Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- friend [2026/01/13 09:25] – ultracomfy
+++ friend [2026/04/28 08:42] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{page>Templates:Page Incomplete}}
+~~NOTOC~~
+<WRAP column 18% right>
+{{page>Templates:Systems}}
+</WRAP>
 ~~Title:Friend~~
-<fs xx-large>Friend</fs> is the word used to describe a person with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically one exclusive of sexual or family relations.
+<WRAP centeralign>Systems/Social/\\
+<fs xx-large>Friend</fs></WRAP>
+Friend is the word used to describe a person with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically one exclusive of sexual or family relations.
-====== As a trading token ======
+For me, friendship is not a real system, neither formal nor informal. In my view, the term "friendship" is a restrictive or reductive view of two or more individuals' expression of affection and the properties of their bond. Friendship is as different for everyone and between everyone as they have reasons for that friendship in the first place. People don't come together and formally declare each other a friend, they get to know each other and, as time progresses, begin to like each other and spend more time together. For many, the term "friend" seems to be used purely descriptively for the amount of time they voluntarily spend with another person or, if not that, how much they enjoy the time they spend with that person voluntarily.
-(Address people who treat friendships like they are some kind of currency, as if handed out as a reward and withheld to others)
+Now since I live in a society, I kind of have to use the words society has come up with to tell individuals of that society things I want them to know. So, I have to use the word friend, but for me I have relatively strict boundaries with who I do and do not call a friend. This owes itself of course to previous experiences with people I would have considered a "friend". The result is that it is fairly difficult for me to admit that someone is a friend, a process that unapologetically takes multiple years, during which you will find very harshly enforced boundaries around the term. In fact, I will go as far as to clarify to a person with whomst I've been talking nearly daily for over a year that, no, we are not friends, and that it takes a long time until I'm confident calling anyone my friend.
+This is not intended to push someone away, but a defensive measure to avoid things going too fast, which typically ends up with me overattaching, which inevitably leads to the whole structure collapsing at some point. Do not feel offended if I reject what may feel to you like a friendship. The feeling of affection and appreciation is as real as you feel it, I just don't like to put that word on it until I'm 99.5% sure what I'm dealing with. Though then again, it takes a lot for me to begin feeling affection/appreciation, so give me time. Regardless of whether I call us a friend, if I am spending time with you it means that I find it acceptable to be finding myself spending time with you. This alone is already more valuable than what you'll be used to when you think of a "friendship". Friendship //is// about spending time together.
 ====== "Would you be friend with someone who holds belief so completely opposite to what you believe in?" ======
-During a lifetime one will inevitably stumble over this question. I stumbled over it just now, which is the reason I am writing about it. The specific example is: //"Would you be friend with someone who is completely the opposite of you in this topic, say a Trump supporter who is a terf?"// It wasn't addressed at me but I felt the urge to say something about it. So did another user whom this was not directly addressed at but who made an interesting point: "Personally, I'd find it extremely difficult to even respect such a person since being either of those things basically requires you to have a lot of false premises. And I can't be friends with someone I don't respect."
+During a lifetime, one will inevitably stumble over this question. At the time of writing, I just stumbled over it - The specific example is: //"Would you be friend with someone who is completely the opposite of you in this topic, say a Trump supporter who is a [[terf]]?"// It wasn't addressed at me, but I felt the urge to say something about it. So did another user whom this was not directly addressed at, but who made an interesting point: "Personally, I'd find it extremely difficult to even respect such a person since being either of those things basically requires you to have a lot of false premises. And I can't be friends with someone I don't respect."
-Now, the debate the two users were having was very political and would usually be very emotionally charged. It kind of was, but it //worked// and served as a nice brain exercise in debating, actually a nice experience. So, the question already took me by surprise because I would have said "yeah, why not", but I immediately had to remind myself that there //are// limits to how far I don't care. Specifically, what I eventually landed on was //openness//. It is normal for people to be wrong and even, accidentally or through being misguided, have hateful positions towards others. I had and continue to have some positions on things that are probably motivated by hate/underlying insecurity/being fragile, just generally a flawed human being - an experience, I will assume, will be familiar to most. I don't blame or don't respect people //for// being wrong. Odds are that they are being wrong in good faith, and at that point you it even gets really hard to blame them for hurting anyone because of their wrongness. However, what's important is //openness//, the willingness to reflect and reconsider one's standpoint, to accept valid arguments and to change one's position as new information disproves your old ones. It's essentially what we do in science.
+Now, the debate the two users were having was very political and would usually be very emotionally charged - and it kind of was - but it //worked// and served as a nice brain exercise in debating. It was actually a nice experience. Thinking about this question at first, I would have said "yeah, why not, I don't really have to care", but I immediately had to remind myself that there //are// limits to how far I "don't care". Specifically, what I eventually landed on was //openness//. It is normal for people to be wrong and even, accidentally or through being misguided, have hateful positions towards others. I had and continue to have some positions on things that are probably motivated by hate/underlying insecurity/being fragile/just generally being a flawed human being - an experience, I assume, will be familiar to most. I don't blame or don't respect people //for// being wrong. Odds are that they are being wrong in good faith, and at that point you it even gets really hard to blame them for hurting anyone because of their wrongness. However, what's important is //openness//, the willingness to reflect and reconsider one's standpoint, to accept valid arguments and to change one's position as new information disproves your old ones. It's essentially what we do in science.
-Now, this doesn't mean something like "you better let me change your mind or we won't be friends". Some people are more or less resistant to having their minds changed and some people are beyond hope. Also, I might be really bad at changing people's minds. It gets really difficult here and the metric of "I can be your friend despite your toxic attitudes as long as you are open" gets very hard to sufficiently apply, especially when they //do// hurt people because of it. This is why I will always consider whether a person would actually act on their attitudes - one might hate jews, but it's something else to hate jews quietly but refuse to openly hurt them because you know you're being hateful, or to go out of one's way to hurt jews. One should be aware of how one's behavior affects other people, and when you know that your behavior is hurting others and it's motivated purely ideologically then you should probably stop. That's how I handle it, and if my potential "friend" can do that as well then that's got a lot going for them.
+Now, this doesn't mean something like "you better let me change your mind or we won't be friends". Some people are more or less resistant to having their minds changed and some people are beyond hope. Also, I might be really bad at changing people's minds. It gets really difficult here and the metric of "I can be your friend despite your toxic attitudes as long as you are open" gets very hard to sufficiently apply, especially when they //do// hurt people because of it. This is why I will always consider whether a person would actually act on their attitudes - one might hate jews, but it's something else to hate jews quietly but refuse to openly hurt them because you know you're being hateful, or to go out of one's way to hurt jews. One should be aware of how one's behavior affects other people, and when you know that your behavior is hurting others and it's motivated purely ideologically then you should probably stop. That's how I handle it, and if my potential "friend" can do that as well then they've got a lot going for them.