Is it okay to inflict negative feelings on them because they did it to you? Like guilt, judgement and shame. Criticism. Disapproval. — Benj96

Sure. It wouldn't be ok to mimic what happened. Let's say they tell something you told them in confidence to other people. I don't think it's a good idea to do the same to them, unless you cannot continue being friends with them and you want this to be the parting gesture. But to express anger at them, tell them how it made you feel and potentially (but obviously not always) trigger feelings of guilt or shame or hopefully the vastly more useful regret, that's fine. If you merely express how you feel and what you think set off those feelings, I mean, you're doing them a favor.

If you merely express how you feel and what you think set off those feelings, I mean, you're doing them a favor. — Bylaw

That seems fair I agree. I don't think if one feels something is wrong they should do the same act in return. That would be hypocrisy because either it's okay and allowed to be done or it's not okay and you won't do it in return for that fact, but you will complain about what happened to you.

Yes, it seems to me it makes for two victims. If someone hits me and I get angry and express this (verbally), the first person can't really claim a victim status. They can apologize. They may feel really quite terrible if I express my anger. One could frame this as 'making them feel bad.' But I think it's simply a natural reaction to what happened. (of course all sorts of complexities and confusions can arise in all this). If I decide to, perhaps the next day, hit them for no reason, it's not a natural reaction. It's revenge. Now I got his for no reason and chose to make them feel bad in a like manner.

I do want to be careful. In many situations it may be hard to distinguish these actions (and the underlying intentions). I could express my anger and call them evil. Which, while not the same as their attack, is a bit of a stretch for a single incident. And then in the other direction, if someone hits me a number of times, I may very well decide that a punch on their shoulder is warrented. They just are not respecting my natural expressions of hurt or anger. I don't want to rule that out.

But I do think it is important to not allow the concept of hurt feelings or feeling bad to make two potentially quite different actions the same. Someone just doesn't turn up to meet me when they said they would could make me feel sad/upset to a level of 5. My saying, hey that made me feel bad might make the other person, who for no reason just decided to do something else, also feel bad at a level of 5. But it is not as if we have now both sinned/been disrespectful/been bad/harmed the other to the same degree or qualitatively the same. He or she disrespected me and did not consider my feelings and did not do what they said. I reacted to this naturally. If you brand me with an iron but are very sensitive to loud noises (like the one I make when I scream) then you need to look at your own behavior.

I get what you're saying. I was about to point that out before fully reading your text that what causes X harm fro one person may not cause the same X harm for another. And differing beliefs on what is hurtful often is the reason for arguments. Like "oh don't be so sensitive" or "that's a bit overdramatic".

People call it gaslighting to undervalue people's clearly verbalised emotional state just because they don't feel its a justified reason to feel that way. Because if it happened to them they wouldn't feel that bad. But that fails to recinigses differences in people's sensibilities.

On the other hand people do put on a show to maximise emotional factor when they're trying to win an argument. They may not actually be offended/ hurt but will cry and say how could you say that? And that's emotional manipulation - the converse side of undervaluing feelings.

But yes, I think actions/behaviours hurt. But words also hurt and can even hurt more than actions. So the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is not really true.

Verbal abuse exists. And reacting to a punch by ripping someone's confidence to shreds and preying on their insecurities may actually be much worse/more damaging than the physical insult that precipitated it.

It's an interesting dynamic for sure.

This is where the concern for verbal reprimand comes in for failing to meet expected actions. Its hard to know when a criticism will land as a mild vocal grievance or a slap to the face/gut punch.

I get what you're saying. I was about to point that out before fully reading your text that what causes X harm fro one person may not cause the same X harm for another. And differing beliefs on what is hurtful often is the reason for arguments. Like "oh don't be so sensitive" or "that's a bit overdramatic". — Benj96

Yes, and there are not easy rules or processes to figure out what is happening. Someone could milk something in such a dynamic. While in another relationship, a perfectly natural response gets labelled being too sensitive (which is how narcissists and other people with toxic patterns gaslight people). Very tricky to sort it all out. And we have all, I would guess, realized later than we wished that we or the other person were the problem and we had fooled ourselves or been fooled to think it was the other way round.

People call it gaslighting — Benj96

LOL. Yeah. You were there ahead of me.

On the other hand people do put on a show to maximise emotional factor when they're trying to win an argument. They may not actually be offended/ hurt but will cry and say how could you say that? And that's emotional manipulation - the converse side of undervaluing feelings. — Benj96

Yes. And since I brought up narcissists and we do seem to be on the same page about the gnarliness of this, I will mention that narcissists can do both undervalue other people's natural reactions and judge dismiss them, while later getting as much milage out of their own 'victimization'.

But yes, I think actions/behaviours hurt. But words also hurt and can even hurt more than actions. So the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is not really true. — Benj96

Yes. Though I think that violence is that last resort interpersonally (unlikely this is controversail). I actually think raw expression of emotion -----> simple verbal expression mainly about feelings ------------> verbal expression with insults/critiicsm implied or explicit --------> violence is the escalation. And one should try to not get ahead of the other person and begin at the low end and if possible leave before the last stage. Some things are hard to unsay. But it is actually fairly easy to get past 'that made me feel like a piece of s____'. Even if the person saying it is overreacting, say. The moment you escalate to 'You are a toxic sadist' or 'I can see why you've never been popular', it is a definite step up in impact and long term effects. I think if you get lots of trust with someone content can be forgotten and thought of as expressive. This is hard to do if the verbal stuff is said analytically and coldly. My wife has said some pretty harsh stuff and I've done some name calling, but this was after a great deal of trust was built. Now I know that for her the extremes of content are really just volume and she never says them calmly or tries to worm them into my mind.

This is where the concern for verbal reprimand comes in for failing to meet expected actions. Its hard to know when a criticism will land as a mild vocal grievance or a slap to the face/gut punch. — Benj96

Like in a work situation. Yes, hard. I struggle with this myself and I err on the side of not confronting people. And I don't mean, that's my philosophy, I mean that's my weakness. I suppose it is my philosophy, but not to the degree I have this as a weakness. Verbal reprimands can of course be tempered with statements in general. I like your work in general, but this area is a real problem. I know you can improve, what do you think? and so on. And one can ask them what they have taken the reprimand to mean. What worries does it bring up? I suppose I am thinking of work relationships where it would best to have this fomalized. To take responsibility for making the context very clear and checking in. That can be a lot to ask an aggrieved person in a personal relationship. But I think informally it will happen between people with a healthy amount of empathy.

I like your work in general, but this area is a real probl — Bylaw

I learned about "sandwiching" where 2 compliments are interspersed by one criticism which softens the blow. Some people would think that uneccessary and probably prefer directness but I guess a good manager knows what tools to use where.

My wife has said some pretty harsh stuff and I've done some name calling, — Bylaw

Bit off topic but on this note of name calling/ discrete definitions, I've found using a simile is just as effective in making a point without being accused of actually defining them outright.

For example: instead of saying "Youre an assh*le!" you say "you're behaving like an assh*le would/ you're acting like assh*le". Has the same effect but separates being from action and allows you to disapprove not of them specifically/intrinsically but rather what they did a singular time.

And it reinforces the idea that it's not who they "are" and one can choose a different behaviour if they want. It's a something of a small tactic but I found people are less likely to be offended/ you can never be called a "name caller". Because you didn't explicity name them as such.

For example: instead of saying "Youre an assh*le!" you say "you're behaving like an assh*le would/ you're acting like assh*le". — Benj96

Those are likely better. (though say that in a condescending tone and it can regain the knife). But I agree it focuses on the action, not the person.

But actually I don't mind being called an assh-le, in the heat of the moment. Or, better put, I mind it no more than. I am so pissed off. (I am not thrilled when someone is angry at me). It's actually a vague term 'assh-le' and doesn't really stick. I don't take such things literally. (It took time for this and it would be different with a salesclerk). I think we often view language too much as solely a literal information channel rather than also being expressive, not literal and not a conduit.

One of my favorite philosophy essays is Reddy's essay on the conduit metaphor in English. A metaphor or set of metaphors about communication that show us our model of what communication is.

https://www.reddyworks.com/the-conduit-metaphor/original-conduit-metaphor-article

Right it depends on the people involved, the issue, etc. I wish I could say I was good at this. I'm much better with receiving than I was when younger, but I think I have this innate (or learned) abhorrance for power.

I try not to reward even the slightest bad treatment ever, especially by friends (the closer they are, the less I tolerate) because they know me intimately. This must be why usually none of my small circle lives in the same time-zone as me and why I've never been married (or havrn't lived with a partner in over two decades). I find that distance, even more than a fence, makes good neighbors and friends.

It doesn't feel right to inflict that on someone, to drag them down to your level of anguish, but it also doesn't feel right ignoring your own needs, invalidating your own feelings as secondary to theirs. — Benj96

Right subject matter, wrong analysis. When you make known that you're hurt by their actions, you're not bringing them down to whatever sewage you find yourself in. Someone has to call them out for their bad behavior. It's how you do it, not if you do it, that matters. Do it with class and finesse so you don't feel like your hurting them. Say it directly if you're gonna do it to them what they did to you.

:up:

Someone has to call them out for their bad behavior. It's how you do it, not if you do it, that matters. Do it with class and finesse so you don't feel like your hurting them. Say it directly if you're gonna do it to them what they did to you.
8d — L'éléphant

That's a fair assessment and I agree. It is more a case of "how" rather than "should I?"

After all, if you don't correct people, they lose conscientiousness as to the existence of/validity of other people's emotions. In essence, if you don't contest the spoiled, how are they to ever recognise their actions as spoiled?

Its a reciprocal" give and take" scenario that keeps everyone in check.

In essence, if you don't contest the spoiled, how are they to ever recognise their actions as spoiled?

Its a reciprocal" give and take" scenario that keeps everyone in check. — Benj96

Yes, use this principle for people you care about. Others, don't give them the time of day.