☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
3

Why do some people defend their bothersome actions with: "that wouldn't bother me so idk why you're complaining"?

submitted by alacrity167 to whatever 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 01:48:00 ago (+3/-0)     (whatever)

Example: In response to being told that John's incessant talking during a movie is bothering his fellow moviegoers, is it OK for John to reply with:

"well, talking in a movie theatre wouldn't bother me!"

My friend does this a lot. I'm wondering what the psychology of it is. Isn't the point to have consideration for others, and not to reply to a complaint with a reply like this?

→oh you don't want me to bring smelly food into the theatre and eat it next to you, well I wouldn't care if you had smelly food
→oh you don't want me to listen to music in public, well I wouldn't mind
→you're sensitive

1. What's actually the matter with people who say this, psychologically speaking?
2. How to handle people like this?


10 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] puremadness 3 points 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 04:21:55 ago (+3/-0)*

They understand sudden spurts of pain.

[ - ] Her0n 3 points 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 03:55:47 ago (+3/-0)

1. They sound like they have "main character syndrome". This childish mindset sometimes manifests in the way you described. By saying "it wouldn't bother me!" They are attempting to say 'shut up, I don't care about others' without actually saying that. In most cases the action in question would actually bother them, but they want to get away with selfish behavior.

2. You can use multiple methods to handle this situation, I'll list some that come to mind in increasing extremes:

A. You can gently explain that the behavior may not bother them, but not everyone is the same which is why the "rule" is usually observed.

B. You can tell them to get tested for autism, because they aren't picking up on social cues and this can be a detriment to their interpersonal relationships.

C. You could emulate the behavior when they would want the status quo to be respected, and remind them that they said they wouldn't be bothered by those actions.

D. You could use the "door slam" method and never speak to them again. It's up to you if you care to explain why. In my anecdotal experience giving an explanation why is moot, as the person who deserves a door slam is too far ingrained in their selfishness to admit wrongdoing.

E. You could tell them to knock it the fuck off and get physically violent. It may feel good in the short term, but people like this will call the police to defend their shitty behavior. This option is also dragging you down in more ways than one.

I hope that helps.

[ - ] alacrity167 [op] 1 point 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 12:43:13 ago (+1/-0)

very well written. I wish I had this level of clarity in my thoughts. wise response. allow me to copy and paste what somebody else wrote to me on this subject.

A philosophical question.
This is the fallacy of the golden rule (do not do unto others what you would not want to be done unto you).
Just because you are not bothered by a particular thing, it doesn't give you the inherent right to harm others by it.
By definition, your own freedom ends where the freedom of others begins, so a compromise has to be negotiated.
In a civil society, this is maintained through social contracts (laws, regulations, customs) where transgressions are sanctioned by the community or in the absence of such, the individuals themselves.
Disregarding social contracts is in itself not bad, if it is dictated by reason. In scenarios like these, one has to gauge each side. Within reason, is the harm by an action done to others greater than the harm to oneself from refraining from such actions? Then it's better to refrain from it.
Failure to consider the angle of the other, as well as the general context of the situation and action in question, points to a lack of abstract reasoning.
To those people, they are the only thing that matters, since they can only see up to the tip of their nose.
Going back to the golden rule, the actual thing that the guy should be reflecting on is to have his preferences, individuality and existence denied by another's complete disregard for consequences. And to acquire common sense.

[ - ] Moravian 1 point 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 14:04:56 ago (+1/-0)

They have mental illness. The solution is a hard slap to the face. Violence solves everything and someone would have done this to them earlier they would not be doing it now as an adult.

[ - ] JosephGoebbeIs 1 point 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 12:34:03 ago (+1/-0)

Because they themselves are guilty of it to some degree and they don't want to be criticized for it. Shit gets darker when you expose a pedophile. You see all these randoms coming out of the woodwork saying "it's not your kid, why are you so obsessed about it?" after seeing hard proof that some pedo shit is indeed occurring.

The latest tactic I saw was "He's nice, I can't see him doing that". So apparently if you're nice, that absolves you of all sin. It's a good way to smoke out the creeps lurking within.

[ - ] SumerBreeze 1 point 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 03:09:55 ago (+1/-0)

Some people understand that rules are broken everywhere they go, so say “fuck it” and care less about those that adhere to rules.

Dunno. I’ve been trying to call random people nigger lovers more now because it’s most likely true.

Don’t tell me you go to the movies, you nigger loving kike supporter!

[ - ] alacrity167 [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 03:21:23 ago (+0/-0)

Yep. I even saw Barbie with a girl!! I reminded her the whole time about how it was jewed and anti-white. She didn't want a second date. BASED!BASED!BASED! amirite?

[ - ] SumerBreeze 0 points 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 12:12:15 ago (+1/-1)

Did you at least motorboat her tits?

[ - ] alacrity167 [op] 0 points 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 12:44:32 ago (+0/-0)

too flat for that

[ - ] SumerBreeze 0 points 7 monthsSep 21, 2024 16:17:41 ago (+0/-0)

Belly button tequila shots?