Would it necessarily be you being a contrarian to your own views if there was a reasoning for it? For example, I have a friend who has had a job as a chef yet ethically will tell you food should be eaten for nutrition and never for pleasure. Many who are thrown off by this ask why, and he says it’s because sometimes “food fancification” can serve as a gateway to what is important if used methodologically. When we first became friends, he knew I often did what amounted to stress-starving, and he would imply opposition to this and try to “sway” me with the best food I’ve ever had. So there’s always such nuance.

Another friend of mine, my other best friend, has been a door-to-door officer, and yet probably will never pass a physical exam. Was it based on a shortage of applicants? Does she have some kind of unsung skill? Who knows, but in a city where the ACAB philosophy is said to persist, many have noticed people on parole aren’t nearly as at unease around her due to her “meekness” (which might not always be a good thing, but whatever), so she is a favorite pick. The two best friends also go spelunking in their spare time, despite, again, one being “meek” and both lacking certain expected traits, and they are probably five miles below my feet right now.

I am in what many have called a similar situation. I’ve always been stereotyped in peoples’ minds as being susceptible to stage fright, so along comes my teen-ish years when I got my occupation and it amounts to working at a media company. It throws people off for some reason, at least until they realize the avoidable circumstances don’t have to apply in every instance of someone being in that work. You make do with what you can.

Many times, what one might call a conflict of interest or a double standard or whatever you want to call it doesn’t exist.