QUARANTINE LIFE: FRIDAY THOUGHTS

After years of watching Judge Judy, I've noticed that she always interrupts a plaintiff or defendant when they make bold statements like, "She knew...", "He knows...". "He thinks...", "She thought...".

The judge quickly snaps, "You can't tell me what someone thinks or knows! That calls for the operation of their mind! Just tell me what she said to you, and what you said to her--and tell me something I'm going to believe....don't make it up as you go along...if you tell the truth, you don't have to have a good memory."

Most times, this is when the testimony falls apart. The witnesses can barely remember what was said, or know nothing other than what they'd been told. They’d eagerly chosen a side; jumped on a bandwagon, or agreed to lie to someone who can spot a liar without blinking. “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true”, the Judge quips. “Sit down! What did you bring him/her for?”

The witnesses have nothing to contribute except their blind loyalty, and a good laugh for the audience. The judge cautions everyone about the sure embarrassment and shame to come if they continue to try to outsmart her, and reminds everyone that her playground is a court of Law. Litigants who try to doctor evidence in their favor, leave the court with the most egg on their faces. 

Neither gut feelings, sneaky suspicions, womanly intuition, nor theories—though they may matter greatly elsewhere—are as valuable to her as facts based on irrefutable proof. 

The truth can be incriminating, and can expose how silly, desperate, and petty an action toward, or opinion of another person can be. Facts and proof discourage jumping to conclusions.

I appreciate the judge's approach, because it forces people to get out of their feelings (valid though they may be), lay down their prejudices, forget their preconceived notions, disregard what they may have heard, and deal only in facts. 

It demands that they either be honest, specific, and sober in their accounting of events, or admit they're "thick", biased, compromised, clueless, or working with limited, or inaccurate information. 

Sometimes, plaintiffs realize their whole case was frivolous, and their issue could have been settled at home, had they simply communicated with the right person, or not misjudged the wrong one.

If you already have a problem with someone, how tainted will your assumptions, opinions, or recollections of them be? 

Can you be objective; want, and tell the truth, or continue to be stubborn, reject facts, and run the risk of appearing immature, or looking like a fool?

It’s hard for some to admit they were mislead by someone they trusted, and they’ll defend and ride a lie until the wheels fall off-- even if it makes them look stupid. (There’s a lot of that in our country right now.)

If you didn't see or hear a thing firsthand; if you weren't there to be privy to the event or conversation, just how reliable is your testimony? Should you even be saying anything? On what can you even base your opinion?

 

If you don't ask and seek information for yourself, and are always relying on what someone else (who you believe or assume is credible) said, believes, or relays, at best, you're potentially at a disadvantage. 

At worst, you'll find yourself believing and spreading lies, gossip, slander, and misinformation that can ruin relationships or reputations.

Even if it's none of your business (and you'll certainly be told that if it isn't), if you want to know what someone thinks, feels, believes, likes, hates, prefers, did, said, knows, can, can't, will or won't do, (and why), you should ask THEM. Don't wonder. Don't guess. Don't quiz someone else. Go to THE best source, and ASK.

Going to the source eliminates the need for speculation, and cuts down the potential for hurt feelings, and discord. Of course, if you prefer those things over an honest, truthful, candid assessment, you would be what my dearly departed aunts Marion, Gladys, and Lillian would call "messy". 

You don't, and won't seek truth because you actually like confusion and misunderstandings. You thrive in chaos. After all, dissension fuels, justifies, and provides cover for poorly motivated actions, misinformed opinions, hasty decisions, and opportunistic schemes. 

Why deliberately walk around with, and brazenly share an entirely false narrative? Who or what does that serve? It will surely backfire.

If you like harmony and clear air, however; if you want to know something, you'll ask the right people, bring everyone to the table, never make snap judgments, or biased assumptions, and seek reliable sources. You won’t jump on a misinformation bandwagon just because you know or like the person who’s driving it. 

Pursue truth and accurate information, and you won't have to wonder or lose sleep about a thing. You won’t find yourself unnecessarily mad, perplexed, defensive, disappointed, in the dark, or on the wrong side of an issue. 

If you don’t get the information you seek, resist the urge to make up stuff.

Save yourself a lot of time and stop people when they come to you with sketchy information about others--particularly people you don't even know. Juicy though it may be, it's toxic. Better yet, stop yourself when your mind seems inclined to create a problem where none exists, or spread fiction where facts are simply too easy to find.

Good working and personal relationships are lost, or never materialize when you listen to, or assume the beefs of dishonest, problematic people who invite confusion and always need something to be upset about.

Preserve your peace. 

Keep your good name.

Listen objectively.

Mind the business that pays you. 

Challenge information. 

Read for yourself. 

Be discerning.

Ask questions.

Love the truth.

Be on the side of right.

Even a group of people who see the same thing will have varying vantage points and testimonies. 

Ask yourself how, or if the information others are eager to share will edify or clarify in any way---and whether you further disseminating, or attesting to it, is wise, helpful, educational, crucial or just...well...messy.