Does Friendship Require Agreement?

[cotten]

Originally Posted by mc1

because it's the agf, and because we are polite, we are totally avoiding the elephant in the room - people who insist the thumb should be kept behind the neck at all times. what kind of person could befriend someone like that?

Don't be silly. Elephants don't have thumbs. That's why they play piano instead of guitar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsu3SGAdLs

cotten

[BluesyRob]

Originally Posted by mc1

because it's the agf, and because we are polite, we are totally avoiding the elephant in the room - people who insist the thumb should be kept behind the neck at all times. what kind of person could befriend someone like that?

Gotta use that thumb to get notes on the 1st 4 or 5 frets of the low E sometimes!

[Denny B]

"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Quote by Thomas Jefferson


I've never asked any of my neighbors their religious beliefs, nor have I asked them who they're voting for...neither have they asked those questions of me...

Maybe that's why I've gotten along well with everyone in my neighborhood for 25 years...

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Denny B

I've never asked any of my neighbors their religious beliefs, nor have I asked them who they're voting for...neither have they asked those questions of me...

Maybe that's why I've gotten along well with everyone in my neighborhood for 25 years...

Can we really know people, though, without having some idea of their fundamental beliefs and world views?

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by cotten

A few weeks ago I was in a group conversation concerning one of today's political/religious hot topics. (It was on how best to respond to the Syrian refugees, just so you know, but that's not the topic of this thread.) I respectfully disagreed with the opinion of a dear friend, a thoughtful, highly intelligent young college student whom I had started in guitar a few years ago. The conversation, though full of disagreements, was not at all heated or insulting. Everyone involved was actually listening to one another before responding - something that is becoming rare it seems.

When the conversation was over, we were all still friends, or so I thought. A couple of days later, my young friend posted on Facebook something like, "If you disagree with me on the Syrian refugees, go ahead and unfriend me now." I was surprised, and a bit disappointed. I waited a couple of days, then contacted her privately, apologizing if I had come across as rude or disrespectful, and asking if we could remain friends, even though we still disagree on this issue. She, too, was apologetic, but explained.

"Most of my friends cannot discuss controversial topics and still remain friends. It's as if friendship requires agreement, especially on today's hot topics. I guess I just got caught up in that." Then came the question I'm asking here: Does friendship these days require that we agree? Is it possible to remain friends - not just distant acquaintances - with someone who disagrees with our views on politics, religion, sports, cars, guitars, or candy bars? Or have we reached the point where to be friends, we have to agree on such things?

cotten

Very interesting topic, and I find the general question very meaningful. I do think however that there is a significant difference between "un-friending" someone on Facebook and not being friends. Un-friending can be loosely translated as "I don't want to see a steady stream of politically charged posts in my feed which go against a position I fundamentally disagree with".

It doesn't mean "I'll never be friends with you" or "I never want to discuss this topic" or "I don't want to talk about topics where we disagree".

Think of Facebook more as a media aggregator like Flipboard than an inventory of who one is actually friends with. The main experience in Facebook is to see what everyone is sharing. I don't want a bunch of heavily biased and one-sided information in Flipboard, I want a sampling of thoughtful, in-depth and meaningful sources which discuss issues. On Facebook, what people post about is what they're passionate about, and as such, tends much more to be "blog posts or articles which support my world view" rather than thoughtful discussions. At least more than a non-friend-based media aggregator like Flipboard.

"Un-friending" does have more to it than the "stop showing posts from this person" function, as it is an overt rather than passive form of objection. But it's not at all the same as "I don't want to be friends with you".

There is a relatively complex and sometimes subtle etiquette in play here that may be lost between generations of people who grew up with the platform and generations of people who learned or are learning it.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by mc1

i think it all depends upon the depth and type of disagreement.

^this^
in the uk we have just had the Brexit referendum. This issue has been more devisive than anything in living memory.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Silurian

^this^
in the uk we have just had the Brexit referendum. This issue has been more devisive than anything in living memory.

Well, at least the Brits can re-claim their sausage!

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Well, at least the Brits can re-claim their sausage!

Sadly, this does indeed reflect the level of debate.

[Denny B]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Can we really know people, though, without having some idea of their fundamental beliefs and world views?

Well, in my neighborhood, there are musicians who help me out with my guitar playing, and ones I help out with maintenance on their motorcycles...

There are backyard jams, cookouts, shared dinners and assistance when someone is under the weather or in a bad way, and a few of us have spare keys to the others home in case of an emergency...

I suffered a broken leg about a dozen years ago, and when the yard service showed up the first time to cut my grass, my next door neighbor wasn't having it, and volunteered/insisted that he was going to mow my lawn for the summer...

My wife cooked meals for the elderly lady next door, while I took care of other chores, and when the lady passed way, we felt as if we'd lost a family member...

I think that about covers our fundamental beliefs, and when there are tragedies around the country or the globe, we find we can talk about the human side of things without getting out the political soapboxes...for the most part, there's just a bunch of truly decent people around here...and I still don't know how most of them vote...

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by ewalling

I think the only problem about these topics is that people often mortgage their identity to one, the other or both. If you speak to someone who can discuss these topics but has no personal interest in "winning" the argument or "proving" they are right, that is, someone who does not feel threatened by the possibility that the other person makes a stronger argument than their own and is open to being contradicted, then such conversations can be fascinating. In this spirit, they become moments of truth-seeking rather than point-scoring. Unfortunately, religion and politics all too often become places where we grasp for some sense of meaning and community in a world that seems to make no sense, and if someone comes along and convincingly challenges our position, we run the risk of being cast out into chaos and loneliness once more. It's at such times that the claws come out and the fur begins to fly!

^^^^this^^^

Reminds me of an old saying: "Hang on tightly, let go lightly." If we can let go of our positions, and others can simply allow us to float in the space of not knowing, it can be liberating to get input that differs radically from out own views, and which untethers us. But all of this can only take place within a relationship field of respect, trust, and openness....and while such personal qualities are not exactly rare, they aren't commonplace either.

I think most folks choose a strategy that is like thst summarized by Danny B: optimize relationships by focusing on what is heartwarming, or admirable, or valuable, and steer clear of things St might jeopardize harmony and appreciation. Which is an intelligent strategy, IMO, even as it has an element of risk mangement woven into it, which might limit the horizons. But again, I don't think this is bad at all. Just reflecting on it for myself, and how it comes into play in my relationships.

[cotten]

It's recently been brought to my attention that for some people, the fact that there are disagreements between us can prevent even a friendly exchange on noncontroversial subjects. It's like, "I disagree with you on _____, so how can you stand there and insist that 1+1=2."

I've decided that a) some people just aren't very friendly, and b) that some people prefer taking easy offense and fighting to any other way of life, even among people with whom they largely agree.

cotten

[mc1]

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by cotten

It's recently been brought to my attention that for some people, the fact that there are disagreements between us can prevent even a friendly exchange on noncontroversial subjects. It's like, "I disagree with you on _____, so how can you stand there and insist that 1+1=2."

Opinions do not occur in a vacuum. The kind of person who believes that teachers are way underpaid, and the kind of person who thinks they're way overpaid with too long holidays each has particular ways of seeing the world that probably go beyond the immediate topic. In this case, it may (but not necessarily) mean person A has a less materialistic, more idealistic way of viewing the world and may be resentful of reducing human experience down to the profit principle. It may mean that person B is the opposite - a 'both-feet-on-the-ground', no nonsense character who sees life through a more practical, meritocratic lens. That's just an example, but I think it may illustrate that our opinions can be symptomatic of the kind of people we are in essence or, in more poetic terms, of the different colors of our souls.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by cotten

It's recently been brought to my attention that for some people, the fact that there are disagreements between us can prevent even a friendly exchange on noncontroversial subjects. It's like, "I disagree with you on _____, so how can you stand there and insist that 1+1=2."
...

i often see sort of the other thing: people who agree 1+1=2, but will deny well proven science based on irrational ideas.

i can certainly get along just fine with them, as long as their beliefs don't completely infringe on common sense and normal behaviour, but the likelihood of a deep friendship is pretty low.

[flaggerphil]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Can we really know people, though, without having some idea of their fundamental beliefs and world views?

I've had extremely good friends...close friends...without ever going into politics or religion.