It is very important for the speaker to choose their words wisely. Just like it is very important for a listener to choose their reactions wisely. By viewing what is said using the context of the situation. Objectively and with emotions not being the driving force (to make this clear I am not saying stop feeling I am just saying your emotions are not in the drivers seat.) behind that interpretation.
To be 100% clear, I am not advocating that the speaker has zero responsibility. I am simply stating that the listener has EQUAL responsibility to interpret what is being said to them.
Which is not what the OP said at all. Control is different then influence and responsibility does not fall solely on the speaker for a miscommunication. Why?
Because it is a double standard. You are expecting the speaker to read the mind and past of a person they are speaking to as to avoid offense while at the same time claiming that it is unreasonable for the listener to be able to determine intent.
While frankly both have the same disadvantage. They are different people from each other. Which makes any discourse (such as the one we are having now) an agreement that BOTH sides will do their best to both SAY what they mean and UNDERSTAND what the other is saying.
Forgive me for pulling out an overused phrase but âCommunication is a two way street.â
In order for people to communicate it needs TWO things to happen. One has to speak and the other has to LISTEN (not hear, hearing is different).
Yes, and they are annoyed when I spread my legs out while I sit too. Nothing I can do about it but sit uncomfortably. Ainât nobody got time fo dat.
I adhere to the Golden rule. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Right? So I do not chew with my mouth open, that is disgusting. That being said, if someone does it to me, I do not take it as a personal attack. I am just grossed out.
Taking this back to Overwatch, I am not toxic, but if someone wants to be toxic, I do not take it personally even if it is a direct attack. Why? The better question is why would I?
The speaker also has to consider the visible emotions of the listener, the social etiquette rules of the community they are in, etc.
There was never any disagreement that how the speaker handles their reaction is unimportant. I never argued otherwise.
I am talking about language is subjective. And it is on the speaker to best tailor their words to be understood by the listener, within reason. A listener cannot read your mind, but a speaker can learn etiquette.
Edit:
Itâs called reading the room.
On top of that, the control thing was a simple turn of phrase.
Yes, once again we are in agreement. I am not saying the speaker has no responsibility here.
Only if the listener applies emotion without context and allows them to drive their response.
You mean objectively observing the room to determine context and proper action? I agree.
Not really. Richc said someone said this to them. Meaning the phrase was exactly what they encountered.
Which if you objectively view what the other person says then the person who originally said it is right and RichC allowed their emotions to change the meaning instead of viewing it objectively.
The listenerâs reaction will also be informed by etiquette.
Flying off the handle because someone slurped soup is inappropriate. But, a person saying âCould you please eat a little quieter?â isnât being inappropriate. And it is the soup slurper that was the one that caused the offense. Because they failed to take into account social etiquette. The listener isnât being overly sensitive or in the wrong for having an emotion (in this case annoyance) about it.
He literally saw someone say the exact phrase and took it out of context to talk about influencing instead of control.
Do I believe RichC did this intentionally? No. My impression of them is a good one and I do not think they would attempt to mislead intentionally. I just think RichC allowed their emotional state to change the meaning of the word âcontrolâ to âinfluenceâ.
If RichC had thought about the statement objectively I would assume they would have seen that the phrase as they quoted it was about control.
That is my point. RichC saw someone say something and allowed their emotions to change the meaning.
The entire rant is about influence. I recognize that. My point is that his rant is based of his mistaken assumption of meaning in the first place.
Was the original speaker right? Is the phrase âI canât control how someone reacts!â true or false?
They even use the word themselves. Clearly showing that they have the meaning of the word wrong.
See how I objectively viewed the entire situation and drew a valid conclusion yet?
The original person used the word control to mean control. RichC mistook it to mean influence as their emotions over rode what the word meant. Had RichC set those emotions to one side to consider those words they most likely would have realized that control and influence are two different things.
In the very first post we have PROOF that a person can say something 100% clear and the listener failed to consider objectively what is said. Is it the speakers fault that RichC did not understand what control meant?
Because he was rejecting the wisdom of the phrase and the attitude of the people who use it to absolve themselves of responsibility for their words.
Itâs like when people say âYou CAN have it all.â
They donât mean you can literally do every single thing youâve ever wanted to do. They are challenging the common advice âYou canât have it allâ and the attitude that comes with it that stops people from reaching their full potential or from trying to have some kind of work/life balance.
Intent cannot be neatly summed up like this amongst strangers. If someone walks up to you to ask you the time, you donât know if they actually want the time or plan to steal your watch.
Plenty of statistics can be found online, such as here:
There is a difference between pre-mediated (intentional) violence and spontaneous violence. There are plenty of cases where someone assaults another person based on a reaction rather than something they intended to do.
I said âpleasant discourseâ, not communication.
Since you put a lot of faith into dictionary definitions, here is the definition of âdiscourseâ:
written or spoken communication or debate.
Not all communication is pleasant, nor a discourse. Most communication is done with non-verbal gestures.
You tell me.
The point of this thread is that when someone says âGGâ after a game theyâve won, they can look like a jerk when the game wasnât good for the other team. This is true.
So then, when you ask: âWhy are you purposfully making yourself angry, sad, or whatever emotion you chose?â
Why do YOU care?
Except you donât that. The entire problem is that itâs IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know that. Which is why your argument is so dangerous.
Either because you said something you didnât mean to say, or because you failed to take into account the context of your actions such as etiquette, timing, etc.
Lul⌠I will stick to believing people asking for the time are asking for the time. If they wanted to steal my watch, maybe something a little less beta would be a good way to lead if you want to intimidate me and not get the time.
Beyond that, I was not even arguing otherwise. Intent is on one party. The second party cannot influence it. I am just laying some factual groundwork because these arguments are getting VERY abstract.
I want to start using that line in real life. Approach with my mean mug, point at my wrist and ask for what time that beautiful watch has to see if literally anyone vaguely thinks I am trying to steal it. So⌠Thanks for the idea.