|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Friends You Do Not Like
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Somewhere on the Ship no prophet (I think) mentioned going to the pub with friends you don't like. This was something that had been on my mind so, with at least one other person having the concept, I thought I'd give it a go.
What constitutes a friend?
Can you have a friend you do not like?
To me, a friend is someone I like, enjoy spending time with and feel obligation towards.
I can, and do, socialise for various reasons. I can find something to talk about with nearly anyone an generally have a good time with them. However, many I have socialised with, I would not call friends. But some of them do call me friend, so our definitions or perceptions vary.
And I there are people who do not meet my first two criteria, but I still feel obligation towards. So, they would seem to be friends I do not like. Which I find odd, even for me.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I was the one who asked the question giving rise to this thread. I am still in the dark.
I feel an obligation towards a lot of people. But does that make them my friends? I don't understand how that is so. It seems a very strange definition of friends that would define "someone towards whom you feel an obligation" as a friend.
People I hang around with who are not friends are acquaintances. It is a meaningful and useful distinction.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
When I was a student I thought I had about 500 friends, but as I got older, I had less and less. I should say, fewer and fewer, but I refuse. Well, obviously, I began to discriminate. Now I have about two!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Having read your OP and then had a quick mental run-through of all the friends I see regularly, those seen only rarely, or those with whom I e-mail communicate only. I can think of various irritating little habits that several have, but those with whom I choose to spend longer time or talk to on the phone for ages, I like them all, faults and all, especially since I am pretty sure I have quite a few myself!! I think when I was younger and worked, I might well have referred to 'a friend at work', but that person would have been an acquaintance, not a friend.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824
|
Posted
I had friends I didn't like in school, as most people probably do. I expect most people,certainly in school and often later, find themselves part of a group of friends in which some people get on better than others, and often a few don't really like each other that much, but still use the "friend" label to remain part of the group.
Otherwise I suppose there are friends where you fall out with them, or get bored by them, but don't want to consider them as no longer friends.
Posts: 689 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When I was a student I thought I had about 500 friends, but as I got older, I had less and less. I should say, fewer and fewer, but I refuse. Well, obviously, I began to discriminate. Now I have about two!
Tangent re NB re grammar!! Less is correct. I know it tends to ruffle our feathers, but there was an interesting programme a while ago and an expert explained why less is perfectly okay. End tangent.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
There are very few people with whom I feel comfortable sitting around for hours and saying nothing at all. It is for me a useful working definition of a friend.
Back when I didn't like myself I thought a friend was anyone who said they were my friend. There were few two way streets and many one way streets for me at that time.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
Tortuf, that resonates with me!
I have a handful of close friends, some people with whom I'm moving towards friendship, and hopefully they are too. And some who are one-time friends but we've fallen off each others' radar.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Interesting OP, one which I shall devote more thought towards.
We all have had people we have been aquatinted with, throughout the various phases of our lives.
If I think about that then yes, there was some I liked more than others. And of course, their attitudes toward me, by definition of the same logic, must have been similarly proportioned.
Friends? That is a strange word when put under the microscope.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was the one who asked the question giving rise to this thread. I am still in the dark.
I feel an obligation towards a lot of people. But does that make them my friends? I don't understand how that is so. It seems a very strange definition of friends that would define "someone towards whom you feel an obligation" as a friend.
People I hang around with who are not friends are acquaintances. It is a meaningful and useful distinction.
I guess maybe it depends on what is meant by "obligation." If it means something like "I can be counted on to be there if and when they need me," I can see how it fits into a definition of friendship.
I guess I tend to have three categories: acquaintances, friends and "good friends" or "close friends."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I had friends I didn't like in school, as most people probably do.
One of my pet hates is the cutesy elementary school nonsense that refers to all your classmates as your "friends".
Because that's just a lie. Some of them are probably friends, some are classmates that you get along fine with, but aren't particularly "friends" and you don't choose to spend time with them outside class, and some you probably hate.
As an adult, I have a number of people I'd call friends. For people who don't live in the same place as me, my metric is probably "if this person was to visit a town an hour or two's journey from my home, would I make an effort to go and see them?" If so, they're a friend.
Work colleagues are interesting. There are people I hang out with at work that I consider friends. We don't spend time together outside work, but that's because we live in different places and everyone's busy with their own things. But if they need something, I'd put myself out significantly for them as a matter of course, so friends.
There are other people that I chat to regularly, but are just acquaintances or colleagues.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was the one who asked the question giving rise to this thread.
Actually, this post by no prophet resonated with something that was already on my mind. Should have said in my OP, I suppose.
quote:
It seems a very strange definition of friends that would define "someone towards whom you feel an obligation" as a friend.
It is the type of obligation. There are things one typically will do for friends, but not acquaintances or strangers. Such as move house.
quote:
People I hang around with who are not friends are acquaintances. It is a meaningful and useful distinction.
It is not an either/or in my experience. The transition from acquaintance to friend can be gradual, incremental or, occasionally, sudden. It can not happen at all and it can happen partially. It can be differently perceived by either party.
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I had friends I didn't like in school, as most people probably do. I expect most people,certainly in school and often later, find themselves part of a group of friends in which some people get on better than others, and often a few don't really like each other that much, but still use the "friend" label to remain part of the group.
This certainly happens. It can also happen at one's favourite pub. People who one regularly sees, have a laugh with, talk about their families, etc. Something that feels more than an acquaintance, but less than a true friend.
quote:
Otherwise I suppose there are friends where you fall out with them, or get bored by them, but don't want to consider them as no longer friends.
I've a friend, a true friend of many years who I will go out of my way to help and would do the same for me. One who I genuinely love. But is as boring as fuck. If it were not for their partner, who is interesting, I would rarely darken their door and might drift away from.
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
There are very few people with whom I feel comfortable sitting around for hours and saying nothing at all. It is for me a useful working definition of a friend.
I am just beginning to appreciate this. I am more an introvert and when I desire quiet, I tend to look to being alone. When I am with people I tend to be on. Turning off and simply being there is a level of maturity that I don't quite have.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
One of my criteria of friendship is that we can sit quietly and comfortably, even enjoyably, each one reading their own book
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I certainly may have raised this. It started for me when I was on a committee with a very conservative clergy, who believe just about everything opposite to my views. We worked quite well together. We didn't see each other for a spell, and then we ran into each other in a park and within a few minutes started to disagree, and then somehow we chuckled and said something along the lines of that we both said everything wrong. From there, I ended up visiting a relative of his in hospital as she was dying, we went for coffee, and basically connected quite well, except that he said everything wrong and was wrong about just about everything. I expect if we'd been school boys together we'd have hit each other periodically. There's something refreshing about arguing with some people, who authentically disagree with you. I have a couple of more people less "close" than this one where we've agreed not to talk about certain subjects because we'd probably have to swear at each other. They're still my friends even if a**holes.
Maybe it is about what your concept of friendship it? Mine is that if they need something they ask, and I'll deliver, and vice versa. That they are honest and authentic. We've probably some shared experience and context, and we trust each other. It doesn't mean agreement.
Acquaintances for me are people less close and less knowledgeable about each other than friends. At the level where we probably don't know if we agree or disagree on things.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there was an interesting programme a while ago and an expert explained why less is perfectly okay. End tangent.
Well, perfectly okay to him, perhaps, but not to those who like to see language used properly. NOW end tangent.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Reopen tangent:
Bollocks. There is no authority on language beyond usage. No Divine Dictats of correct usage. The usage of the speech community as a whole is the only guide to correct usage.
If people use "less" in this context, it is correct by definition.
Prescriptive grammar died decades ago when people realised it was absolute bollocks.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Someone whom I don't like can't possibly be my friend.
I do have friends whose infirmities I bear, as did Cassius according to Shakespeare, but I like them despite (or even because of) their infirmities.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Someone whom I don't like can't possibly be my friend.
I do have friends whose infirmities I bear, as did Cassius according to Shakespeare, but I like them despite (or even because of) their infirmities.
On this, however, you are of course correct. I can't see how someone you don't like is a "friend". At least not by the commonly used and understood (by the speech community as a whole ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) usage of the term anyway.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Let me tell you about a friend that I have. I actually helped to bring him to the faith, but over time, he has become more conservative theologically and politically. He has since moved on to another denomination. I just finished replying to a couple of his facebook posts. We are now very much opposed to each other. Do I like him? I do not like what he has become. Would I want to be around him? Not at this point. However, if he should ever get in some trouble. I would be one of the ones to be reaching out to help him. If I get into trouble, I would think he would be one of the first ones to come to my aid as well.
Friendship is more than liking or disliking someone. Aristotle pointed out that there are three types of friendships
1) Utility--such as business partners, can easily be dissolved. You don't have to like each other, but you are united around a common goal.
2) Pleasure--you like each other, have pleasant feelings when you are together.
3) Goodness--this is where you admire each other for the basic goodness between the both of you. You don't necessarily have to like each other, but you trust each other to come through in a pinch.
I would say the friend my friend and I are at the third level.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
]Tangent re NB re grammar!! Less is correct. I know it tends to ruffle our feathers, but there was an interesting programme a while ago and an expert explained why less is perfectly okay. End tangent.
On what grounds is "less" appropriate in this context? People frequently say "less" ("I have less books," someone said in my hearing just the other day, to my lasting pain) when they mean "fewer," and it makes me wince every time.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't see how someone you don't like is a "friend". At least not by the commonly used and understood (by the speech community as a whole ) usage of the term anyway.
OK, so to me, a friendship is mutual. However, There are people who call me friend who I do not like and wouldn't associate with by choice. So, then, what are we?
There are people whom I like under certain circumstances, but not others. What are we, then?
You can lay out a definition and have everyone agree with it and still have differences in what they call friends. I do not think it as simple or as universal like/dislike.
I think friendships can be like family where like/love/responsibility/etc. can be a complicated and shifting thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A fellow wincer here. Less is for quantity and fewer for number. So if you pour water from a glass, there is less than there was before. If a couple of friends leave a gathering, you have fewer friends in the room.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
]On what grounds is "less" appropriate in this context? People frequently say "less" ("I have less books," someone said in my hearing just the other day, to my lasting pain) when they mean "fewer," and it makes me wince every time.
Do you pronounce balcony bal-CON-ee? If not, why not?: that's how it was pronounced at first in English.
I am a fewer user but we are a dying breed. The language is, as it ever was, evolving; if we want a dead language frozen in time with the rules we once learnt we need to stick with Latin. I hear people say "less" where I would say "fewer" and it may jolt me, but no judgements are made.
It is 21st century English. I do fear in job applications they may get a prescriptivist reader who judges them, but that will go with time.
We can either accept the change, or fight against it and make no difference anyway. English now is different to English 50 years ago and that 100 years ago. Rules like less vs fewer were created by middle-class snobs who wanted to distinguish themselves from their lessers.
I have very few friends, and a larger circle of acquaintances, to keep this on track.
[ 14. January 2018, 22:28: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
The issue of what constitutes a friend is a live one for me. I was bemoaning the fact today with someone online that I seem to have fewer and fewer friends as I age, and I said this happens because we drifted apart, or people have moved, or in a couple of cases, died.
I got a response that regardless of where they moved to they should still be my friend and if not they were never really "true friends" in the first place.
Now I do have people I consider friends that I have to take a train or plane to hang out with. But I also think that life is not that black and white. There are definitely people I barely have contact with now that I once consider my closest of friends. I can't see how the current state of affairs retrospectively invalidates what happened in the past.
I'd like to bring up asymmetry. ISTM it's common that one part is more invested in a friendship than the other. Often this changes over time. I know that over the course of my life I've had maybe 4 or 5 'best friends' and of those people I can only think of one who consider me their best friend.
As for friends you don't like - let's talk about that very Christian idea of "fellowship". Through out the years I was heavily involved in church, almost all my friends, including my closest, were also from church. That's because there was this huge thing we had in common. And even people I didn't necessarily think of as friends I had some connection with. I remember one of the consequences of leaving church the first time around was the sense of relief and not having to spend time with, try to be nice to, people I really didn't like.
I have experienced that in other groups too.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
...Rules like less vs fewer were created by middle-class snobs who wanted to distinguish themselves from their lessers. ...
This is the Merriam-Webster's argument; instead of upholding proper usage, they just go with the flow.
No, these rules were not "created by middle-class snobs," particularly for the reasons you cite. They actually mean different things - and that's important. Instead of caving to uninformed usage, we should stick to our guns. Yes, English is evolving, but that doesn't mean that all evolution is equal. Some of it isn't really evolution.
To stay on topic: I have friends (a few really good ones), friendly acquaintances (rather more of these), friendly neighbors, and friendly colleagues. I also have all of the above (except "friends") without the "friendly" modifier.
I have to deal with some acquaintances, neighbors, and colleagues whom I don't particularly like, but that doesn't happen too often.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Friends are people who are there for you when you at your lowest ebb and nerd a shoulder to cry on. They can also be complete twats the rest of the time.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
They actually mean different things - and that's important. Instead of caving to uninformed usage, we should stick to our guns. Yes, English is evolving, but that doesn't mean that all evolution is equal. Some of it isn't really evolution.
Ross, you're someone whose posts I always read, and I always will, but I fear we will never agree here. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It isn't a matter of anything goes, but evolution as you spoke. I personally can't see how "fewer traffics" [I'll be honest, I did shudder] or "less apples" is less understandable than the 'correct' [according to 18th/19th century grammarians] version. But that's me.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
It's understandable, Ian, but it's like using double negatives: It marks the speaker as, well, ignorant.
(My apologies for going off-topic.)
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I personally can't see how . . . "less apples" is less understandable.
I really don't want to continue this tangent, but you see, it really does mean something quite different.
Consider that you have in front of you a hybrid fruit, a cross between apples and bananas. Actually, "they are less apples than bananas" means that the hybrid is more like a banana than it is an apple, although it does exhibit characteristics of each.
"There are fewer apples than bananas" means just what it says: there are, say, 5 apples and 10 bananas in the fruit bowl in front of you.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When I was a student I thought I had about 500 friends, but as I got older, I had less and less. I should say, fewer and fewer, but I refuse. Well, obviously, I began to discriminate. Now I have about two!
Tangent re NB re grammar!! Less is correct. I know it tends to ruffle our feathers, but there was an interesting programme a while ago and an expert explained why less is perfectly okay. End tangent.
I'd love to hear the rationale behind that one. "They say... " is not enough.
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
We can either accept the change, or fight against it and make no difference anyway. English now is different to English 50 years ago and that 100 years ago.
You are making an error here. You are asserting that there is a single thing called "English", and there really isn't. English has different modes, different registers, different dialects, and so on.
I agree that language is defined by usage. But that means that there is no "change" which is external to us that we may accept or reject - we are the change. We are the usage.
I will always say "fewer" for countable objects. Most of the people I know say "fewer" for countable objects. It's probably a trait of educated speech.
I expect that you're right, and in another 50 years I'll be surrounded by educated young'uns talking about "less apples". And I expect I'll still say "fewer" and they'll know what I mean, and it'll be one of the features of my idiolect that will mark me out as impossibly old-fashioned.
Based on the number of current students I hear use fewer "correctly", I don't think we're that close to the point where the standard educated usage shifts.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
But I also think that life is not that black and white.
I think this is a key to the different interpretations. When we try to define what is a friend, we tend to write black and white definitions. Life can be more complex than this. Leading to situations of mixed definition rather than single ones.
-----------------
As to the other posts on this thread; we need fewer tangent and less people engaging in it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
It's understandable, Ian, but it's like using double negatives: It marks the speaker as, well, ignorant.
Of course, double negatives were once perfectly acceptable in English, and served to intensify the negative. Chaucer and Shakespeare both used double negatives, and even triple negatives.
ETA: Sorry. I won’t feed the tangent no more.
[ 15. January 2018, 02:05: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MaryLouise
Shipmate
# 18697
|
Posted
Social media has changed some of my thinking on the issue of friendship and I'm still adjusting to this.
I joined Facebook a few years ago and tentatively beFriended a few people I knew well as real-life friends. Because I had worked in media, a surprisingly large number of work colleagues and acquaintances asked to be Friends and I had no problem with that. Some of them have delightful timelines all about their travels, art, pets, books they read, etc, and I now feel much closer to them online than I did in real life. Facebook has also allowed me to stay closer to friends who live abroad, so we don't depend on emails or phone calls.
On the other hand, some close real-life friends are not skilled at Facebook and I've seen a side of them on social media that I haven't encountered in real-life meetings and encounters. They come across as politically crass, prurient, argumentative, self-aggrandising or impossibly vain. Some of this is obviously what Facebook is designed to elicit from posters, what happens when anyone can post an endless flow of selfies or trivial status updates or start quarrels in comments threads. All this has made me highly aware of how I myself post and the need for good boundaries.
It has also given me more to think about when I consider the notion of friendship. A decade ago, my closest friends were often chosen because of proximity: we met in the same workplace, lived next door, attended the same book clubs, participated together in churches or activist circles. In recent years I've made new friends from among those encountered in forums, blogging communities and Facebook connections. We may not get together face-to-face as often, but we have a great deal more in common and there is a steady flow of emails, comments and sharing.
--------------------
“As regards plots I find real life no help at all. Real life seems to have no plots.”
-- Ivy Compton-Burnett
Posts: 646 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As to the other posts on this thread; we need fewer tangent and less people engaging in it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As I am guilty of starting tangent, I will start a new topic for the question!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
The potential for “friends you don’t like” gets exponentially greater during the phase of life in which people start forming long-term couples. It’s the dilemma of “I like X, I don’t like X’s other half”. There are plenty of situations in which one may feel obligated to hang out with a person one does not appreciate in order to have the pleasure of seeing their spouse.
Whether X’s other half is really a friend is debatable. However, it’s generally not polite to talk about how you don’t really like them, so at least when referring to both people, they become “our/my friends”. Or so ISTM.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Whether X’s other half is really a friend is debatable. However, it’s generally not polite to talk about how you don’t really like them, so at least when referring to both people, they become “our/my friends”. Or so ISTM.
I hear people referred to as "my friend X and <possessive pronoun> <spouse word>" quite often, although clearly you'd invite the couple to dinner.
I'm thinking particularly of a pair of couples that we met through our respective children. We've known them for a while; both have recently divorced. In one case, we considered both husband and wife as friends until they split up; his behaviour at that time was rather a surprise to us and we no longer consider him a friend.
With respect to the other couple, we'd never have described the husband as a friend. He was always "X's husband". The fact that in the last year or so he has behaved like an arse of the first water did not entirely surprise us.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
It's understandable, Ian, but it's like using double negatives: It marks the speaker as, well, ignorant.
Of course, double negatives were once perfectly acceptable in English, and served to intensify the negative. Chaucer and Shakespeare both used double negatives, and even triple negatives.
ETA: Sorry. I won’t feed the tangent no more.
Not, never, nohow, in fact.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
‘Friends who have changed’ would, maybe, come under this umbrella.
A friend of mine used to be great fun and always up for a coffee/meal/adventure/laugh/chat. About three years ago she started with an anxiety disorder which has become steadily worse.
I really feel for her and I miss the person she used to be ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Boogie, the mention of anxiety always draws a response from me, as there was a time when my anxiety had me doing stuff that was out of character. I have had manageable anxiety all my life in retrospect, but it really got out of control around the turn of the century.
I hope your friend can find a treatment that works for her and be back to her 'slightly better for the experience' self and doing the stuff you did together.
I don't have much to add on the topic other than to say that I think I've been one of those friends who turned into a friend people didn't want to see when my mental illness went troppo. Even then my friends stuck with me for a very long time, and put up with some very anti-social behavior.
There just came a time when it became too much for some of them I think, and when I was starting to recover it just became too embarrassing/shameful for me. There was another issue, in that I worked out that I needed to stop smoking dope, and I couldn't stop myself around them because that's what we did. I didn't need to stop smoking dope because it made me crazy. Rather I needed to be in control of myself all the time so I could stop doing the crazy things I was addicted to. I was not in control when I was stoned.
So this group of friendships fell victim to my madness, even though my friends supported me through it, and couldn't survive the adjustments I deemed necessary to live with this chronic illness. Tragic it is, and I wish it could have been different, but I know I did what I had to do to live.
[ 16. January 2018, 12:05: Message edited by: simontoad ]
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Such a hard set of choices for you simontoad
I’m hoping my friend will get help and I did have a frank chat to her a week or so ago about seeking it.
About 20 years ago my husband went through a severe depression and wouldn’t see anyone apart from me and the boys for nearly 12 months. His friends were amazing, they waited for him and picked up when he was ready.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
Too me, a friend is closer than an acquaintance (as some of you have said here). We don't necessarily dislike the acquaintance, but we wouldn't share our deepest secrets with them. Then there is the associate. I think this is the kind of friend we don't like. Maybe they were once our drinking buddies etc, but then we stopped drinking, because we grew up and had families etc, and they kept trying to persuade us to live as we did when we were single.
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I tend more towards the 'Once a friend, always a friend' mode of thinking. But have to accept that people do change over time and also that people either naturally, or are urged to by social pressure, purge their number of friends as time goes by.
As my husband is my best friend, I don't really have need for other best friends, but am fortunate in having a large circle of good-enough friends. Even though I don't always see some of them very often, it is good to know that we can meet up from time to time and pick up where we left off. Old school or college buddies come into this category, as do people I used to work with long ago.
The one sign of all this is that my Christmas Card list is enormous! But what sort of friend would it be that you felt you couldn't contact them once a year, minimum??
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
A teacher talking to a child today at work.
“Do you play with him?”
Child: “Yes, every day.”
Teacher: “So he’s your friend?”
Child: “No, he’s not my friend.”
Teacher: “So why do you play with him?”
Child: “I don’t know.”
I thought of this thread
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A teacher talking to a child today at work.
“Do you play with him?”
Child: “Yes, every day.”
Teacher: “So he’s your friend?”
Child: “No, he’s not my friend.”
Teacher: “So why do you play with him?”
Child: “I don’t know.”
I thought of this thread
That, to me, is a brilliant example of a 'good-enough' friend. It reminds me of one of my relatives, now long gone, who used to say she had no friends. Then start talking about all the people who used to call in from time to time, or who she used to chat to around the village, or who used to make things for her. I could never understand why she couldn't call them friends??? They certainly seemed like her friends to me.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It reminds me of one of my relatives, now long gone, who used to say she had no friends. Then start talking about all the people who used to call in from time to time, or who she used to chat to around the village, or who used to make things for her. I could never understand why she couldn't call them friends??? They certainly seemed like her friends to me.
Perhaps it might be due to those relationships not meeting a particular criterion she hoped for?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
There is a person who I became friends with over 20 years ago, and we were very good friends, though in-and-out of touch over the years. Then somewhere along the line she changed, to what is to me,a very ugly political viewpoint. We are facebook friends, and I ignore her uglier posts completely. I still consider us friends because of the shared history, but I don't like her very much now.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I've often said that I tend to like people even when I don't like them. What I mean by that is I might continue to objectively like them - i.e., like who they are as a person - even if I don't enjoy hanging around them, or they did something to hurt me, etc.
I prefer not to define a word like "friend" too rigidly. I think of the relationship as not unlike "family," where there are varying degrees of closeness, and you like some people more than others or more at different times, etc., but something holds you all together. Of course, you can have family you don't know, or barely know, and I wouldn't say the same could be true of a friend.
I think I'd call someone a friend if they meet a number of certain criteria (kinda like the DSM), including:
--Are we both part of a circle of friends?
--Do I trust them?
--Do we share history, in-jokes, significant experiences, and so forth?
--Would they help me in a time of need?
--Would I help them in a time of need?
--Do we converse, either in person or online/by phone?
--Do we go out places together, either just us or with a group of other friends?
But I wouldn't make it a check list where they had to meet all the criteria.
Interestingly, I might be more inclined to call someone I know only online a "friend" if we chat a lot or if I've met them and enjoyed their company at one point than I would someone I know in person, see all the time, converse with, etc., but in a room full of people we both know, they might not talk to me (e.g., at church on a Sunday).
Some of it's relative. I think I'm more likely to call someone a "friend" when I'm in a context in which they're literally more distant - e.g., when I was living in California, I might've described someone back home as a "friend" who I might not describe that way now that I'm home. I think that's similar to how there might be someone at school or church or work that you never really interact with, but if you run into each other at the airport, e.g., or some place far from home, you would acknowledge each other.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
