8 ms·

the requests all sound very passive aggressive to me. eg, “ would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?”

by hansdieter1337 7y ago

munchbunny 7y ago
That's not passive aggressive. That's a direct ask, to your face, just worded softly.
- cryptoz 7y ago
  It's not a "direct ask". The "would you be willing to" hides the direct question behind weasel words and adds confusion. The additional phrase equivocates the person's initial point; now it is ambigious if the person asking about the food cares at all about the food itself, or is just curious about if the person would be willing. The person could say "Yes" and then nothing will change, because this is not a "direct ask" to them in the first place.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    Adding "would you be willing" does serve a purpose, it makes it easier for the other person to say "yes" since they don't yet have to commit. This is very important in any negotiation. For example, the other person could respond with "Yes, I would if you clean the kitchen after making food".
    - cryptoz 7y ago
      I agree it serves a purpose; I believe it serves a purpose by adding a layer of indirection in there, making the conversation flow easier. I think it's passive aggressive, yes, but I also understand why it is done. It's not done to make it a "direct ask" though, as this process specifically makes the requests less direct as part of the strategy. The less-direct wording is both able to be seen as passive aggressive (as evidenced by other comments here) as well as a helpful hint to more smoothly continue a conversation.
      - starpilot 7y ago
        https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misused-psychology-terms-part-3/ https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misus... "Passive" means inaction, it doesn't mean indirect or sneaky. You can be actively indirect, but it still originates with an (active) action. There is no passive action, just as there is no active passivity. This doesn't mean the wording is perfect, just the passive aggressive label doesn't apply here.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      It lets the other person know that you think so little of them that you're willing to communicate with them in an artificial manner meant to manipulate them into complying. It's the antithesis of humane; it's an impersonal and heartless mode of communication masking itself as empathetic. That's the way I feel when people use it on me.
      - munchbunny 7y ago
        I'm curious what your rendition of "empathetic" is in this case.
        catalogia 7y ago
        When somebody communicates with me using NVC, it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. They're approaching the conversation with a goal-oriented mindset, where engineering circumstances that result in my compliance is a puzzle they've been tasked with solving. The appearance of caring about my feelings, the apparent empathy, is only a facade. The other party doesn't care about my feelings, they care about my compliance. The apparent care for my feelings is motivated by their belief that presenting themselves as empathetic will make my compliance more likely. The overall experience is dehumanizing.
        klodolph 7y ago
        > When somebody communicates with me using NVC, > it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. You’re using the NVC pattern in this comment, almost exactly. It’s very close. The part missing is where you suggest a course of action. How would you like to be treated?
        catalogia 7y ago
        I've received NVC training and I think using it in this discussion is an ironic way of getting my point across, since the point is that I have no respect for people who use NVC. Suggested course of action: stop talking to people using modes of communication you learned at corporate seminars.
  - nadavr 7y ago
    The direct ask is "would you be willing to", if that's what you want to know. If the goal is to make sure your food isn't eaten, then "stop!" might work better. If the goal is better understanding of the people around you, and a connection to what's happening for them, then the ask is about what they want, and what they'd be willing to do.
- kempbellt 7y ago
  I can read it out loud in both a passive aggressive manner, and as a softly worded request. Body language, tone and cadence all affect how this request is understood. Words read on a screen are often filtered through your presumptions of the writer's tone, rather than the actual tone that was meant.
  - watwut 7y ago
    That is not passive aggressiveness. That is tone of voice being offensive or causing bad feelings. Those are two very different things. Passive aggressiveness is an indirect action/inaction to get your way.
    - kempbellt 7y ago
      "would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?" Is this not indirectly saying: "Stop eating my (or other people's) food"? This can certainly be construed as passive aggressive. Edit: To add, I would prefer the direct approach. I hate the word dancing that goes on with trying to soften the tone. It comes off as patronizing to me.
woodandsteel 7y ago
What would you recommend a person in that situation say instead?
- catalogia 7y ago
  "Knock it off" That's what I'd rather be on the receiving end of.
- themgt 7y ago
  Would you be willing to tell me what you recommend a person say in that situation instead? To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have reasons beyond simple obstinate refusal to grant the request. FWIW, in my limited Spanish language experience, requests at least with friends are often far more direct e.g. "dame el agua" (give me the water) vs. "could you give me the water?" in English. Took me a while to get used to, but made me consider the way we phrase requests in English, and the importance how one intonates speech.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    You're doing the same thing that a lot of people in this thread are: assuming that there is a wrong and a right person in the interaction. > To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have reasons beyond simple obstinate refusal to grant the request. Not necessarily. It gives them the opportunity to explain. Compare with "Please stop eating my food." "would you only eat the food that you buy?" as someone else mentioned. The first invites no response. The second requires the other person be somewhat confrontational to provide clarification. There second requires that they escalate to negotiate. If you don't want to invite negotiation, that's fine, but then you weren't earnestly engaging in NVC. If someone says "would you be willing to only eat food that you bring", it naturally invites a followup "then why aren't you"? There may be varying levels of legitimacy to answer this. Consider a few: "I can't afford to bring my own food" (I realize this is unlikely as coworkers, but it's possible in similar situations), "I'm an asshole and I don't like you", "I always forget to pack a lunch", "I find that the food you bring is delicious and I enjoy it more than my own". All of these invite may invite different responses. Some may require escalation to HR or whatever, but some may be solvable without escalation. You may be willing to chip in for lunch for a coworker who can't afford it, or complain to the boss about wages, or if a coworker really enjoys the food you bring, a solution may be to bring extra and share sometimes, and perhaps get paid for it. Or maybe you don't want to do those things, and that's alright too. But the idea is that those options wouldn't be available if you hadn't allowed the clarification. (Note in a situation that's much more like a negotiation without an obviously correct party, NVC sounds more normal: "We feel that feature X is very important, would you be able to prioritize it and complete it this month?")
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I wouldn't say passive aggressive because that has a specific definition which this doesn't meet but there's something about them that's off. "Would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?” isn't really a question because "no" isn't really an acceptable answer so there's something dirty about phrasing like a question but I can't quite put my finger on what.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- munchbunny 7y ago
  "Would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?” isn't really a question because "no" isn't really an acceptable answer so there's something dirty about phrasing like a question but I can't quite put my finger on what. That's not because of the phrasing. That's because eating someone else's food without their permission is widely seen as a dick move. No matter how you word it, if you clearly mean that you intend to continue eating someone's food without their permission, that makes you the bad person in this type of situation.
- musicale 7y ago
  As you note it is a dilemma/compliance strategy where Amina can't say no without seeming to be very unreasonable. Sneakily, it expands the scope of "please don't eat my food without permission" to "please agree to never eat any food that you did not purchase." The scope of the apparent infraction, as well as the scope of the remedy, are greatly increased. The trap and the expanded scope make it much worse than "please don't eat my food without permission."
blatherard 7y ago
These are fairly contrived examples, but in all of them the requestor is making a pretty clear statement of their feelings and what they want, even at risk of being verbose. The characteristic of true passive-aggressive responses is to avoid direct confrontation, to mask conflict. For example, maybe by making a "joke" ("How's that food of mine that you're eating?") or by saying that somethings okay but not really meaning it ("I totally don't mind that you're eating all my food") or various other techniques.
musicale 7y ago
They're certainly manipulative. The weasel-worded "requests" demand compliance by placing the victim in a bind: either comply, or look like a terrible friend/spouse/employee/etc..
- ryanwaggoner 7y ago
  The “victim” in this example is actually the perpetrator: they consumed someone else’s food without permission.
  - musicale 7y ago
    The victim of the verbal trap/dilemma. But you are free to use another word like "target" or "recipient" if you prefer. Also, without full information, we don't know who is in the right. Perhaps it was in a designated communal fridge; perhaps it wasn't labeled properly; perhaps the person actually had permission; perhaps the person was facing a potentially dangerous blood sugar crash. Etc..
    - kungtotte 7y ago
      We're not here to make a judgement on whether A was right to make the request of B, we are evaluating the effectiveness of their communication. If you think the style of communication is bad then just say so, don't try to invalidate it by questioning the premise as stated.
protomyth 7y ago
I get the feeling you really need to know about the folks you are talking to if you intend to use that phrasing. The oddity of that sentence probably would escalate any situation far beyond just saying: "Don't eat the food that isn't yours" with certain groups of people. I lived in one place that the indirectness would be seen as weakness and not respected at all.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  ^I echo this sentiment. Someone coming into my work culture with NVC would get politely dismissed in public, and absolutely SAVAGED behind closed doors.
  - telchar 7y ago
    Your workplace sounds toxic and full of backstabbing jerks. Am I misunderstand you? I can't imagine why you seem proud to work in such a place.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      >>>Your workplace sounds toxic Well, it's the Marine Corps. It ain't a rose garden.[1][2] >>>full of backstabbing jerks Actually quite the contrary. If anything we are well-known for our solidarity.[3] Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. People try to stiff-arm work responsibilities off to other offices but I think that is endemic to any ridiculously large and sluggish bureaucratic organization. >>> Am I misunderstand you? I think so. It's a work culture that is optimized for conditions of 100% stress, where people's lives are at stake. We have a communication system and culture that is built to support the worst conditions, and honed over 225+ years. Even though we spend 99% of our time at, say, 10% stress levels in an office environment, it's easier to "dial down" our methods rather than "dial up" something less robust. NVC strikes me as the sort of methodology designed and tested for a 5% stress office environment. If you attempted to employ it in the most critical communications scenario (arguably a contested beach assault), it would be an utter failure. Based on the OP's link, Steps #2 and #4 are the biggest failure points IMO. "How do you feel about NOT retreating away from your objective?" "What are your thoughts on possibly doing a frontal attack on that machinegun nest?" We would end the day all face-down in pools of our own blood trying to communicate like that. Now, one might be inclined to retort that as our organization has a selection process that weeds out those who can't handle 100% stress, there is an inherent bias in the viability of our methods to integrate with the regular civilian workforce. But the counter-examples are our on-site contractors, some of which have NO military experience. Most of them still integrate just fine. Not all though: IT Contractor A: A direct speaker. About 40yo. Also a jiu-jitsu purple belt. Kinda a "quiet badass". Fits in well. IT Contractor B: A smarmy, weaselly character. Late 20's. Can't handle people speaking harshly. These two had an exchange that essentially went like this: Contractor A: "Hey I need X. And it's a time-sensitive priority." Contractor B: "Could you possibly ask nicer next time?" Contractor A: "Could you possibly do your job next time?" Then Contractor A came back to the office and shared the story, to which pretty much everyone, from the 19yo Lance Corporals to 35+ guys felt "OMFG, sometimes I wanna throat-punch that dude (B). Ask nicer? WTF? Like people are gonna be asking nice for things if Chinese ballistic missiles are ever raining down on us? Does he not know where he is? If he can't handle it he should go back to hiding in an office in Northern Virginia." We would go on to have numerous problems with Contractor B, most of them stemming from his "feelings". I'm not gonna go onto a rant about direct-vs-indirect counseling methods and some additional leadership anecdotes/case studies though. Hopefully that added some clarity. [1]https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=611 https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=... [2]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU3tko6oTAKUQa3XHeCLYOEf1_rIEHbmIrPRPgjVTkYgwP https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU... [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-take-care-of-marines/#1d3e78d97064 https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-ta...
jlebar 7y ago
"Hey bro, I just noticed that the food I'd been saving for dinner in the fridge wasn't there. It's kind of stressing me the fuck out, I'm not good at planning when I'm hangry..." "Oh yeah dude I ate that, I'm really sorry, I didn't even think about it." "That's all right man. Would you be willing to help me find some food for tonight? I'm sort of beside myself." "For sure, here, let me see..." Conversation resumes when player one is not hangry. Left as an exercise to the reader.

the requests all sound very passive aggressive to me. eg, “ would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?”

munchbunny 7y ago

That's not passive aggressive. That's a direct ask, to your face, just worded softly.

cryptoz 7y ago
It's not a "direct ask". The "would you be willing to" hides the direct question behind weasel words and adds confusion. The additional phrase equivocates the person's initial point; now it is ambigious if the person asking about the food cares at all about the food itself, or is just curious about if the person would be willing. The person could say "Yes" and then nothing will change, because this is not a "direct ask" to them in the first place.
- aeternum 7y ago
  Adding "would you be willing" does serve a purpose, it makes it easier for the other person to say "yes" since they don't yet have to commit. This is very important in any negotiation. For example, the other person could respond with "Yes, I would if you clean the kitchen after making food".
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    I agree it serves a purpose; I believe it serves a purpose by adding a layer of indirection in there, making the conversation flow easier. I think it's passive aggressive, yes, but I also understand why it is done. It's not done to make it a "direct ask" though, as this process specifically makes the requests less direct as part of the strategy. The less-direct wording is both able to be seen as passive aggressive (as evidenced by other comments here) as well as a helpful hint to more smoothly continue a conversation.
    - starpilot 7y ago
      https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misused-psychology-terms-part-3/ https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/passive-aggression-top-5-misus... "Passive" means inaction, it doesn't mean indirect or sneaky. You can be actively indirect, but it still originates with an (active) action. There is no passive action, just as there is no active passivity. This doesn't mean the wording is perfect, just the passive aggressive label doesn't apply here.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    It lets the other person know that you think so little of them that you're willing to communicate with them in an artificial manner meant to manipulate them into complying. It's the antithesis of humane; it's an impersonal and heartless mode of communication masking itself as empathetic. That's the way I feel when people use it on me.
    - munchbunny 7y ago
      I'm curious what your rendition of "empathetic" is in this case.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        When somebody communicates with me using NVC, it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. They're approaching the conversation with a goal-oriented mindset, where engineering circumstances that result in my compliance is a puzzle they've been tasked with solving. The appearance of caring about my feelings, the apparent empathy, is only a facade. The other party doesn't care about my feelings, they care about my compliance. The apparent care for my feelings is motivated by their belief that presenting themselves as empathetic will make my compliance more likely. The overall experience is dehumanizing.
        klodolph 7y ago
        > When somebody communicates with me using NVC, > it feels like they are treating me like a cog in the machine that needs adjusting. You’re using the NVC pattern in this comment, almost exactly. It’s very close. The part missing is where you suggest a course of action. How would you like to be treated?
        catalogia 7y ago
        I've received NVC training and I think using it in this discussion is an ironic way of getting my point across, since the point is that I have no respect for people who use NVC. Suggested course of action: stop talking to people using modes of communication you learned at corporate seminars.
- nadavr 7y ago
  The direct ask is "would you be willing to", if that's what you want to know. If the goal is to make sure your food isn't eaten, then "stop!" might work better. If the goal is better understanding of the people around you, and a connection to what's happening for them, then the ask is about what they want, and what they'd be willing to do.
kempbellt 7y ago
I can read it out loud in both a passive aggressive manner, and as a softly worded request. Body language, tone and cadence all affect how this request is understood. Words read on a screen are often filtered through your presumptions of the writer's tone, rather than the actual tone that was meant.
- watwut 7y ago
  That is not passive aggressiveness. That is tone of voice being offensive or causing bad feelings. Those are two very different things. Passive aggressiveness is an indirect action/inaction to get your way.
  - kempbellt 7y ago
    "would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?" Is this not indirectly saying: "Stop eating my (or other people's) food"? This can certainly be construed as passive aggressive. Edit: To add, I would prefer the direct approach. I hate the word dancing that goes on with trying to soften the tone. It comes off as patronizing to me.

woodandsteel 7y ago

What would you recommend a person in that situation say instead?

catalogia 7y ago
"Knock it off" That's what I'd rather be on the receiving end of.
themgt 7y ago
Would you be willing to tell me what you recommend a person say in that situation instead? To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have reasons beyond simple obstinate refusal to grant the request. FWIW, in my limited Spanish language experience, requests at least with friends are often far more direct e.g. "dame el agua" (give me the water) vs. "could you give me the water?" in English. Took me a while to get used to, but made me consider the way we phrase requests in English, and the importance how one intonates speech.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  You're doing the same thing that a lot of people in this thread are: assuming that there is a wrong and a right person in the interaction. > To me it does sound more passive-aggressive to circumlocute vs just directly ask. I guess specifically because it implies a "no" would be due to simple unwillingness, which in a sense is always implicit but sort of routes around that a person may have reasons beyond simple obstinate refusal to grant the request. Not necessarily. It gives them the opportunity to explain. Compare with "Please stop eating my food." "would you only eat the food that you buy?" as someone else mentioned. The first invites no response. The second requires the other person be somewhat confrontational to provide clarification. There second requires that they escalate to negotiate. If you don't want to invite negotiation, that's fine, but then you weren't earnestly engaging in NVC. If someone says "would you be willing to only eat food that you bring", it naturally invites a followup "then why aren't you"? There may be varying levels of legitimacy to answer this. Consider a few: "I can't afford to bring my own food" (I realize this is unlikely as coworkers, but it's possible in similar situations), "I'm an asshole and I don't like you", "I always forget to pack a lunch", "I find that the food you bring is delicious and I enjoy it more than my own". All of these invite may invite different responses. Some may require escalation to HR or whatever, but some may be solvable without escalation. You may be willing to chip in for lunch for a coworker who can't afford it, or complain to the boss about wages, or if a coworker really enjoys the food you bring, a solution may be to bring extra and share sometimes, and perhaps get paid for it. Or maybe you don't want to do those things, and that's alright too. But the idea is that those options wouldn't be available if you hadn't allowed the clarification. (Note in a situation that's much more like a negotiation without an obviously correct party, NVC sounds more normal: "We feel that feature X is very important, would you be able to prioritize it and complete it this month?")

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I wouldn't say passive aggressive because that has a specific definition which this doesn't meet but there's something about them that's off. "Would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?” isn't really a question because "no" isn't really an acceptable answer so there's something dirty about phrasing like a question but I can't quite put my finger on what.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
munchbunny 7y ago
"Would you be willing to only eat the food that you buy?” isn't really a question because "no" isn't really an acceptable answer so there's something dirty about phrasing like a question but I can't quite put my finger on what. That's not because of the phrasing. That's because eating someone else's food without their permission is widely seen as a dick move. No matter how you word it, if you clearly mean that you intend to continue eating someone's food without their permission, that makes you the bad person in this type of situation.
musicale 7y ago
As you note it is a dilemma/compliance strategy where Amina can't say no without seeming to be very unreasonable. Sneakily, it expands the scope of "please don't eat my food without permission" to "please agree to never eat any food that you did not purchase." The scope of the apparent infraction, as well as the scope of the remedy, are greatly increased. The trap and the expanded scope make it much worse than "please don't eat my food without permission."

blatherard 7y ago

These are fairly contrived examples, but in all of them the requestor is making a pretty clear statement of their feelings and what they want, even at risk of being verbose. The characteristic of true passive-aggressive responses is to avoid direct confrontation, to mask conflict. For example, maybe by making a "joke" ("How's that food of mine that you're eating?") or by saying that somethings okay but not really meaning it ("I totally don't mind that you're eating all my food") or various other techniques.

musicale 7y ago

They're certainly manipulative. The weasel-worded "requests" demand compliance by placing the victim in a bind: either comply, or look like a terrible friend/spouse/employee/etc..

ryanwaggoner 7y ago
The “victim” in this example is actually the perpetrator: they consumed someone else’s food without permission.
- musicale 7y ago
  The victim of the verbal trap/dilemma. But you are free to use another word like "target" or "recipient" if you prefer. Also, without full information, we don't know who is in the right. Perhaps it was in a designated communal fridge; perhaps it wasn't labeled properly; perhaps the person actually had permission; perhaps the person was facing a potentially dangerous blood sugar crash. Etc..
  - kungtotte 7y ago
    We're not here to make a judgement on whether A was right to make the request of B, we are evaluating the effectiveness of their communication. If you think the style of communication is bad then just say so, don't try to invalidate it by questioning the premise as stated.

protomyth 7y ago

I get the feeling you really need to know about the folks you are talking to if you intend to use that phrasing. The oddity of that sentence probably would escalate any situation far beyond just saying: "Don't eat the food that isn't yours" with certain groups of people. I lived in one place that the indirectness would be seen as weakness and not respected at all.

CapricornNoble 7y ago
^I echo this sentiment. Someone coming into my work culture with NVC would get politely dismissed in public, and absolutely SAVAGED behind closed doors.
- telchar 7y ago
  Your workplace sounds toxic and full of backstabbing jerks. Am I misunderstand you? I can't imagine why you seem proud to work in such a place.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    >>>Your workplace sounds toxic Well, it's the Marine Corps. It ain't a rose garden.[1][2] >>>full of backstabbing jerks Actually quite the contrary. If anything we are well-known for our solidarity.[3] Assuming there aren't issues due to rank/the command hierarchy, most personal disagreements are handled face-to-face. People try to stiff-arm work responsibilities off to other offices but I think that is endemic to any ridiculously large and sluggish bureaucratic organization. >>> Am I misunderstand you? I think so. It's a work culture that is optimized for conditions of 100% stress, where people's lives are at stake. We have a communication system and culture that is built to support the worst conditions, and honed over 225+ years. Even though we spend 99% of our time at, say, 10% stress levels in an office environment, it's easier to "dial down" our methods rather than "dial up" something less robust. NVC strikes me as the sort of methodology designed and tested for a 5% stress office environment. If you attempted to employ it in the most critical communications scenario (arguably a contested beach assault), it would be an utter failure. Based on the OP's link, Steps #2 and #4 are the biggest failure points IMO. "How do you feel about NOT retreating away from your objective?" "What are your thoughts on possibly doing a frontal attack on that machinegun nest?" We would end the day all face-down in pools of our own blood trying to communicate like that. Now, one might be inclined to retort that as our organization has a selection process that weeds out those who can't handle 100% stress, there is an inherent bias in the viability of our methods to integrate with the regular civilian workforce. But the counter-examples are our on-site contractors, some of which have NO military experience. Most of them still integrate just fine. Not all though: IT Contractor A: A direct speaker. About 40yo. Also a jiu-jitsu purple belt. Kinda a "quiet badass". Fits in well. IT Contractor B: A smarmy, weaselly character. Late 20's. Can't handle people speaking harshly. These two had an exchange that essentially went like this: Contractor A: "Hey I need X. And it's a time-sensitive priority." Contractor B: "Could you possibly ask nicer next time?" Contractor A: "Could you possibly do your job next time?" Then Contractor A came back to the office and shared the story, to which pretty much everyone, from the 19yo Lance Corporals to 35+ guys felt "OMFG, sometimes I wanna throat-punch that dude (B). Ask nicer? WTF? Like people are gonna be asking nice for things if Chinese ballistic missiles are ever raining down on us? Does he not know where he is? If he can't handle it he should go back to hiding in an office in Northern Virginia." We would go on to have numerous problems with Contractor B, most of them stemming from his "feelings". I'm not gonna go onto a rant about direct-vs-indirect counseling methods and some additional leadership anecdotes/case studies though. Hopefully that added some clarity. [1]https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=611 https://donshomette.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/rose1.png?w=... [2]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU3tko6oTAKUQa3XHeCLYOEf1_rIEHbmIrPRPgjVTkYgwP https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJOCLU... [3]https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-take-care-of-marines/#1d3e78d97064 https://www.forbes.com/sites/donesmond/2014/11/13/marines-ta...

jlebar 7y ago

"Hey bro, I just noticed that the food I'd been saving for dinner in the fridge wasn't there. It's kind of stressing me the fuck out, I'm not good at planning when I'm hangry..." "Oh yeah dude I ate that, I'm really sorry, I didn't even think about it." "That's all right man. Would you be willing to help me find some food for tonight? I'm sort of beside myself." "For sure, here, let me see..." Conversation resumes when player one is not hangry. Left as an exercise to the reader.