I am a person that wants 100% facts about circumstances. If I am going to take something or someone to task for their actions I want an argument that is infallible and irrefutable. If I can not have that type of argument then I do not have the argument.
For example, if someone says to me "Did you see what x wrote about you on the internet?" I ask what exactly did they write? When they tell me and the writing does not have my name in the text at all and there is no other hard evidence that it was about me then I let it go. All the circumstantial evidence may point a finger directly at the writing being about me but it does not offer the 100% proof and so I would let this situation go.
It would bother me. I will dwell on this issue and it will annoy me but the offending party may well get away with this behaviour because I will not approach or reply in any way shape or form to the alleged insult. It is not so much that I do not like conflict, I just like to be right.
If I approached the said person about the comments and they stated "Wasn't about you." Then where am I at. I have no resolution and no recourse. Sure, I could argue about it but as long as they kept saying "I never mentioned you and it was not about you" then the argument gets old and inert. then I look like an ass for even bringing it up.
I do realise that I am probably in the minority in this regard. I say that because people I know spend a lot of time accusing me for stuff that I have said or done with little to no proof whatsoever. I do not say that to make myself appear like a complete nasty toad but it is true. Most of the people around me tend to shoot their mouth off first without thinking about the situation. These people probably like me as I am honest all the time unless;
- I am contractually obligated to say nothing such as privacy agreements and the like
- If someone has told me something in confidence then I keep it that way.
So what about it internet land? Am I a dinosaur? Should I just open my mouth and accuse without the 100% truth on my side? What percentage of truth is OK to hit people up with? There are people telling me I am encouraging such bad behaviour because I do not take the alleged offending parties to task about it. Should I change my ways?
Isn’t that that age old argument about whether a bullied kid should hit back or not? Personally I think they should. Particularly if it cannot make it any worse.
ReplyDeleteIt depends greatly on you. What you walk past is the standard you are willing to accept. My job deals, one would believe in absolutes and facts...yet I have been vindicated and established matters at law, on strong circumstantial evidence. So it is possible.
ReplyDeleteSocial media and the internet bother me, particularly "implied" posts or status updates or whatever, where they state such and such, but when confronted declare, "oh that was not about you, your name is not in it." It is an absolute crock and just as reprehensible as naming you because it is either a lie, or shows a distinct lack of intestinal fortitude to confront the issue or person directly, or it is fostering confusion and indeed likely leading to other people thinking it is them also. Either be firm in your convictions or do not bother going onto social media or the internet to take veiled swipes and IF they run this defence of their position...I state just that. You would be just as justified in then arguing it is duplicitous and juvenile, if not a matter of reputation.
Again, perhaps it is merely my character, however not confronting this behaviour, even in a measured, logical way it will persist as attention is not drawn to it. The thing is to do it in a measured way, even without all the facts as opposed to a frothing, hyper aggressive way.