Well, that was one of the more delicate half-conversations I’ve ever had. The chap concerned (CC) knows another person I know (PIK), very well.
CC persists in three main habits:
- disagreeing with almost everything I base my thoughts on;
- finding & pointing out the faults (real or imagined, not picky) in practically everything <1> else;
- inviting PIK on interesting excursions (snow, sand, fascinating architectures etc).
Unfortunately, PIK thinks the sun radiates posteriorly from CC, so I’m immersed in deep pooh if I dare to criticise same. So my strategy here was to continue the conversation, painstakingly avoiding points of conflict, while sailing as close as possible to them (without triggering) to coerce CC into actually thinking about them.
Intricate? You’d better believe it. Now, CC’s reactions are not always honest (there is often a hidden agenda or a pushed barrow), but from what I could hear, CC did actually think a bit & was more than a little stunned that I could “think outside the box” so fluently. In some way, I can see I’m supposed to be too dumb (or too locked-in to habits) to do that.
I guess in coming days, we’ll find out a bit more about how honest those reactions were, but meanwhile the conversational dance was a bizarre challenge. I only wish that it could have been a pleasant one. Or that I could discuss it with PIK openly. Ah, well, can’t have everything.
«1» e.g. if it’s government, it’s wrong by definition (not as a joke); if it’s a (competing) social organisation, it’s wrong by definition; if it’s a church, it’s wrong by definition; if it’s secular/humanistic, it’s wrong by definition; if it makes a profit, it’s wrong; if it makes a loss, it’s wrong; if it breaks even, it’s not trying; & so on. Not much left, is there?