Latest / Thinking Out Loud | Kimberly / What is Gained When Someone is Labeled a Liar? And Who Benefits from That Label? | Thinking Out Loud
Transcript
- Kimberly: What is gained when someone is labeled a liar? And who benefits from that label? Sometimes what is gained isn't truth, it's comfort. Because if we can dismiss the person, we don't have to explain the claim. Calling someone a liar can protect our beliefs, our relationships, our institutions, and even our self-image. What happens when credibility becomes easier to attack than the problem itself? That's what we're exploring today. Welcome back to Thinking Out Loud. Hi, it's me Kimberly. Before we begin, a quick note, this podcast is for reflection and conversation, not professional advice. Take what resonates And leave the rest. Here we slow down and explore life's gray areas, not to tell you what to think, but offer framework that can help you think more clearly. So let's think out loud. Let's start with a story most of us think we know. What if the story of the boy who cried wolf was never really about lying? What if it was about who gets believed and who doesn't? What if the boy saw the wolf the entire time? And what if the wolf wasn't just mindless but observant? What if it learned patterns that when the boy yelled, the village came and over time less and less people came? Not because the threat disappeared, but because repetition made it inconvenient to believe? What if the wolf didn't need to rush the sheep at all? What if it just waited and watched the village decide the boy wasn't worth listening to anymore? Every time the boy warned them, the wolf stayed just far enough away to be unseen, but close enough to learn. And slowly the village stopped showing up. Not because they proved the boy wrong, because they got tired of being alarmed. Until eventually no one came at all. And the question changes. Because now the boy is standing there alone with two impossible choices. He's a child. Let's remember this. Fight the wolf alone and risk becoming the next victim. Or walk away, go back to the village, and risk being called a liar again. This time with proof they have already decided he was one. But here's the part we usually skip. Why was the boy ever the only one in the line of defense between the sheep and the wolf in the first place? Why was responsibility placed on someone with no real power? And then used as evidence against their character and credibility when they failed to carry it out alone? Maybe the lesson was never about don't lie. Maybe it was what happens when a system decides it's easier to believe the warning? Then to face the threat. What happens to the truth teller when being right costs them everything? Being ignored cost everyone everything else too. And let's zoom out from the story for a moment. It is so much easier to call powerless people liars, sensitive, dramatic. Crazy, attention seeking, manipulative, difficult, unreasonable, lazy, weak, emotional, immature, too much, not resilient enough. Because facing the truth is painful. It's painful to admit that maybe the system failed someone. It's painful to realize that what was called discipline may have just been humiliation. And what we call toughing them up may have been suppression. That they needed to learn something really meant we refuse to meet them where they are. And they need to get over it, sometimes meant we don't have to confront what happens to them. Sometimes the hardest truth is not that someone is lying, but that we may not have been kind, fair, or safe as we believed ourselves to be. Maybe the problem wasn't a weakness, maybe the problem was bullying being normalized as strength. We talk about the meek shall inherit the earth. History shows something uncomfortable. When societies become unstable, fearful, or are collapsing, the first people blamed are usually people perceived as easiest to dismiss. Women, children, disabled people, minority groups, the poor, the socially isolated, the emotionally vulnerable, the outsiders. Quiet men, gentlemen, men without status or power. Anyone seen as weak enough to absorb society's fear because powerless does not always mean powerlessness. Sometimes it just means less protected. Communities often confuse lack of protection with lack of values. That moment that happens, something else tends to happen too. People stop evaluating what is being said Start evaluating who is saying it. credibility becomes a popularity test instead of the search for truth. this isn't about saying every accusation is true or every vulnerable person is morally right. It's about noticing how quickly society dismisses people once they've been seen as inconvenient, emotional, or easy to overpower. Society often preserves their self-image by discrediting the people who expose the discomfort because if the message can be dismissed, the message can be ignored. If the person is a liar, then we don't have to examine the claim. If they're dramatic, we don't have to investigate the harm. If they're too sensitive, we don't have to question our own behavior. And the more uncomfortable the truth is, the more tempting it becomes to attack the person bringing it forward. Now laying on something very modern. Alert fatigue. We have become a society suffering more from alert fatigue. we're constantly bombarded with warnings, outrage, bad news, And competing versions of reality. And when people become exhausted, it becomes easier to assume nothing is wrong than to investigate whether something actually is. It becomes easier to dismiss than to engage, easier to blame than to reflect, easier to assassinate someone's character than to examine our own. We do it for certainty, we do it for influence, we do it for approval, we do it for the performance, baby. that's what makes me think differently about the story of the boy who cries wolf. People are often ready to blame both the wolf and the boy before they're willing to ask a harder question. Why was the boy alone in the first place? The story never tells us about his parents. It never tells us about the adults responsible for him. It never asks why the child was expected to stand between a flock and a predator with little more than his voice. Maybe that's the real part that bothers me now. Because if the village truly believed protecting the sheep was important, why was a child carrying that responsibility by himself? And I don't want to hear it was the times. It was no. We grow up, we evolve. We don't need to just adapt We need to continue to evolve. Why did he need to cry wolf to get attention? Why wasn't there support before the crisis? Why wasn't there another shepherd training him? Why wasn't there a plan? Why didn't the community help him? Why was the burden placed on one person with the least amount of power? Because whether the boy lied once, twice, or a hundred times, he was still a child. Yet somehow he became the symbol for adults shouldn't trust children, instead of the symbol of what happens when communities stop showing up for their own. let's talk about responsibility more directly. The village isn't just passive, they're avoiding responsibility. That is the behavior. Avoidance. Believing the boy would require organizing a defense, sacrificing comfort, and admitting vulnerability. It would require acknowledging that the wolf might exist, that a danger might exist, that protecting the flock requires effort outside of a child. It becomes easier to label the boy. unreliable than to act. It becomes easier to blame him. And what's interesting is that the boy did have power. The proof is how many times the village came running. His voice could move an entire community. His voice could change people's behavior. he was also powerless because influence is not the same thing as authority. Being heard is not the same thing as being protected. Being given responsibility is not the same thing as being given support. The boy had enough power to be blamed for the outcome, not enough power to solve the problem by himself. And I think that's what happens more than we realize. Sometimes people avoid responsibility by placing it onto someone else. Not because that person is qualified, not because they're ready, because if things go wrong, There's now someone else to blame. Sometimes it looks like giving inexperienced people responsibility without guidance or training. Sometimes it looks like promoting someone into a role without the resources they actually need to succeed. Sometimes it's handing someone the steering wheel and quietly hoping they'll absorb the consequences because if they fail, they become the problem. And if they succeed, even more responsibility gets piled onto them so someone else can avoid carrying it. Either way, the spotlight stays on the person holding the burden. somehow we forget to ask a much more important question. Who was supposed to be responsible in the first place? Who created the conditions? Who had the authority to help? Who had the resources? Who benefited from stepping back while someone else stepped forward? because when a child is carrying an adult burden, the first question shouldn't be, Why didn't the child handle it better? The first question really should be why was the child carrying it alone? Now let's look back at the wolf again. From another angle, sometimes it isn't the wolf is essentially smart. Sometimes it just understands patterns enough to blend in, enough to understand social expectations, enough to know who gets believed, and enough to know who doesn't. Enough to know who is protected, and enough to know who isn't. Because people who want to cause harm don't always stand out. Sometimes they're charming. Sometimes they're respected. Sometimes they're helpful. Sometimes they seem intelligent. Sometimes the person everyone said would never do something like that. And sometimes the wolf isn't a wolf at all. Sometimes it's a person. A family system. A workplace culture, a school, a community, a friend group, a religious institution, a social media mob, a corporation, an ideology, a system that protects itself by sacrificing the people with the least power. And often it doesn't start with obvious cruelty. It starts with small tests. Small moments. Seeing who speaks up, who stays quiet, who laughs. Who looks away? It can look like come on, it was just a joke. You're so sensitive, my goodness. Nobody seems to have a problem with it, but you That's not what happened. You're always exaggerating. Don't make this a big deal. You're remembering it wrong. You know how they get. Harmless on the surface, easy to dismiss, easy to explain away. But over time those moments grow. The joke becomes insult. The insult becomes humiliation. The humiliation becomes exclusion. The exclusion becomes harassment. The harassment becomes abuse. And sometimes it's so obvious that harm is admitted out loud, not hidden, not discussed, right in front of everyone. Things like, nobody's gonna believe you. They're just looking for attention. they've always been this difficult. They deserved it. Who cares what they think? They're crazy anyways. And by then, people often tell themselves it's all just still a joke, or they truly believe that this other person is terrible. Silencing a person who has no power against a mob. Because admitting it wasn't a joke means admitting the signs were there all along, the red flags were there, slowly admitting the fact that you were not in tune with your body. You were not in tune with right or wrong. You were going with the mob. And maybe not for everyone to see, but enough people saw them, enough people heard them, and enough people looked away because we were more influenced by a group, a mob, than we like to admit. We want to believe we are independent thinkers. We want to believe we stand up for the vulnerable. We want to believe we recognize the wolf when it happens. If we face the truth, We may have to confront something much harder. Not that the wolf existed, that the wolf wasn't acting alone. That a community created conditions where the wolf could thrive. That people stayed silent, people looked away, people chose comfort over action. And sometimes the hardest truth of all of this the child wasn't fed to the wolf because nobody saw the danger. The child was fed to the wolf because enough People convinced themselves that danger wasn't their responsibility. So what do we do with that? The tragedy wasn't that the boy wasn't believed. The tragedy was the belief required inconvenience and inconveniency lost. Because sometimes it's easier to label something a monster than admit it could happen here. That harm isn't rare. It's human behavior amplified by power and silence. And what we label as monsters is often just predatory behavior we refuse to name clearly while it's happening. we turn it into distance. We turn it into other people. We turn it into something unrelatable because it feels human. Because if it feels human, then it feels possible. If it feels possible, then it feels like responsibility. And responsibility is what people try to avoid. Harm usually exists where there is imbalance. Men can overpower women, and that's why we need systems and men who actively protect women's rights and safety, not just assume harm won't happen. Parents can overpower children, and that's why children need protection, advocacy, and adults who don't confuse obedience with safety. Institutions of faith, education, or community. can overpower the LGPT plus community. That's why inclusion can't depend on goodwill alone, but on accountability and protection built into the system. And we could add more examples, but the pattern stays the same. power without accountability creates vulnerability, and vulnerability without protection becomes a risk. The goal isn't to live in fear of that. it is to see it clearly because in order for things to improve, we have to be willing to see what is happening, not to shame it, not to exaggerate it, but to name it honestly. We all can be fooled, we all can miss signs, we all can participate in silence that protect harm more than it preserves it, and we all are capable of choosing differently once we see it. We can reflect, we can protect, we can intervene, we can take responsibility without needing perfection first. We can learn what community actually means again, not just belonging, but responsibility for each other's safety when it would be easier to not act. back to the question What is gained when someone is labeled a liar and who benefits it? Maybe what is gained is comfort. Maybe it's distance. Maybe it's the ability to avoid responsibility without ever saying what we're doing. Because when someone is labeled a liar, we don't have to sit with what they're saying. We don't have to sit with what It might mean about us. We don't have to sit what it might mean about the system around us. We don't have to ask whether we missed something or ignored something or participated in something we didn't want to see. And that's what connects all of this. The boy who cried wolf, the village that stopped showing up, the voices that get dismissed as too much, too sensitive, unreasonable, not credible. it isn't just about belief. It's about responsibility because Belief costs something, it costs attention, it costs comfort, and it costs willing to act when it would be easier not to, and sometimes it costs admitting we were wrong. instead we do something quieter, we shift the story, we make it about people instead of patterns, we turn warnings into drama, we turn harm into confusion, we turn truth into a liar. Underlining structure doesn't change. When credibility is stripped from people with the least protection, responsibility doesn't disappear. It just moves. And it usually moves upward, away from the system, away from the group, away from the people who have the ability to respond. That leaves us with an uncomfortable realization. Most harm doesn't require a monster. It just requires participation. It requires silence, it requires people deciding that it's easier not to know. The hopeful part, is that none of this is fixed. We don't have to stay in that pattern. We can learn to slow down our certainty, we can learn to separate discomfort from dismissal, we can learn to hear something without immediately deciding who is worthy of being heard. We can learn to take responsibility without needing to be perfect because a community isn't defined by whether harm exists in it. A community is defined by what it does when harm is pointed out. And maybe that's the real question underneath all of this. When someone says there's a wolf, do we decide they're a liar? Or do we decide to investigate? Hard question isn't whether someone deserves to believe, It's whether we're willing to slow down long enough to honestly examine what we're saying. I'd love to hear your thoughts. When have you seen differences between questioning a claim or dismissing a person? When was the first time someone made you feel safe enough to tell the truth? Even when it was uncomfortable. Whether you leave a comment, send me a message, or simply reflect on those questions yourself, I hope this conversation stays with you. Thank you for slowing down and thinking out loud with me. Until next time, take care of yourself and make room for curiosity before certainty. I'll see you in the next episode.