Log in

No account? Create an account
25 September 2006 @ 05:32 pm
A rule of courtesy  
"You do not help unless asked. Once someone asks you for help, you do not do more than they can accept. You do not decide for anyone else what constitutes 'help.'"

Is there ANYONE who needs this explained? I have all fucking day to explain this very simple concept.
Tags: ,
Current Mood: annoyed on behalf of another
Current Music: Alice in Chains - Get Born Again
docjeff on September 25th, 2006 11:15 pm (UTC)
I don't need it explained but am very curious as to how you would explain it to someone who felt the need for an explanation.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 26th, 2006 12:02 am (UTC)
So am I. I'll burn that bridge when I cross it.
Noah Singman: Noah and Conniensingman on September 26th, 2006 02:06 am (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I don't think it precludes our asking someone if they would like help, as long as we don't start to help before our offer is accepted.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 26th, 2006 03:29 am (UTC)
No, it is reasonable to offer assistance. If you offer and the person accepts, then they have in a sense "asked."
Naomiomimouse on September 26th, 2006 08:01 pm (UTC)
I'd add this rider onto the above: If you have asked if assistance is needed, and been told "No", then that person doesn't get to be pissy at you for 'not helping'.

But that's just from my personal experience. I don't know how many other folks have had to deal with the BS reasoning of, "If I have to ask for help, then the help is meaningless."

Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 26th, 2006 08:07 pm (UTC)
Oh Hells no. If I offer you help and you refuse, you had your chance. Don't bitch at me later because you did need help but wouldn't take it when offered. That's a great way to make sure I NEVER help you again, offering or giving when asked.

As for expecting other people to be mind readers and just KNOW you need help? No, and fuck anyone who thinks that way. I don't just take over your life for you and do things that are your issues, your problems. If you want help, ask. If you're too proud to ask or if you think asking means that my help isn't genuine, then you can suffer through on your own.
Life Rebooted: oz hwyhopeforyou on September 26th, 2006 02:08 am (UTC)
Okay. I don't know what inspired this post, but you've got me curious...

For the sake of discussion and clarification:

Hypothetical situation: If I'm driving a car with someone along, late at night, and I'm sick to my stomach when we get a flat tire, what constitutes "help" in this situation?

If someone were to call AAA or help me fix the flat fire myself, that would be help. If someone went out and got me a cup of tea I didn't ask for or want in order to be helpful, that would not be help.

Does that jive with your concept, or not?
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 26th, 2006 03:37 am (UTC)
Well, the hypothetical doesn't really fit what I had in mind. The way I see it, the person riding in the car with you is directly involved in/affected by the flat, and so certainly has a place in working to resolve the issue. If that person calls AAA, you're there and know so you won't call a tow truck at the same time. If that person with you asks if you want something to settle your stomach, you can say yes or no. Either way, there's involvement and communication.

Now, someone driving by who saw you having a flat? Let's say that person called a tow truck for you, one for which you would be expected to pay once it arrived whether you had alternate plans or not. That's meddling, that's giving help that is not asked, and that is the kind of damage a person can do by jumping in and "solving" your problem for you. It's no solution; what if you don't have the money to pay the tow truck? They came out, they expect payment just for showing up. You didn't call them, but you're the one who is there. The person who made the call is long gone, feeling good for having solved your problem for you and giving no thought to the consequences.

I'll go you another way where the person driving by, not involved, can fuck up a situation by trying to "help." The passer-by sees you on the side of the road, parked, obviously agitated, and sees someone there with you. The conclusion is reached from that momentary, drive-by analysis that the two of you are fighting and that you need police assistance. The cops are called and arrive with a preconception of what they'll find, coloring how they approach and handle the situation. Several peoples' evenings are going to be stressed out thanks to this "helpful" person who was not in the slightest involved, didn't know what was going on, and didn't bother to ask if help was needed or wanted.

You have no idea how close I am to declaring "Mind your own business," a tenet of my religion.
Katkatmoonshaker on September 26th, 2006 01:56 pm (UTC)
Like the person who saw my ex yelling at our son who had just run out into the street at the age of two and 'thrown' him into his car seat and then those people proceeded to call Human Services who came out to my house to check on the "obviously battered child". The two women who came looked very confused when they saw my two VERY obviously well loved and taken of children and I was hard put to figure out what they were talking about until they started describing where the incident took place. Then I was able to explain exactly what happened... I was also able to explain that my son was bipolar and that he had been having a manic attack in the store and that his father was removing him from the store so that the other shoppers didn't have to hear him screaming. The strangers saw a situation that they misinterpreted and decided to be 'helpful'. In defense of a child to be sure, but they had no idea what was going on and hence they "offered help" that was not needed.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on September 26th, 2006 02:05 pm (UTC)
Calling Child Protective Services on a situation when all you see is one isolated incident and that only in passing? That tops the list of "Good intentions paving the way to Hell" on my list. It fits perfectly into the smug self-satisfaction felt by a meddling do-gooder who doesn't have to live with the results. Excellent example.

Similarly, how many pagans can we name who've had to suffer Child Overreactive Services' scrutiny thanks to their religion, ignoring the fabricated official reason, Kat?
Katkatmoonshaker on September 26th, 2006 02:15 pm (UTC)
Yep... but he was yelling so loudly! Gosh! And he just threw that child into that car seat... gee. Did they bother to try to listen to what he was yelling about? Beuller? Anyone? No. If they had, they would have realized that he was yelling about not running into the street because you could get killed... duh!

Oh yeah! Especially in the South... C and D even had a problem during their divorce when they were BOTH pagan because of their religion due to a dumb ass fundamental judge which ended up with C in jail for a few days in GA... pissed the hell out of D. SHE wasn't contesting his having custody due to religous purposes... grrrrrr.