Here Is Some Advise, Stop Being Awful At Giving Advice

Dick Gariepy | Big Thinky Ouchey

If what you're offering isn't in service to my goals and instead in service to what you think my goals ought to be then that's not advice, that's coercion.

I’m knee-deep in a legal quagmire with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC), fighting a dismissal that ouched my thinker with a critical bingo directly to the bongo. I am truly unable to make sense of the director’s decision to dismiss my complaint. At the current moment, given the facts that I have available to me, the only way this outcome makes any kind of coherent sense is if the director simply did not read my recent submissions and legal arguments. Now I get it, no one likes reading the stuff I write. Many of you have made a worrisome amount of effort to let me know that no one likes to read my writing, (again thank you for your feedback…I guess). But this case is not just a petty feud time pursuing just to get back at some bosses who were mean to me. It is the hinge stone to whether the last 5 years of my life and its utter annihilation will have any significance and meaning. The alternative is to force myself to accept that my life came crumbling down for no good reason, which is an outcome I think is in everyone’s interest to avoid. Because if my life can come crashing down for no good reason, arbitrarily randomly, then that means it could happen to you too.

Here is a summary of events, also discussed in my post here.

In December 2023, I attended a conciliation meeting between myself and my now-former employer to settle my human rights complaint. I thought we’d hashed out a deal in that meeting, but when I was handed a contract the next day, it was less of an agreement and more of a middle finger, including clauses that I never agreed to the day previously. For example , the clause which demanded that I forfeit earned vacation pay (illegal, mind you, under Alberta’s Employment Standards Code, RSA 2000, c E-9) and sign an NDA so broad it could silence a foghorn. When I balked, instead of insisting my employer stop proving to me and the whole world how awful they are, the AHRC branded me “unreasonable” under Section 21(3)(d) of the Alberta Human Rights Act and on June 14th, 2025, tossed my complaint like yesterday’s takeout .

If I want the last 5 years and the collapse of my life to mean anything, then I have no choice but to fight for my rights and try to have this dismissal overturned. But when the very body that was supposed to be helping me ended up labeling me “unreasonable” for doing just that, what can I do?

I’m stuck in a legal battle I can’t afford to fight alone. Lawyers? Too expensive. Legal aid? Human rights is not a concern of theirs. The only feasible option I have is Calgary Legal Guidance, but with their three-week wait to return a call just to schedule an appointment, I can’t afford to wait around. So, what’s a frustrated, under-resourced, and fairly pissed-off individual supposed to do when they’re trapped in the legal equivalent of quicksand with no legal lifeline in sight? I did the thing I swore I’d never do: I turned to Reddit, the digital Wild West where wisdom and wit fight it out and both end up dying.

What I got? A masterclass in how not to give advice, mixed with a few nuggets of gold that taught me what good advice actually looks like. I knew it was going to suck, I knew the trolls would prey upon my vulnerability to reinforce their self-perception as a competent human being, exchanging my well-being for their own ego and self-confidence. But no one can fully prepare themselves for such a toxic hell hole such as Reddit. I was hoping I would at least walk away with something useful amongst all the vitriol hurled at me, but in the r/legaladvicecanada subreddit all I got was an endless parade of bad takes and soul-crushing responses. It was like I threw a match into a pile of dry brush, and suddenly the entire comment section went up in flames. I was already feeling crushed and powerless after dealing with a dismissal I felt was unjust, but that experience was nothing compared to how miserable I felt after reading some of the “advice” people offered. Instead of being met with empathetic guidance or thoughtful suggestions, I was hit with responses that only made my situation feel worse. There were comments telling me to “move on” (as if that would fix the situation), and accusations calling me “unreasonable,” without understanding the full context of what I was facing. Those comments didn’t just miss the mark, they made me feel like I was wrong for standing up for myself. The advice wasn’t just unhelpful, it made me question what I was even doing. I wasn’t looking for pity, and I wasn’t asking for someone to tell me to roll over. I wanted help. Real, actionable guidance to help me stand up to the AHRC and protect my rights. Instead, I got hit with condescension and oversimplifications. This, my friends, is where good advice goes to die, and the difference between good advice and a flaming heap of nonsense couldn’t be clearer. So, let’s try to salvage something useful from this unfortunate mess and talk about what went wrong in the comment section, why it felt like being kicked while I was already down. How To Give Advise that actually lifts people up instead of sinking them deeper. Because there’s a big difference between offering a lifeline and just tossing a lead weight their way.

Step 1: Get Their Goal, or Get Lost

First rule of advice club: figure out what the person wants before you open your virtual yap. Yvonne Raley, in her 2007 gem Getting Good Advice, nails it when she says advice needs to be context-specific, or it’s as useful as a screen door on a submarine (Raley, 2007, p. 73).

My Reddit post was crystal clear: I wanted to overturn the AHRC’s dismissal, not be told to roll over like a dog begging for treats. Yet, users like TheLongTermA hit me with “just move on,” which everyone knows is the therapist’s silver bullet for treating patients with trauma, highly effective, is in the same caliber of effectiveness as other known useful things to shout at people like "Just Calm down, you are overreacting" “you are acting crazy right now". u/Trozman called me “not a reasonable person.” Gee, thanks, Socrates, tell me more about surrendering my dignity. Here’s the thing: when you’re fighting a legal battle on your own because you can’t afford representation, every piece of advice feels like it could either save your case or throw you into the fire. The stakes are higher when the only available resources are stretched thin, and getting the right advice can feel like searching for water in a desert. This is where communication ethics comes into play. Good advice is about listening carefully to the person’s goals and challenges, not just tossing out generic recommendations based on your personal worldview (Cannon & Witherspoon, 2005). Advice should be contextual, and, if possible, empowering, not dismissive. Contrast that with U/jjbeanyeg, a Reddit Quality Contributor who actually read my post and suggested checking Section 26 of the Act for a de novo review. That’s the kind of advice that lights a path, not a fire under your already scorched ego. I’m no legal scholar, my knowledge of case law is more “enthusiastic Googler” than “Supreme Court clerk”, but I knew my goal was to fight, not flee. Good advice aligns with that, not some stranger’s worldview. So, tip one: listen to their aim, or your advice is just noise.

Step 2: Be Specific, Not a Vague Oracle

If you’re going to offer advice, make it actionable, not some mystical riddle. Mark Cannon and Robert Witherspoon (2005) argue that feedback needs to be clear and concrete to drive improvement, or it’s just hot air (Cannon & Witherspoon, 2005, p. 122). On Reddit, vague comments like u/iterationnull’s “accept the too-broad NDA and move on” were about as helpful as a paperweight on a sinking ship. What am I supposed to do with that? Frame it? Now, let me add a little context about the limitations I’m under here. Legal guidance is sparse when you’re navigating something like this on your own, and when Calgary Legal Guidance can’t get back to you for three weeks, and you only have 30 days to request a review, you start relying on whatever crumbs of advice you can find. But advice that’s too vague or dismissive only adds to the frustration. We’re not all lawyers, and while I can research laws, I can’t litigate my own case, especially without any support. So when someone suggests, “just accept the offer and move on,” it’s as if they’re asking me to give up my rights without ever providing any actionable path forward. Meanwhile, u/jjbeanyeg dropped gems like “cite Bawitko Investments Ltd. v. Kernels Popcorn Ltd. (1991) to argue no mutual assent” and “consult a lawyer for employment rights.” That’s the stuff, specific, actionable, like a GPS for my legal mess. I’m not pretending I can waltz into court and argue like Atticus Finch, but give me a road to walk, and I’ll take it. So, tip two: ditch the platitudes and give steps, resources, or case law. Make your advice a map, not a shrug.

Step 3: Critique with a Side of Cheer, Not a Slap

Nobody likes a critic who swings a sledgehammer without offering a ladder. Stacey Finkelstein and Ayelet Fishbach (2012) found that constructive feedback needs a balance of critique and encouragement, especially for those seeking improvement (Finkelstein & Fishbach, 2012, p. 23). On Reddit, trozman went full wrecking ball with “I would never hire a person like you.” Ouch, mate, did I ask for a personality audit? That’s not advice; that’s a vibe assassination. Also , I know my vibe is putrid, that’s because I've been left to rot in a society filled with selfish inconsiderate fuck wads like you. Now, let’s be real: there’s something deeply unethical about tearing someone down when they’re already in a tough spot, especially when they have limited resources. When you're fighting a major commission that has all the resources, and you're on your own, the last thing you need is more judgment, not support. The critique should come with solutions, not just condemnation (Jonas, 2017). If someone’s telling you, “move on,” but you’re fighting for your rights in a complex legal system with no resources, the advice is useless unless it helps you move forward. Compare that to uncultured, who acknowledged my drive for justice and suggested using AI to explore legal principles. They saw my passion, gently nudged me toward a tool, and didn’t make me feel like a legal toddler. I know I’m no expert, my case law citations are more “copy-paste from CanLII” than “crafted masterpiece”, but I’m trying. Good advice points out flaws while cheering you on, like a coach, not a heckler. Tip three: balance the tough love with some actual love, or you’re just bullying with extra steps.

Step 4: Respect Their Choice, Don’t Be Their Boss

One of the core principles in communication ethics, and in general ethical theory, is the concept of autonomy. Simply put, autonomy is the right of individuals to make decisions for themselves, based on their own values, reasoning, and desires. In advice-giving, respecting autonomy means acknowledging that the person seeking advice is an agent capable of making their own decisions, not imposing your will or worldview onto them. This idea connects deeply with the principle of role clarity, as discussed by Warren and Joan Ganong (1972). In the context of giving advice, role clarity means understanding that your role as an advisor is to guide, not to command. You provide options, offer perspectives, and help someone navigate their own decision-making process without telling them what they must do. Take, for instance, the advice I received from TheLongTermA on Reddit. They told me to “admit you’re wrong and move on.” The suggestion wasn’t just unhelpful; it felt like a lecture, like I was being chastised by a self-appointed life coach. This crossed the line into parentalism, the attitude that the advisor knows better than the advisee, and thus has the right to direct them, regardless of their preferences or values. Parentalism in advice-giving, particularly when it’s unsolicited or aggressive, undermines the autonomy of the person seeking advice. It assumes the advisor knows better and should therefore override the person’s ability to make their own informed choices. This is especially problematic when the advice feels more like an order than a suggestion, as it disregards the complexity of the situation and the autonomy of the person involved. It can even coerce individuals into conforming to what the advisor thinks is best for them, bypassing their right to choose for themselves. This type of advice feels oppressive; it’s essentially a form of coercion, disguised as helpful guidance. When someone is told, “just admit you’re wrong and move on,” it strips away their agency and autonomy, framing them as incapable of deciding what’s best for themselves. The unspoken message? You don’t matter, your reasons don’t matter, and your desires don’t matter. Just comply.

Coercion, Violence, and the Ethics of Advice

Coercion is closely related to violence, and I’m not just talking about physical violence, but psychological violence. When advice is framed as a command or a directive that the recipient must follow, it can force the person into an uncomfortable position where they feel pressured to act against their better judgment. This is the point where advice becomes more harmful than helpful; it imposes on someone’s right to choose, and potentially even their mental or emotional well-being. Think about the experience of gaslighting (as discussed in Paige Sweet's research on communication ethics and power dynamics in relationships), where the recipient of advice is systematically made to feel that their reality and their choices are wrong. While gaslighting can be seen as a more severe form of psychological manipulation, it shares similarities with coercive advice: it undermines the person’s confidence and disempowers them from making decisions that reflect their true desires. In the case of TheLongTermA's advice, the response didn’t just undermine my autonomy; it added to the weight of psychological burden I was already carrying. I wasn’t just being told to “move on”; I was being made to feel like I was wrong for continuing to fight for my rights. This is a subtle form of coercion; it seeks to bend the person’s will, often for the convenience of the one offering advice, while dismissing the legitimate reasons behind the person’s choice. In contrast, JoyfulSquirrel99 got it right. Instead of dictating a course of action, they offered options, repeating my submission. This is key. Good advice empowers. It respects autonomy by acknowledging the recipient’s ability to decide what is best for themselves. The advice was a menu, not a forced meal. I wasn’t being told what to do; I was being given the tools to make my own informed choice. This kind of advice isn’t coercive; it’s supportive, and it respects my right to choose my path, even if that choice includes navigating complex and difficult decisions on my own terms.

How To Give Advise

Thats It, It's That Easy.

In my legal battle with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC), I wasn’t just seeking advice; I was looking for empowerment. As I faced an uphill battle, trying to challenge a dismissal without a lawyer and relying on limited resources, the last thing I needed was to feel belittled or pressured into giving up. The advice I received on Reddit, particularly the coercive advice that called me “unreasonable,” wasn’t just bad; it could have crippled my ability to act. It made me second-guess myself when I needed to stay firm in the fight for my rights. The ethics of advice can make or break someone’s mental state and autonomy. So, when offering advice, especially on a sensitive topic like navigating human rights claims or any other legal battle, remember: Respect the person’s autonomy. Provide options. Offer encouragement. Otherwise, you’re not helping; you’re adding another layer of pressure, and possibly even psychological harm. My Reddit adventure was a rollercoaster of frustration and revelation. For every user who tried to dunk on my quest for justice, there was one who lit the way with specific, empathetic, respectful advice. I’m no legal savant; my understanding of the law is more “enthusiastic amateur” than “seasoned barrister”, but I learned that good advice aligns with the recipient’s goals, offers clear steps, balances critique with encouragement, respects autonomy, and stays humble. Bad advice? It’s a one-way ticket to eyeroll city. So, next time you’re tempted to drop wisdom on someone’s post, take a beat. Listen to what they want, give them a roadmap, cheer them on, respect their choices, and don’t act like you’ve got a PhD in their life. Because in the digital agora, advice can be a lifeline, or just another brick in the wall. Let’s make it the former.

---

Thick Thought Thumper ---->"Advise From The Outside"

References

Cannon, M. D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(2), 120–134. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4166166

Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell me what I did wrong: Experts seek and respond to negative feedback. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 22–38. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/661934

GANONG, W. L., & GANONG, J. M. (1972). GOOD ADVICE. Nursing Outlook, 20(1), 10–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/268050086

Jonas, M. (2017). Resentment of advice and norms of advice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(4), 813–828. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-017-9816-z

Raley, Y. (2007, August 1). Getting good advice. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/getting-good-advice/

Sweet, P. L. (2019). The Sociology of Gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843 "

How To Give Advise

How To Give Advise

How To Give Advise