To think most people run with the Hare and Hunt with the Hound ?

[JazzyJogger]

If there is a dispute between friends, with the neighbours, at work or in the family most people will run with the hare and hunt with the hound to keep the peace or self preservation? Im watching with interest a situation where most people are doing just this . Or maybe they are just stirring the pot and getting off on the drama and conflict .

I’m famil with the saying. I’d say it’s more about staying out of trouble and refusing to commit than being two faced.

I probably do the opposite- I always present the other person’s point of view which doesn’t win me any friends! 😂

I think that a lot of people do do this OP - they pretend that they are peacekeeping or listening to both sides but in fact they are stirring things up and love a bit of drama. It's not an attractive trait and smacks of a lack of decency to me.

I tend to hunt with the bear and fish with the frog, but each to their own I guess.

I havent heard the saying before, but it's nice, sounds very old fashioned. I agree a lot of people are two faced, but at the same time there are people who cause a lot of drama and try to drag people into it and make them pick sides when they don't really want to.

Read post because I thought it was a debate about hunting! 🤣

A lot of people do OP and invariably, even when they think they’re being neutral they end up shit stirring. I found it’s better just to be clear about not wanting to be involved but give an honest opinion when it’s sought. Sometimes by trying to be neutral you just end up, taking the side of the person who is most combative when they’re wrong.

Could be that they genuinely DO see both sides. That can happen, too.

I love that expression. I think most people just want to get through the day with no agro though.

Are there two separate activities or a different phrase for the same thing?

This. I may actually say ‘I will not even pretend to be interested in what Sandra from Accounts said about your Secret Santa gift’ or I may just nod along because, frankly, I can’t be bothered, but that in no way indicates any form of agreement with any ‘side’ in a dispute.

Hunt with the hounds, plural, the pack of hounds chasing the hare.

It’s the same hunt, but the metaphor focuses on the prey (the hare) and the predators (the hounds hunting it) — to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds is to support both opposing sides of a dispute.

The phenomenon you're observing, where individuals try to navigate conflicts by aligning with opposing sides, is often referred to as "running with the hare and hunting with the hound." This metaphorical expression captures the idea of trying to please everyone or maintain a neutral stance in conflicting situations to avoid confrontation or negative consequences.

There are several reasons why people may engage in this behavior, and it often involves a delicate balance between the desire for peace, self-preservation, and sometimes a degree of manipulation or opportunism. Let's explore some of the underlying motives and dynamics at play in such situations.

Conflict Avoidance and Peacekeeping:
People naturally seek harmony and stability in their relationships and environments. When faced with disputes, some individuals may choose to align with both sides to diffuse tension and maintain a semblance of peace. This behavior is driven by a genuine desire for tranquility and a fear of confrontation.

Self-Preservation:
Individuals may choose to align with conflicting parties as a means of self-preservation. They may fear repercussions or consequences from taking a clear stance, especially if the dispute involves powerful or influential individuals. This strategy allows them to navigate the situation without becoming a target for either side.

Lack of Conviction or Strong Beliefs:
Some people may not have strong convictions or beliefs regarding the dispute at hand. They might adopt a neutral position because they genuinely don't have a preference for one side over the other. This lack of personal investment can make it easier for them to move between conflicting groups.

Manipulation and Opportunism:
In certain cases, individuals might intentionally play both sides to manipulate the situation to their advantage. This could involve gaining information, favors, or influence from each party involved. Such behavior is driven by a calculated decision to exploit the conflict for personal gain.

Enjoyment of Drama:
As you suggested, some individuals might revel in the drama and conflict itself. They may derive satisfaction from being at the center of attention, stirring the pot, and observing the reactions of those involved. This behavior is more about the thrill of chaos than a genuine attempt at conflict resolution.

Fear of Alienation:
People may fear being ostracized or alienated if they take a firm stance on one side of a dispute. By aligning with both parties, they hope to maintain connections and avoid being isolated. This fear of social exclusion can be a powerful motivator in such situations.

In conclusion, the tendency to "run with the hare and hunt with the hound" in the face of disputes is a complex interplay of psychological, social, and strategic factors. Understanding the motivations behind this behavior can provide insights into the dynamics of conflicts and the ways individuals navigate them.

Thank you @Mantling Perfectly explained.

I've never heard it before. I may steal it but it's a long way to say you're not taking sides.

Eh?

Yes it's true.

I've had to whistleblow at work a couple of times over safeguarding failures that put kids at risk.

Always degenerates into me being scapegoated and everyone else trying to brush it under the carpet.

The last time I had to do it I literarily resigned at the same time as I'd seen the script run in my previous workplace and didn't fancy a rematch.