Question for Everybody

[jhameia]

There are things I'm trying to put together for future reference, trying to articulate some things for myself. Stuff like, how do I know when to not fuck with this person, how do I know this person needs to be distanced from, how do I know something shady is going on, because of some little things they say and do, some ways that they act which individually, contextually look okay but in a bigger picture is kind of fucked up. What makes me feel like my trust is being cultivated to fuck someone else over, what makes me suspicious? And for all that we know that abusers seem like perfectly nice people until they escalate, there are little cruelties they do to us that hint at further escalation and that's the time to pull back and not trust.

I mean, I'm SURE I've got some general rules I follow which aren't just "gut instinct" but I'm having trouble articulating them.

But to sum, how do you know when someone is bad news?

Comments

[ithiliana]

Unfortunately for me, I am TERRIBLE at this question (my partner, Entwife, is excellent at it, as her past warnings about several people have proven--in every case I did not listen to her and regretted it as she was proved right). I'll have to ask her. I'll be looking forward to reading what others say!

[jolantru]

*hugs* My first thought was "gut instinct", but then I read your line... Mmm.

I honestly don't know. I look for signs? Small indications? But for me... it's just that tiny gut instinct/voice that tells me the person is not okay.

[lovepeaceohana]

I think that's gonna be a real personal answer for most people, and I don't know how well it'll generalize.

Like, there are people I have blocked on Facebook - not because they're bad news, period, but because the ways that we interact online are not necessarily how I want to spend my time online. (Some of those people on my blocklist are "bad news" in the sense that they're racist friends-of-friends and there's no point in my suffering their online presence. By that same token, though, I've been blocked for being too anti-racist.)

The answer for me in real life is much more difficult to answer and is heavily context-dependent, but my basic litmus test is how well this person responds to "no" (or other instances of not getting their way/what they want). (It obviously does not work for children!) And the more social/structural power I perceive that person to have over me, the more weight I give the test, especially in i.e. a dating situation.

But I also fail horribly on the side of being too nice/assuming good intentions where there may not be any in situations like this: Meet in a Public Place, a short 10-min film about dating weirdness that may be triggering to some for sheer creep factor. (See also: Hoot.) And that obliviousness probably makes me a less-safe person for many people - all of whom are at any point welcome to cluebat me, but it's kind of a catch-22 at that point.

[inkeyes.livejournal.com]

ohh well, i think even if when they're being nice, it's often favour-sharking. They do nice things un-asked so you feel indebted to them, often at the very beginning of getting to know them. Of course each person and each friendship is different so not every nice thing is favour-sharking! So the secondary test is this: even if you indicate a soft or hard 'no' or 'stop', they still do that very nice thing, because they're just so kind and thoughtful. It's okay to break a boundary when it was in the name of good intentions, right? right?...

Even when they're doing stuff for you, it's somehow all about them and their feelings. When they are a little mean to you, however briefly--it's never about their disrespect towards you, it's about how their anger and pain are just so important and you should comfort them because they hurt you. They are such a good, caring friend.

You always seem to be apologising to them. Maybe you feel you are a terrible friend. They are such a good, caring friend.

They make a big deal about how they would never harm or hurt you or anyone, particularly if you begin to say, 'Hey, you did something I didn't like, can you not do that?'. They are such a good, caring friend.

You end up having to coach yourself into being prepared for dealing with them, all the while thinking, 'This is normal. This is fine. They're just so nice. I'm just being oversensitive,' before, during, and after interacting with them. They are such a good, caring friend.

They typecast you, often with off-hand little comments, and frequently so you'll be moved to prove them wrong (by agreeing with them or going along with what they say/do). You're sensitive or confused or emotional, you're too stuck-up to accept help from someone like them, you never make good choices for yourself, etc etc. You cease to be a person of your own making and become a tool of theirs. They can't understand that you are ok with their disapproval of you.

This is some of what I've observed before bigger escalations (which, just for my personal definition, is prolonged temper tantrums, silent treatments, verbal abuse, and worse). It's definitely stuff which pricks at you at the time but is small enough for it to heal without spending too much emotional resource, and then it happens again. And again. And then worse.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

You end up having to coach yourself into being prepared for dealing with them...

... That's a particularly good way of putting it; having to regularly brace yourself for interacting with someone seems like a pretty sure sign that something's not alright there.

(It also helps me articulate to myself one of the things that was bothering me about a situation I was mired in until recently, so I appreciate that.)

[tariq-kamal.livejournal.com]

I actually know favour-sharking as a different name: love-bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing). Subject a person to so much kindness and attention that yeah, you feel indebted, or you're so overwhelmed by the positive vibe that you tend to discount whatever feelings of unease you may feel.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Most of mine are usually gut-instinct sorts of things, but the closest thing I can think of to a common theme for a lot of mine (barring actual, overt aggressiveness) is when someone's fixated on their status in a social situation in a way that comes across like they're fixated on their rank in the group.

A lot of it seems to fit the cliche of a pushy middle-manager type: unapologetic about interrupting/speaking over others, always needing the last word, reflexively disputing anything said by (perceived) subordinates, needing to be just a little louder than whoever else is speaking, and a total lack of patience or tolerance for being on the receiving end of any of those. Add some loom-y boundary-issue behaviour to that (standing over other people, pushiness about bubbles, etc), and it comes across as the kind of bearing I'm rarely if ever comfortable around.

I dunno if all of that is suspicion per see as much as a type of person I generally find unlikeable. On the other hand a whole lot of people who've given my friends or I good reason to distance ourselves have shown a lot of that overall pattern.

[eiko82.livejournal.com]

inkeyes said it much better than I ever could. A lot of times, people who are bad news enjoy guilt-tripping you. They'll make you believe that somehow whatever is bothering/making you uncomfortable is your fault and not theirs.

[tariq-kamal.livejournal.com]

I'm actually pretty bad at spotting people who use my trust to fuck me or others over, but mostly because I'm kind of slow at it and oblivious. But there are certain things that, when I find out have happened, trigger my ALERT ALERT ALERT FUCKERY AHOY BACK AWAY BACK AWAY BACK AWAY internal klaxons.

The first one that causes my sensors to perk up is the same as what zibblsnrt mentions — when someone is “fixated on their status”, especially when they've done something wrong.

Actually, a good early measure for screwing up is that when someone is more concerned about their reputation over fixing the problem, or more concerned about how that thing reflects badly on who they are, as opposed to what they must do to fix it. That's not yet bad news, but when that happens I generally wait and see what happens. If they make it a conflict about how they're perceived, and escalate, they're bad news.

Don't really have much else, though.