3 ms·
> I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life who, once confronted about the thing they did that annoyed me, in a civil way, kept doing it around me. Which i
by PavlovsCat 10y ago
> I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life who, once confronted about the thing they did that annoyed me, in a civil way, kept doing it around me.
Which is why these tactics are how they are: You don't say anything until you collected or fabricated enough grievances to burn all bridges. It's precisely not about fairness (which would among other things imply single instead of double standards) or working anything out, that's the one thing that has to be avoided.
- gravypod 10y ago> grievances to burn all bridges You shouldn't be waiting that long. For a civil conversation to be had you need to bring it up as soon as it starts happening. Lets say for example that I am really really bad at remembering names. I am working with a coworker who only wants to be called by their full last name, not an abbreviation. Not knowing this, I start calling them by their abbreviation and it annoys them significantly. They then confront me about this and I explain why I didn't call them by their full name. I agree to try harder and they agree to work on correcting me when I make the mistake. It's a win win. We've crushed and bad feelings between us, resolved the problem with the best possible outcome, and now I get to correctly refer to my coworker. This only worked since they contacted me as soon as they realized my mistake and gave me a chance to explain myself.
- PavlovsCat 10y agoIndeed, but what you're describing is someone acting in good faith, what I was describing is someone acting in bad faith and/or having a few marbles missing.