Why are you friends with someone who is knowingly cruel to others?
July 17, 2020 2:09 PM Subscribe
I’m dealing with someone who is often cruel - not just to me but to and about others. He is immensely popular. I’m sure that not everyone who likes him is themselves evil - that there are good reasons in life to be friends with someone like that. If you’re friends with someone like that, can I ask why? Having some potential context will help me practice compassion for some of these folks.
In contexts where people have doubts about themselves, their skills, etc., getting a sense of approval from someone who is known for being especially harsh--perhaps to the point of cruelty--can feel like an ego boost or badge of honor, even if you privately dislike them or it's apparent that kind of manipulation is a source of their social capital. This seems like 'after school special' stuff, but I guess I've seen it a couple times as an adult.
posted by Wobbuffet at 2:35 PM on July 17, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by Wobbuffet at 2:35 PM on July 17, 2020 [15 favorites]
Most people aren't monoliths. Plenty of cruel people are capable of charming behavior, and even kindness at times. They can show this side of themselves to people who they think will be advantageous to them, or people that they care about. Even 100% "evil sociopaths" are often charming- that's how they get away with so much. But also, plenty of people are not sociopaths yet they are capable of being cruel sometimes. Their friends see, or receive, their good side.
posted by bearette at 2:43 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by bearette at 2:43 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Yes, and he's my neighbor. Not just my neighbor, but both of our homes are on the same lot, so we're legally bound as tenants in common with a shared tax bill. I *have* to remain friends/friendly with him. And, christ, he's an asshole. He's the guy who calls the cops for a noise complaint about a kid's birthday without even bothering to just ask the noisy neighbors if they can keep it down. Etc.
I expect that a lot of people who are friends with cruel people are in some version of a similar boat for whatever reason, or they're getting something out of the deal.
I'd add that early childhood family dynamics can really heavily influence what personality traits attract or repel people. I was married to a guy for a quarter of my life who I thought was the best. Then I found out he had a very well-developed double life. Just me knowing that about him switched on his covert narcissist switch and made me the enemy. He got so incredibly cruel and vicious that I'm still stunned these two people inhabited the same body. I can't even be friends with former mutual friends who stayed cool with him after watching what he did do me through that process. Fortunately, that's just, like, three people. I wonder all the time, what on earth is it in those folks that makes them willing to, or even interested in, remaining friends with him? And I expect it's got something to do with the childhood my ex had that made him capable of this sort of behavior in the first place.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 2:45 PM on July 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
I expect that a lot of people who are friends with cruel people are in some version of a similar boat for whatever reason, or they're getting something out of the deal.
I'd add that early childhood family dynamics can really heavily influence what personality traits attract or repel people. I was married to a guy for a quarter of my life who I thought was the best. Then I found out he had a very well-developed double life. Just me knowing that about him switched on his covert narcissist switch and made me the enemy. He got so incredibly cruel and vicious that I'm still stunned these two people inhabited the same body. I can't even be friends with former mutual friends who stayed cool with him after watching what he did do me through that process. Fortunately, that's just, like, three people. I wonder all the time, what on earth is it in those folks that makes them willing to, or even interested in, remaining friends with him? And I expect it's got something to do with the childhood my ex had that made him capable of this sort of behavior in the first place.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 2:45 PM on July 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
Sometimes this type of behavior comes with narcissistic people. Narcissistic people can also be very charming, entertaining, life of the party type of people. A lot of people enjoy being around a confident, funny, charming person and might be willing to look past cruel behavior because they enjoy how they feel around that person.
I find laughing at others' misfortunes deeply troubling and cruel but there's literally thousands of youtube fail videos so someone out there must think it's funny instead of mean.
I was also raised in an environment where there were no good natured teasing events. If you said something mean, you meant to be mean. So sometimes I see teasing as cruelty. I am close to a couple of people who find my reaction to teasing very confusing but for me it's just emotional abuse.
posted by crunchy potato at 3:00 PM on July 17, 2020 [17 favorites]
I find laughing at others' misfortunes deeply troubling and cruel but there's literally thousands of youtube fail videos so someone out there must think it's funny instead of mean.
I was also raised in an environment where there were no good natured teasing events. If you said something mean, you meant to be mean. So sometimes I see teasing as cruelty. I am close to a couple of people who find my reaction to teasing very confusing but for me it's just emotional abuse.
posted by crunchy potato at 3:00 PM on July 17, 2020 [17 favorites]
I've thought a lot about bullying, as have a lot of other people in the US in the past few years, I guess.
Mainly: fear. Relief at not being the person targeted. Desire to avoid being the person targeted in the future. Fear of being cast out of the circle of those who are warmed by the bully. Being alone. Knowing no one will risk their ass to reach out to you. Fear of not being able to fight the bully by yourself, and fear that no one else will come to your aid.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:13 PM on July 17, 2020 [13 favorites]
Mainly: fear. Relief at not being the person targeted. Desire to avoid being the person targeted in the future. Fear of being cast out of the circle of those who are warmed by the bully. Being alone. Knowing no one will risk their ass to reach out to you. Fear of not being able to fight the bully by yourself, and fear that no one else will come to your aid.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:13 PM on July 17, 2020 [13 favorites]
One of my oldest friends can occasionally be quite cruel to people. Not always, or even regularly, and she often has moments of great generosity and kindness - but certainly, I've seen her behave in ways that, if I encountered it in a person I'd just met, I would see as ruling out a friendship.
Why do I stay friends with her? Because she's known me my whole life, in some ways better than anyone else does. Because I have seen first hand how much, and how unfairly, she herself as suffered, and I can see a direct line between how she acts at her worst, and how she's been treated in the past. Because I know that she'll be the person she is no matter what I do, so I try to gently tell her when I think she's acting badly, and then let it go. Probably there's a mixture of nostalgia and hope involved - I remember when she wasn't like this, and I hope, that when things get easier for her, she'll be like that again.
posted by Merricat Blackwood at 3:31 PM on July 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
Why do I stay friends with her? Because she's known me my whole life, in some ways better than anyone else does. Because I have seen first hand how much, and how unfairly, she herself as suffered, and I can see a direct line between how she acts at her worst, and how she's been treated in the past. Because I know that she'll be the person she is no matter what I do, so I try to gently tell her when I think she's acting badly, and then let it go. Probably there's a mixture of nostalgia and hope involved - I remember when she wasn't like this, and I hope, that when things get easier for her, she'll be like that again.
posted by Merricat Blackwood at 3:31 PM on July 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
1. They could be a legacy friend from childhood who has turned mean as an adult. For the non-mean friend in the pair, there can be a lot of cognitive dissonance to manage. "I can't believe he just said that -- is this really the same guy who was my only friend during $hardtime?" "Hahaha, that must have been a joke, right?" "That's totally out of character -- I'm sure they were just having a really rough day."
2. They could be a manipulator -- someone who behaves differently depending on who they're with. "I may lie to other people, but I would never lie to you." They might be quite good at cozying up to "friends" who are useful to them.
3. They could be someone with power -- social, financial, or otherwise. Folks who want a piece of that power will be "friends," or at least act that way. The more "friends" they have, the more social power they wield, the more "friends" they collect.
4. They could be a narcissist who seems charming, fun, and cool. Their non-mean friends are often people with insecurities who feel flattered and important because this exciting person deigns to be friends with them, and are willing to overlook the meanness if it's not aimed directly at them. They may even learn to participate in the meanness insofar as it makes them feel special, favored, and part of the in-crowd.
Scenarios #1 and #2 often lead to painful friend breakups. Scenario #3 falls apart if the person loses their power, but they may never. Scenario #4 can last for decades. All four of these scenarios can, and often do, go on at once with a single toxic person.
posted by ourobouros at 3:34 PM on July 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
2. They could be a manipulator -- someone who behaves differently depending on who they're with. "I may lie to other people, but I would never lie to you." They might be quite good at cozying up to "friends" who are useful to them.
3. They could be someone with power -- social, financial, or otherwise. Folks who want a piece of that power will be "friends," or at least act that way. The more "friends" they have, the more social power they wield, the more "friends" they collect.
4. They could be a narcissist who seems charming, fun, and cool. Their non-mean friends are often people with insecurities who feel flattered and important because this exciting person deigns to be friends with them, and are willing to overlook the meanness if it's not aimed directly at them. They may even learn to participate in the meanness insofar as it makes them feel special, favored, and part of the in-crowd.
Scenarios #1 and #2 often lead to painful friend breakups. Scenario #3 falls apart if the person loses their power, but they may never. Scenario #4 can last for decades. All four of these scenarios can, and often do, go on at once with a single toxic person.
posted by ourobouros at 3:34 PM on July 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
When I was friends with someone who is cruel to others she made it a point to come across as a caring member of the community and that people were actually out to get her for one complex reason or another. I didn’t see any of the cruelty first hand because she was very clever about orchestrating it so that she could deny it. Then she was cruel to me in this way, and I watched it play out step by step. It was truly phenomenal how she managed to plot and execute it and the effect it had on other people (I.E. getting them to take her side, me as the bad guy). Malignant narcissistic people are cunning. They know how preserve their base following.
posted by Young Kullervo at 3:36 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Young Kullervo at 3:36 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Abusers are really, really good at hiding their abuse. And yes, a lot of it comes down to the fact that a lot of people just don't see the abuse, and like the other parts of that person. For 13 years, our parish priest was horrible to his staff and volunteers, like me, but most of the people only saw him at church on Sundays, and listened to his interesting sermons and classes (he had a wealth of church history knowledge and was a good lecturer). But he yelled at a 90-year-old volunteer who had been counting the money every Sunday for 40 years; made both me and my mother cry once; dissolved several committees that became superfluous anyway since he made all the dictatorial decisions; and of course, was not nearly as bad with the men as with the women. But he schmoozed a lot of people, especially the wealthy members of the parish, who invited him over for dinner and thought he was a great guy. Whenever I tried to bring up any issues, other people said either "yeah, he can be abrasive sometimes, but he's the one in charge so we have to do what he says" or "if you don't want to be around him, then stop volunteering."
Membership at the church did go down a little since he wasn't great at making newcomers welcome, but the organization didn't really suffer due to the aforementioned schmoozing. It took years of staff turnover and some legendary fighting with the board (who, being nice church folks, just wanted everybody to get along) and finally an investigation by the diocese for him to resign-before-he-got-fired. And even then, a lot of people were sad, because his resignation letter mentioned little of this and just oozed about how he would miss everybody.
Right after he left, we found out that when we were thinking of hiring him in the first place, we asked his bishop why he had left his previous parish. I can't tell you, the bishop said, but you have my word that he's a good guy, and that his leaving will not be relevant to his future performance as your priest. In other words: I have a problem priest, and I want to get rid of him, and I need to put him somewhere. Lucky us. People ignore abuse because it's convenient for them personally, even bishops, regardless of how many people he is hurting. (A year later, we're still finding out about all the formal complaints lodged against this guy, and they're serious: among other things, counts of "emotional abuse" and "public humiliation.")
Why yes, I'm doing a little happy dance right now that he's gone.
posted by sockerpup at 3:37 PM on July 17, 2020 [12 favorites]
Membership at the church did go down a little since he wasn't great at making newcomers welcome, but the organization didn't really suffer due to the aforementioned schmoozing. It took years of staff turnover and some legendary fighting with the board (who, being nice church folks, just wanted everybody to get along) and finally an investigation by the diocese for him to resign-before-he-got-fired. And even then, a lot of people were sad, because his resignation letter mentioned little of this and just oozed about how he would miss everybody.
Right after he left, we found out that when we were thinking of hiring him in the first place, we asked his bishop why he had left his previous parish. I can't tell you, the bishop said, but you have my word that he's a good guy, and that his leaving will not be relevant to his future performance as your priest. In other words: I have a problem priest, and I want to get rid of him, and I need to put him somewhere. Lucky us. People ignore abuse because it's convenient for them personally, even bishops, regardless of how many people he is hurting. (A year later, we're still finding out about all the formal complaints lodged against this guy, and they're serious: among other things, counts of "emotional abuse" and "public humiliation.")
Why yes, I'm doing a little happy dance right now that he's gone.
posted by sockerpup at 3:37 PM on July 17, 2020 [12 favorites]
Interesting question. I have two people that..make that three..are cruel and/or have cruel tendencies that I remain cordial if not friendly-ish with.
The first of course is my first ex husband. He's a (recovered?) alcoholic who was unbelievably cruel to me emotionally and physically and though we divorced back in 1999, will still try to browbeat me and put me down. Our sons and I haven't seen him in nearly 13 years.
The second was a woman I met when we both dated best friends. I was a person of low self esteem, and I didn't really know how to defend myself. For some strange reason all four of us have remained friends over the decades, even though we all married other people. She will still say cutting and demeaning things during the rare times we get together, but experience and time has taught me that SHE was and still is even more insecure than I ever was, and, like my ex, tries to bring people down to make themselves feel more superior.
The third is sadly the woman who manages the development I live in, who lives right across the street from me, and loves to make my life miserable for stupid little things. I have to play nice to her, or she could REALLY make my life hell.
posted by annieb at 3:38 PM on July 17, 2020
The first of course is my first ex husband. He's a (recovered?) alcoholic who was unbelievably cruel to me emotionally and physically and though we divorced back in 1999, will still try to browbeat me and put me down. Our sons and I haven't seen him in nearly 13 years.
The second was a woman I met when we both dated best friends. I was a person of low self esteem, and I didn't really know how to defend myself. For some strange reason all four of us have remained friends over the decades, even though we all married other people. She will still say cutting and demeaning things during the rare times we get together, but experience and time has taught me that SHE was and still is even more insecure than I ever was, and, like my ex, tries to bring people down to make themselves feel more superior.
The third is sadly the woman who manages the development I live in, who lives right across the street from me, and loves to make my life miserable for stupid little things. I have to play nice to her, or she could REALLY make my life hell.
posted by annieb at 3:38 PM on July 17, 2020
Metafilter is full of black and white thinking. It's either this or that, and no other options are possible. The problem with that type of thinking is, it doesn't allow for any nuances. I believe that almost all people are capable of both great cruelty and great kindness. Saying that the only way these people are well-liked is because of fear is kind of a cop-out. Fear can certainly be a part of it, but to say everyone in this person's realm is fearful of them...is just not that likely.
What do you consider cruel? We might have very different ideas about what actually defines cruel behavior. We might have different ideas of how often it has to happen for it to be a pattern. I'm pretty sure if we were to all examine our pasts and interview everyone we encountered, we would find evidence of mistreatment we've done to others.
So don't assume that what you define as intolerable behavior reaches that same limit for everyone. And as I said earlier, most people can still be kind to others, even if they have a pattern of cruel behavior.
You also have to factor in the contact that person has with all the other individual people. Work colleagues who hang out socially once a month or so is a very different relationship from a sibling which is very different from someone who you live near where your kids are close friends with each other and you see each other every week.
People are complex. Their motivations are complex. Their relationships are complex. This question is just too vague to provide any good responses really.
posted by Aranquis at 3:45 PM on July 17, 2020 [17 favorites]
What do you consider cruel? We might have very different ideas about what actually defines cruel behavior. We might have different ideas of how often it has to happen for it to be a pattern. I'm pretty sure if we were to all examine our pasts and interview everyone we encountered, we would find evidence of mistreatment we've done to others.
So don't assume that what you define as intolerable behavior reaches that same limit for everyone. And as I said earlier, most people can still be kind to others, even if they have a pattern of cruel behavior.
You also have to factor in the contact that person has with all the other individual people. Work colleagues who hang out socially once a month or so is a very different relationship from a sibling which is very different from someone who you live near where your kids are close friends with each other and you see each other every week.
People are complex. Their motivations are complex. Their relationships are complex. This question is just too vague to provide any good responses really.
posted by Aranquis at 3:45 PM on July 17, 2020 [17 favorites]
Yeah, I think it depends on the nature of the cruelty. Like, there's a world of difference between someone who has a habit of insulting people (eg, picking on their insecurities) and someone who literally kicks puppies.
Not saying the former is okay, but in that case, I can at least see how the person could still be popular, particularly if they are wealthy and/or well-connected, or if it would hurt them professionally to distance from this person. It could also be a "missing stair" situation, where the person's entire social group has just sort of acclimated to their personality defects and nobody wants to be the one to upset the status quo.
posted by aecorwin at 4:54 PM on July 17, 2020
Not saying the former is okay, but in that case, I can at least see how the person could still be popular, particularly if they are wealthy and/or well-connected, or if it would hurt them professionally to distance from this person. It could also be a "missing stair" situation, where the person's entire social group has just sort of acclimated to their personality defects and nobody wants to be the one to upset the status quo.
posted by aecorwin at 4:54 PM on July 17, 2020
I was friends with one woman W, who talked often about having PTSD from sexism she'd experienced. I felt bad for her. She said that she gets emotional when her PTSD is triggered and she defends herself.
Other people told me that she was cruel, but they didn't go into detail (similar to how your question didn't go into detail). So I thought it was just grouchiness or self-defense due to her PTSD. I imagined that maybe she says "Stop! You're bullying me!" Or maybe she accused them of sexism and they felt it was unfair.
Finally, someone showed me the messages that she sent them. The messages were ... unbelievably mean. The other person made a simple error (mismanaged a gathering that W cared about). She threatened legal action. She called them rude names. She said she would stalk them for years to make them miserable. It was horrifying, and completely changed my view of her. I stopped talking to her.
So please make sure people actually know what you mean by "cruel". They may not realize. She never was cruel to me in that way.
posted by cheesecake at 5:30 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Other people told me that she was cruel, but they didn't go into detail (similar to how your question didn't go into detail). So I thought it was just grouchiness or self-defense due to her PTSD. I imagined that maybe she says "Stop! You're bullying me!" Or maybe she accused them of sexism and they felt it was unfair.
Finally, someone showed me the messages that she sent them. The messages were ... unbelievably mean. The other person made a simple error (mismanaged a gathering that W cared about). She threatened legal action. She called them rude names. She said she would stalk them for years to make them miserable. It was horrifying, and completely changed my view of her. I stopped talking to her.
So please make sure people actually know what you mean by "cruel". They may not realize. She never was cruel to me in that way.
posted by cheesecake at 5:30 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Being friendly with and 'liking' a cruel person who has power over you is often the only way to be safe around them — relatively safe, that is.
It's easy to judge such people and I often do so myself, but I also try to see what they have to lose if they're defiant, and that sometimes keeps me from being mean to them too.
posted by jamjam at 5:31 PM on July 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
It's easy to judge such people and I often do so myself, but I also try to see what they have to lose if they're defiant, and that sometimes keeps me from being mean to them too.
posted by jamjam at 5:31 PM on July 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
I'll just mention that heckling of, gossiping about, bullying or whatever other words you want to use for it, some kind of outsider, is a very, very common social bonding and social group boundary-setting technique.
Nothing sets up an in-group dynamic quite like getting together and diss-ing on someone who is almost, almost, almost like us but for whatever reason we want to designate as being in the out-group.
The person who takes the lead in this behavior is often identified as the leader of this particular in-group.
posted by flug at 7:09 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Nothing sets up an in-group dynamic quite like getting together and diss-ing on someone who is almost, almost, almost like us but for whatever reason we want to designate as being in the out-group.
The person who takes the lead in this behavior is often identified as the leader of this particular in-group.
posted by flug at 7:09 PM on July 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Cruelty(bullying) is a form of domination. Dominant people are more popular.
posted by theora55 at 7:39 PM on July 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 7:39 PM on July 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
Define "friends with."
I keep a few cruel people on my FB friends list to keep an eye on them but don't actually consider them to be friends.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:12 PM on July 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
I keep a few cruel people on my FB friends list to keep an eye on them but don't actually consider them to be friends.
posted by Jacqueline at 10:12 PM on July 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
You’re really going to have to elaborate on what you mean by cruel.
I have a couple of asshole acquaintances who frankly have only made the cut because I need their help when I’m negotiating for something. I’m a big softy.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:26 PM on July 17, 2020
I have a couple of asshole acquaintances who frankly have only made the cut because I need their help when I’m negotiating for something. I’m a big softy.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:26 PM on July 17, 2020
Cruelity isn't always obvious. Most people would argue that not every hurtful behavior automatically amounts to cruelity - people might hurt each other accidentially (stepping on someone's toes while having your head in the clouds) or inevitably (when there's a conflict of interest and no way to find-a-win-win-situation, so your gain necessarily means a loss for someone else). Cruelity however is usually perceived as going out of your way to hurt someone. There has to be malicious intent and excessive force (adding insult to injury - not just fighting with someone, but kicking them when they're already down, not just wounding someone, but rubbing salt in the wound). And intent and excess are matters of interpretation.
How people excuse hurtful behavior:
"They didn't mean it". - People are taught to never suspect malice when stupidity will suffice. I don't neccessarily subscribe to that view, because malice isn't that rare, and I do actually think that after certain point sufficently blithe stupidity (wilful and awfully convenient oblivousness) can absolutely cross the threshold to malice, but it's a common sentiment and I think it's hard to deny that a lot of interpersonal damage really happens out of mere thoughtlessness/lack of consideration. And sometimes people actually feel awful enough when it's brought to their attention, that they learn how to do better next time so it's often hard to argue against a policy of giving someone a margin of error. Now, how steep the learning curve needs to be to be acceptable, how much patience the learner should be given... that's were things can get tricky again.
"It was just a joke. / They were just trying to help." - Malicious intent is rarely expressed explicity. Hurtful comments often take the form of jokes or adivce/warnings/feedback intended to help you improve/avoid a mistake. Many people will have relationships where the teasing is actually affectionate (evidence how sure we are of each other, how much we trust each other not be misunderstood, so we can talk to each other in way no one else would be allowed to; what annoys me personally about affectionate teasing in the wrong context is actually often not necessarily the teasing but the presumption of unwarranted intimacy) and they might also have received their share of advice/feedback that was hard to hear at first but turned out useful eventually. (My mum is the queen of concern trolls and rather free with the sort of advice I could really do without, and I'll shut that down in an instant because I really don't need to hear it, but I'm not going to cut her out of my life for it because she a) has also given me a lot of actually useful advice as well and b) has reliably had my back when the shit really hit the fan, so I know that concern isn't a lie).
"That's the nature of the game"/"They're just rubbing each other the wrong way". Sometimes people will have a conflict with each other without anyone being personally at fault - a clash of interest is inherent in the circumstances, nothing personal. Or maybe it's not the circumstances, but their temperaments are incompatible, but that still doesn't mean any one of them is as fault. Not everyone has to be everyone's cup of tea, people get along well with some people and not with others, and that's okay. When people observe that a friend has a conflict with someone else, they will often assume it's one of these things - a mere conflict of interest, an incompatibility of temperament - they're not going to immediately suspect foul play.
"They're just defending themselves." Not everyone one expects people to turn the other cheek when attacked - when someone hits you, people might feel you are justified in hitting back. Who hit first... sometime that's not immediately apparent, because a certain type of person can be very good as presenting themselves as the victim. Sometimes there were not witnesses, so it's word against word. People will often get this wrong.
"They're not normally like that./They just had a bad day". People are taught not to make judgments based on isolated incidents and will look for extenuating circumstances for someone they want to exculpate. There's the hope that hurtful behavior is just a symptom of another problem and will disappear once that other problem is solved. People don't want to give up on a friend too quickly.
Why people excuse hurtful behavior:
1) Fear. Others have explained this at length. People don't want to be the next target. So a lot of the friendly behavior you might see shown towards that person in your example might not be due to genuine affection, but something rather more calculated.
2) Opportunism. People see that there also lots of benefits in associating with the hurtful person (they are entertaining, well connected, generous with their ressources, etc.) as long as they can stay on their good side and feel sufficiently confident that they will be able to do that.
3) Projection. Most people have their own experiences with accidentially hurting someone out of thoughlessness, or saying something in the heat of the moment they later regret. They want to treat others as they want to be treated themselves - they would like to be given the benefit of the doubt with regard to their intentions and a margin of error, so they are willing to give the benefit of the doubt and a margin of error. Judge not, lest you you be judged.
4) Compassion. A cornered animal lashes out. Some people can feel cornered more easily than others, but that's sometimes a symptom of a hard life, not necessarily a moral failure.
posted by sohalt at 12:51 AM on July 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
How people excuse hurtful behavior:
"They didn't mean it". - People are taught to never suspect malice when stupidity will suffice. I don't neccessarily subscribe to that view, because malice isn't that rare, and I do actually think that after certain point sufficently blithe stupidity (wilful and awfully convenient oblivousness) can absolutely cross the threshold to malice, but it's a common sentiment and I think it's hard to deny that a lot of interpersonal damage really happens out of mere thoughtlessness/lack of consideration. And sometimes people actually feel awful enough when it's brought to their attention, that they learn how to do better next time so it's often hard to argue against a policy of giving someone a margin of error. Now, how steep the learning curve needs to be to be acceptable, how much patience the learner should be given... that's were things can get tricky again.
"It was just a joke. / They were just trying to help." - Malicious intent is rarely expressed explicity. Hurtful comments often take the form of jokes or adivce/warnings/feedback intended to help you improve/avoid a mistake. Many people will have relationships where the teasing is actually affectionate (evidence how sure we are of each other, how much we trust each other not be misunderstood, so we can talk to each other in way no one else would be allowed to; what annoys me personally about affectionate teasing in the wrong context is actually often not necessarily the teasing but the presumption of unwarranted intimacy) and they might also have received their share of advice/feedback that was hard to hear at first but turned out useful eventually. (My mum is the queen of concern trolls and rather free with the sort of advice I could really do without, and I'll shut that down in an instant because I really don't need to hear it, but I'm not going to cut her out of my life for it because she a) has also given me a lot of actually useful advice as well and b) has reliably had my back when the shit really hit the fan, so I know that concern isn't a lie).
"That's the nature of the game"/"They're just rubbing each other the wrong way". Sometimes people will have a conflict with each other without anyone being personally at fault - a clash of interest is inherent in the circumstances, nothing personal. Or maybe it's not the circumstances, but their temperaments are incompatible, but that still doesn't mean any one of them is as fault. Not everyone has to be everyone's cup of tea, people get along well with some people and not with others, and that's okay. When people observe that a friend has a conflict with someone else, they will often assume it's one of these things - a mere conflict of interest, an incompatibility of temperament - they're not going to immediately suspect foul play.
"They're just defending themselves." Not everyone one expects people to turn the other cheek when attacked - when someone hits you, people might feel you are justified in hitting back. Who hit first... sometime that's not immediately apparent, because a certain type of person can be very good as presenting themselves as the victim. Sometimes there were not witnesses, so it's word against word. People will often get this wrong.
"They're not normally like that./They just had a bad day". People are taught not to make judgments based on isolated incidents and will look for extenuating circumstances for someone they want to exculpate. There's the hope that hurtful behavior is just a symptom of another problem and will disappear once that other problem is solved. People don't want to give up on a friend too quickly.
Why people excuse hurtful behavior:
1) Fear. Others have explained this at length. People don't want to be the next target. So a lot of the friendly behavior you might see shown towards that person in your example might not be due to genuine affection, but something rather more calculated.
2) Opportunism. People see that there also lots of benefits in associating with the hurtful person (they are entertaining, well connected, generous with their ressources, etc.) as long as they can stay on their good side and feel sufficiently confident that they will be able to do that.
3) Projection. Most people have their own experiences with accidentially hurting someone out of thoughlessness, or saying something in the heat of the moment they later regret. They want to treat others as they want to be treated themselves - they would like to be given the benefit of the doubt with regard to their intentions and a margin of error, so they are willing to give the benefit of the doubt and a margin of error. Judge not, lest you you be judged.
4) Compassion. A cornered animal lashes out. Some people can feel cornered more easily than others, but that's sometimes a symptom of a hard life, not necessarily a moral failure.
posted by sohalt at 12:51 AM on July 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
Incestuous relationships: This person is a necessary evil for me to maintain my relationship with other people that I feel would be significantly harmed if I block contact with all of them. Eg. The only time I get to see Susan and Mary is at Aunt Sadie's Christmas gathering. Moreover Aunt Sadie is known to the group as poor Sadie and I am known to the group as self-centred catty Jane. Membership in this group is provisional on my keeping my mouth shut in future. I have already tried speaking up about the broken stair and am now being identified as a broken stair for speaking up (she was mean to poor Sadie) by at least one other person. Much effort in the group goes to comforting poor Sadie and appreciating poor Sadie and validating poor Sadie and while members of the group get tired of doing this and suspicious about the truth of it at times they deal with it by periodically withdrawing and limiting the emotional labour required of them. Those active are spending much of their effort on dampening down the drama and doing emotional labour to keep Sadie mollified. "We all love you Sadie! Nobody has been saying bad things about you and we won't let them!" This leaves no opening for a paradigm shift.
Occasionally people try to get together without Sadie, however she is very attune to this and will immediately work to selectively draw defectors back into the circle. Any small group successfully managing to work together outside of Sadie's influence (Mary and I have started gaming together on line) become the enemy and the things we did are reframed as hostile, betrayal, social climbing etc.
Susan, Mary, Sally and I all get drawn in repeatedly by pressure to perform submission acts, either listening to poor Sadie, or doing small contributions "Can you mail this?" or by being instructed to do things we already wanted to do for our own reasons. For example if I am practicing on my own, Sadie will instruct me to practice on my own. This means I have to give up my practice and cut off my nose to spite my face, or am submitting to be obedient to her. Good manners and the desire to avoid pointless drama result in everyone in the group getting used to reflexively doing what Sadie wants, and even preemptively doing what we think Sadie will prefer.
Strong emotions during times spent with Sadie act as bonding - the old thing about if you are terrified or anxious or angry at outsiders you bond more closely with the people who are present and sharing your experience. This means that in the absence of the anxiety created by Sadie gatherings where she is not present seem rather flat. While going through a gaming session thinking, 'She's gunna get my character killed I know it! Why can't I be the one to draw fire? This is stupid. I am really good at it. Now she got Mary's character killed. Right and now the treasure is being divided unfairly...' sounds like no fun, there is a real emotional engagement going on, so that when Mary and Sally and I have a gaming session it goes too easily and turns into a mechanical session with us being kind and polite to each other. Our anxiety level goes right down... but we are comparatively bored.
One of the characteristics of prey animals is that they need to observe predators. If you want to get wild horses to follow you walk around and towards them a few times so that they keep having to move position and become acutely aware of you. When you walk away they will follow a short distance. The horses don't necessarily do this with any awareness of benefits, but the big survival benefit is that they can see if the predator, having sized up who is slowest and will be easiest to pick off, is now circling around to get into a good position to attack. So they follow just far enough to make sure of where the predator is going.
In human terms this means that since we are all anxious about Sadie being upset and something bad happening, we keep going back to check up on her, and then getting sucked in by her. We go back to lower our anxiety level, and often the easiest way to do that is to get close to Sadie by being nice to her so she lets us observer her - asking her kind and supportive questions, for example.
You'll notice with Trump that everyone hangs on his every word because we are afraid of what he will do next, or gleefully waiting for him to do our dirty work for us. Most of what he actually says is irrelevant or completely predictable. But like horses watching a pack of wild dogs, a faint bark on the hill makes us stop eating and lift our ears up. Everyone in the whole world is too worried to not look.
So when Mary comes in and says, "Sadie! How are you? Are you okay? Did you ever get over those horrible things that Jane said? And what projects are you working on? Oh, that sounds so cool!" Mary is being affectionate and supportive as the fastest and most effective way of soliciting information directly from Sadie on what the current situation is. If she were to instead ask Sally, "So what is Sadie up to now...? Is the situation with Jane still worrying everyone?" she endangers both herself and Sally. Sally will soon be asked, "Have you hear from Mary? Why is Mary not coming around any more...?" And need to reassure Sadie that "Mary still loves you! She's just too busy with the new baby! She misses you terribly!" Sadie will be attuned for any signs of disaffection from Mary so if Sally is lukewarm "She said she doesn't feel up to drama right now..." Sally ends up having to perform emotional labour consoling Sadie that Mary doesn't love her anymore and either defend Mary, or throw Mary to the wolves, and get indignant about her defection. This is a lot of work for Sally, so if Mary loves Sally she goes directly to Sadie for information and to reassure Sadie that she doesn't need to put demands on Sally to keep tabs on Mary.
This means that soon Sally, Mary, Susan and Jane dare not say anything the least bit critical of Sadie because it puts a big burden on the person who hears it, as well as endangering themself, and maybe even the person they talked to. If I criticize Sadie and Susan hears it she has to denounce me indignantly or risk being punished as disloyal.
Note that of course NONE of this is thought out or explained or stated by the participants, including Sadie. When Sadie notices I'm not around she gets anxious and sad or mad enough to try to soothe her own anxiety by soliciting closeness or submission from me, or she gets cranky and our instinct to quiet down a noisy baby or provide information to other members of the tribe so we can work together leads to people trying to soothe her. She doesn't have to self regulate her anxiety or anger because it is most efficient for other people to do it. Quite often enormous amounts of work are being down behind scenes by unacknowledged people while the focus is entirely around the inner circle who keep calming Sadie down and dampening the drama and group politics, who are considered Sadie's advisors and bff. The lot in the kitchen preparing the Christmas dinner don't get to choose the menu. They are just trying to get everyone fed and create a festive time. But if shallots go into the stuffing Sadie will go through the roof and Susan will be declared evil for acting independently and no fun will be had by anyone. So that group in the kitchen are working like demons, keeping their heads down and eyeing each other suspiciously for recipe substitutions. You don't solve problems for yourselves in the kitchen. It's party line or GTFO. If Susan puts in shallots instead of regular onions, Mary and Sally will be livid because Susan is risking everything they have all worked so hard for.
posted by Jane the Brown at 5:33 AM on July 18, 2020 [11 favorites]
Occasionally people try to get together without Sadie, however she is very attune to this and will immediately work to selectively draw defectors back into the circle. Any small group successfully managing to work together outside of Sadie's influence (Mary and I have started gaming together on line) become the enemy and the things we did are reframed as hostile, betrayal, social climbing etc.
Susan, Mary, Sally and I all get drawn in repeatedly by pressure to perform submission acts, either listening to poor Sadie, or doing small contributions "Can you mail this?" or by being instructed to do things we already wanted to do for our own reasons. For example if I am practicing on my own, Sadie will instruct me to practice on my own. This means I have to give up my practice and cut off my nose to spite my face, or am submitting to be obedient to her. Good manners and the desire to avoid pointless drama result in everyone in the group getting used to reflexively doing what Sadie wants, and even preemptively doing what we think Sadie will prefer.
Strong emotions during times spent with Sadie act as bonding - the old thing about if you are terrified or anxious or angry at outsiders you bond more closely with the people who are present and sharing your experience. This means that in the absence of the anxiety created by Sadie gatherings where she is not present seem rather flat. While going through a gaming session thinking, 'She's gunna get my character killed I know it! Why can't I be the one to draw fire? This is stupid. I am really good at it. Now she got Mary's character killed. Right and now the treasure is being divided unfairly...' sounds like no fun, there is a real emotional engagement going on, so that when Mary and Sally and I have a gaming session it goes too easily and turns into a mechanical session with us being kind and polite to each other. Our anxiety level goes right down... but we are comparatively bored.
One of the characteristics of prey animals is that they need to observe predators. If you want to get wild horses to follow you walk around and towards them a few times so that they keep having to move position and become acutely aware of you. When you walk away they will follow a short distance. The horses don't necessarily do this with any awareness of benefits, but the big survival benefit is that they can see if the predator, having sized up who is slowest and will be easiest to pick off, is now circling around to get into a good position to attack. So they follow just far enough to make sure of where the predator is going.
In human terms this means that since we are all anxious about Sadie being upset and something bad happening, we keep going back to check up on her, and then getting sucked in by her. We go back to lower our anxiety level, and often the easiest way to do that is to get close to Sadie by being nice to her so she lets us observer her - asking her kind and supportive questions, for example.
You'll notice with Trump that everyone hangs on his every word because we are afraid of what he will do next, or gleefully waiting for him to do our dirty work for us. Most of what he actually says is irrelevant or completely predictable. But like horses watching a pack of wild dogs, a faint bark on the hill makes us stop eating and lift our ears up. Everyone in the whole world is too worried to not look.
So when Mary comes in and says, "Sadie! How are you? Are you okay? Did you ever get over those horrible things that Jane said? And what projects are you working on? Oh, that sounds so cool!" Mary is being affectionate and supportive as the fastest and most effective way of soliciting information directly from Sadie on what the current situation is. If she were to instead ask Sally, "So what is Sadie up to now...? Is the situation with Jane still worrying everyone?" she endangers both herself and Sally. Sally will soon be asked, "Have you hear from Mary? Why is Mary not coming around any more...?" And need to reassure Sadie that "Mary still loves you! She's just too busy with the new baby! She misses you terribly!" Sadie will be attuned for any signs of disaffection from Mary so if Sally is lukewarm "She said she doesn't feel up to drama right now..." Sally ends up having to perform emotional labour consoling Sadie that Mary doesn't love her anymore and either defend Mary, or throw Mary to the wolves, and get indignant about her defection. This is a lot of work for Sally, so if Mary loves Sally she goes directly to Sadie for information and to reassure Sadie that she doesn't need to put demands on Sally to keep tabs on Mary.
This means that soon Sally, Mary, Susan and Jane dare not say anything the least bit critical of Sadie because it puts a big burden on the person who hears it, as well as endangering themself, and maybe even the person they talked to. If I criticize Sadie and Susan hears it she has to denounce me indignantly or risk being punished as disloyal.
Note that of course NONE of this is thought out or explained or stated by the participants, including Sadie. When Sadie notices I'm not around she gets anxious and sad or mad enough to try to soothe her own anxiety by soliciting closeness or submission from me, or she gets cranky and our instinct to quiet down a noisy baby or provide information to other members of the tribe so we can work together leads to people trying to soothe her. She doesn't have to self regulate her anxiety or anger because it is most efficient for other people to do it. Quite often enormous amounts of work are being down behind scenes by unacknowledged people while the focus is entirely around the inner circle who keep calming Sadie down and dampening the drama and group politics, who are considered Sadie's advisors and bff. The lot in the kitchen preparing the Christmas dinner don't get to choose the menu. They are just trying to get everyone fed and create a festive time. But if shallots go into the stuffing Sadie will go through the roof and Susan will be declared evil for acting independently and no fun will be had by anyone. So that group in the kitchen are working like demons, keeping their heads down and eyeing each other suspiciously for recipe substitutions. You don't solve problems for yourselves in the kitchen. It's party line or GTFO. If Susan puts in shallots instead of regular onions, Mary and Sally will be livid because Susan is risking everything they have all worked so hard for.
posted by Jane the Brown at 5:33 AM on July 18, 2020 [11 favorites]
In addition to what everyone else has said, what specific behaviours do you consider evidence that this person is popular? People may be reluctant to call out or be openly impolite even towards people that they strongly dislike, depending on the context in which they interact with them. Some people may be less reluctant to do so if they knew that everyone around them disliked the problem person as much as they do, but may be unaware of this because everyone else is also being polite.
I have previously been particularly aware of this in my own behaviour. There's this guy in the broader tech community in my local area. He's an asshole, and I don't like him. I certainly don't seek out his company. So I pretty much only run into him at local conferences, which are an odd mix of personal and professional, and an environment where my default behaviour towards people I don't like is "neutral politeness". I know for a fact that other people also have a low opinion of this guy, and their approach to dealing with him appears to be similar. But I have often wondered if I'm indirectly causing harm by being as tolerant and neutral towards him as I have been so far, especially if I am in some way involved in organising the conference. If this guy harasses someone that he perceives to be an easier target than I am, will that person be reluctant to approach me to make a complaint, because they saw me socialising with this guy earlier and they assume that he's a popular member of the community and we'll all have his back?
There's also someone I know purely through a personal social group who is also an asshole, in a similar but not quite overlapping way. My friends seem to be friends with him. Several of them definitely have more time for him than I do, because they invite him to things (I don't). I have some of the same concerns -- would someone in our group not feel safe telling us about something really awful that he did because of our apparent friendship with him? Is this a good reason to cut ties with him completely? Or will that radicalise him further and take away the only healthy relationships that could pull him further away from the shitty online influences that he's really susceptible to?
I don't know what the correct answer to this is, but it's certainly something that I'm going to have to consider during future interactions.
posted by confluency at 5:47 AM on July 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
I have previously been particularly aware of this in my own behaviour. There's this guy in the broader tech community in my local area. He's an asshole, and I don't like him. I certainly don't seek out his company. So I pretty much only run into him at local conferences, which are an odd mix of personal and professional, and an environment where my default behaviour towards people I don't like is "neutral politeness". I know for a fact that other people also have a low opinion of this guy, and their approach to dealing with him appears to be similar. But I have often wondered if I'm indirectly causing harm by being as tolerant and neutral towards him as I have been so far, especially if I am in some way involved in organising the conference. If this guy harasses someone that he perceives to be an easier target than I am, will that person be reluctant to approach me to make a complaint, because they saw me socialising with this guy earlier and they assume that he's a popular member of the community and we'll all have his back?
There's also someone I know purely through a personal social group who is also an asshole, in a similar but not quite overlapping way. My friends seem to be friends with him. Several of them definitely have more time for him than I do, because they invite him to things (I don't). I have some of the same concerns -- would someone in our group not feel safe telling us about something really awful that he did because of our apparent friendship with him? Is this a good reason to cut ties with him completely? Or will that radicalise him further and take away the only healthy relationships that could pull him further away from the shitty online influences that he's really susceptible to?
I don't know what the correct answer to this is, but it's certainly something that I'm going to have to consider during future interactions.
posted by confluency at 5:47 AM on July 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
I used to be best friends with somebody who, I recently realized, was a real prick. He is incredibly smart and charismatic, a magnetic personality. I am really drawn to that. He would bring you in the circle and make you feel like you’re part of this exclusive club. Anybody who he was a jerk to you, you felt deserved it. And it further reinforced the “in group” feeling. It was only when he felt threatened by my engagement to my husband that he turned on me and I finally saw him for who he was.
posted by radioamy at 6:39 PM on July 19, 2020
posted by radioamy at 6:39 PM on July 19, 2020
« Older Current info on COVID and food safety | Neck gaiter that's nearly as Covid-proof as a... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
1. People who treat other people badly know who they can get away with mistreating and who they won't get away with mistreating. They know how to speak respectfully to their boss, etc.
2. The people in that second group aren't on the receiving end of the bad behavior so they don't believe it's happening, because they suffer under the delusion that just because everyone is nice to them means everyone is nice to everyone else.
3. Or they see the bad behavior happening but think that it's rude to call attention to it in any way, so it keeps happening. Or they maybe said something one time and nothing changed, so they let it go. Human loyalty is a really strong instinct, so it takes a lot to cut someone off.
4. Or they too treat others the same way and think it's entirely appropriate.
posted by bleep at 2:25 PM on July 17, 2020 [14 favorites]