Whether we label it gossip (which, without identifying data, it just logically cannot be) or not--the truth of the matter all humans discuss what they experience, it's how we all share and gain awareness.
Maybe you're saying you consider it gratuitous, ok---maybe--but I challenge every one of us to honestly see ourselves.
Who among us can claim to walk in such Christ-like purity that we muzzle ourselves when we encounter behaviors that we find startling, or may be warning signs for us.
Stories or info we pass on because they shock us, because we recognize the destructive ness or peril of them.
I'm not saying we are always high-minded and noble when we share this stuff, but our shock in telling others serves a function in our own growth, if we are wise enough to separate the 'titillation' from the lesson.
God puts it in our path to hear--it's our free will to learn and apply better personal choices as a result of being exposed to it.
The Bible is full of stories of human frailty and consequence . Human failing is the catalyst for human betterment.
We learn by example--"But by the grace of God, there go I" kind of wake-up perhaps. That's how I view it, anyway.
And without an attached name--it cannot be personal!
We humans are always observing, sharing, co-creative agents and therefore, we must SHARE (without identifying names except by permission)---I honestly don't get casting so much shade on what is a running fact of co-existence.
Information travels. Like I said above, "lessons learned", or lessons ignored, by others inform our survival. There's an interesting adage attributed to Socrates: "A life unexamined is not worth living". I would not go that far, but the point is there.
We continuousl y learn, but we should do no harm to others in the learning.
Decent, conscious and moral beings should NEVER attach names. That is a vile and destructive thing to do to another human being. More than vicious. Soul killing.
But a real world, reality check from me--I've never heard a single credentiale d MD or research scientist (I work in the circle--a lot of info flows) act like they cannot discuss ANONYMOUS case behavior or stats---along with the occasional raised eyebrows, it brings insights, illustrates needed perspective .
And yes, in their humanness, they've even joked about this or that quirky thing, it doesn't make them bad. It makes them human and they need to relate, as we all do.
But YES, I agree in spades...if ANYONE, especially a respected, accomplishe d professiona l in their field, spreads information that is so thinly veiled and so specificall y associated through detailed characteris tics---that the identity can be easily guessed by those in a circle of people who all know one another--then YES, that is gossip and it's evil. And I bet they'd get their pants sued off and lose their license--and they should!
But that's not what we're talking about here--we're talking about a subculture of probably thousands of people on the internet--who have no way of knowing one another.
I don't think we should judge someone for sharing the insights of their experience and say it means they're not professiona l, so we brand a scarlet letter on their forehead--it sounds rather Soviet to pressure that level of silence in order to be what the group terms a 'good' person.
Ironically, as we pile on the person who pretty unabashedly offered a glimpse into his/her world (which tells me intentions aren't dark, just open and maybe hapless) we start impugning HIM/HER.
And because this person has freely admitted his/her profession as an online psychic on platforms we've purchased readings on, some may have an idea who she/he is. Even so, they're being called a gossip, their ethics insulted, reputation sullied, attacked by the group.
Maybe some discuss his/her possible identity by possible name in private messages (not saying any one in this discussion is doing that) --but boy, attach a name and it travels like wildfire.
Which starts to build a case that we might be doing to her--the very thing we say is not ok to do with others who have zero risk of being identified, whereas this person could conceivably be 'figured out'.
I value the thoughts of those here.
This is just my point of view.
