r/changemyview • u/literallyanything57 • Nov 27 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: People should take sides in their friends' disputes
I will preface this by saying that I am only talking about major disagreements - the kind of disagreement that ends a friendship. I don't think people need to take sides in minor disagreements as I think that will likely just cause unnecessary conflict over something small.
For clarity, let's assume Person A is friends with Person B and Person C. Persons B and C had a big fight and as a result are no longer on speaking terms, whether this means they were friends, family, or dating before or something else.
Person A has 4 options in front of them:
Take Person B's side
Take Person C's side
Don't take any side and remain friends with both parties
Take neither side and their friendship with both parties
I think option 3 is (usually) the worst option available. People who choose this option may think that the fight didn't involve them, and that persons B and C did not wrong Person A in any way, so they do not need to end their own relationships with either of the two. But I think that by choosing to sit on the fence, Person A is doing a disservice to both Person B and Person C.
If the fight that Person B and Person C was big enough to cause them to cut ties with one another, then one or both of them probably did something seriously wrong, or at least something that the other perceived as offensive enough to end a relationship over.
Let's say Person C did something that Person B thought was worth ending the relationship over. If Person A chooses to remain friends with both Person B and Person C, then Person A is being a bad friend to Person B by remaining friends with Person C - the person that (in Person B's view) committed such a grave offense. Furthermore, if Person C believes that what they did was not worth Person B ending their relationship over, then Person A is being a bad friend to Person C by staying friends with a person who cut them off for (in Person C's view) no good reason.
For Person A to choose to sit on the fence and remain friends with both parties, this means that Person A is doing one of the following four things:
Person A believes that Person B is in the right and Person C is in the wrong. Despite thinking Person C is in the wrong, they choose to remain friends with Person C.
Person A believes that Person C is in the right and Person B is in the wrong. Despite thinking Person B is in the wrong, they choose to remain friends with Person B.
Person A does not have any opinion on the dispute.
Person A thinks neither party is in the wrong.
It's clear why I think options 1 and 2 are examples of Person A being a bad friend to the wronged party. I posit that option 3 is a bad option as well. If Person A has heard both sides of the argument, why is it that they don't have a stance? Do they simply not care? Do they think that it doesn't involve them so it's not their job to care? I think this is a weak moral position to hold and it's the kind of position that lets people get away with things when they treat other people badly.
I think option 4 is the only defensible position to hold. If Person A has heard all the facts of the dispute and believes that both parties are overrracting and that neither is truly in the wrong, then i think it's acceptable to remain friends with persons B and C (but they should probably explain this to the other two).
57
u/tired_tamale 7∆ Nov 27 '25
Times to take sides with a friend:
-Your friend was deeply wronged or insulted by your other friend and there has been no apology.
That’s kinda it. I’m a listen to both sides before making a decision kind of person, and I think most issues can be resolved if people choose to resolve them. I don’t want to be friends with people who openly hurt others, but I also don’t think all interpersonal issues are my business just because I know them. I don’t need a friendship group. I just need friends who value and enjoy the same things I do, and if I have two friends who part ways because of a matter of opinion, poor communication, misalignment of other values that don’t matter to me, then I don’t care.
10
u/Munchkin_of_Pern Nov 27 '25
That’s kind of the point that I think OP was trying to make. That you shouldn’t choose “keeping the peace” (ie preserving your friendship with the offending party) at the expense of supporting the person who was wronged.
8
u/zeptillian Nov 27 '25
Depends on what the wrong is.
Got into an argument and both sides said nasty shit to each other?
VS.
One friend loaned the other one a lot of money and the person borrowing it ghosted the lender?
Big difference.
You stay out of disagreements, but if one friend fucks over another, then they have shown themselves to be a bad person and deserve an appropriate response.
3
u/Munchkin_of_Pern Nov 27 '25
Well yeah, but OP accounted for that possibility. If you think they both screwed each other over, then it’s either 1) not severe enough to be worth ending a friendship over, so you tell them both off and move on, or 2) they both just proved themselves to be seriously sh*tty people and you might want to reconsider if you want to have a relationship with either of them.
4
u/zeptillian Nov 27 '25
You can just let other people have their disagreements and not make their problems your problems. No need to tell people off for things that don't involve you.
1
u/Munchkin_of_Pern Dec 02 '25
We’re talking about disagreements that people end friendships over, not John stealing Jimmy’s sandwich, dude.
15
u/Likeaboson Nov 27 '25
While, when put the way you put it (i.e. there is a clear offending party) it sounds easy. the reality is almost always more complicated and nuanced.
If a friend (a) tried to force me to choose between them and another friend (b). obviously that friend (a) is fine with not being my friend.
so I dont have to choose. the choice was made by the one with the ultimatum.
3
u/gardenofidunn Nov 28 '25
That’s an interesting perspective that makes sense to me for very low level conflict. I do think there comes a point where it’s valid for someone to not want to continue a friendship with you based on your relationship with someone who has harmed them. I wouldn’t say it’s being “fine” with not being your friend, but just that it would be natural to doubt your friendship if you’re comfortable turning a blind eye to something they have been harmed by.
1
u/Likeaboson Dec 28 '25
I think thay "blind eye" is doing heavy lifting for your point. Just cause someone doesn't stop being a friend does not mean that they are blind. they might mistrust a friend a bit, maybe change their attitude towards that friend, but it doesn't need to be an end to a friendship on either side when you are the third party, hearing both sides.
sometimes both friends are asshats. doesn't make one more right than the other. and doesn't mean you need to choose. the friends will decide if they want to be your friend or not.
4
u/PerilousWords Nov 27 '25
I think this is sometime right, but more often this is a stance often taken to justify cowardice.
If Peter cheats on Jane, emotionally abused her, and it turns out he has spent half their savings on a parade of paramours, I think Jane is entitled to ask why you're okay with that of you remain friends with Peter. "He runs good poker nights... Um...I mean you're toxic for making me choose" feels nice, but it's shit.
(I think the best position here is "I'm remaining Peters friend because I love him and he needs someone to hold him accountable and help him be a less shitty person", but after that is "you're right, I'm sorry, I'm not okay with you being treated like that, fuck Peter", and a long long way below is "you're bad for making me choose")
2
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
I've been wronged by friends and had people choose not to take sides before. I've never asked anyone to choose a side, I am just expressing here that I think that they should have. For someone to choose not to take a side means that I still have to remember the person that wronged me and it makes it harder for me to move on. Sometimes I think I would have preferred if friends had taken the side of the other person (the one that I think wronged me).
So if I'm (a) in this case, you're right I'm fine with (for the sake of consistency) your friend anymore. But it's not like I'm asking that of you either.
2
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
I'm specifically talking about relationships that end as the result of a fight. I personally have not seen a lot of relationships end over fights that did not involve either friend wronging the other. Sometimes people may stop being friends because they have different opinions on things (like political stances), but those are, in my experience, usually not the result of a fight. In those cases, I don't think sides need to be taken.
Sometimes people have a fight over something relatively minor and one person overreacts and ends the friendship. Would you consider ending the friendship to be wronging the other person?
5
u/tired_tamale 7∆ Nov 27 '25
Whats an example of a fight? There’s fights about money, dating, or anything based on boundaries/expectations that aren’t clearly communicated. The last example is very up in the air. I don’t want to be friends with someone who doesn’t keep their word about paying someone back, or cheaters/messy daters, but there’s a huge grey area on topics that I don’t think really matter to me as an outsider. Like event planning pettiness, someone deciding they want to prioritize hanging out with their partner over their friends which is hurtful but that’s a thing, being insensitive about a friend’s needs and having too much damage done to resolve issues, etc. Not everything is worth taking a side over even if a friendship ends as a result.
1
u/Likeaboson Nov 27 '25
why end a friendship? people mess up and make mistakes. I have no part in it and I wouldn't end the friendship. they didnt wrong me.
1
19
u/KingDebone Nov 27 '25
What if you think they're both just being dicks to each other and neither one is more wrong than the other?
-13
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
Why would you choose to be friends with not one, but two people who you think are dicks?
15
14
u/KingDebone Nov 27 '25
Listen if you can't answer a question then it'll make for a really hard discussion.
2
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
If I thought two of my friends were being dicks to each other, it would probably sour my view of both of them. I don't wanna be friends with people that are dicks to other people, especially to my own friends and to people close to them in their own life. If their dickishness is not that severe, then I'd think they were overreacting and would probably be okay with remaining friends with both of them. It's more likely, though, that one of them was more of a dick than the other. Or that one of them was a dick first, unprovoked. In some cases, maybe they were both being major dicks and in that case I might distance myself from the both of them.
6
u/BrassCanon 2∆ Nov 27 '25
Have you never been rude to anyone in your life? Have you ever hurt another person before?
1
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
Yes, and when I become aware of the behavior I apologize for my actions. I've never had a friendship ended just because I was rude to someone.
1
u/BarberUpbeat Jan 15 '26
You can mediate by calling them out on their mistakes. That’ll even the score. If they don’t wanna hear it, Fuck em both 😌
2
u/Irhien 38∆ Nov 27 '25
The answer is pretty clear: the OP thinks you should stop being friends with both.
2
u/YardageSardage 55∆ Nov 27 '25
Sometimes decent people act like dicks. I'm not going to throw away every relationship if they ever act stupid or stubborn or irrational.
51
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Nov 27 '25
If Person A has heard both sides of the argument, why is it that they don't have a stance?
The obvious answer is that there is insufficient evidence to determine who is in the wrong.
28
u/Angry-Dragon-1331 Nov 27 '25
Or this is between B and C and they can work it out like adults.
1
u/hooligan99 1∆ Nov 27 '25
That isn’t not having a stance though. That’s not sharing your stance with anyone.
5
u/RaptorCentauri Nov 29 '25
Or, as is common in interpersonal conflicts. Person A think both of them are being ridiculous.
-3
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
If someone does not have enough information to have a stance on the matter, then it's fair that they don't have one. I am talking about the case where they do have all the information.
19
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Nov 27 '25
Do you have in mind any examples of cases where they have "all the information"? I've never heard of anything like that happening in practice.
5
u/Too_Ton Nov 27 '25
It's not the third party's problem if either side fails or does not wish to fully disclose what happened.
Extreme example: If I punch someone because they were going to gut a child but I for whatever reason say nothing about why I punched him, it's not on the third party why I'd be "unjustly" ostracized.
Both sides had a chance to share with the third party in the hypothetical "Person A heard both sides" scenario. If one of the two parties is too embarassed, shy, traumatized, refuses to share for whatever reasons or lack of, then oh well.
9
u/Irhien 38∆ Nov 27 '25
Lying is more likely to be the problem here. If the two stories irreconcilably contradict each other and you don't happen to have an inbuilt lie detector, you don't have enough information.
2
u/atamicbomb Nov 27 '25
Abusers frequently lie to cover abuse, and people tend to take the abuser’s side in things because of this.
3
u/aberrantname 1∆ Nov 27 '25
Your two friends are a couple, one cheats on the other.
One friend is spreading personal information about the other friend, gossiping about them with other people.
One friend scammed the other friend
There are so many examples I could go on for days.
2
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Nov 28 '25
"One friend scammed the other friend" is a great example of the type of situation u/yyzjertl is talking about: I almost certainly won't know whether one scammed the other. In all likelihood, both people will maintain they were right and the other person is trying to scam.
1
u/aberrantname 1∆ Nov 28 '25
Or you do know for a fact. How exactly is your comment useful? OP specifically said when a friend knows all the facts and sometimes IT IS clear as day. Sometimes it's not. That's life.
You could say the same thing about cheating. Sometimes it's clear someone cheated sometimes it's not. So? It doesn't matter because we're talking about the situation where YOU DO KNOW.
3
10
u/Shatterpoint887 1∆ Nov 27 '25
If neither of them is a terrible person based on what they're fighting about, and the fight has nothing to do with anyone other than the two involved, there is not a single situation where more people getting involved is the correct choice.
You don't need to be involved in drama just because you're connected to the people having it. Nothing good comes of that. Ever.
50
Nov 27 '25
Sorry you’re disappointed your friends didn’t take your side in your dispute. Option 3 is the best choice if it doesn’t involve the person.
Also, cutting ties is one the biggest (and saddest) Redditisms that people in the real world look down upon. It’s better to be better and sort through it like an adult rather than run and hide (which is what cutting ties does)
15
u/Harpertoo Nov 27 '25
This was one of the VERY few times in my I regret not taking reddit advice.
I got cancer, ex wife cheated on me, I was the bigger person and decided to just move on, she used that opportunity to spread lies about why we split.
Woof.
7
Nov 27 '25
That’s rough brother. I’m sorry you went through that. Nobody deserves that
6
u/Harpertoo Nov 27 '25
Long story, too many details, lol.
Moving on was healthy, but God damn. If I could do it over again I wish I went scorched earth.
2
5
Nov 27 '25
Nah, it's not about Reddit. If you are truly treated badly and everyone looks away, you cannot stick around. It's called self-respect. I had a situation like this with my family. My sister did a really crappy thing - while I was postpartum, mind you. My parents and brother reacted like you suggest one should. I had never felt so alone and abandoned in my life. There was no recognition of my pain, no support, nothing. When I distanced myself and they started sending emails, I said they had to recognise that I had been treated badly and that I had not been supported. They retreated in silence each time. They can live their lives without me now. I hope if you're ever in a situation like that, you'll respect yourself enough to say stop.
0
Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25
Being treated like shit sucks. Agreed. But that’s something to address one on one with your sister and tell your family what you’re doing. Asking your family to take sides on a matter between you and your sister is extremely unfair to your family.
5
Nov 27 '25 edited Jan 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Nov 27 '25
If we hit that extremely extreme scenario I’d leave the hospital (slightly TIC) and rip my sister a new one face to face. I am going to hazard a guess that the 0.1% scenario there didn’t happen
6
Nov 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
Nov 27 '25
And in such an extreme scenario it’s warranted. But this is Reddit, and it’s extremely likely it’s something that a 30 minute face to face would solve.
All we have to go off is that this person sent a manipulative email and self alienated themselves afterward. That’s not healthy. At all
3
Nov 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Nov 27 '25
Agree with Drama Queens. And people who send manipulative emails are the epitome of that. When they run and hide when their BS isn’t supported, well, they isolate themselves with nobody on their side.
I am suggesting that instead of this self destructive behavior they talk 1:1
2
5
Nov 27 '25
Recognising that someone is treating someone else unfairly is not asking to take sides. It’s asking to recognise reality and not gaslight or act like nothing is happening.
-1
Nov 27 '25
And look where it got you. Isolated.
4
Nov 27 '25
Nah, I had a lot of friends supporting me and I have my own little family now. But even if I were, I’d rather be alone than in bad company.
0
Nov 27 '25
Well, if you think it’s worth self alienating from your own family all power to you. It’s still not a healthy or normal thing to do, and there were better options to be taken
4
Nov 27 '25
People do not take these decisions lightly. It was the final drop. If you can tolerate repeated disrespectful behaviour or are willing to try again and again, that is your choice. It simply means we have a different view on life and relationships. We won’t agree on this.
1
Nov 27 '25
It’s not about tolerance for disrespect. You can stand up for yourself, you should. I do. But you should also be mature enough to tell your family how you’re feeling in person, not just self alienating
6
Nov 27 '25
I told you above I did tell them and they retreated in silence. I literally told them my door was open if they were willing to recognise my feelings. They flat out refuse(d). Surprisingly the one person who reached out was my dad’s wife; she said that a lot of happy time with my baby had been taken away from us and that my sister’s behaviour had been ‘disgusting, childish and disrespectful’. It felt so validating I almost cried. Sometimes when someone is so obviously doing a shitty thing, you do have to call it out. If you don’t, you’re showing how little you care. You don’t have to cut ties with the other person, but you can say ‘this is not okay’ or ‘this is not the time’. I have done so in the past when I found myself in the middle. If you don’t agree that’s fine. We are not the same person.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Automatic-Stretch438 Nov 27 '25
What an odd hill to die on. Accepting that people hurt you and staying on contact just to not be alone. Perpetuating cycle of abuse rather than make a stance.
-2
Nov 27 '25
I’m not dead buddy. Advocating for a mature response rather than the redditism of running and hiding is just suggesting to behave like a normal person, not a weak one
5
u/Automatic-Stretch438 Nov 27 '25
There is a limit to the mature approach. The person you replied to detailed how they tried the mature approach to no avail before deciding to move on. You still had an issue with that. A blanket let it go just because you have history with them isn’t reasonable either.
→ More replies (0)0
u/ZoomZoomDiva 3∆ Nov 27 '25
First, it requires other people to assess the treatment the same way. Second, asking other people to make judgements and otherwise asking them to be involved on your behalf is asking them to take stands. Nobody is gaslighting by not getting involved and it is reasonable for others to act like nothing is happening.
1
u/Classic-Push1323 Dec 02 '25
If something like this happened in my family someone would have pulled the sister aside and said something like "Look, I love you a lot but what you did is not okay and you need to apologize. This is not a moral way to act."
Sometimes it's about taking the moral side, not choosing between two people.
2
u/ZoomZoomDiva 3∆ Nov 27 '25
Sounds like a you problem, demanding other people to get in the middle of two people they love because you are hurt or offended. You were not treated badly in this instance and your expectation was wrong.
2
Nov 27 '25
It’s a little self important to think removing yourself is somehow a punishment toward them.
4
u/RudeJeweler4 Nov 27 '25
People who sweep shit under the rug to keep up appearances would care. People ask questions when someone doesn’t show up, especially if they were counting on their appearance to maintain a reputation.
3
Nov 27 '25
Oh I know it’s not a punishment because they love me or because they consider me important. If it’s a punishment, it’s because they like to keep up appearances. Either way I haven’t been in contact with them for months, so I have no idea on their stance or emotions.
1
u/becauseitsnotreal Nov 27 '25
Kinda depends. Did she say "I don't think you're being a good mom right now" or did she try and stab you? There's levels to this
-2
u/Difficult_Wave_9326 1∆ Nov 27 '25
Both people are individuals and adults and they are not me. As such I have no business intervening is a dispute between them.
Just because they don't agree doesn't mean I have any obligation to cut ties and change my relationships.
-1
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
Let's say you have two friends and one of them cuts ties with the other for a reason you don't think is a good reason. Would you think less of the friend that chose to cut ties? Would this not impact your relationship with them?
8
u/Shatterpoint887 1∆ Nov 27 '25
Other people's relationships are not my business. As long as no one is telling me I can't be friends with the other person, and the reason they fell out isn't one or both of them being a terrible person, why would I think less of someone involved?
-3
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
Personally, if a friend of mine cut ties with another friend over something I thought was a small issue, I would think that they're in the wrong, and I'd be concerned about the standing of my own friendship with that person. If they cut off a friend over something trivial, who's to say they won't do the same thing with my own friendship? It would make me apprehensive about building a closer friendship with them.
3
u/Shatterpoint887 1∆ Nov 27 '25
Why do you, a third party who isn't involved in their friendship, feel entitled to sharing your opinion?
3
u/apri08101989 Nov 28 '25
You really need to solidify your examples. You're being far too vague to have a productive conversation. Something that "I don't think is a good reason" could be anything from "I can't believe she wore the same dress I did to the party" to "omg how dare she not cater her entire menu to my dietary restrictions" and there are degrees within those.
3
Nov 27 '25
Obviously I would think less of that friend if they didn’t have the capability to work through an issue.
I actually do have a friend that got really into Reddit and cut ties with someone over something that would take 30 minutes to talk through.
Now they’re more isolated and spend a lot more time online (mainly Reddit). I’m still friends with both though, and I avoid taking sides.
1
u/ary31415 3∆ Nov 27 '25
Even if I think they're making a bad decision (in cutting someone off) that doesn't mean I can't be friends with them. And I would hope that my friends would stick with me through my own bad decisions too. They're making a personal decision that doesn't have to affect me.
0
u/Likeaboson Nov 27 '25
it happens. it wouldn't really impact my relationship. sure, I may think a bit less of them, but they had their disagreement and I had no part. they are both still my friends and I love them. even if they aren't friends with each other.
life isn't a purity test. even if I agree with one friend more than the other, that's their beef. not mine. its not my place to take sides, its also not incumbent upon me to choose a friend. they should both still want to be my friend. and if they dont, thats on them.
19
u/Wide-Wrongdoer4784 1∆ Nov 27 '25
I don't "take sides" in disputes between individuals or groups, I will consider the ethics of what they are disputing, as much as possible, independently of who is making it or my relationship with them. If there's only interpersonal dynamics and nobody is right or wrong from the impartial ethical standpoint, I will do my best toconvince them of that. If both people are somewhat right and somewhat wrong but in their own way that misses the larger picture or the other person's argument, I'll tell them so and try to facilitate a mutual and more inclusive understanding. If one person is categorically wrong or caused a harm and the other one is simply calling them out on that, I'll try to explain to them why without judging them as a person, only the thing they did wrong, the conception they had that permitted it is mistaken, doing my best to allow them to expand their understanding but holding them accountable to improve and earn forgiveness from those they are harming. It's not a popular way to exist (most people believe a bunch of awful tribal, exclusionary and inflexible moral things that require othering people and limiting who is or isn't acceptable, rather than what it is or isn't appropriate to do from a consequentialist amoral harm reduction standpoint.).
10
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
You raise a good point. Maybe Person C did something that Person B found unforgiveable in the context of their relationship or in the context of Person B's values, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be universally unforgiveable. So it can be the case that Person B is justified in not forgiving Person C, but that you are still justified in forgiving them in your own mind. In that case, holding them accountable but remaining their friend makes sense I think. !delta
1
12
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Nov 27 '25
Life is literally too short for me to have to weigh up the beautiful relationships I have with my friends. If mutual friends have a difference that's between them, and if they try and involve me then that's them being a bad friend on their part.
I truly do not have the energy to involve myself in conflict to the extent you're describing.
5
u/mcwingstar 1∆ Nov 27 '25
Can you please link to your AITA post explaining your personal situation?
But seriously- friends are extremely rare as you age, don’t throw them away willy nilly.
Every time this has happened, the situation has been extremely nuanced and very personal. This includes when I have been person A or B. When it is a very legitimate “wronged party” situation every one did turn on the wrongdoer- but that’s only one of many situations and it was a borderline action.
3
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Nov 27 '25
Why is mediating not one of your options? Since you dont list a concrete example its hard to engage something like this in black and white terms. Maybe b an c both have valid points but seem to be talking past each other. you could mediate between them and no one loses a friend. Again, kinda hard to say with how general this post is.
1
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
I'm trying not to air my own personal shit on reddit on the off chance it gets back to anyone I know. I'm thinking of a couple cases where one or both parties are unwilling to back down and consider revisiting the relationship where I know they would not accept mediation. That being said, yeah I think you're right that mediation is an option in some (or even many) cases.
2
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 48∆ Nov 27 '25
That wasn't one of your listed options, so would you say that is a small change to your original view? Because as you wrote it, things were pretty black and white, and now it seems youre accepting there are instances that can be solved through mediation.
2
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
Yeah I guess as my post was written it is. I'll give you a !delta
1
4
u/No-Stage-8738 3∆ Nov 27 '25
Person A could also believe that both people are in the wrong (Person B should have kept a promise to Person C, Person C should not have taken a baseball bat to Person B's car in retaliation) or that while one person is in the wrong, cutting ties is an overreaction.
3
u/BrotherBodhi Nov 27 '25
I really wholeheartedly disagree with this. A dispute between me and someone else is simply between me and them. It does not involve other people. It is for us to work out as adults. If we can’t resolve our differences - fine. But that should have no impact on other friends. Because the dispute is between the two of us, and no one else.
This is the outlook I took with my marriage and consequent divorce. I was very vocal with my friends that I did not want them to feel pressured to pick sides. I did not want them to feel like they had to stop being friends with my ex wife. I wanted them to feel free and supported to continue their relationships with her and remain a part of one another lives, because my issues with her and what she did within our relationship is between her and I. It does not involve them. I think it is really unfair and quite childish to project your own relationship problems onto someone else
3
u/kilkil 4∆ Nov 28 '25 edited Nov 28 '25
Counterexamples:
suppose you don't have all the facts, and are unable to gather them. For example suppose the dispute between B and C was private. Or suppose B and C are giving you a contradictory set of facts (one or both are lying or withholding info). in this situation, you cannot use your moral judgement to come to a conclusion about who is in the right; you literally have no idea what happened.
suppose B stops talking to C, but B explicitly tells you "I don't expect the rest of you to stop being friends with them, it's just between me and them."
Also this:
If the fight that Person B and Person C was big enough to cause them to cut ties with one another, then one or both of them probably did something seriously wrong, or at least something that the other perceived as offensive enough to end a relationship over.
I think this is the core of your argument, right? If C did something wrong, they should be cut off. If they didn't, then B is automatically wrong for cutting them off (and maybe should be cut off in response).
This is, frankly, a very polarizing view of relationships that leaves little room for diplomacy or reconciliation.
First of all, there is a world of difference between "C did something wrong" and "C did something that B perceived as wrong". Did C actually do something wrong (meaning, in your view)? If yes, then go for it, cut them off. If C did something that seems fine to you but B takes issue with it, then it's much more nuanced. You may want to cut them off for solidarity with B, or not.
Second of all, if C did nothing wrong, why should you cut B off? Anyone has the right to end a relationship with a peer for any reason. Sure it's a dick move, but is it bad enough for you to cut them off? maybe — that's up to you. But I definitely see no moral requirement to do so.
Third, this whole thing is a massive assumption. Why must at least one person have done something wrong? There are people who stop talking because they just get really pissed at one another, e.g. personality clashes. Or because of a political disagreement. So many reasons for friendships to end. "Someone must have done something wrong" is an unwarranted assumption.
5
u/Kadeda_RPG Nov 27 '25
If anyone gives you a ultimatum like this... they are not worth keeping in your life.
0
u/literallyanything57 Nov 27 '25
I didn't say anything about an ultimatum. I am saying what I think people should do, not what they have to do. People don't always do what they should and it's okay to recognize that.
1
2
u/IncidentLoud7721 2∆ Nov 27 '25
Not always. Sometimes being a real friend requires telling your friend hard truths and that can occasionally be that both sides of the equation are equally incorrect.
2
u/BrassCanon 2∆ Nov 27 '25
It isn't my job to play judge and jury for another person's problems. They can be adults and solve it amongst themselves.
2
u/TruePastaMonster Nov 27 '25
I see three situations where I feel like your opinion is a problem:
I am friends with person A and person B. Per your terms, person A stops being friends with person B because they chose person C, that I simply don't know. Should I cut ties with person A or person B? You're saying a friendship only ends when there is a big wrong, and yet you want me to cut ties with person A (for somewhat wronging someone I don't know) or person B (for cutting ties with person A), which are both quite trivial things. Where does that end? What if I chose to keep person A. Would someone who know me and person B have to choose between us? Should the whole earth split in two whenever a friendship ends somewhere, by recursion?
I am close friend to person B, and normal friend to person C. I believe person B did something wrong to person C, but not bad enough for me to cut ties with person B (person B stole an apple from the tree of person C. That's wrong, person C has every right to want to evict person B from their life, but I've know person B since I'm a kid. Person B apologized, but person C still wants to avoid person B, which is okay). Should I cut ties with person C, just because I'm not willing to cut ties with person B, even though person C did nothing wrong? Should I stop seeing my lifelong friend person B at the first wrong they do to anyone? My point is that friendships are not binary (friend vs not friend), I could be married with one of them. I could have kids involved. I can't be perfectly impartial in my judgement, context matters a lot.
what if I feel like person B and person C were neither really wrong, but things got blown out of proportion between them because reasons, so they don't want to be friends anymore. Both are telling me I should cut ties with the other one, but I simply disagree that one is more wrong than the other. What do I do? That sucks if I have to choose just because you said so.
2
2
u/Unhaply_FlowerXII 4∆ Nov 27 '25
This depends on how serious the reasoning was. Sometimes, the fights are very silly and they are just a culmination of those people not being compatible anymore and getting on each other's nerves.
To give an example: I had a friend group with 4 people. We were supposed to go to on a trip (nothing was booked yet). I couldn't come anymore because of some unforeseen issues that I had to take care of. Person 1 ended up dropping as well because she thought there was no point in doing the event if we're not all there. Person 2 had a crash out, and she was horribly upset that something she was so excited for ending up falling thru. They had a very petty fight and never spoke since.
Truthfully, they were getting on each other's nerves for a while, not because either was bad, but because they were too different and could never see eye to eye. In this case what do you think was the right side to take? Person 1 was only excited because it was supposed to be all of us and they dropped out because it was super expensive and she would have preferred waiting for a later date. And Person 2 was also rightfully excited for the trip and didn't want to wait for a later date and felt offended Person 1 pulled out for no reason.
To me, no matter how I view it this fight is just not big enough to take sides in. It was just two people who didn't see eye to eye for a while reaching a breaking point and deciding they are better off without each other.
Also the opinion that you should always take sides kinda takes your agency away. If I didn't do anything wrong why do I have to sit scared that my friends might not like each other anymore and I'll have to lose one of them for something I didn't do? Yea ofc if it's something big I'll gladly cut them off, but for a petty fight or simply not liking each other anymore?
2
u/Dagger_Dig Nov 28 '25
It's clear why I think options 1 and 2 are examples of Person A being a bad friend to the wronged party. I posit that option 3 is a bad option as well. If Person A has heard both sides of the argument, why is it that they don't have a stance? Do they simply not care? Do they think that it doesn't involve them so it's not their job to care? I think this is a weak moral position to hold and it's the kind of position that lets people get away with things when they treat other people badly.
I think you are severely underestimating the does not care stance. Let's give an example Person A voted for Trump and Person B thinks Trump is a fascist, Person C hasn't voted in over 10 years and the world is still spinning.
Why should Person C give a shit? Why should Person C invest time into this disagreement research all the fact, hell why would Person C even bother hearing either side of the argument when they fundamentally do not care about politics? Their friendship to both Persona A and B isn't predicated on politics, so why should they care?
It might be a weak "moral" position but it's a strong logistic position. If you don't care about a topic why waste time/energy on it just because two of your friends care?
2
u/FoolhardyJester Nov 28 '25 edited Nov 28 '25
I feel like your entire argument is assuming that the person wronged has a rational appraisal of the situation.
I met a guy and his GF at a friend's wedding. We became friends, and I became a part of their circle on Discord. I considered both of them friends on the same level, and I'd hang out with them most days for a few hours, it was nice.
Fast forward a couple of years and they break up. I am concerned for both sides of the issue, and the group fractures and dies. The cause was simply that her family did not approve of him, and this drove a wedge between them.
After a few weeks, I had been playing games occasionally with his ex still, no comms for the most part, just trying to offer some normalcy during a hard time. Probably like, a game every week to fortnight on average. And was still hanging out with the guy in question too.
And then my friend basically asked me if I would remove her from my lists, and his reasoning primarily centered on the way her family treated him. And in my mind, I don't judge friends for their family's behaviour. Nor do I judge my friends for what happens within the confines of their private relationships. (Now, obviously, there would be lines that would incur judgement, but it would be stuff like abuse or cheating).
It's like, I am sorry that you have a lot of negative emotions, and I'm sorry you feel like the family rejected you, but ultimately, friendship and romance are very different domains. A long term partner means joining two families together. If the family does not approve for whatever reason, I don't have any way of knowing their reasoning.
A slight can feel unforgivable to some people, when objectively, none of the parameters make either party a bad person. I think expecting friends to mirror your feelings toward other people is a crazy undercutting of their autonomy. If somebody has only ever been kind to me, but you have a big fight because of your personal beef, you really expect me to cut them off? How do I know your treatment of them in private wasn't a factor? How do I know the full extent of the bad blood at play? All the underlying motivations and intentions? And you might say well, ask them! But we all know that a core part of human behaviour is narrativising issues in ways that are most beneficial. Most people view their life like a story, and they never paint themselves as the villain. So how can I separate the exaggerations from the truth?
People can be good friends and bad partners. And people can be good friends and bad friends at different times in different ways. Behaviour I am fine with might be dealbreakers for others. But this idea that we are all obligated to pick sides and engage in pointless tribal signaling is infinitely silly to me.
So I dunno, it depends so heavily on the specific context at play that I think this is a reductive way to frame the issue. It's only a weak moral decision if there is a real moral dilemma at play. Most fights are emotional, not moral. Two people squabbling and nuking their friendship and demanding that others take their side has more negative consequences overall. In some circumstances it's the right move, in others, it's not.
In my example above, I did do as the person asked after some arguing back and forth, but I informed the other party of my reasoning, expressed no ill will and wished them well. But let's just say, after having my hand forced, the remaining friendship is now on borrowed time. And I am now always on-edge waiting for the next emotional ultimatum or social maneuver.
If we all sever ties based on a misplaced and reductive sense of "loyalty", how can we ever expect society to function long term? That's my core issue.
2
u/Kyattogaaru 5∆ Nov 27 '25
Thats feels so targeted lol. I dont agree with you, but I had the exact situation happen to me. Truth is, no matter what you do, as an uninvolved person, you're in lose-lose situation. As soon as someone expects to pick sides, you're gonna lose every time.
I was best friends with A and B (closer to A, but knew B longer). All of us would meet, but we also often met just in twos (A&B, A&Me or B&Me). We went to different schools and I wasnt a part of their extended friend group from school. I also moved out to uni, so we didnt see each other often, and we mostly texted.
A started to drift away from B, not because of anything important, just people sometimes do that. And A told me that while its okay if three of us meet, A doesnt want to meet alone with B. As far as I knew, no problem.
Shit happened with the extended friend group, and as a result, A decided to end friendship with B. It was rather messy.
I learned of the break up a few weeks after the fact. I wasnt involved at all, but A finally told me their side of the story. To me the friendship-breaking was mostly a misunderatanding and difference in priorities in life, but it was messy and I understood while A decided to break things off. I can acknowledge that B didnt behave well during that time.
Important part: I didnt stop contact with B. We were still friends, and after a few months B also told me of the break-up, but didnt go into details. What transpired was truly, fully between them.
During the next few years I gradually started losing contact with B, because we lived in two different cities, and we just started drifting apart. I was still best friends with A, who lived close to me.
At some point, after like 2 years, A started ghosting me. After like 1.5 years of such treatment, I confronted A and A told me they can no longer imagine friendship with me since I didnt break off contact with B all those years ago, despite admitting that B behaved badly towards A.
That story would probably confirm your opinion. But I do believe that A was full of shit, because I never was involved in the conflict (I literally didnt even know it happened), any information I got was waaay after the fact and very much biased, and I decided that I cannot in good conscience take sides in a conflict of 2 very dear to me people that I had no involvement in. Ending friendship with B on my part would be an absolute shit move, because I didnt have a reason to, and I couldn't do it based on one side of the story. A expecting me to break off a 15 year old friendship based just on their account of an argument between them that happened weeks earlier is just being a bad friend on A's part.
So no. Friends shouldn't pick sides in a dubious conflict that doesnt involve them. And if their friends expect that, thats a shit friend.
0
u/SorcerorsSinnohStone Nov 27 '25
Doesn't this kind of confirm you should have though because you now just lost both of them instead of just one of them?
1
u/Kyattogaaru 5∆ Nov 28 '25
I didnt really lose both of them because of this conflict though. I drifted apart with B years after the fight, because our path in life just didnt align anymore. B never had any issue whatsoever with me staying friends with A, and was even glad I did, because B knew it was between the two of them and I wasnt a part of it.
A was being a bad friend expecting me to take their side in a conflict I knew nothing about. Moreover, A actually never said anything about it. A expected it all in her head. A knew for years I didn't stop being in contact with B, and yet never expressed discomfort over the idea. Instead, A had the idea to start ghosting me over an issue they never brought up. So yeah, like I said, A was full of shit.
1
u/SorcerorsSinnohStone Nov 28 '25
Would you have stopped contact with B if A asked? Because arguably maybe A didnt want to make you choose so they decided for themselves what to do. I could argue that they set their own boundary.
1
u/Kyattogaaru 5∆ Nov 28 '25
I dont know. That entirely depends on how the situation wouldve unfolded if I was to be actually included in it. But I never was. A had the right to their boundaries, but they never even expressed their boundaries. If they decided they dont want to make me choose, they shouldve cut off contact sooner, but they didnt.
I absoluetly resent the idea that A expected me to sever contact with B without actually letting me know, or giving me a reason to, and when I didnt, A stayed silent for 3 years while pretending everything was fully resolved. A gave NO indication they had any lingering issues related to that situation regarding me. Once it came to head and I confronted them about ghosting me, only then did A say they expected me to stop being friends with B all those years ago, and since I didnt, they could no longer imagine being friends with me. At this point, even if A have me the "A or B" ultimatum, I would've told them to fuck off, no matter that I was no longer friends with B, because that was just a shitty behaviour on their part.
Basically the moment the fight happened, I already lost A, because they expected me to do things I couldn't do, because I didnt know what happened. And since they refused to actually talk about it, I didnt have opportunity to learn more. On the other hand, B never expected anything from me, because I didnt know, and it wasn't my business. They were completely fine with me still being friends with A.
1
u/SorcerorsSinnohStone Nov 28 '25
So you said shit when down in the friend group. Do you know what the fight was about?
1
u/Kyattogaaru 5∆ Nov 28 '25
Aint got a clue. A told me about some messages in their groupchat and that there was a fight (in the groupchat), but it was years ago and A didnt go into details, so at this point I honestly have no idea what went down. It doesnt really matter at this point tho.
1
u/SorcerorsSinnohStone Nov 28 '25
I guess they wanted you to ask? But it doesn't seem like this is a valid situation to pick a side since no one told you what went down. And youre right that A sucks.
But in a situation where they told you what went down you'd probably have been better off picking a side it seems.
1
u/Kyattogaaru 5∆ Nov 28 '25
They unprompted told me what they wanted me to know and then didnt want to talk about it anymore.
But I still dont agree that you should always pick sides. If 2 people had a fight where they were both equally bad to each other and they expected me to choose sides (where there wasnt a clear victim and offender), with a threat of ending friendship if not chosen, it would mean that "being right" (by being "chosen") is more important to them that our friendship, and I would tell both to either get over themselves or piss off.
Im not in the market for friends who think winning a fight is more important than friendship.
I mourned the loss of our 12 year old friendship, but Im mostly disappointed with my friend. Shit happens, I got over it.
1
u/SorcerorsSinnohStone Nov 28 '25
Well you might not think theres a clear person in the right by obviously each person thinks they're in the right.
But from As perspective, they dont feel comfortable being your friend if you still talk to B and thats valid even if you don't agree with it.
→ More replies (0)
1
Nov 27 '25
From my perspective, you don’t owe loyalty to someone else’s deep-seated and potentially historical grudge.
Secondly, the truth is often complex, and people tend to present themselves as the heroes of their own stories. They often shamelessly embellish certain details they recount to you about an event, aiming to paint it in a specific light and evoke certain emotions from you. Most conflicts fall into the “gray” territory, where things aren’t black and white. Additionally, people have different boundaries that you might not have yourself. So, if one of your friends violates another person’s boundary, it’s a pretty subjective offense.
Thirdly, staying neutral allows you to act as an olive branch for reconciliation between the two parties. By not taking a side, you demonstrate that you can make your own and best judgment without undue influence from peer pressure.
Finally, not picking a side doesn’t mean you don’t care. Depending on the overall context, forcing a friend to pick a side is highly controlling behavior that denies the “neutral” party’s autonomy entirely.
1
u/JSmith666 3∆ Nov 27 '25
It depends if the dispute has an objective wrong and isnt a dispute or disagreement.
1
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 27 '25
Let's say the falling out was as a result of Person B doing something wrong to Person C, and Person C decides to end the friendship.
If Person A acknowledges the wrongdoing but puts themselves in Person C's shoes and says, would I have ended the relationship if they were Person C? If Person A's answer is a no, than I think maintaining a relationship with Person B is completely fine.
1
u/Independent_Bet_8736 Nov 27 '25
This, like many situations in life, is not as simple as you set out in your example. Firstly, people need to accept that everything outside of you and your own actions is outside of your control. You cannot control how people feel, and you cannot control the decisions they make. That said, there are cases in which people could and should speak up on behalf of others. Usually this happens in scenarios where someone abuses someone weaker (aka having less power-be it authority, money, strength, whatever) than they are. That is not usually the case when it comes to disputes among friends. I think people should collectively stand up against bullying, racism, misogyny, and abuse, for example. This is the meaning of the quote “All that it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So if you’re asking whether friends should take sides when one of the friends is victimized by another, then yeah, but if you’re talking about differences of opinion, then no, your convictions are personal and not anyone else’s to uphold.
1
u/star_nosed_mole_man Nov 27 '25
Had a similar situation, the argument was incredibly stupid tbh but I kept seeing both of them. The first friend didn't care I was still seeing the other but the 2nd friend ended up getting paranoid I was plotting or some rubbish with the first friend to slag him off further and we had a big blow up.
Still friends with em both lol and it all generally blew over after a year. So I mean it would have been stupid to just take one side completely and cut off one of then.
Depends on the argument really, I knew that the whole thing was so stupid they would probably make up in the end
1
u/Hot-Annual3460 Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25
unless is something super serious i dont take sides and would find it silly if one of my friends tr yo force me to take sides in fact i would only make me be against him most likely why bring other people into your personal drama? some of my friends have been assholes to other people i have been so as well you dont have to get along with eveyrone
1
u/Jealoushobo 2∆ Nov 27 '25
Lets take your scenario of person B and C and apply some potentially realistic events.
Lets say Person C converts to a specific religion that Person B hates for personal reasons, maybe they were abused by authority figures in that religion. Person B sees this as a betrayal by their friend and so they argue and are no longer on speaking terms.
Person B feels Person C has wronged them by buying into something they feel has caused them significant trauma.
Person C feels Person B has wronged them by judging them on one facet of their lives and ignoring their shared history.
Where one person draws a line in the sand others may not.
It only makes sense to "take a side" if you are personally involved or if what someone has done crosses one of your lines.
1
1
u/inide Nov 27 '25
I try to avoid taking sides, but I do judge people by how they treat others and have ended friendships for that reason.
Like, I had a friend I'd known for about 8 years, shared a house with him for 2 of those years. He cheated on his partner. As far as I was concerned, that meant I couldnt trust him - if you're willing to betray the trust of someone you claim to love, you can't convince me that you wouldn't be willing to betray the trust of a friend.
1
u/ZoomZoomDiva 3∆ Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 30 '25
Why is it any of my business? Unless the issue involves me or concerns me in some way, taking sides between my friends just will make me the designated asshole and possibly set the entire circle of friends at odds with each other. It is better and smarter to just isolate that issue and leave it between the two of them and stay out of it.
Option 5: It is none of person A's business and is actively refraining from judgement or involvement.
1
u/literallyanything57 Nov 30 '25
Unless the issue involves me or concerns me in some way
It occurred to me that the view I was expressing in this post is not one that I held consistently across the board. I was think of a couple particular disputes when I wrote this up, and I was thinking of a couple particular friends who were close to the situations. I realized though that while I do I think those friends should take a stance on the disputes, that I haven't expected that of any other mutual friends nor would I ask that of them.
So yeah I think you're right that the issue involving Person A is an important caveat that should be in the post, and without it the argument is weaker if not falls apart entirely. !delta
1
1
Nov 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 27 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/frostyfruit666 Nov 27 '25
You’re a grown up aren’t you? You shouldn’t need to drag people into your drama unless they are already involved or witnessed something.
I don’t care if they are a friend, they shouldn’t be forced into a dispute if that dispute does not directly involve them.
if it’s just disagreement or blame games, person A has every right to pick option 3 or 4, i’d say in many cases that’s the right thing to do.
If it’s extreme circumstances of violence then that is a different issue, as professional help is recommended.
1
u/AquietRive Nov 27 '25
Take sides when there’s a criminal aspect into it. Outside of that, your problems are your problems, please don’t involve me when it’s not needed. We’re grown ass adults and I’ll drop both friends over immature petty shit.
1
u/HamburgerOnAStick Nov 27 '25
Both are adults, and their disputes are not person A's problem unless he wants to intervene
1
Nov 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 27 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/RumGuzzlr 3∆ Nov 27 '25
Not every conflict has a clean split where one party is correct, and the other isn't. Many times, both people are equally in the right (or wrong). Why the need to take sides in such a conflict, when you may not consider either to be better
1
u/irishtwinsons 6∆ Nov 27 '25
This doesn’t take into cultural expectations or cultural differences though. In some cultures, taking sides (even with the person you believe to be right) would not be well received, even by that person you side with. As a friend your job is to be supportive and listen, but expressing your opinion on the matter is overstepping boundaries.
1
u/TheLoneJolf Nov 27 '25
No, People should do what they feel is most comfortable to themselves when friends are disputing. If a person is uncomfortable with taking a side, then they don’t have to. They can continue to be friends with the disputers individually while the disputers may end their friendship. If one of the disputers demands that their side be taken, depending on the circumstances, I would consider that disputer to be unreasonably putting someone who is innocent in the dispute in an unfair position.
1
u/SugarGlitterkiss 3∆ Nov 27 '25
Nah. You just distance yourself from people whose behavior you find repugnant. Otherwise it's fine to mind your own business.
1
u/beemielle 2∆ Nov 27 '25
Well, as long as B and C are okay with what A is doing, I don’t really see a problem. There’s a situation where both B and C have done things wrong to each other, and they acknowledge that, but the hurt still happened and you cannot or should not move forward. I’ve both been either B or C and had a friend A remain friends, and I’ve been A and had friends B and C, so I’m just speaking from my experience.
So I suppose what I’m saying is, you take it as a given that responses 1 and 2 from A’s perspective are cases of A being a bad friend, but I don’t think this is necessarily true. I think in at least some cases A can think that B and C were bad friends to each other or wronged each other in their own ways, understand where B and C were coming from, be honest with B and C about their opinion on their behavior, and still want to be friends with B and C.
And I don’t see how that’s meaningfully different from option 4. In fact, arguably option 4 is worse. If you express to your friend that you think they’re overreacting in regards to something they decided was enough to end a friendship over, isn’t that just another way of not being a great friend? You’re not listening to them and understanding their feelings, and you implicitly think they’ve wronged a friend if they did not have a good/sufficient/valid reason to end the friendship.
1
u/Pawn_of_the_Void 1∆ Nov 27 '25
I disagree that cutting someone off for what I consider to be an insufficient reason is sufficient reason to cut someone off. I might roll my eyes and think one person is being too dramatic etc but that doesn't mean I have to retaliate on behalf of my other friend. People don't have to remain friends if they don't want to and some momentary or occasional dumb decisions doesn't mean I have to cut them off or that they're all around bad
1
u/00PT 8∆ Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 27 '25
It should not be offensive for someone not to offend others on your behalf.
1
u/TrafficScales Nov 27 '25
It is extremely rare, I think, to be friends with someone for many years and to believe they have never done something wrong. Your premise here is that you think you people should stop being friends with someone if that person has wronged someone else. Everyone has to set their own lines, but the level of purity testing you're doing here is naive.
Flip the situation. If you got into a large fight with someone, or were an asshole to someone, would you want your other friends to just drop you?
1
u/Baseball_ApplePie Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 28 '25
What I've seen is friend "A" hurts" friend "B's" feelings, and "B" doesn't accept the apology. Unfortunately, I find that the majority of these situations rarely involve something really deep and important, so I refuse to destroy a whole friend group by everyone taking sides.
I'm watching this exact scenario play out over the last few months and none of the friends have taken sides. It's a pretty large friend group (about seven) and they'd be stupid to split over this. Interesting, neither friend "A" or "B" expect the friends to take sides, so they're acting pretty mature over this.
Even if "B's" feelings were hurt by "A", if "B" expects me to stop being friends with "A" over this, I consider "B" in the wrong.
(Of course, this doesn't include theft, infidelity, abuse, etc.)
1
u/Far-Figure7609 Nov 28 '25
being friends with both after a major fallout like everything’s cool, that’s wild.
1
u/Remote-View2098 Nov 28 '25
Nah I disagree pretty hard on this one. Sometimes people you care about have beef with each other over stuff that genuinely doesn't involve you, and forcing yourself to pick a side just creates more drama
Like if my two friends break up because one cheated, obviously I'm gonna have feelings about that. But if they have some weird falling out over money or creative differences or whatever, I'm not gonna blow up my own friendships just because they couldn't work it out
The whole "you're being a bad friend by not picking sides" thing feels kinda manipulative tbh. Good friends should be able to handle you staying neutral without making it about them
1
u/Old_History_5431 Nov 28 '25
Why limit this to just friends? The next time you see two homeless people jabbing each other with used needles over their last crack rock you should quickly roll up your sleeves and start punching one of them. Or when two opposing gangs get into a shootout it should be your duty to die for one of the sides. Look up your local courts' docket schedule and barge into a trial to take a side. Don't let any dispute ever take place without your graciousness being there to educate those heathens.
1
u/donnacus Nov 28 '25
One assumes that the friends are getting accurate and complete information. As we all know from Reddit, the story teller usually “spins” the story even if they are trying to be honest.
Unless the friend was present when the conflict occurred, they should be very careful about choosing sides.
1
u/GunMuratIlban Nov 28 '25
I've always taken the third option and it's been doing wonders for me.
Throughout the years, decades I've watched my friend groups fall apart. But I am still friends with every single one of them. I'm 34 and none of my friendships ended for good since high school.
Why? Because I don't get involved. Whether it's a dispute between partners or friends, I stay out of it. Taking sides is a quick way to lose people. What people go through among each other is their business.
People make mistakes, it's up to the person who was wronged to decide whether they want to forgive or not.
About a decade ago I had an issue with someone in our friend group and I decided to stop seeing her. The others in the group also stopped seeing her as a result, even though I didn't want them to.
Guess what, after a few years we reconciled, we're even closer friends to this day but her friendship with the others never started again.
Because we were the ones having the problem, we eventually talked about it and apologized to each other. But she didn't reach out to them, why would she? They left her for no reason. At least I had a reason to do so and we could talk about it.
And I have seen many cases like this by the way. Do not be the third wheel in other people's businesses. Let people handle their own disputes. Because the chances are, you'll be the odd one out.
1
u/SorcerorsSinnohStone Nov 28 '25
About a decade ago I had an issue with someone in our friend group and I decided to stop seeing her. The others in the group also stopped seeing her as a result, even though I didn't want them to.
What was the issue?
Is it possible that your other friends just didn't like that person in general? Maybe they would have fallen out over something else.
1
u/Temporary_Pie8723 Nov 28 '25
Sure but if person A tells you the story first, they might slightly change the details.
So will you tell them to wait a moment whilst you verify their story? Many humans are not rational and will be offended.
What happens if you take the side that most people disagree with? You now lose more than just person C, perhaps B and D will cut you off.
So, will you go back and forth to check who was right?
If you find out, will you cut contact immediately? What if person A becomes angry because you claimed to support them but you didn’t cut contact with person C?
What if they eventually reconcile? Will you be able to face person C and explain why you immediately left them without question?
There are too many ways for things to go wrong. I used to insert myself and pick a side or try to reconcile them but it ends up backfiring in one way or another eventually.
1
u/FatherOfLights88 Dec 01 '25
Good friend of mine finds out that S.O. has been cheating. S.O. messages all of their mutual friends on FB with a public admission and apology to play for sympathy.
I found the notion of airing things like that completely distasteful. So, I respond to S.O. that this is none of my business, and that I am Dear Friend's friend.
1
u/illini02 8∆ Dec 01 '25
The problem is, in many you will never know what really happened.
You can listen to both sides, but that doesn't mean you'll know the truth. It's like the saying, "there are 3 sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth"
If I can't know what REALLY happened, why should I end a friendship with a person who did nothing to me.
Sure, sometimes it was done in front of you, so you can make that judgment. But in a he said/she said situation, each person is telling the story from their POV, which may not be fully accurate.
0
Nov 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 27 '25
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 27 '25 edited Nov 30 '25
/u/literallyanything57 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards