But, like… What you said made me feel bad and was also unhelpful. I gained nothing from it, and lost a good mood. So why say it?
If you had suggested a useful resource or alternative, I would have thought your comment had merit.
Alternatively, you could have shown compassion by reflecting back what you heard—saying something like, “It sounds like making trade-offs on a daily basis is very emotional for you, so you donate a set percentage to cope. That might be the best solution for you right now. However, that doesn’t mean it’s the best solution for everyone.”
What you said made me feel bad and was also unhelpful. I gained nothing from it, and lost a good mood. So why say it?
Obviously we don’t always make comments that help the other person; your comment, for instance, did not help me at all, because I am 100% content with abolishing the charitable/non-charitable distinction in my budget, and need no help from anyone with figuring it out. Yet you made your comment nonetheless, presumably for the benefit of others, so they might know your experience, or for the benefit of me, just that I might know more about your experience. Likewise, I made my comment for the benefit of anyone else who is reading to persuade them that your experience is atypical, and to persuade you that your experience is atypical.
I didn’t aim to make you feel bad.
Alternatively, you could have shown compassion
But I don’t feel compassion for people just because they have arrived at some kind of existential angst, I feel compassion for people when they have a more severe problem, so if I expressed sorrow here then I’d be dishonest.
saying something like, “It sounds like making trade-offs on a daily basis is very emotional for you,
I quite clearly said “I understand that it doesn’t work for you.” All you are doing is pleading for more cushions around my words. Such effort would be better spent thinking about whether my statements are correct or not, or just moving on with your life.
Likewise, effort on my part is better spent on other things besides adding such cushions. You clearly said yourself that such decisions are very emotional for you, so it’s obvious to every reader that they are very emotional for you, and if you have a basic level of respect for my reading comprehension abilities then you will presume that I understood your statement that such decisions are very emotional for you, and obviously I did nothing to disagree with that fact—it is, after all, not the sort of thing that can be reasonably disagreed with from a distance. So to merely repeat this obvious fact, which is understood by everyone to be understood by everyone, would be a waste of time.
However, that doesn’t mean it’s the best solution for everyone.”
But I don’t merely believe it’s not the best solution for everyone, I believe it’s the wrong solution for most people, so this would be an inaccurate representation of my position.
Yes, yes, and yes. In Scott’s post he defines unkindness as anger or sarcasm—not the use of words like “abnormal” that just tickle us the wrong way.
But, like… What you said made me feel bad and was also unhelpful. I gained nothing from it, and lost a good mood. So why say it?
If you had suggested a useful resource or alternative, I would have thought your comment had merit.
Alternatively, you could have shown compassion by reflecting back what you heard—saying something like, “It sounds like making trade-offs on a daily basis is very emotional for you, so you donate a set percentage to cope. That might be the best solution for you right now. However, that doesn’t mean it’s the best solution for everyone.”
+1 to Khorton.
This could be a good opportunity for kbog to reflect and maybe update.
But I predict that they’ll instead double-down on their position...
Obviously we don’t always make comments that help the other person; your comment, for instance, did not help me at all, because I am 100% content with abolishing the charitable/non-charitable distinction in my budget, and need no help from anyone with figuring it out. Yet you made your comment nonetheless, presumably for the benefit of others, so they might know your experience, or for the benefit of me, just that I might know more about your experience. Likewise, I made my comment for the benefit of anyone else who is reading to persuade them that your experience is atypical, and to persuade you that your experience is atypical.
I didn’t aim to make you feel bad.
But I don’t feel compassion for people just because they have arrived at some kind of existential angst, I feel compassion for people when they have a more severe problem, so if I expressed sorrow here then I’d be dishonest.
I quite clearly said “I understand that it doesn’t work for you.” All you are doing is pleading for more cushions around my words. Such effort would be better spent thinking about whether my statements are correct or not, or just moving on with your life.
Likewise, effort on my part is better spent on other things besides adding such cushions. You clearly said yourself that such decisions are very emotional for you, so it’s obvious to every reader that they are very emotional for you, and if you have a basic level of respect for my reading comprehension abilities then you will presume that I understood your statement that such decisions are very emotional for you, and obviously I did nothing to disagree with that fact—it is, after all, not the sort of thing that can be reasonably disagreed with from a distance. So to merely repeat this obvious fact, which is understood by everyone to be understood by everyone, would be a waste of time.
But I don’t merely believe it’s not the best solution for everyone, I believe it’s the wrong solution for most people, so this would be an inaccurate representation of my position.