weaktwos

Ahhh, life. Life is beautiful, is it not? Often, it is as funny as it as tragic, and way too short.

Recently, a little drama has washed upon my placid shores, and I'm unsure what to do with it.

A brief history: I have watched a heretofore highly respected and admired friend engage in what I consider to be destructive, hateful, and irrational behavior. I was concerned that he might be emotionally out of control. I watched other friends of his who know him far more than I have express similar concerns. I wrote him an email expressing my concerns. I received no direct reply from him. What I did notice were references in his journal that could have been directed at me or his other friends. And finally, we were informed via a public post of his that we would no longer be privy to any of his personal posts.

I'm going to call upon the famous "Golden Rule". Since this person has posted publicly about this issue, I shall assume that's how he wants others to treat it.

I'm having what I have often referred to as a Frosted Mini-Wheat moment about this experience. So, the first half of my discourse will be from the plain side of the mini-wheat.

I have many reasons to believe that this person is living in his own private Idaho. He is hurting, he is depressed. He very well might be going through something far beyond what he's indicating on here that makes him so uncommunicative and intolerant.

One thing is for certain, he wasn't ready for a number of us to express our concerns. As he said, "he's done being picked apart and invalidated".

I'm sure it cannot be easy to have a handful of people that you supposedly care about telling you that your behavior is far less than stellar. It sure as hell is not an ego boost. However, I'd like to think it's good to have friends who will tell you exactly how they feel. I personally prefer true feelings than ones that are designed not to piss you off.

So, on the one hand, I feel very sad about the state of affairs with this person, and wish him health and peace. Also, it is his life and his journal, and he needs to, and should do with it what he pleases. and he can share his life with whomever he wishes.

But then there's this frosted side of the mini-wheat. My frosted side represents my feelings, unfettered by diplomacy. The frosted side is calling "bullshit" on the whole affair. Frosty is frustrated to see such a caring, intelligent person behaving in this manner. Ol' frosty thinks that this person is an emotional tyrant who is intolerant of dissent. If he were a government, he'd make one hell of a shitty democracy.

I don't mind conflict myself, but I don't take such disputes personally. Or, if I take it personally, I don't ignore the person and publicly reject them in a passive-aggressive way. I don't think one should be averse to conflict. Having arguments/disagreements with people is much like a fitness regimen: it doesn't feel that great while you are doing it, but ultimately, you'll feel better for getting your issues resolved.

I suppose what makes me upset about this is that I feel like this person is an emotional saboteur. I've had people decide to terminate a personal relationship due to grievances on their part, without bothering to address them and fix them. Or, in the presence of a conflict, I've seen persons choose to try to reject me entirely because they themselves feel like they are being rejected or invalidated. Such behavior just pisses me off. Because if I wanted to reject them, I wouldn't confront them. I'd just walk away.

So, I'm trying to analyze the common themes to such posts like this, because I have seen them before. Of course, this is a work in progress, of course, but here's what I think is the general pattern thus far.

Anatomy of a Passive Aggressive Friend Culling Post
I. Declaration of changes in journal format. This often includes information about how you the reader can find out how you've been rejected. This includes, but is not limited to noticing that this person no longer has you as a friend or that winners shall be informed of an invitation in the mail, and losers get nada.

II. Various statements that suggest said blogger has been maligned and that offending parties won't have said blogger to kick around anymore. Obtuse references to the conflict leading to the friendship or filter realignment are made, but featuring a distortions, that, if the poster bothered to discuss this with the individuals he's rejecting, could probably be clarified.

III. Quasi-diplomatic language is used. This language normally translates to Motley Crue's sage entreaty, "Don't go away mad, just go away." References to a false ultimatum are made. This ultimatum usually omits any healthy method of dealing with conflict or dissent. Ultimatum often includes running away to eat worms.