Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.

[Darren]

Meanwhile it's been below freezing here for the past 3 days >.<

[saosmash]

@surreality I'm already on anxiety meds! :C

[surreality]

@saosmash The muscle relaxants (if you start noticing a regular tightness or ache in your jaw, especially in the morning, this helps before bed) and mouth guard may still help. I realize I have horrible tooth genetics, but shattering a molar in your sleep isn't fun to wake up to, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. If it's something that happens a lot, it's definitely worth looking into to prevent stuff like that.

Admittedly, I ground through my bite guard in two weeks... clearly I'm part pit bull or something. As a result, I know the cheap ones from Walgreen's and similar work just fine, 'cause.. yeah, we weren't spending another $400.

[JinShei]

@surreality said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@saosmash The muscle relaxants (if you start noticing a regular tightness or ache in your jaw, especially in the morning, this helps before bed) and mouth guard may still help.

Seconded for the mouth guard - having one made for me really helped. Had a second one made after dog ate the first one.

Admittedly, I ground through my bite guard in two weeks... clearly I'm part pit bull or something. As a result, I know the cheap ones from Walgreen's and similar work just fine, 'cause.. yeah, we weren't spending another $400.

They do.

[Ganymede]

I continue my rampage against these ignorant lackwits who pass themselves off as credible reporters or critics.

Like this one.

Who is The Witcher for? Shit, Danny, do some fucking research. The English translation of the Polish novels correspond with the release of the first Witcher game. Every salient benchmark rises after 2007.

Fucking idiots.

[Ghost]

When people habitually give edited versions of their side of the story knowing full well that they're not innocent, forever leaving them in danger of the other side of the story being released; which would crush them like a bug.

People love to swear that they're the sheep when they're up to some wolf shit.

[mietze]

Maybe it's just from being raise with a grade A narcissist, but I think a lot of people can convince themselves into total belief that they are 100 percent wronged/the victim even if they were the abusive one/instigator. It isn't an act at all, they totally believe it and when it is pointed out well that's just yet another person who is horrible or doesn't understand. It is very difficult to deal with and most of the time not worth the bother.

[Ghost]

@mietze You're not wrong. I know a few people like that (100% believed they were wrong but were 100% the instigator/antagonist). What I keep coming back to mentally, though, is that the end result is still the same: accusations, drama, that constant feeling of wondering it will be your turn.

I have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to mental/emotional trauma and the behaviors that may come from it. However, the existence thereof does not require people to be subject to those negative behaviors. Then why you try to pull away, you become the bad person; there really is no winning.

What grinds my goat (gets my goat, grinds my gears combo) is when I know that the person doing the accusing is well aware that they've done something undeniably wrong that they simply aren't disclosing while publicly trying to damage other people's reputations with speculative accusations. Like a murderer very loudly and very adamantly pushing for someone suffer for shoplifting. It often feels like an orchestration to maintain control of where the audience is looking to ensure that the audience doesn't look at them.

I hate being in that position of having to decide whether or not the moral thing to do is speak out in defense of the person being attacked or to let the situation play out.

[Tinuviel]

@Ghost said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Like a murderer very loudly and very adamantly pushing for someone suffer for shoplifting.

[Ghost]

@Tinuviel Now you're speaking my language. I could communicate with someone entirely in OFFICE or ALWAYS SUNNY gifs.

For instance...

"the accuser may truly be the perpetrator...:"

#scrantonstrangler

[surreality]

@mietze A lot of people pull this crap because they're incapable of remorse for bad behavior.

Most people know that having zero remorse or regret for being aggressively awful is even more awful.

If they can justify it to themselves somehow, it lets them run away from the truth of just how spectacularly terrible people they are.

Playing the victim is one of the big ways, deciding the other person is somehow more evil or whatever is another, but the list it just goes on and on and on. They'll usually try to convince everyone else of either of these things, too, which is another shitty act they'll never feel bad about, and will do even more harm to others.

[mietze]

All this to say that I think when you are dealing with someone who is not really capable or willing to see their role in things, no matter how big or small, I just really do not think it ever helps to "confront" them. I mean you can try but usually they will take that as more ammunition (though it also can cover your ass, especially online where they might share it because they believe that they are in the right, and then the other person can see the reaction for themselves, and can see that the person is blind to their behavior.) or "proof" that you are not the nice person you think you are and/or just are a horrible person who has always been out to get them/doesnt understand, ect.

I think when you are dealing with an otherwise calm person who is having some struggles or is lashing out, talking to them about it can be very productive, because they are able to process criticism or concern without immediately funneling it into an "attack" that then sets off a chain of other reactions. But if you really are dealing with someone who cannot or will not see or admit fault and will deflect even very small things as well as big things, then I personally have found trying to confront or speak with them almost always leads to more hurt and damage than simply distancing, or backing away. There are very few instances where I have talked to people who resist any suggestion of harm they are causing by their behavior that I have not regretted it. I cannot think of a single instance where talking to people who seemed very behavior blind to their effects on others ever resulted in that person changing their behavior--it always resulted in an attack, and a sustained one, even if it happened not in my presence (usually how it goes).

That goes for my mother, for people in MUSHing, people in community orgs, even clients.

People who can deal with behavior or incident discussion rarely enjoy the conversation (it's awkward on either side), but even if there are upset feelings that usually is productive. I am so grateful for the many times that people have approached me, and for the majority of people who have been open when I approached them.

So I'm always willing to talk with someone once or twice about issues that rise to the level and frequency where I feel like I need to bring it up. (It's a high bar, I do not give feedback or even talk about boundaries until there have been several incidents, since I think anyone can have a one off day). But once I know that they are not willing or capable of dealing with it or that they go into knee jerk attack mode (or slow burn attack mode for that matter), I find it better to just back off, withdraw, and leave them the fuck alone.

[Ghost]

Yikes.

Well, anyway, I had a peeve. Nothing so specific in my case of whether or not someone is behavior blind. My case at the moment is more a person who has done something wrong is trying to get ahead of it by accusing someone of something. It's always a pain in the ass and I wish people were more ethical, but eh what can you do.

[Auspice]

Started packing today.

I still don't have my new place confirmed.

fml

[Rinel]

@Ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Lies require intent. If you say what you believe to be true, then you're not lying even if what you say is not true.

This is how normal people speak.

Lawyers are not normal people.

Honestly my first thought was "lying requires specific intent," so idk if this is a lawyer thing

[Derp]

@Rinel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Lies require intent. If you say what you believe to be true, then you're not lying even if what you say is not true.

This is how normal people speak.

Lawyers are not normal people.

Honestly my first thought was "lying requires specific intent," so idk if this is a lawyer thing

I mean, perjury requires specific intent, but a lie really only requires that you demonstrate that a false statement was made.

Maybe splitting hairs, but if we're gonna get all weedsy.

[Tinuviel]

@Derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Maybe splitting hairs, but if we're gonna get all weedsy.

Splitting hairs is what we do. Merriam-Webster defines lie as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
Being wrong isn't the same as lying.

[Derp]

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

Being wrong isn't the same as lying.

I suppose that depends on what ethical definition of "deception" you ascribe to. There's gray area.

I.e. in many constructions of ethics, negligent misinformation is considered a lie, so you can be wrong and not intend to mislead but still be lying if you give a false statement without doing the due diligence to ensure its veracity.

[Tinuviel]

@Derp I definitely agree that negligent misinformation is bad, but it's certainly not a lie. It's perhaps equally as bad to be negligent as it is to be willfully untruthful, but they're different things.

[Derp]

@Tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@Derp I definitely agree that negligent misinformation is bad, but it's certainly not a lie. It's perhaps equally as bad to be negligent as it is to be willfully untruthful, but they're different things.

Well, that's the thing though. You had the opportunity to stop and say "I am not sure, let me check," but chose to provide information anyway, so if that information is faulty and someone comes to harm because of their reliance on it, then you have still willingly made a choice to provide deceptive information.

Remember, ethics are actually divorced from morality, so while you may or may not consider it moral, whether or not it's ethical is out of your control. So whether something is 'good' or 'bad' doesn't matter, because 'right' and 'wrong' are likewise distinct from 'good' and 'bad'.

ETA: I forgot to wrap that up because it's 3am here -- a lie is an ethical consideration, not necessarily a moral one, though it can certainly fall under both.