If you feel like you're often pushing people's buttons to the point of censoring yourself, maybe take a step back and see if you can communicate more kindly.
Smoking is unhealthy, there's no possible conversation.
It is, if you prefer to smoke, it's your choice, no amount of reasoning is gonna change that.
Disclaimer: I'm a smoker, a not very involved one, but still one.
I think it's particularly harmful and sad to say there's no possible conversation about something when you are of two minds yourself!
It is believed to be, but it isn't.
We could make the same argument for alcohol or even heroin, that stop a cough and relieves from physical pain.
> I think it's particularly harmful and sad to say there's no possible conversation
As a smoker, there is no possible conversation on the fact that smoking kills, cigarettes are killers, no matter the benefits one can take out of them, they are "responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers"
This is a fact that can only be acknowledged as true, even though personally many people decide to ignore this fact and smoke anyway (including myself).
But we smokers are simply wrong.
I'll bite. It's true that a vegan diet can be unhealthy, and that it's wise to supplement with B12, but that doesn't mean a vegan diet is unhealthy.
This is like saying "an omnivorous diet is unhealthy because you don't eat enough vegetables". Sure, some people with omnivorous diets need to eat more vegetables, but that's not true of all people who eat omnivorous diets.
I'm not sure whether you would benefit from increasing your precision or accuracy, but the "veganism is unhealthy" line is plain wrong.
Edit: My last point is clearly demonstrated if the immediate downvote I received after posting this was from you.
> The statement "Veganism is unhealthy" is objectively wrong
The statement "vaccination is safe" is also objectively wrong (it's a medical procedure therefore it carries risk; the more correct statement is "vaccination is risky, but the tradeoffs are extremely worth it"), but saying it wouldn't "create an emotional reaction" in most people (except in anti-vaxxers, which AFAIK are a huge minority, and pretty much everyone would agree that they are extremely ego-invested in their opinion) (saying that it's wrong, however, might).
TIL.
Anyway, my aim isn't to debate you on specific subjects like veganism or vaccines. Just be aware that stating things in a blunt, opinionated way can have undesirable effects on your communications, regardless of your intentions.
For example, B12 is in meat because animals are supplemented with it, like cobalt added to their feed. Humans can supplement directly.
It's like thinking you have to drink vitamin D fortified milk or iodine fortified salt to get vitamin D and iodine, and then asserting people who don't consume either must be unhealthy.
Maybe it's best to install an add-on which blurs veganism out for you, if it is so uninteresting that even mentioning it offends you.
> If I say something like, "veganism is unhealthy" (because of lack of B12... yes I'm aware there are nuances), some vegans interpret that as a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact, or even as an attack on their lifestyle choices, because they are so involved with their egos.
tomp wisely acknowledges, within brackets, that there are nuances, but statements like "veganism is unhealthy" are incredibly vague, and the very real nuances will be automatically constructed and appended to the message (and attributed to the speaker) by the listener's brain, typically without their conscious knowledge, and often in a manner not to your liking. Should people be like this? Who knows. Are they like this? Of course, and we all know it when the topic of conversation is psychology, but how easy it is to forget this when the topic is something else.
"they are so involved with their egos" seems to me of key importance, but it's so easy to forget that we are all involved with our egos. I listen to a fair amount of lectures by experienced Buddhists, people who devote their lives to observing their own minds, and a recurring theme that arises is that even with the substantial discipline and skills they've acquired in that field, they are still regularly fooled by their egos.
> but for the time being I've started to moderate my stated opinions to spare other people's feelings (though I still think it would be better if they grew more emotionally mature, but I realize that's unlikely to happen)
"feelings" is a tricky term in this context. What does it mean, really? Sometimes, it accurately refers to simplistic, emotional, low-information emotional reactions, as opposed to logical thinking. But is this always the case? Might there be times that it is perceived that this is what's happening in someone else, but in reality there is an unseen, complex multi-dimensional (nuanced) analysis taking place that happens to come to a different (and not incorrect) conclusion than the one (also not incorrect, considering the implicitly assumed nuances) that you or I might have formed?
Getting along can be amazingly difficult even in the simplest of situations (say, a family or team consisting of only 4 or 5 people, who mostly have aligned interests). But look at how the complexity, interconnectedness, and technical capabilities of the world has exploded in the last 50, 20, or even 10 years. And we're managing all of this complexity with largely the same political and psychological tools that we used when half of us were farming the land, with the addition of some "weaponized" psychological capabilities and techniques (mass media, internet, machine learning) thrown into the mix to make things even more interesting.
Considering all this, how reasonable does this common "just look at the facts and agree with me already" attitude seem?
like your post?
There are far more fictional or at least many times less controversial examples to made, the OP "dug his grave" them self.
I've seen literally dozens and dozens of videos and posts of really really malnourished people advocating veganism. It's pretty much too hard to execute for the average person.
Frankly, I don’t believe that you don’t mean it as an attack on the lifestyle choices of others, and I’m not surprised that people get defensive.
It must be because cigarettes are good for the health.
/sarcasm
That's exactly why speaking the truth is fundamental, being kind is simply a plus: we all do reckless stuff in life, we all base some choice on assumptions or beliefs, it's usually not that bad, but it can be and someone needs to say it.
Just the fact that we are discussing about an unhealthy diet, that killed millions of people in poor countries, because in rich countries we have doctors and pharmacies and a lot of ways to overcome its dangers and we can't agree that a fact is a fact and choices are choices, proves that being kind before being right can be dangerous.
Doctors will never say "you should eat vegan because it's better for your health", they will say "you should remove this or that from your diet" if something is wrong (yes, bacon is unhealthy too, coke in unhealthy as well etc. etc.) and if you decide to go vegan they will say "it won't probably affect your health, but be careful. Also I want to visit you again in a couple of months".
That's just what it is, unhealthy means not healthy, it doesn't mean deadly at contact!
But people are more sensitive about their choices than their health conditions. People think that their choices defines them, they resist to changes and to facts that challenge their status, because it shutters their reality and trigger their insecurities.
It's not personal, If I say "veganism is unhealthy" it' because it's historically correct and still a cause of malnutritions around the World, not because I think vegans are stupid.
I think they are adults making unhealthy choices (I hope knowing it), just like driving too fast, drinking too much, living a sedentary life or, like my uncle, smoking for 50 years.
My dad worked in lung oncology and doctors couldn't stop some people from smoking even after they had to surgically remove one of the lungs because tumor destroyed it.
Lucky them in Italy healthcare is paid by everybody's taxes or we would have more than a few Walter White.
A popular similar episode happened in the UK, a former very popular soccer player, George Best, had a liver transplant because he drank too much. Even after that he kept drinking and it led to complications and a liver infection that killed him at the age of 59. Few days before he died he asked to be photographed in the hospital and the photo published with the message "Don't die like me".
It took him 59 years, a liver transplant and an horrible death at relatively young age to understand he was wrong.
Do you think nobody was kind, empathetic or nice with him before about his alcoholism problem?
But how many more were nice with him just to take advantage of his glory, fame, and, of course, money?
Being nice alone serves no purpose, being empathetic or nice, sometimes requires "not nice" manners.
If somebody confronted him and actually forced him to quit, he could well be alive and that liver could have saved someone who deserved it more than a repentless alcoholic.
We should also ask to ourselves: why is it so important for some people to convince others?
What purpose does it serve to have tools (empathy, kindness) to win people trust (they value the messenger), when we have tools (logic, fact checking) to evaluate the actual message?
Back to cigarettes.
Hironically my dad was also an heavy smoker, and reduced it a lot when my mother was pregnant of my sister (she had medical problems while being pregnant of me) and completely quit when my sister was born, because she suffered from asthma.
He went from 3 packs a day to zero in a few months and has been cigarettes free for 43 years now.
He knew he was wrong, he just had no reason to change, he probably thought that without cigarettes he would have lost self-confidence. My mother has always been more kind than right, but she couldn't convince him to quit, no matter how she tried.
Your partner shouldn't convince you to quit smoking or drinking when you have little kids, you either understand it on your own or they make you. There's no amount of discussing the matter that can be considered acceptable. There should be no space for being nice or empathic or reasonable or compromising.
But my dad also taught me that "you smoke years of your life away" (just like Bezos with his grandma, it's true, you really do...) and I have never touched a cigarette before I was in my late 20s, not because I ws scared, but because I thought it was stupid!
I eventually started smoking to make breaks at work, admittedly one of the worst decision of my life, but I like it and keep smoking from time to time, no matter how nicely people advice me to stop.
p.s. many in the comments are assuming that people talking straight haven't tried being kind or understanding before.
I believe the reason these people died was lack of food in general, not veganism.
Both of those statements have some element of truth to them, but they're obviously incendiary, as is your 'veganism is unhealthy'.
For the most part it sounds like you're just lacking tact. I used to be that guy too. Probably still am, to some extent.
No, they don't.
They are supercharged propaganda.
> but they're obviously incendiary, as is your 'veganism is unhealthy'.
Not at all.
Saying veganism is unhealthy is stating an opinion shared by many nutrition expert, it says nothing about vegans, it is just what it is.
meat is murder contains a judgement: if meat is murder, you are a murderer, if taxation is theft, who collects taxes is a thief.
I can accept "you eat corpses" because it's true, I don't eat animals alive, they are already dead when I eat them, but it is also imprecise, because I eat just bits of the corpses, not the entire carcass.
But also an opinion disagreed with by many nutrition experts
A majority of them studied and proved its unhealthy effects.
Unless you wanna say that every opinion counts, no matter the opinion, we can safely assume that being vegan is like drinking or having unprotected sex or speeding.
It won't probably kill you, it will even improve life for some, but it's not something one should take lightly like "it has no effects".
Purposefully harsh wordings that require parenthesized nuance even here are hardly the listeners fault. If there's a breakdown in communication because you're being pithy and sharp that's a problem you can choose to fix.
That burned me a lot when I was younger. Intellectual humility has never failed to serve me. I wish I was more humble about my strongly held opinions (that I thought were facts) when I was younger.
Another (non-political) one that comes up fairly often, is that I don't think it's reasonable to congratulate people when they decide to get married... it's a decision after all, nothing to do with achievement and/or luck (for most people I know at least, who aren't extremely lonely to the extent that finding anyone that tolerates them is an achievement... in which case, "congratulations" would be more in order), and if anything, they should be warned (as many marriages end in failure). But if you say that, you're the asshole.
No customs, no euphemisms, and to the point.
There is a way out of the conundrum you outlined.
I think these are perfectly acceptable thoughts to have but in the context of interpersonal relationships and society as a whole, these statements just seem confrontational and unnecessary.
Maybe published on academica journals is the only way to do it?
But again, if you recommend a journal article about how beef is unhealthy to a beef-lover, you can still kind of like an asshole?
I’m curious if you will elaborate. What your parent commenter said about failing marriages is factual and is supported by statistics —- for decades.
You saying that somebody _seems_ to be an asshole however, I see nothing factual about that statement.
Would you try expanding on your position?
I suspect that if we used that criteria, we'd end up reinforcing a lot of existing trends. For example, my daughter gets into a computer science program, but I know that most women don't end up getting jobs in that field, so I withhold congratulations. Why are you yelling? I'm right! I'm backed by decades of statistics.
We say congratulations to people when they get engaged because it is nice to do so.
Tomp: "Chances are you will die within the year. Just stating the facts hurp, don't know why everybody I talk to is so sensitive."
Of course if you're "warning" people when they proudly and happily announce that they're getting married then you're the asshole. It's a super strange superiority complex to have. I got over this "social constructs are dumb and we should only express ourselves in objective facts like Mr Spock" phase when I was in high school, I encourage you to do the same. I remember explaining to some friends that having a party for the New Year was dumb because, after all, it was just a random point in the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Ow, the cringe.
If you give the people in question the benefit of the doubt, you would assume that they understand the gravity of the interpersonal and legal commitment they had made. Building up the trust to make that commitment is hard work.
It'd be like if somebody just made a commitment to donate periodically to charity. Presumably, those donations required that person to establish themselves financially to the extent that they can be reasonable sure that they will be able to keep their promise. So even though it's a "decision," it's closely related to an achievement.
Or maybe this illustrates it more clearly: You'd consider it an achievement to reach a 50th anniversary, correct? As you say, "many marriages end in failure." So why not a premarital relationship resulting in marriage? That doesn't always happen either. Most premarital relationships end in breaking up, not marriage.
So, as long as we're treating these people with maximum respect, we can see that:
1. Getting to the point where they were ready to commit to marriage was a challenging process. Big commitments require stable foundations, and stable foundations aren't free.
2. There is reason to hope that marriage will be a positive thing for the two who have decided to engage in it.
1 and 2 together are sufficient cause for congratulations, so they are in order.
As for,
> But we're proving his point really by discussing it!
I'm curious. How so?
‘Congratulate” has additional meanings: can be about success and good luck or simply happiness linked to some particular event. You share their joy, that’s all. Even if you don’t think they really have motives to be happy :-)
Like you could decide nothing short of an Olympic record is worth congratulating but this is pretty obviously very socially inept.
Edit: Basically on aggregate there is nothing special about it but it’s important to the people involved and how plussed or non-plussed you feel about it should relate to your relationship with them rather than how impressed you are personally about it.
perspectives like this have an ideal place in humor, not in criticism. among friends in a trusting and relaxed environment, go to town on how silly we all are. do it in a funny way and you get cool points. otherwsie, not so much.
(also, you congratulate the engaged because they've made a lifelong commitment to another person, which is a hard thing to do).
For both my kids we had another pregnancy prior that ended in miscarriage. The first one when you’re excited and the whole thing is new was particularly emotionally hard. Lying in bed with your partner mourning your lost future hard. Most parents wait until after the most dangerous period to announce their pregnancy to the world for this reason. There are a lot of hopes and dreams wrapped up in a very uncertain time.
There’s a whole bunch of luck involved, particularly when people start having to do things like IVF and as I said to the OP congratulating people is often about showing support. It can be an emotionally fraught time leading to physically and emotionally tough times ahead. Pregnancy, childbirth and raising kids is no picnic. The glib answer is “well you chose it” but that doesn’t make it any easier nor less worthy of support.
Yes, exactly, so if I say "eating candies is unhealthy" I don't think there's gonna be any group jumping at my throat.
Maybe is because candy lovers are not insecure cultists.
They know it's a matter of taste and personal belief, not something with a more profound meaning.
I think your prior statement about ‘nuances’ discounts this as a fact. Perhaps your strong opinions are not entirely facts?
I think it mostly has to do with other people's insecurities. If I say something like, "veganism is unhealthy" (because of lack of B12... yes I'm aware there are nuances), some vegans interpret that as a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact, or even as an attack on their lifestyle choices, because they are so involved with their egos.
I try to follow Paul Graham's dictum "keep your identity small", the saying "strong opinions weakly held" and/or I've extremely strong self-confidence (compared to most people), so I seem to be way less personally affected by statements like these (though I'm sure I have other triggers)...
Granted I'm only 30 so maybe that will change in a few years, but for the time being I've started to moderate my stated opinions to spare other people's feelings (though I still think it would be better if they grew more emotionally mature, but I realize that's unlikely to happen), to improve social relations and, frankly, also because it's getting more and more dangerous out there, with political correctness and/or China-driven character assassinations.