is in writing, ie an email or a post.
Yet, if you respond, often you are just adding fuel to the fire.
Maybe.

If it is in writing it hangs there forever and others can potentially pile on or kick it about. Choosing not to reply is a response of its own and yes it can add fuel to the fire. Observation suggests that if I choose not to respond that might lead to more imaginations about what a horrible person I am. It does, however; provide no evidence that I am horrible. If my response is undisciplined that does a better job of showing me to be horrible.

Since Wondercafe.ca opened and it transitioned to WC2 I have had posters make negative allegations about me, my person, my character, my theology and such. I am confident that the reputation I have built for myself here is sufficient that most posters would hesitate to believe such allegations are dubious. It doesn't feel great to click on a response to see such negative emotion. Just because it exists it doesn't follow that it is my responsibility to solve it.

None of you came here to be responsible for my crap. I don't remember signing up to carry anyone else's crap when I registered as a member.

There are members who don't understand or respect that boundary.

And there are some I have made exceptions for. Some I chose to help carry some crap. And I know that there are some who would help me with mine if I asked for help.

Not to be insulting but the relationships I have that I would turn to first when it comes to carrying crap aren't here anymore.

And the last four years have been fairly difficult for me personally for a whole host of non-WC2 reasons. I just have not had the strength or the energy to devote to this place. Friends on FB will be aware of some of what I have had to deal with but even there I have not be completely open about everything I have had on my plate.

I saw this quote online, when I was pondering about a comment made by someone, and it eased my soul.


View attachment 8076

What does it look like when a non-toxic person tries to control you I wonder?

Challenging a boundary does not a toxic person make. I suspect all of us can point to friends who shaped us and pushed us to consider moving some boundary or other. Sometimes we choose to move the boundary ourself. Sometimes it is an honest request to change the boundary and we are just as honest when we decline the request.

But yes, there are toxic people and this does speak to that.
 
I would want to make a final statement, probably including wondering why that person chose to attack me.
 
Dealing with conflict in an online community is very complicated. In real life we know that texting and emailing about such matters really sucks There is more nuance to a face to face meeting or even a telephone conversation.

Additionally, if we try to make sense of something that has happened in the past there may have been parallel public discussions (threads) and private interaction (conversations.)

It's next to impossible to look back and make a fair judgment. This doesn't stop any of us from forming impressions though.
 
Our family kind of fell apart because my brother's wife believed something about us that was told to her, and...apparently it was bad, but we don't know what it was and we can't defend, refute, apologize. So, brother and his family stopped being involved with the rest of us. The toxicity may have been in the telling to my sister in law, OR in the believing. I think she was just looking for an excuse to have nothing to do with her husband's family.
 
I would want to make a final statement, probably including wondering why that person chose to attack me.

Just because they didn't understand ... so it went down ... innate movements in the coveralls ... these must be faced as a message bearer in working duds dude ... info comes from everywhere ... don't shoot it ... it may be an ode or oddest pool ... pu' delled ... an IHC!

Best observed from phar oude ... some say Pharaoh ... thus AO's and OH's ... haw sirs ... binding posts? Baulking about the Innis' ... just Bauchi ...
 
Last edited:
I am reminded of Miroslav Volf's book "The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World" and his central argument that the proper goal of remembering in non-remembrance. Which seems counter-intuitive and probably doesn't work well outside of a Christian perspective.

In remembering injustices visited upon me I am compelled theologically to acknowledge that these injustices have already been atoned through the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. This allows me to remember the injustice while also remembering that Christ upon the cross has atoned for that sin and that the author of the injustice against me has been forgiven. I am called them to look at my adversary through a different lens for my wholeness to be restored.

Volf does point out that it is unlikely that my adversary is ever going to seek to be reconciled and would no doubt resist any effort of mine to build a bridge. Volf points out that in remembering we undertake a preventative step in not allowing the injustice to continue or spread. By remembering rightly we do not give ourselves permission to transgress against our adversary.

I don't know if it translates to any other faith tradition. It really doesn't look to have a comparison in non-faith paradigms.

I have seen numerous instances of where Volf's wisdom was not applied and the maelstrom of injustice just grew wider and wider.
 
I am reminded of Miroslav Volf's book "The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World" and his central argument that the proper goal of remembering in non-remembrance. Which seems counter-intuitive and probably doesn't work well outside of a Christian perspective.

In remembering injustices visited upon me I am compelled theologically to acknowledge that these injustices have already been atoned through the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. This allows me to remember the injustice while also remembering that Christ upon the cross has atoned for that sin and that the author of the injustice against me has been forgiven. I am called them to look at my adversary through a different lens for my wholeness to be restored.

Volf does point out that it is unlikely that my adversary is ever going to seek to be reconciled and would no doubt resist any effort of mine to build a bridge. Volf points out that in remembering we undertake a preventative step in not allowing the injustice to continue or spread. By remembering rightly we do not give ourselves permission to transgress against our adversary.

I don't know if it translates to any other faith tradition. It really doesn't look to have a comparison in non-faith paradigms.

I have seen numerous instances of where Volf's wisdom was not applied and the maelstrom of injustice just grew wider and wider.

But what if one integrates and puts it all together ... what a bust!
 
A secular approach which may come close is non-violent communication. It has similar goals to the model of aggressive/ passive and assertive communication. But it has a different philosophy behind it.
 
A secular approach which may come close is non-violent communication. It has similar goals to the model of aggressive/ passive and assertive communication. But it has a different philosophy behind it.

Scratch creation as writ ... gone down the Rhode ... rovers? Madness, or Ir 'd ... I 'red somewhere ... Ir 'nei ... vs Ir' nein the dark ... tis nothing! Abyss ...

Yeti drops off and we wonder where to!
 
I am reminded of Miroslav Volf's book "The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World" and his central argument that the proper goal of remembering in non-remembrance. Which seems counter-intuitive and probably doesn't work well outside of a Christian perspective.

In remembering injustices visited upon me I am compelled theologically to acknowledge that these injustices have already been atoned through the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. This allows me to remember the injustice while also remembering that Christ upon the cross has atoned for that sin and that the author of the injustice against me has been forgiven. I am called them to look at my adversary through a different lens for my wholeness to be restored.

Volf does point out that it is unlikely that my adversary is ever going to seek to be reconciled and would no doubt resist any effort of mine to build a bridge. Volf points out that in remembering we undertake a preventative step in not allowing the injustice to continue or spread. By remembering rightly we do not give ourselves permission to transgress against our adversary.

I don't know if it translates to any other faith tradition. It really doesn't look to have a comparison in non-faith paradigms.

I have seen numerous instances of where Volf's wisdom was not applied and the maelstrom of injustice just grew wider and wider.
I don't know if this would applyor not, but one of the things I have done the past few years( and yes I've been experiencing some extreme interactions also) is this......I tell myself, I know who I am, my good friends know who I am, and God knows.... that has diminished my social circle.....but don't lose yourself or ever forget who you are.
 
Back
Top