7 ms·

I learned to communicate like this from an early age. My otherwise lovely father could get angry quickly when he made a premature conclusion from what I was tel

I learned to communicate like this from an early age. My otherwise lovely father could get angry quickly when he made a premature conclusion from what I was telling. I would for example say, 'I went to my friends and they were all smoking'. He would get angry because he concluded I also smoked and I wouldn't be able to convince him of the opposite until he calmed down. So I got into the habits of telling stories like; 'I didn't smoke, when I say my friends they did though.' and all would be well. Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive character trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem. With the example of the article I would find it much more normal, and useful, to say. 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull is not'.

danparsonson 3y ago
[flagged]
- throwoutway 3y ago
  > dealing with an (edit: occasionally?) abusive parent. Its unfounded to call their parent abusive without more information
  - tough 3y ago
    Psychologically? I dunno man, if you as a kid have to come up with strategies to -not piss off- your dad during -normal- regular conversation, maybe there's an issue there? Maybe the dad had some issues too, who knows
    - brookst 3y ago
      I think it’s just semantics of whether “abuse” requires intent. If yes, then the commenters parent was probably not abusive. If not and only the behavior matters without regard for intent or psychology, then it does seem abusive.
      - danparsonson 3y ago
        For what it's worth, I am certainly in the second camp - in general (without reference to this specific example), it's certainly possible for people to behave abusively towards others without even realising that they're doing it. One can be responding to internal pressures without thought for how those responses affect those around them.
        tough 3y ago
        Obliviousness to how your actions affect others do not make those actions disappear.
        danparsonson 3y ago
        Yes that's my point - behaviour can be abusive regardless of whether or not the perpetrator intended or even noticed it.
        tough 3y ago
        Yes I was agreeing with you. Im on your camp.
    - at_a_remove 3y ago
      I will go further: If someone cannot wait until the completion of a sentence to get ticked off, they have problems.
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    You're right that I am responding to very limited information, and of course everyone is fully at liberty to ignore my opinion. That said, how would you describe a person (particularly a caregiver) who causes others to walk on eggshells because of their random unfounded outbursts, and refuses to back down when given reasonable explanations for the things they have become upset about? And not just once or twice but often enough that it has had a measurable effect on OP's behaviour. That sounds abusive to me. Again though, as you pointed out, it's not appropriate for me to continue to speculate on this; I just wanted to elaborate on my original comment to make clear my reasoning.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      "A man that doesn't want his kid to get into alcohol/drugs and worries too much" ? That's pretty far from abusive
      - danparsonson 3y ago
        [flagged]
        lifeisstillgood 3y ago
        I think it's worth mentioning that you seem to be in an argument that I see again and again. I am mostly on your side here - it is not for the child to work around the parent and this is a sea chnage in (western?) psychology that is filtering through to even idiots like me. And yea it is part of the culture war we are (always) going through. So yes, we need to up the game on parenting and personal responsibility- it's going to be a tough ride as we find out just how bad most of our families are - but the upside is good too. However I think we need to also find different words - abuse is a strong term. And most of the reaction I think you are getting here is reaction to specific words as opposed to your philosophy
        danparsonson 3y ago
        Thank you, yes I think you're right - an unfortunate choice of word on my part it seems.
  - porknubbins 3y ago
    If you had the same type of parent you can read between the lines (possibly wrongly but its better to be over sensitized than miss it) to see the narcissism or abuse. A stable parent would say “I trust my child who I raised and will hear the whole story”, while the abuse parent is having some kind of fear or anger response triggered that is all about them and their emotions and they kind of stop paying attention to whatever else you say.
    - danparsonson 3y ago
      Indeed. Some things that education and hindsight has made obvious, can be impossible to see when they are all around, and even for years afterwards.
- llm_nerd 3y ago
  Every human on the planet is "abusive" by that measure. Including, with certainty, you. The father sounds anxious and protective. Child figured out a hack, as we all figure out hacks to optimize our interactions with other people (all of them imperfect), to avoid that diversion, and life goes on happily. Calling the father "abusive" is honestly grotesque, and it is the sort of petty, detached-from-reality moralizing that leads to everyone hiding any real world details lest they get the boorish, cliched response. It's akin to the sort of over the top, rush-to-conclusion relationship advice common online. "My husband forgot a McDonalds drink cup in my car last week and now it started leaking out of the bottom!" "Abusive! Manipulative! Gaslighting! Lawyer up, hit the gym and divorce his ass!"
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    > ...we all figure out hacks... "Hack"/"Maladaptive coping strategy" - pot-ay-to/pot-ah-to With respect, I'm not sure there's a middle ground for us to meet in here, and I don't have anything to add beyond what I've written elsewhere.
- bluepizza 3y ago
  This careless comment hit me a bit hard. I grew up with two abusive parents. You have no idea of what that is like. There is no communication adaptation that saves you from the abuse. They will fly off the handle because they want to, and they will find a reason, even if there is none. The coping strategy is to avoid and keep away. OP sounds like they had a short tempered but caring parent. The situation was alleviated by their adaptation. We all have our weaknesses and strengths, and I am quite sure OP's parent is not the only human to be quick to judge. After all, look at your own comment :) Don't make being a fallible human something bad. We need to tolerate each other's flaws, and compromise towards each other.
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    Let me open by saying: I'm so sorry to hear about your experiences, and for evidently triggering some bad memories for you. And please understand that I mean no harm when, in response to: > ...I grew up with two abusive parents. You have no idea of what that is like... ...I reply - how can you make any assertion about what I know? I haven't said anything about my own childhood. Abuse is a harsh word but it's not a yes or no question; there are shades of abusiveness. What you went through sounds awful, and I certainly don't mean to diminish that, but please don't thereby suggest that others who have suffered less, have not suffered at all. Even mild psychological abuse can have far-reaching consequences, and I'm sorry that I will not elaborate, but I do have some relevant knowledge and experience about this subject. > Don't make being a fallible human something bad. We need to tolerate each other's flaws, and compromise towards each other. I agree, the world needs more genuine compassion - I intended, at least, to send some compassion towards the OP - but from the original post I don't agree that 'fallible' adequately covers it. That's only my opinion though, and as another commenter pointed out, based on incomplete information.
    - bluepizza 3y ago
      It's not about you, though. It is about OP, and the story they shared. Your comments are turning the narrative towards you - I believe accidentally, because I don't believe you meant to hijack the thread. But that's what you are doing, unfortunately. You don't have to justify or alleviate your views. It's all good conversation. But let's keep the focus on OP, and let's not make very, very persistent commentary on their parent's behavior.
brazzy 3y ago
The specific example is indeed not that great in terms of communicating clearly, given how it begs an obvious, if nonessential question. Works well as click bait, of course. But the basic idea is sound and useful. Putting the most important fact first makes it much easier for the audience to understand the context and explanations that follow, and stop you when you're going on a tangent. A problem that I see very often in communication is that people start out by giving long-winded context, and I'm left thinking "what is the point of telling me this?", unable to judge which of it is important and relevant to me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  That most significant byte first is only good in the context that the receiver already knows what they are expecting and waiting for. It's perhaps good update in an exising communication. It's not good communication in general or when opening a new context.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    Though, maybe not. Opening a new context still wants some kind of summary opener. If your message is short, you might just say it. But if your message is even slightly long, you probably start with a heads up what the overall gist and point will be. "I have a question." rather than just the question. Or "Accounting just told us we have to..." and then all the stuff Accounting said and what you have do do about it. Are those openers the most significant bit or the filler? Definitely "I'm OK" or "You have to turn in your laptop." is absolutely the wrong way to start. It's even like going out of your way to find the worst possible choice out of all the bits in a particular situation. Random order would be better. So maybe it's not wrong to start with the most important part, but the definition of most important part is apparently up for grabs.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Put the conclusion first and people will assume the context, stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you. Put the context first and people will assume the conclusion, stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you. It's just a matter of deciding what is worse.
bonoboTP 3y ago
Sounds very similar to how academics write with a similar anxiety to the future reviewer, trying hard not to get dismissed and pigeonholed too early on before they even read and understood the paper. It's one thing to defend your idea against obvious but incorrect angles of criticism, but this is not always enough and you need to order your sentences in the correct way and be mindful of what "buttons you will push" on the reviewer where they will switch off and go off track to some easy dismissal. It really is an art to do this well and it's not just the hard science skill of making the contribution. You must be able to sell and frame it in just the right way.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jancsika 3y ago
  Academia sounds very similar to writing pull requests on a large project, or working retail, waiting tables, serving on a Church board, going to court, teaching a master class, interacting with strangers, and growing up in a large family.
  - bonoboTP 3y ago
    Am I detecting sarcasm here? Is your point that I shouldn't have brough up academia because it's too specific and actually the thing I talk about happens in every facet of our lives and not just academia?
    - jamiek88 3y ago
      I took it more as ‘humans gonna human’!
- hinkley 3y ago
  I think it’s more than this. I’ve seen several Wikis grow to the point of uselessness from lack of curation combined with lack of “executive summaries”. Before this I thought executive summaries were for Peter principled idiots whose ties were cutting off oxygen flow. It felt infantilizing having to be asked to add them. What I experienced and others complained about was the situation where I know we have a document about X. I can’t remember what it’s called, I thought it was “Y” but I read the whole thing and it’s not there. Now I’m clicking on random things seeing if I can find it. I don’t want to read eight people’s life stories. I’m trying to keep the details of my task in my head. Start every page with “where are you and why should you care” and that problem starts to evaporate. With scientists you have people who go through a lot of papers every year. No one paper stands out that much. So I can see how they’d run into the exact same problem.
ilyt 3y ago
Except this example is a terrible way to implement it unless you want to play it for a joke. "I'm ok, the car is not" would've communicated relevant information without followup. The bull is less important part. > Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive character trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem. I like that type of communication because it is very useful in emergency (whether actual one, or just some app at work not working). I think it also generally produces less of an anxiety because starting with the bad can immediately make the other site start to speculate the worst > With the example of the article I would find it much more normal, and useful, to say. 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull is not'. Exactly. Much better way to say that. "Data is safe, it's not a breach, we're being DDoSed", instead of "we're having a massive DDoS on our services affecting X y and Z, but we don't suspect any data breach or data loss".
- DanHulton 3y ago
  The bull is, from the viewpoint of the kid in the accident, I think the most ingenious part. "I'm okay, the car is not" communicates the most-relevant information, sure but at that point, Dad can start immediately getting upset about the car. "I'm okay, the bull is not" presents Dad with a mystery, delays the onset of anger, and likely lowers the peak of anger, as the fun of unravelling an interesting and unique mystery probably takes up some of that mental energy. In an office setting, yeah, you ideally have enough trust and safety to be able to disclose bad news without needing to worry about upsetting people (though frequently not, honestly). Families are... different. Even in "perfect" families, and especially for a situation like this, there's no "blameless postmortems", no "five whys", etc. Kid crashed the car. Kid should not have crashed the car. There's a direct line of responsibility. So being able to deflect a bit of that anger and upset is, frankly, ingenious.
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    Confusing two people in the middle of the night with a short sentence is considered genius? From what I can see, the situation was communicated very poorly.
  - 3y ago
hinkley 3y ago
It always pissed me off in movies where there’s a communication medium the characters supposedly are experienced with and the most important part of their communication gets chopped off. They never repeat themselves. Terrible, terrible writing. One of the things I appreciate about Contact. When Ellie’s radio becomes mostly static she just repeats that she’s ready to launch, in a loop until they do. Your typical schlocky movie? “CHHHZZZK is the killer! I found Sarah’s body. Don’t trust him!” “Do you think they heard me? Hopefully he is t killing them now.”
- jasonjmcghee 3y ago
  There’s also the way overused, “just blindly trust me- I’m not giving you any information just because” (which is critical missing information the plot depends on being unknown) or the argument “<here’s my clearly incorrect perspective of what happened> right??? pauses, storms out” and the mc just doesn’t say anything or try to correct the misunderstanding, which the plot is built on. Communication breakdown feels so tired
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    It’s actually a pretty contemporary theme, but I agree not a good plot device: accuse someone of something and attempt to discredit them in the process before they can defend themselves, get their employer/social media company/affiliated parties to terminate their relationship, watch as they rebuild their live’s from rubble when as accusations are proven false.
  - gloryjulio 3y ago
    It's just lazy script writing, and the audience can actually tell when the shows do this.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  >"Hopefully he is t killing them now.” I like the active example of your point ...
smeej 3y ago
I do this with my mom because of how much she worries. A couple years ago, I sent her a message, "I'm OK, but I think I just totaled my car. Would you please come to [location of accident]? I'm going to need a ride home." She still freaked out, because she does, but I really did only have some bruising, and I did, in fact, total the car.

danparsonson 3y ago

[flagged]

throwoutway 3y ago
> dealing with an (edit: occasionally?) abusive parent. Its unfounded to call their parent abusive without more information
- tough 3y ago
  Psychologically? I dunno man, if you as a kid have to come up with strategies to -not piss off- your dad during -normal- regular conversation, maybe there's an issue there? Maybe the dad had some issues too, who knows
  - brookst 3y ago
    I think it’s just semantics of whether “abuse” requires intent. If yes, then the commenters parent was probably not abusive. If not and only the behavior matters without regard for intent or psychology, then it does seem abusive.
    - danparsonson 3y ago
      For what it's worth, I am certainly in the second camp - in general (without reference to this specific example), it's certainly possible for people to behave abusively towards others without even realising that they're doing it. One can be responding to internal pressures without thought for how those responses affect those around them.
      - tough 3y ago
        Obliviousness to how your actions affect others do not make those actions disappear.
        danparsonson 3y ago
        Yes that's my point - behaviour can be abusive regardless of whether or not the perpetrator intended or even noticed it.
        tough 3y ago
        Yes I was agreeing with you. Im on your camp.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    I will go further: If someone cannot wait until the completion of a sentence to get ticked off, they have problems.
- danparsonson 3y ago
  You're right that I am responding to very limited information, and of course everyone is fully at liberty to ignore my opinion. That said, how would you describe a person (particularly a caregiver) who causes others to walk on eggshells because of their random unfounded outbursts, and refuses to back down when given reasonable explanations for the things they have become upset about? And not just once or twice but often enough that it has had a measurable effect on OP's behaviour. That sounds abusive to me. Again though, as you pointed out, it's not appropriate for me to continue to speculate on this; I just wanted to elaborate on my original comment to make clear my reasoning.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    "A man that doesn't want his kid to get into alcohol/drugs and worries too much" ? That's pretty far from abusive
    - danparsonson 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - lifeisstillgood 3y ago
        I think it's worth mentioning that you seem to be in an argument that I see again and again. I am mostly on your side here - it is not for the child to work around the parent and this is a sea chnage in (western?) psychology that is filtering through to even idiots like me. And yea it is part of the culture war we are (always) going through. So yes, we need to up the game on parenting and personal responsibility- it's going to be a tough ride as we find out just how bad most of our families are - but the upside is good too. However I think we need to also find different words - abuse is a strong term. And most of the reaction I think you are getting here is reaction to specific words as opposed to your philosophy
        danparsonson 3y ago
        Thank you, yes I think you're right - an unfortunate choice of word on my part it seems.
- porknubbins 3y ago
  If you had the same type of parent you can read between the lines (possibly wrongly but its better to be over sensitized than miss it) to see the narcissism or abuse. A stable parent would say “I trust my child who I raised and will hear the whole story”, while the abuse parent is having some kind of fear or anger response triggered that is all about them and their emotions and they kind of stop paying attention to whatever else you say.
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    Indeed. Some things that education and hindsight has made obvious, can be impossible to see when they are all around, and even for years afterwards.
llm_nerd 3y ago
Every human on the planet is "abusive" by that measure. Including, with certainty, you. The father sounds anxious and protective. Child figured out a hack, as we all figure out hacks to optimize our interactions with other people (all of them imperfect), to avoid that diversion, and life goes on happily. Calling the father "abusive" is honestly grotesque, and it is the sort of petty, detached-from-reality moralizing that leads to everyone hiding any real world details lest they get the boorish, cliched response. It's akin to the sort of over the top, rush-to-conclusion relationship advice common online. "My husband forgot a McDonalds drink cup in my car last week and now it started leaking out of the bottom!" "Abusive! Manipulative! Gaslighting! Lawyer up, hit the gym and divorce his ass!"
- danparsonson 3y ago
  > ...we all figure out hacks... "Hack"/"Maladaptive coping strategy" - pot-ay-to/pot-ah-to With respect, I'm not sure there's a middle ground for us to meet in here, and I don't have anything to add beyond what I've written elsewhere.
bluepizza 3y ago
This careless comment hit me a bit hard. I grew up with two abusive parents. You have no idea of what that is like. There is no communication adaptation that saves you from the abuse. They will fly off the handle because they want to, and they will find a reason, even if there is none. The coping strategy is to avoid and keep away. OP sounds like they had a short tempered but caring parent. The situation was alleviated by their adaptation. We all have our weaknesses and strengths, and I am quite sure OP's parent is not the only human to be quick to judge. After all, look at your own comment :) Don't make being a fallible human something bad. We need to tolerate each other's flaws, and compromise towards each other.
- danparsonson 3y ago
  Let me open by saying: I'm so sorry to hear about your experiences, and for evidently triggering some bad memories for you. And please understand that I mean no harm when, in response to: > ...I grew up with two abusive parents. You have no idea of what that is like... ...I reply - how can you make any assertion about what I know? I haven't said anything about my own childhood. Abuse is a harsh word but it's not a yes or no question; there are shades of abusiveness. What you went through sounds awful, and I certainly don't mean to diminish that, but please don't thereby suggest that others who have suffered less, have not suffered at all. Even mild psychological abuse can have far-reaching consequences, and I'm sorry that I will not elaborate, but I do have some relevant knowledge and experience about this subject. > Don't make being a fallible human something bad. We need to tolerate each other's flaws, and compromise towards each other. I agree, the world needs more genuine compassion - I intended, at least, to send some compassion towards the OP - but from the original post I don't agree that 'fallible' adequately covers it. That's only my opinion though, and as another commenter pointed out, based on incomplete information.
  - bluepizza 3y ago
    It's not about you, though. It is about OP, and the story they shared. Your comments are turning the narrative towards you - I believe accidentally, because I don't believe you meant to hijack the thread. But that's what you are doing, unfortunately. You don't have to justify or alleviate your views. It's all good conversation. But let's keep the focus on OP, and let's not make very, very persistent commentary on their parent's behavior.

brazzy 3y ago

The specific example is indeed not that great in terms of communicating clearly, given how it begs an obvious, if nonessential question. Works well as click bait, of course. But the basic idea is sound and useful. Putting the most important fact first makes it much easier for the audience to understand the context and explanations that follow, and stop you when you're going on a tangent. A problem that I see very often in communication is that people start out by giving long-winded context, and I'm left thinking "what is the point of telling me this?", unable to judge which of it is important and relevant to me.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Brian_K_White 3y ago
That most significant byte first is only good in the context that the receiver already knows what they are expecting and waiting for. It's perhaps good update in an exising communication. It's not good communication in general or when opening a new context.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Though, maybe not. Opening a new context still wants some kind of summary opener. If your message is short, you might just say it. But if your message is even slightly long, you probably start with a heads up what the overall gist and point will be. "I have a question." rather than just the question. Or "Accounting just told us we have to..." and then all the stuff Accounting said and what you have do do about it. Are those openers the most significant bit or the filler? Definitely "I'm OK" or "You have to turn in your laptop." is absolutely the wrong way to start. It's even like going out of your way to find the worst possible choice out of all the bits in a particular situation. Random order would be better. So maybe it's not wrong to start with the most important part, but the definition of most important part is apparently up for grabs.
marcosdumay 3y ago
Put the conclusion first and people will assume the context, stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you. Put the context first and people will assume the conclusion, stop reading, and blame all of their assumptions on you. It's just a matter of deciding what is worse.

bonoboTP 3y ago

Sounds very similar to how academics write with a similar anxiety to the future reviewer, trying hard not to get dismissed and pigeonholed too early on before they even read and understood the paper. It's one thing to defend your idea against obvious but incorrect angles of criticism, but this is not always enough and you need to order your sentences in the correct way and be mindful of what "buttons you will push" on the reviewer where they will switch off and go off track to some easy dismissal. It really is an art to do this well and it's not just the hard science skill of making the contribution. You must be able to sell and frame it in just the right way.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jancsika 3y ago
Academia sounds very similar to writing pull requests on a large project, or working retail, waiting tables, serving on a Church board, going to court, teaching a master class, interacting with strangers, and growing up in a large family.
- bonoboTP 3y ago
  Am I detecting sarcasm here? Is your point that I shouldn't have brough up academia because it's too specific and actually the thing I talk about happens in every facet of our lives and not just academia?
  - jamiek88 3y ago
    I took it more as ‘humans gonna human’!
hinkley 3y ago
I think it’s more than this. I’ve seen several Wikis grow to the point of uselessness from lack of curation combined with lack of “executive summaries”. Before this I thought executive summaries were for Peter principled idiots whose ties were cutting off oxygen flow. It felt infantilizing having to be asked to add them. What I experienced and others complained about was the situation where I know we have a document about X. I can’t remember what it’s called, I thought it was “Y” but I read the whole thing and it’s not there. Now I’m clicking on random things seeing if I can find it. I don’t want to read eight people’s life stories. I’m trying to keep the details of my task in my head. Start every page with “where are you and why should you care” and that problem starts to evaporate. With scientists you have people who go through a lot of papers every year. No one paper stands out that much. So I can see how they’d run into the exact same problem.

ilyt 3y ago

Except this example is a terrible way to implement it unless you want to play it for a joke. "I'm ok, the car is not" would've communicated relevant information without followup. The bull is less important part. > Like in the article I communicate on my status in the same way. Though I am not really convinced it is some positive character trait. It seems more like a anxiety problem. I like that type of communication because it is very useful in emergency (whether actual one, or just some app at work not working). I think it also generally produces less of an anxiety because starting with the bad can immediately make the other site start to speculate the worst > With the example of the article I would find it much more normal, and useful, to say. 'I hit a bull, I am okay, the bull is not'. Exactly. Much better way to say that. "Data is safe, it's not a breach, we're being DDoSed", instead of "we're having a massive DDoS on our services affecting X y and Z, but we don't suspect any data breach or data loss".

DanHulton 3y ago
The bull is, from the viewpoint of the kid in the accident, I think the most ingenious part. "I'm okay, the car is not" communicates the most-relevant information, sure but at that point, Dad can start immediately getting upset about the car. "I'm okay, the bull is not" presents Dad with a mystery, delays the onset of anger, and likely lowers the peak of anger, as the fun of unravelling an interesting and unique mystery probably takes up some of that mental energy. In an office setting, yeah, you ideally have enough trust and safety to be able to disclose bad news without needing to worry about upsetting people (though frequently not, honestly). Families are... different. Even in "perfect" families, and especially for a situation like this, there's no "blameless postmortems", no "five whys", etc. Kid crashed the car. Kid should not have crashed the car. There's a direct line of responsibility. So being able to deflect a bit of that anger and upset is, frankly, ingenious.
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  Confusing two people in the middle of the night with a short sentence is considered genius? From what I can see, the situation was communicated very poorly.
- 3y ago

hinkley 3y ago

It always pissed me off in movies where there’s a communication medium the characters supposedly are experienced with and the most important part of their communication gets chopped off. They never repeat themselves. Terrible, terrible writing. One of the things I appreciate about Contact. When Ellie’s radio becomes mostly static she just repeats that she’s ready to launch, in a loop until they do. Your typical schlocky movie? “CHHHZZZK is the killer! I found Sarah’s body. Don’t trust him!” “Do you think they heard me? Hopefully he is t killing them now.”

jasonjmcghee 3y ago
There’s also the way overused, “just blindly trust me- I’m not giving you any information just because” (which is critical missing information the plot depends on being unknown) or the argument “<here’s my clearly incorrect perspective of what happened> right??? pauses, storms out” and the mc just doesn’t say anything or try to correct the misunderstanding, which the plot is built on. Communication breakdown feels so tired
- jonhohle 3y ago
  It’s actually a pretty contemporary theme, but I agree not a good plot device: accuse someone of something and attempt to discredit them in the process before they can defend themselves, get their employer/social media company/affiliated parties to terminate their relationship, watch as they rebuild their live’s from rubble when as accusations are proven false.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  It's just lazy script writing, and the audience can actually tell when the shows do this.
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
>"Hopefully he is t killing them now.” I like the active example of your point ...

smeej 3y ago

I do this with my mom because of how much she worries. A couple years ago, I sent her a message, "I'm OK, but I think I just totaled my car. Would you please come to [location of accident]? I'm going to need a ride home." She still freaked out, because she does, but I really did only have some bruising, and I did, in fact, total the car.