..... to ask what 'judge' means on MN

[NiceLegsShameAboutTheFace]

So, there are a few threads asking whether we would 'judge' others based on various scenarios, for example: if they were SAHMs on benefits, if their partner was 20 years younger or older than they were; if they had children in their teens. other examples are available.

In this context, can someone explain what judge actually means? If I were to encounter these situations, then my initial reaction would be that it's none of my business how others go about life. However, if I were to be asked to discuss the pros and cons of (say) age gap partnerships or younger mums then I'd be happy to offer my genuine (and hopefully constructive) comments.

I guess I'm asking: Where does debate end and judgement start?

Confused of Tunbridge Wells

Following with interest (not judgement).

It means to assess someone and find them lacking.

To find them / their choices inferior to your own.

I think MayFayner has summed it up perfectly.

I think the implication is to judge someone negatively - of course, that's not what "judge" really means... We're all judging people and situations all the time, but many judgements are neutral or positive - judging is literally just "forming an opinion", even if that opinion is just "that's nice".

Interesting one. I think it may be to do with mixing fact and opinion.

For example "women can be free to be SAHM or working mums. But SAHM dont know what it is like to juggle all responsibilities".

(Disclaimer: I do not think this at all, just using it as an example)

The first part is the debate. It's the second part that the person is confusing thier opinion for fact. They may think they are right based on thier experiences, but that doesn't make it a fact and that's why it comes across as judgement.

This isn't something I've really thought about before, so I'm interested in others interpretation.

Yes, MayFayner has it spot on.

As I have said in the past, exercising judgement is part of knowing yourself, knowing your boundaries and standards. Also, that you should always judge people on their entire circumstances - no point taking anything in isolation. Finally, the judgement is meant to give YOU guidelines for how you interact/rely upon someone - not for how you behave towards them or treat them.

E.g. friend drinks more than you would when babysitting children. Ok, now you know you'd not like them to be your babysitter. Friend is always flaky with meetups. Ok, I won't put myself in the position where I'll be let down. Friend is highly conscientious and economical - ok, when she asks for financial help I can trust her to pay it back.

Judgements, positive AND negative, are how we navigate the world.

Being self righteous?

Essentially look down on someone.

It can be frustrating on here when a poster is having issues with someone in their life behaving irresponsibly and someone comes on to say "could your judgey pants be any higher?". I actually judge people who post that, it really narks me.

Or 'what business is it of yours'?

When the OP has said her husband visits prostitutes, her sister leaves her toddler with her to jack up on heroin, or the neighbour likes to keep a rotweiller chained on the OP's front lawn.

I always work on the assumption that at least 50% of the 'I NEVER judge' crowd live in a highly cloistered community with little crime or social disorder so never have to face the reality of undesirable behaviour, that 25% have vast life difference and genuinely don't judge, and the remaining 25% are that sort of person with such low self esteem and never judges purely because they judge themselves to be the worst person in the world.

But Mayner can you not judge someone and find them sufficient or acceptable, superior to oneself? It can’t just be one way.

Interesting question. I think it’s actually possibly to think that someone’s choices are worse than one’s own without judging them - for example, I think that not taking drugs is a better decision than taking loads of drugs and becoming a heroin addict, but that doesn’t mean I look at a drug addict and feel smug; on the contrary, I think: ‘If I’d been in their circumstances, maybe I’d have done the same thing. Maybe they suffered child abuse, developed terrible mental health issues as a result, and turned to drugs to try and relieve their suffering. I’m lucky not to have had that situation’.

But we're talking specifically about what it means on here, probably even more specific to AIBU and in that regard mayner nailed it for me.

ABCD Like how you put that. Yes one can definitely judge something to not be ideal without being smug. Just making a mental note that it’s not advisable. I think sometimes people get this confused on MN where if some one states a fact about a not so ideal situation or something, it’s assumed that poster must be feeling smug or looking down their nose.

An example: A woman has six children by six different men who contribute little or no money, she does not work and relies on benefits even though all children are at school.

Would you judge her? Some may say it's none of my business, others will judge and say why should I work hard and then my taxes are given to someone who won't make any effort to help themselves. I would as I believe people should be self sufficient and benefits are for those who find themselves in temporary need.

From the responses, it sounds like people are judging for judging, or judging for judging for judging... (powdered wigs all the way down). I think everyone makes judgements about others, it's part of how we function and survive as humans, the question is whether voicing these judgments is correct (for which I can only say with certainty that there is no universal answer, even for the same/similar cases)

I think it's fine to be judgemental about unequivocally bad behaviour which affects other people (e.g. people playing loud music and annoying neighbours, people being rude and aggressive etc). It's not OK to take a snapshot of one superficial aspect of someone's life and make a broad sweeping judgement about them on that basis.

It's commonly come to mean 'have an opinion on'.

As an amusing aside I remember the sister of a man just convicted of a serious violent crime was outside the court yelling to the TV cameras that 'only God can judge my brother'.

Everyone is judgemental to a certain degree. We judge everything on a daily basis - what to wear, what to eat, whether one route is safer than another.

I think it’s seen as virtuous or morally superior to say ‘I’m not one to judge’ or ‘who am I to judge?’ - but to make no judgements on or distinctions between certain types of behaviour is moral cowardice.

If we never judged, we’d never figure out what was right or wrong, good or evil. If I saw a person beating a child, I wouldn’t think to myself - ‘I’d better not judge. She might have some stuff going on I know nothing about.’

An example: A woman has six children by six different men who contribute little or no money, she does not work and relies on benefits even though all children are at school.

In this example I think people feel entitled to judge because her behaviour and choices don’t only affect her. She has made it our business, society’s business, when six children need feeding and clothing and she needs other people’s help to do it.

Absolutely IsabellaLinton

I would as I believe people should be self sufficient and benefits are for those who find themselves in temporary need.

Not quite the topic at hand but out of interest SilverySurfer, what's your view on disability benefits?

We have no right to judge an unemployed, on benefits single mother of 6 by 6 different fathers. Unless you know every minute detail of their upbringing, background, mental health, physical health, domestic violence situation, then you have no right to judge. This to me is the very epitome of looking down your nose at someone you see as inferior to you.

On MN? A thread started ‘would you judge this situation?’ usually means ‘I felt like shit stirring on an Internet forum and find it hilarious as the virtue signalling ‘I have never judge a single soul’ and hard-right ‘hang ‘em in the street’ types rip each other apart’. Most of them are goady shite that posters are quite happy to bite.

I wouldn't advise anyone to have 6 different children by 6 different fathers but I don't think the fact that my taxes help to support her means I can look down my nose at her with a moral high ground. Much more useful to actually think rationally about the situation. Why did she make the choices she did? Poor education? Poor mental health? Cultural issues? The benefits system incentivises it? It's usually much more powerful to understand why someone acts a certain way then you can react to it.