The journey from there to here
Published on February 28, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Misc

As many of you know, I am a member of the Volunteer Fire Department in our community. I am training as a First Responder (ECA in the state of Texas, but I'll be registered in both the national and state registries). Recently, we had an issue where one of our firefighters got into a verbal argument with another firefighter. The chief kicked off one of the participants in the altercation. I didn't take sides, because I don't have enough objective information to make an informed decision.

I didn't think a whole lot about it until talking with another individual in the community. He's angry at the fire department because he feels it is "exclusive". Whether the two issues are related or not, I don't know. I didn't pursue it, but I consider this individual a good friend. He and the chief, though, have a long standing feud that centers (sadly enough) on the chief's having left the church where the friend ministers (and where we have been attending church).

As this feud has come up in discussion with both of these individuals, I've been pretty clear: the beef they have with each other is not my beef. As a volunteer firefighter, I have a job to do, and that job, I believe, requires a pretty tight loyalty to the chief and to the heirarchy of the fire department. As such, I don't feel it's appropriate to pile on in any public discussion about the fitness or otherwise of my chief, or of other officers within our department, in part because I have access by the vary nature of my job to information most members of the community may not have about these individuals. And I understand emergency response well enough to know that there NEEDS to be a well defined heirarchy and allegiance to that heirarchy so that our response is both efficient and professional. After all, would you want two paramedics arguing over you about last Friday's poker game?

As for the friend, again, I have my loyalties, but they exist on a different level. Again, I'm privvy to information others might have, and entering into the conflict might compromise that confidentiality, among other things. And a loyalty to my friends is just as essential as a loyalty to my unit. Sure I will take sides when it comes to a direct criticism of the unit, especially when the criticism is based on misinformation, but in this case, I feel as if the friend is expecting me to resign from the department to reinforce his position, something I simply will not do.

This article was, of course, inspired by the recent developments within JU, but does not relate directly to it. I will say no more than that on the subject, except to say that I have one expectation of my friends, and that is that they understand I will not compromise my loyalty to other friends simply to prove my loyalty to them. It's unfair to expect that of me.

If that makes me a "fence sitter", so be it. I've had worse labels. But I'd much rather be a fence sitter than to get involved in piling on against someone I consider a friend.


Comments
on Feb 28, 2006
It's always difficult to stop friends from bickering and even more difficult to take sides or choosing not to. Like you I would choose to become a fence sitter because it is not fair to drag the friend who has no quarrel into it. My stance is usually to tell both friends what each has done wrong and tell them to suck it up, apologise and move on. If they don't I leave it up to them to make peace between them.
on Feb 28, 2006
This article was, of course, inspired by the recent developments within JU, but does not relate directly to it. I will say no more than that on the subject, except to say that I have one expectation of my friends, and that is that they understand I will not compromise my loyalty to other friends simply to prove my loyalty to them. It's unfair to expect that of me.


That's really hard for me to do, especially when you form an opinion of who's right and who's wrong...

In general...I think there's validity to everyone's side unless they're pathological liars and that percentage of the population is fairly small I'd believe.

I think its outstanding that you're able to put aside your personal feelings and not pledge allegiance to either party.
on Feb 28, 2006
Selfishness kills loyalty.
on Mar 01, 2006
Excellent point Gideon.  And one all should take to heart.  Another thing to consider is that should the feuding friends get back together, as is often the result, you risk losing both of them if you take sides.
on Mar 01, 2006

Selfishness kills loyalty.

Nothing "selfish" about my philosophy, Tex. I care about all of the people I've come to know on JU, Simon and Sabrina included.

What's selfish is those who insist that I take their side or else.

on Mar 01, 2006

I will say this; You wanted me to take sides, now you get Gideon the blunt:

If your friendship is so hollow, so fragile, as to hinge on my agreeing with you 100% of the time, I don't need it. You expect (no, DEMAND) 100% loyalty from me to you at the expense of loyalty to anyone else as a condition of friendship, and then have the audacity to accuse ME of selfishness? HOW DARE YOU! I do not like being ripped apart by "friends" who insist that I defend them unconditionally.

I don't agree with Brad's actions, but that's not my decision to make. Brad owns the site and has a RIGHT to make his decision. Furthermore, Brad WARNED Simon beforehand; this punch didn't come from out of the blue. Simon struck back at Brad when Brad was OBVIOUSLY in a less than accomodating mood, and admitted as much.

Those who have insisted that my refusing to take sides was selfish are wrong. I refused to take sides for the OPPOSITE reason, because I respected and appreciated Simon and Sabrina too much to say what I really felt. Now I have, and I don't give a rat's behind WHAT any of you think about it.

You're right, Sabrina...sit on the fence long enough and you WILL get pushed off. But the fact that YOU, NOT Brad, did the pushing speaks volumes.

on Mar 01, 2006

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Was this the "biting the tongue" article that you stopped writing?  I will remember not to get on your bad side!

on Mar 01, 2006

Was this the "biting the tongue" article that you stopped writing?

Part of it got into this.

I have to marvel at the hypocrisy, though: one side is complaining about Brad banning Simon "for disagreement" (to be fair, the reasons are deeper than that), and then is putting me on a "mental blacklist" for the same thing. Go figure.

I said a long time ago, I am NOT fair, I am NOT balanced. But even in being so, I've always tried to be relatively friendly and diplomatic. Sad to see that some people's idea of a "friend" is a portable ass kisser!

on Mar 01, 2006
Gideon: I don't know how much of this outrage is directed at me, but I think you've mistaken my message and my intent.

I do believe selfishness kills loyalty. We often make choices, unprompted by the actions of the ones we love, to hurt them for our own benefit. Other times we make choices not to stand by them or show them the love we claim to feel for them because we risk losing something we appreciate if we do.

Sometimes the selfishness accomplishes a greater good (in the example in your article, the selfishness of staying out of it and not expressing your solidarity would in fact benefit many as it would avoid furthering strife and disagreement in a vital organization), sometimes selfishness is just selfishness.

I've never once told you to take a side. I don't see this as "sides"...I think the whole idea of "sides" is childish. I do think, however, that the right thing to do is to express your honest opinion in an unwavering fashion. That doesn't mean that you tell a friend that you believe is in the wrong that they are right (although love does cover a multitude of sins, eh?), what it DOES mean is that you are steadfast and loyal to that friend, even if you must tell them you feel they are wrong.

No blog site, no matter how much I enjoy it, is worth forsaking a friend over. This blog site plays into your larger goals and perhaps it is for the "greater good" that you avoid comment or entanglement. I haven't seen you do that, though.

I'm not angry with you. This doesn't change my feelings about you because it is between you and the parties involved. However, if you were to sell ME out for your personal benefit, it would change everything.

I value loyalty. I value my friendships and my loved ones. And when push comes to shove, I hope that each time I choose those I care about over my own desires.
on Mar 01, 2006
I think part of the problem is the need to designate actions as being 'right or wrong' all the time. I don't see it as right OR wrong that Brad did what he did. I don't see it as a moral situation at all. It isn't a matter of freedom of speech, or having something taken away that someone is obligated to provide.

To me it is like a neighbor that brings you a cake every month, and then when you say something snide to them, they stop bringing you cakes. It isn't like they owed you the cake, they were just going out of their way to provide you with something and you gave them reason to rethink the effort. They're no more wrong than it would have been to just not bring the cakes in the first place.

I wouldn't bite my tongue, Gideon. I have seen you blog pretty angry and you've never done anything that would get you banned if you directed it at an admin. On the other hand folks like EoIC generally function at a level that offends people. Not necessarily a 'bad' thing, but most certainly a mode that provokes, and people shouldn't be surprised when it does.

I don't think what Brad or Simon did was bad. They just reached a point where their standard operating procedure was found to be in hopless conflict and an adjustment was made. There's lots of places on the Internet where EoIC would be tame. Perhaps he'll find someplace that is a better fit.
on Mar 02, 2006

I've never once told you to take a side. I don't see this as "sides"...I think the whole idea of "sides" is childish. I do think, however, that the right thing to do is to express your honest opinion in an unwavering fashion. That doesn't mean that you tell a friend that you believe is in the wrong that they are right (although love does cover a multitude of sins, eh?), what it DOES mean is that you are steadfast and loyal to that friend, even if you must tell them you feel they are wrong.

Since my "game plan" was pretty much blown, I'll mention it.

I felt Brad was under a lot of stress. He as much as said so. I felt (and feel) that his decision wasn't the same as it would have been under different circumstances. I felt the best thing to do would be to let it blow over, and to have those of us who have his ear ask him privately about the possibility of reinstatement. In other words, diplomacy.

I didn't feel Brad's position was right initially, but I am now beginning to believe he saw a trend developing that I didn't see (something Jill mentioned regarding both her and Karma).

What I saw come out of this caused me to lose a lot of respect for LW. She was outraged at some of the very things she supported over time. Hell, even Emp is a fascist (remember THAT?) who doesn't believe WE have rights...yet somehow HE has them? A LOT of hypocrisy from that end of the spectrum.

If I wasn't called out by name, I would not have responded. But because I was, and because this article was cited as justification for the bile that came out, I felt my response was fair (and, to tell the truth, is STILL fairly well censored).

on Mar 02, 2006

(and, to tell the truth, is STILL fairly well censored).

The article is very tame.  It was not until the comments that I even realized you were talking about the kerfluffle.