u/awesomeness6698

Imagine this. Someone asks you a question. You answer it to the best of your abilities. The other person decides that your response does not constitute an answer, because they are not satisfied with it. From your perspective, that was the best answer you could have given and you feel no need to offer up another answer.

If the person is equal or below you in the social hierarchy; 

That is the only response that I am willing to offer up, take it or leave it. 

Obviously, you do not want to talk that way to an authority, so if the person is above you in the social hierarchy; 

I am afraid I do not have a better answer, I wish I did. 

What do you think? Is that a good thing to say to someone who is discontent with your answer? If not, what would you recommend saying or doing instead? Let me know.

Being patronizing in the first place is bad enough, repeating the same hateful message again and again is even worse. 

If someone does that to you, say one of the following two things, either; 

I heard you the first time you said it.  

OR 

You already said that. 

What do you think? Do you also find it vexing when people repeat themselves over and over making sure that each time they say it sounds more condescending than it did the previous time? Do you agree with the strategy I came up with for dealing with these people? If not, do you have a better plan? Let me know.

Have you ever had to deal with a condescending jerk? Of course you have. Everyone has to deal with condescending jerks. Even condescending jerks have to deal with other condescending jerks.

I have drafted a plan for how to deal with these people, you tell me if you think that this is a good plan or not.

There are three different approaches; one for when the person is below you in the social hierarchy, one for when the person is your equal in the social hierarchy and one for when the person is above you in the social hierarchy. 

• When the person is below you in the social heirarchy.

 

Say this; 

You are not going to talk to me that way. I am (insert title of authority here) and you will show me some respect. 

If that does not work, threaten a punishment. 

If the threat of punishment does not work, make good on that threat. 

• When the person is equal in the social hierarchy.

 

Say this; 

The condescending tone is uncalled for. If you believe that I have done something wrong, I am willing to listen patiently while you tell me what I did wrong, why it was wrong and what (if anything) I can do to remedy the situation. There is no need to get nasty. 

If the person doubles down, you say this; 

Even though I did not intend to offend you, I am glad that I did, because you deserve it for being so rude and disrespectful. 

• When the person is above you in the social hierarchy.

 

Do not respond immediately. Wait until a certain amount of time has passed. Once the other person (your authority) has calmed down, meet with them and demand an apology. 

Imagine this. Someone asks you a question. You answer the question to the best of your abilities. You believe that the answer you offered up is a good one, that is why you offered it up. The other person dislikes your answer and demands a better one.

I have been in that position before and not really been sure how to answer it.

I have come up with a plan to deal with that, you tell me if you think it is a good plan.

If the person is equal or below you in the social hierarchy; 

That is the only response that I am willing to offer up, take it or leave it. 

Obviously, you do not want to talk that way to an authority, so if the person is above you in the social hierarchy; 

I am afraid I do not have a better answer, I wish I did. 

Ironically, these people dislike being stereotyped. 

Amidst the Harry Styles controversy a few years ago, a lot of high profile women took issue with Harry wearing a dress. They would say stuff like, if any woman finds this attractive, there is something wrong with her OR being attracted to men wearing dresses is incorrect.

Advice for perpetrators: 

Speak for yourself, not others. 

Advice for victims of this pet peeve:

Advice for victims of this pet peeve:

There are two routes you could go. 

Option #1: 

Say this. 

You do not speak for all (insert group here). 

Suppose that a man says that it is weird when women take up traditionally manly hobbies to find a boyfriend, because a man is looking for a woman to be his girlfriend, not another man. You should say this to that man. 

First of all, not every woman who takes up masculine hobbies like fishing and hunting are necessarily trying to meet men. At least some of these women (possibly a lot of them) are gay. Second, you do not speak for all men. 

Option #2: 

Say this. 

When did all of group X vote for you as their spokesperson? 

Every descriptive observation I made, I made it because I believe that it is an accurate representation of reality. Every prescriptive observation that I made, I made it because I believe that it is a good idea. However, my mind is open to the possibility that I could be wrong. If anyone believes that my description is incorrect, please correct me. If anyone believes that my prescription is misguided, explain why it is misguided and offer up an alternative. My beliefs are malleable. If presented with a convincing enough counter argument, I might change my mind. 

Credit to this post from r/men ( https://www.reddit.com/r/men/comments/1wi5j82/it_gets_an_my_nerves_when_people_claim_to_know/ ) and this post from r/women ( https://www.reddit.com/r/women/comments/1wgohl6/it_gets_on_my_nerves_when_people_who_arrogantly/ ) for inspiring this post.

If I had something to say, I would have said it. 

Advice for perpetrators of this pet peeve: 

If you want to talk, you initiate the conversation. Bring up a topic, either something that interests you or something that you believe will interest the other person. 

Advice for victims of this pet peeve: 

Say this; 

A wise man speaks, because he has something to say. A fool speaks, because he has to say something. 

If I had something to say, I would have said it. 

Advice for perpetrators of this pet peeve: 

If you want to talk, you initiate the conversation. Bring up a topic, either something that interests you or something that you believe will interest the other person. 

Advice for victims of this pet peeve: 

Say this; 

A wise man speaks, because he has something to say. A fool speaks, because he has to say something. 

Either I heard you the first time or I did not. If I heard you the first time, there is no need to repeat yourself. I already know what you said. If, however, I did not hear you the first time, then I probably will not hear you the second time. 

First, rehearse the conversation in your head before you have it. Second, after you are done talking, ask the other person if they understood. If they claim that they did, ask them to repeat the instructions back to you. 

Advice for victims of this pet peeve: 

When the other person repeats themselves, say one of the following things; 

You already said that. 

OR

I heard you the first time. 

Every descriptive observation I made, I made it because I believe that it is an accurate representation of reality. Every prescriptive observation that I made, I made it because I believe that it is a good idea. However, my mind is open to the possibility that I could be wrong. If anyone believes that my description is incorrect, please correct me. If anyone believes that my prescription is misguided, explain why it is misguided and offer up an alternative. My beliefs are malleable. If presented with a convincing enough counter argument, I might change my mind. 

If it really were the case that you are forbidden from complaining for as long as someone else has it worse, that would mean that only the most miserable person on earth is ever allowed to complain ever. Therefore, the fact that the whole oppression Olympics nonsense has been used by more than one person proves that this line of reasoning is not honest. Those who use this line of reasoning do so, only because they are professional victims and not because they actually believe that suffering only counts against all other suffering. 

Advice for people who are guilty of this pet peeve: 

Ask yourself this one question. Do you want to complain about this bigger issue? 

If so, then do that. Air your grievance, so that you and the other person can be miserable together. Misery loves company. 

Suppose that someone is complaining about a migraine and you recently passed a kidney stone. Now imagine that you would like to complain about the kidney stone. Say the following; 

While we are complaining about aches, pains and physical ailments, you wanna hear about my kidney stone? 

If, however, you do not feel like complaining and you also do not want the other person to complain, then just say that you are not in the mood to have this conversation. You do not need to make it into a contest. 

Let’s look at the aforementioned example where the other person is bemoaning a migraine. Now imagine that you would rather not hear complaints of a migraine. Say the following verbatim. 

If you do not mind, I would rather not hear complaints regarding migraines. If you would like to talk about something else, come up with one, tell me what that topic is and then I will decide if I feel like discussing that. 

If you utter the above paragraph to someone who just squawked about a migraine, they will probably ask you why you do not want to hear about it. This is when you should reply by saying the following verbatim; 

To be honest, I do not know what the reason is. I feel discontent when hearing about migraines and I do not know why. 

Advice for people who are victims of this pet peeve: 

Reply by saying; What? It is not a contest. 

That conversation would probably go like this. 

You: It is so hot. 

Other person: You are such a wimp. 

You: What did you say? 

Other person: You are complaining because it is hot? 

You: Yeah, it is over 80 degrees outside. 

Other person: You have no idea what true heat actually is. I grew up in Texas. If you had to deal with Texas heat, this would seem like paradise to you. 

You: Two things. One, if you disagree with something that I said or did, you can just say that, you do not need to engage in childish name calling. Two, it is not a contest. You have experienced hotter temperatures than this. So what? 

Other person: I have experienced temperatures that would make this seem like paradise, so I do not want to hear your complaining. 

You: But you just complained about how unbearable the heat in Texas was. How come you get to complain and I do not? 

Other person: Because I have it worse. 

You: How many times do I have to explain this? It is not a contest. 

Other person: I did not say that it was. 

You: You did not say it, but you would have to assume that to be true in order for your logic to make sense. You feel that I should not be allowed to complain because you have experienced something worse than this. There exist people in this world who have it worse than both of us combined. If I do not get to complain, because someone else has it worse, then you should be forbidden from complaining for the same reason.  

Other person: All those people who have it worse than me are not here. I, the person who has it worse than you, is here and does not want to hear your belly aching. 

You: You are saying that you should keep all your complaints to yourself if someone, who has it worse than you, is in the room? You admit that you get to complain even if someone somewhere on earth has it worse, it is only if the person, who has it worse than you, is in hearing distance, that you need to keep your complaints to yourself? That is what you are saying? 

Other person: Yes. 

You; There are two big problems with your line of reasoning. 

First and foremost, you expect me, before complaining, to make sure no one in hearing distance has it worse than me. How am I supposed to know if anyone around me has it worse than I do? Am I supposed to go around informing each person what you would like to complain about and asking them if they have it worse than me so I know if complaining is allowed? Oh wait, that requires me to voice my grievances. 

Second, who is to say if one problem is worse than the other? Imagine one person is grieving over their father’s death while another person is grieving over their father abandoning them. Some people would consider the parental death to be worse because the absentee father might come back, whereas death is final. Others would consider abandonment to be worse, because parental death leaves you with warm memories of your dead parent, while abandonment leaves you with understandable resentment.

That is a scripted conversation where a narcissist makes a fallacious appeal to worse problem and a victim of that appeal to worse problems uses the defense mechanisms that I recommend.

What do you think? Do you also find it irritating when people make fallacious appeals to worse problems? Do you agree with the suggestion on how to deal with the problem? Let me know.

Constructive criticism is different from destructive criticism.

The goal of destructive criticism is to hurt someone. The goal of constructive criticism is to help them.

The goal of destructive criticism is to tear someone down. The goal of constructive criticism is to build someone up.

Destructive criticism attacks the person. Constructive criticism attacks the behavior.

I have drafted a plan to make sure that criticism is constructive and not destructive. You tell me if you think that this is a good idea.

When offering constructive criticism, make sure to explain to the other person what they did wrong, why it was wrong and what, if anything, they need to do to change. 

That last part is very important. The person who made the mistake probably thought, at the time that they made the decision that they did, that what they were doing was the right thing. That is why they did it. If they knew what they were supposed to do, they would have just done that in the first place. 

When managing a conflict, here are a few rules to follow.

Rule #1: Speak Calmly.

If you have ever listened to a person yell at another person, the key thing to notice is not what happens but what doesn’t happen. Very rarely, if ever, is any sense conveyed by a person who is screaming angrily. 

Rule #2: Avoid You Statements.

These statements come across as accusations. Even if these accusations are true (and you would be surprised how often they are not), that is not good enough. If being right were all that it took, the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place. 

For example, let’s say that you feel that someone misunderstood you. 

Instead of saying “You misunderstood me” say “A misunderstanding has occurred.”
By making this particular word choice, you make it understood that it is not you vs. the other person, it’s you and the other person vs. the problem. 

Rule #3: Restrict the Expression of Anger to the Incident that Provoked It.
Do not make statements like “You are always inconsiderate” or “you never think before you make a decision.” 

To make such a statement is literally claiming that the person to whom you are speaking has never been considerate or thought before making a decision once since the day that he/she was born. Not only is that statement not true, even if it were true, you wouldn’t know that, as knowing that would literally require you to have watched that person’s every move since birth and not been able to point to even one instance of that person being considerate or thinking before acting. 

When you make such an unfair judgement, what is the other person supposed to say? You are correct? I have not been considerate or thought before acting one single time since the day I was born? 

Every descriptive observation I made, I made it because I believe that it is an accurate representation of reality. Every prescriptive observation that I made, I made it because I believe that it is a good idea. However, my mind is open to the possibility that I could be wrong. If anyone believes that my description is incorrect, please correct me. If anyone believes that my prescription is misguided, explain why it is misguided and offer up an alternative. My beliefs are malleable. If presented with a convincing enough counter argument, I might change my mind. 

If it really were the case that you are forbidden from complaining for as long as someone else has it worse, that would mean that only the most miserable person on earth is ever allowed to complain ever. Therefore, the fact that the whole oppression Olympics nonsense has been used by more than one person proves that this line of reasoning is not honest. Those who use this line of reasoning do so, only because they are professional victims and not because they actually believe that suffering only counts against all other suffering. 

Advice for people who are guilty of this pet peeve: 

Ask yourself this one question. Do you want to complain about this bigger issue? 

If so, then do that. Air your grievance, so that you and the other person can be miserable together. Misery loves company. 

Suppose that someone is complaining about a migraine and you recently passed a kidney stone. Now imagine that you would like to complain about the kidney stone. Say the following; 

While we are complaining about aches, pains and physical ailments, you wanna hear about my kidney stone? 

If, however, you do not feel like complaining and you also do not want the other person to complain, then just say that you are not in the mood to have this conversation. You do not need to make it into a contest. 

Let’s look at the aforementioned example where the other person is bemoaning a migraine. Now imagine that you would rather not hear complaints of a migraine. Say the following verbatim. 

If you do not mind, I would rather not hear complaints regarding migraines. If you would like to talk about something else, come up with one, tell me what that topic is and then I will decide if I feel like discussing that. 

If you utter the above paragraph to someone who just squawked about a migraine, they will probably ask you why you do not want to hear about it. This is when you should reply by saying the following verbatim; 

To be honest, I do not know what the reason is. I feel discontent when hearing about migraines and I do not know why. 

Advice for people who are victims of this pet peeve: 

Reply by saying; What? It is not a contest. 

That conversation would probably go like this. 

You: It is so hot. 

Other person: You are such a wimp. 

You: What did you say? 

Other person: You are complaining because it is hot? 

You: Yeah, it is over 80 degrees outside. 

Other person: You have no idea what true heat actually is. I grew up in Texas. If you had to deal with Texas heat, this would seem like paradise to you. 

You: Two things. One, if you disagree with something that I said or did, you can just say that, you do not need to engage in childish name calling. Two, it is not a contest. You have experienced hotter temperatures than this. So what? 

Other person: I have experienced temperatures that would make this seem like paradise, so I do not want to hear your complaining. 

You: But you just complained about how unbearable the heat in Texas was. How come you get to complain and I do not? 

Other person: Because I have it worse. 

You: How many times do I have to explain this? It is not a contest. 

Other person: I did not say that it was. 

You: You did not say it, but you would have to assume that to be true in order for your logic to make sense. You feel that I should not be allowed to complain because you have experienced something worse than this. There exist people in this world who have it worse than both of us combined. If I do not get to complain, because someone else has it worse, then you should be forbidden from complaining for the same reason.  

Other person: All those people who have it worse than me are not here. I, the person who has it worse than you, is here and does not want to hear your belly aching. 

You: You are saying that you should keep all your complaints to yourself if someone, who has it worse than you, is in the room? You admit that you get to complain even if someone somewhere on earth has it worse, it is only if the person, who has it worse than you, is in hearing distance, that you need to keep your complaints to yourself? That is what you are saying? 

Other person: Yes. 

You; There are two big problems with your line of reasoning. 

First and foremost, you expect me, before complaining, to make sure no one in hearing distance has it worse than me. How am I supposed to know if anyone around me has it worse than I do? Am I supposed to go around informing each person what you would like to complain about and asking them if they have it worse than me so I know if complaining is allowed? Oh wait, that requires me to voice my grievances. 

Second, who is to say if one problem is worse than the other? Imagine one person is grieving over their father’s death while another person is grieving over their father abandoning them. Some people would consider the parental death to be worse because the absentee father might come back, whereas death is final. Others would consider abandonment to be worse, because parental death leaves you with warm memories of your dead parent, while abandonment leaves you with understandable resentment.

That is a scripted conversation where a narcissist makes a fallacious appeal to worse problem and a victim of that appeal to worse problems uses the defense mechanisms that I recommend.

What do you think? Do you also find it irritating when people make fallacious appeals to worse problems? Do you agree with the suggestion on how to deal with the problem? Let me know.

What strategy would you use when delivering an apology and taking accountability?

I for one am totally against blaming and shaming the victim.

There is this one argument in favor of victim blaming that I heard recently. It goes like this.

You should blame and shame an abuse survivor for returning to an abuser, just as you would blame and shame a single mother for allowing her abusive boyfriend near her children.

It seems to me that there are two routes to take here.

One way to look at it could be that you would not blame and shame a single mother for letting abusive men near her children. Another way to go about it could be to explain why they two are different.

If you plan on going with the latter, what is your argument for why they are different?