Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think people should say what they fucking mean?

501 replies

LashesandLipstick · 30/06/2015 20:03

Inspired by threads in which I was told asking a question is rude because "people feel awkward saying no" and "if the person wants to, offer to do it yourself and if they want to they'll tell you not to and offer instead"

AIBU to think people shouldn't play these stupid games? Just say what you mean for Christs sake. I'm sure an adult can take you politely saying no to a request. All this does is cause confusion and create weird social norms that make no sense and confuse the hell out of people who aren't neurotypical or who are foreign.

Stop it.

OP posts:
Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:14

George I'm more than happy to be called out - in person and on here. If I wasn't I wouldn't say anything. I'm of the "don't give it if you can't take it back" mentality.

I don't think it's inconsistent - and I've explained why. You interpret it as inconsistent, and that's fine. Online it's often hard to gauge what people mean as words can have multiple meanings, even when used correctly.

I'm not aggressive and abrasive - most people consider me quite nice but "a bit opinionated". Again I'm fine with that

OP posts:
Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:15

Jassy

As I said to gemauve if you want to argue it's all anecdotal then by all means you can. I can't "prove" it isn't. But I feel if you do you're being obtuse. Do you really believe society isn't as I described?

OP posts:
PausingFlatly · 03/07/2015 12:16

And what do you do when challenged? You avoid dealing with the examples raised of your manipulative language - and rush to deliver more emotionally loaded language!

(That I just "want to fit in". Despite having no evidence to suggest that, and it actually contradicting what I said.)

So yes, I would say you try to manipulate people. You might be doing it with a bludgeon rather than indirect honeyed words, but it's emotional manipulation towards getting what you want.

It's certainly very different from a near neutral statement of "I don't understand why cooking an extra different meal would be a problem."

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:19

Pausing I'm sorry you felt it was emotionally loaded. It wasn't meant to be manipulative. That is how I interpreted your post - I apologise if you meant something different.

OP posts:
GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 03/07/2015 12:21

No, you've (perhaps wilfully) missed my point. My point is that your manner - if it aligns to what is evident from your posts- is so unpleasant and abrasive that people avoid 'calling you out'. That's why you believe you are thought of as 'nice but a bit opinionated'.

Gemauve · 03/07/2015 12:22

Do you really believe society isn't as I described?

Yes.

But then, I don't have your intellectual heft to see the error of my ways.

PausingFlatly · 03/07/2015 12:23

And oh look, now the subject has changed. Mm hmm.

I noticed deflection on the other thread, too.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that you're more manipulative than everyone else on the planet, Lashes. Everybody is to some extent.

Just that you are setting out your stall as being direct, honest, straight-dealing and unmanipulative, and complaining that other people are "playing stupid games". When you're playing games too, just maybe a little differently.

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:24

George as I've said repeatedly - most of my friends are as straight talking as me. They would (and do) tell me if they think I'm out of line or spouting a load of crap. As I do to them

OP posts:
PausingFlatly · 03/07/2015 12:25

Sorry, that was a comment on the shift to slebs and world affairs.

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:26

Pausing the subject has changed because someine asked me a question. Don't try to blame that on me.

I'm not manipulating anyone at all.

OP posts:
Garlick · 03/07/2015 12:33

Lashes, I very often disagree with you but I'm with you on this thread.

Going back to the first pages: "If a guest is at your house and they say 'oh sorry I won't be able to eat that could you make me a a plain grilled chicken' of course the host cannot say no."

The host can say no. The polite way to do it is "Not possible, I'm afraid. I can offer you cheese, ham, or would you be okay with extra bread & veg?"

I fully agree with your comments about ignorant & docile populations, too.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 03/07/2015 12:35

Just that you are setting out your stall as being direct, honest, straight-dealing and unmanipulative, and complaining that other people are "playing stupid games". When you're playing games too, just maybe a little differently.

Precisely.

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:38

Garlick thank you :)

I feel people get very defensive when the "norm" is questioned!

OP posts:
Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:39

Lol @ people not being able to comprehend someone doesn't play games so they have to twist the scenario until they can make themselves believe that they do.

OP posts:
JassyRadlett · 03/07/2015 12:44

^
As I said to gemauve if you want to argue it's all anecdotal then by all means you can. I can't "prove" it isn't. But I feel if you do you're being obtuse. Do you really believe society isn't as I described?^

I really do. Society is an awful lot more complex, nuanced and interesting than the portrait you paint.

And there's plenty of evidence out there for what it is, rather than relying on tired, recycled cliché.

However, even if society were the simplistic negative you portray, it still provides no evidence or proof for the ideas that people don't think for themselves.

How do you know that the people you're talking about, having weighed it up and thought it through for themselves, have decided that they're just more interested in Kim Kardashian than John Nash?

Is it that you've dismissed the possibility because it doesn't accord with your idea of what people should be interested in were they to think independently?

And we're back to: it's all about you.

CassieBearRawr · 03/07/2015 12:45

Geez, another super intelligent perfect human specimen in our midst, we are so blessed on MN to be surrounded by such perfection while we wallow in a society of reality tv and trashy magazines! So lucky. Much wow.

JassyRadlett · 03/07/2015 12:45

I feel people get very defensive when the "norm" is questioned!

Why?

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:46

Jassy go into a school and ask 6th formers if they know John Nash or Kim Kardashisn? I'm confident most will only know the latter.

Because you have to know the other side to weigh up that you prefer the other. So it would mean they'd have to at least be aware of other stuff which many aren't.

OP posts:
GnomeDePlume · 03/07/2015 12:47

LashesandLipstick
"if people think I'M blunt they'd hate my dad, even I wince at how...tactless he can be"

So you want openness and directness but not as open & direct as your dad?

Why is your level of openness the correct amount? I guess your dad would think more was better? Perhaps your dad thinks you are playing stupid games?

So why are you right?

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:47

jassy some take it as an attack

You don't. Even though we don't agree, I quite like your posts because they're interesting a lot of the time

OP posts:
Garlick · 03/07/2015 12:50

There's a marvellous thread about 'being French' just now. Most folks seem to agree the French love: intense discussions around philosophy & current affairs; complaining forcefully when badly served; mass protest; getting things improved. I'm in no doubt that these factors are connected!

"Choosing" to ignore important matters that affect your life and everything around you isn't an informed choice. Neither is acquiescing to unreasonable situations because you don't know how to disagree effectively.

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:56

Gnome he thinks I'm "sensitive and care too much what others think"...which is funny given how many people on here seem to think I'm a bitch who doesn't give a shit.

Still I prefer his level of honesty and directness to the word mincing that goes on. I wouldn't say I'm less honest than he is, but he's more brutal with how he delivers it - not to be nasty he just doesn't think he's upsetting people.

Eg "do these jeans make my arse look big?"

Me "they kind of make your arse look big yeah, if you like them though wear them"

My dad "yes they do actually. Your other jeans are much nicer"

Neither is less honest, one is blunter. I can deal with either response given to me, I CAN understand why some people might find the latter offensive even if I don't. I haven't suggested that level of bluntness anywhere

As for what makes me right? I don't think I'm right, I just think society would be easier if people were more honest (after an adjustment period)

OP posts:
DoJo · 03/07/2015 12:56

Lashes - if you accept that the explanations that I (and some others on this thread) have given for specific situations that you have questioned, then why not assume that there are similar reasons for many of the interactions that you do not understand? I don't think my way of doing things is particularly special or unique and I imagine most people use similar rationale when they decide how they are going to act under any given circumstances, so why are you still so sure that the 'reasonable' explanations are the exception to the rule?

I have tried to answer your questions in the spirit that I believe you intended and I have tried to frame my answers in a way that appeals to your way of thinking, and you have agreed that you can see why I (or others in my position) might act the way we do. Yet you continue to make sweeping statements that imply that we are unthinking drones following social convention because it's 'there' rather than because we believe that it is a reasonable and effective way of communicating.

It comes across as incredibly dismissive when people have put time and effort into explaining things to you when you acknowledge, agree, but then continue to make exactly the same assertions as you did in the OP.

Original poster
LashesandLipstick · 03/07/2015 12:57

Garlick I need to find that thread!

Agree with your points

OP posts:
JassyRadlett · 03/07/2015 12:59

Jassy go into a school and ask 6th formers if they know John Nash or Kim Kardashisn? I'm confident most will only know the latter.

How do you know? And why are you taking sixth formers as your proxy for society, when their influences are likely to be very skewed.

Mind you, when I was in the equivalent of sixth form I was writing fictionalised accounts of Denise Bloch and Tommy Yeo-Thomas. You might be surprised about the actual interests of many teenagers. Diverse bunch, teenagers.

Because you have to know the other side to weigh up that you prefer the other. So it would mean they'd have to at least be aware of other stuff which many aren't.

Are there only two sides? Good and bad? Black and white? Reality TV or mathematicians given widespread profile by Oscar-winning films? Interests that are Valid, and interests that are Rubbish?

What about the vast diversity of people's interests - that take them down myriad paths to find the things they're passionate about?

It's also not a fair comparison. I have zero interest in Kim Kardashian but am still more aware of her life than I'd like.