What's considered "helpful" can be catastrophically relative. Contrary to militant attitudes, what's "good for the goose" is not always good for the gander.
People hastily applying generic solutions for a peer's unusual dilemma is not uncommon. And sometimes what sounds like a run-of-the-mill common case needs to be approached differently due to quirks of the individuals involved.
Lots of people assume they know exactly what a peer needs to fix a life issue. However, they're coming from a secondhand perspective that is not as clear as the peer's. Sometimes observers consider something an issue that the peer themselves don't consider a problem at all. Sometimes that's because it's an issue that's only real in the observer's perspective. When you enact an uncomfortable "solution" on someone for a problem that's not there...you're not being a hero full of wisdom, you're just being an ass full of shit.
When your usual go-to solution for peer problems is tough love, you eventually become a villain yourself because you're willfully overlooking all the large square pegs you keep shoving into small round holes just for the sake of saying you helped. You start making the same mistakes typical of wanton vigilantism. Your methods eventually start scaling to excessive, unapologetic, and reckless. You ignore all the collateral damage you cause. You become a problem to avoid yourself.
thats why I said its one thing to try and help a person, but once they make it clear they don't want it, you should back off. ---
Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!"