Author
|
Topic: Re: virus: the friendship discussion (retitled) (Read 1235 times) |
|
DrSebby
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.07
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
     
  
|
 |
Re: virus: the friendship discussion (retitled)
« on: 2003-12-08 02:11:10 » |
 |
...at the same time, we might consider that everything boils down to need or
desire...be it the cad who would filch money from associates who have more
than he; to the 'well-meaning' chap who gives time/money to a
cause/individual to generate a feeling of self-love; or a "friend" who lends
a helping hand/listening ear so as to maintain or encourage a friendship. a
truly selfless act is nearly impossible...which then suggests 'selfishness'.
but we can then consider that all the various forms of 'need' or greed are
substantially different so as to require more specific nomenclature.
therefore words such as 'friend' or lover or benefactor or even
'philanthropist' have been born over time. just because a helpful act
benefits at least two people and never just one, doesnt take anything away
from the way we should think about it.
DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: I have a good idea
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 02:09:08 -0400
Friendship is not an "illusion". A friend is someone you can count on for
certain things.
I always considered a friend to be someone who I could count on to play a
game with.
Some people count as friends people who listen to them, and respond to what
they say based on what they said, rather than based on their own agenda or
interest.
I like my definition better because, deep down, it's the same definition...
only simpler.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: virus: the friendship discussion (retitled)
« Reply #1 on: 2003-12-09 21:55:13 » |
|
I found this funny piece which is somehow related, I think. Worth taking a look.
Five Geek Social Fallacies
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
<snip>
Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil
GSF1 is one of the most common fallacies, and one of the most deeply held. Many geeks have had horrible, humiliating, and formative experiences with ostracism, and the notion of being on the other side of the transaction is repugnant to them.
In its non-pathological form, GSF1 is benign, and even commendable: it is long past time we all grew up and stopped with the junior high popularity games. However, in its pathological form, GSF1 prevents its carrier from participating in -- or tolerating -- the exclusion of anyone from anything, be it a party, a comic book store, or a web forum, and no matter how obnoxious, offensive, or aromatic the prospective excludee may be.
As a result, nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate. If GSF1 exists in sufficient concentration -- and it usually does -- it is impossible to expel a person who actively detracts from every social event. GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone you don't like to a given event, but if someone spills the beans and our hypothetical Cat Piss Man invites himself, there is no recourse. You must put up with him, or you will be an Evil Ostracizer and might as well go out for the football team.
<snip>
-------------------------
Geek Social Fallacy #2: Friends Accept Me As I Am
The origins of GSF2 are closely allied to the origins of GSF1. After being victimized by social exclusion, many geeks experience their "tribe" as a non-judgmental haven where they can take refuge from the cruel world outside.
This seems straightforward and reasonable. It's important for people to have a space where they feel safe and accepted. Ideally, everyone's social group would be a safe haven. When people who rely too heavily upon that refuge feel insecure in that haven, however, a commendable ideal mutates into its pathological form, GSF2.
Carriers of GSF2 believe that since a friend accepts them as they are, anyone who criticizes them is not their friend. Thus, they can't take criticism from friends -- criticism is experienced as a treacherous betrayal of the friendship, no matter how inappropriate the criticized behavior may be.
Conversely, most carriers will never criticize a friend under any circumstances; the duty to be supportive trumps any impulse to point out unacceptable behavior.
GSF2 has extensive consequences within a group. Its presence in substantial quantity within a social group vastly increases the group's conflict-averseness. People spend hours debating how to deal with conflicts, because they know (or sometimes merely fear) that the other person involved is a GSF2 carrier, and any attempt to confront them directly will only make things worse. As a result, people let grudges brew much longer than is healthy, and they spend absurd amounts of time deconstructing their interpersonal dramas in search of a back way out of a dilemma.
Ironically, GSF2 carriers often take criticism from coworkers, supervisors, and mentors quite well; those individuals aren't friends, and aren't expected to accept the carrier unconditionally.
----------------------
Geek Social Fallacy #3: Friendship Before All
Valuing friendships is a fine and worthy thing. When taken to an unhealthy extreme, however, GSF3 can manifest itself.
Like GSF2, GSF3 is a "friendship test" fallacy: in this case, the carrier believes that any failure by a friend to put the interests of the friendship above all else means that they aren't really a friend at all.
<snip>
In the end, the carrier has a great circle of friends, but not a lot else to show for their life. This is one reason why so many geek circles include people whose sole redeeming quality is loyalty: it's hard not to honor someone who goes to such lengths to be there for a friend, however destructive they may be in other respects.
---------------------------
Geek Social Fallacy #4: Friendship Is Transitive
Every carrier of GSF4 has, at some point, said:
"Wouldn't it be great to get all my groups of friends into one place for one big happy party?!"
If you groaned at that last paragraph, you may be a recovering GSF4 carrier.
GSF4 is the belief that any two of your friends ought to be friends with each other, and if they're not, something is Very Wrong.
The milder form of GSF4 merely prevents the carrier from perceiving evidence to contradict it; a carrier will refuse to comprehend that two of their friends (or two groups of friends) don't much care for each other, and will continue to try to bring them together at social events.
<snip>
Arguably, Friendster was designed by a GSF4 carrier.
-----------------------
Geek Social Fallacy #5: Friends Do Everything Together
GSF5, put simply, maintains that every friend in a circle should be included in every activity to the full extent possible. This is subtly different from GSF1; GSF1 requires that no one, friend or not, be excluded, while GSF5 requires that every friend be invited. This means that to a GSF5 carrier, not being invited to something is intrinsically a snub, and will be responded to as such.
This is perhaps the least destructive of the five, being at worst inconvenient. In a small circle, this is incestuous but basically harmless. In larger groups, it can make certain social events very difficult: parties which are way too large for their spaces and restaurant expeditions that include twenty people and no reservation are far from unusual.
<snip>
For some reason, many GSF5 carriers are willing to make an exception for gender-segregated events. I don't know why.
<snip>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
