Used It In Class Today

[Mental Magpie]

Thank you, Twik, because those are my thoughts exactly.

Also, as I stated before, my first, "That's an interesting assumption" came out because I didn't know what else to say; it was halted and probably sound more like a question.  I thought he was joking there but I wasn't sure.  What came next, to me, ended the joke and went into offensive territory.  He defended his behavior in "grilling" me with questions about my medication and accusations that I didn't need them.  That's when I ended the line of conversation with the second "That's an interesting assumption". 

Also, how is him accusing me of not needing those medications any different than someone saying "You're too young to need that cane!"?  That is an interesting assumption.  Why should I have to defend my medication use to a stranger?  I shouldn't and I won't.

And yes, if you thought I was such a jerk for responding like that and didn't want to talk to me ever again because you made an offensive joke and I didn't find it funny, I'd be okay with that.  That means we aren't compatible in how we think we should interact with strangers.  I'd never go up to another Italian that I don't know and joking comment on her greasy nose...my really good friend with whom I've made those jokes before about ourselves is a completely different story.

ETA:  If the conversation had opened with, "Wow, what do you need all of those meds for?" in a curious tone, I probably would have answered him with an honest, "I have stomach issues, and some of it's just Ibuprofen."  His approach was offensive and accusatory, then continued to be even more accusatory after that, so that totally changed how I reacted to it. 

[Deetee]

I find it very strange that the person who makes the offensive remark in the first place is entitled to storm off raging because they were told, simply, "that's an interesting assumption". That, to me, is "the crazy" that I would be happy not to engage.

....You should be apologizing for your actions, not raging because, oh my goodness, someone didn't appreciate your humour.

I think you are still misunderstanding me on multiple levels.
1) Most importantly: The person who was present at the converstion is the one who has the absolute right to decide how they want to react. They are the only one who would hear the tone and decide if it was light hearted banter or something mean spirited.
2) It is absolutely not storming off (and I would like to point out that not a single person before you said anything about storming off).  Deciding not to engage with the person again is entirely different than storming off.
3) There is no raging. If I had overheard the conversation (or said it) and it sounded like a friendly bit of banter  and someone responded with snipped "what an interesting assumption" (and I am NOT saying that is what happened here) , I would just know that there was  very, very, very  little chance of ever being friends with that person and I would not approach them again because I would say the wrong thing eventually. Disengaging and avoidance is not raging, it is not blaming, it is not outrage, it is just recognizing that you are different personalities.
4) I already said this, but some people would not find this offensive. Some people would. It depends on the social environment. Therefore, just because someone is offended, it doesn't follow that the other person actually said anything objectively offensive. (But the offended person is welcome to avoid the person who they found offensive)

edit: And in case I'm not clear, in the case actually described, it sounds like DM did not want to engage the person, did not want to continue the converstion and wanted the other person to stop talking to her and therefore she responded correctly.

[Surianne]

The point of "that is an interesting assumption" is that it is NOT intended to be snarky.

If that's really the case, I think it fails spectacularly most of the time, unfortunately. 

I find it very strange that the person who makes the offensive remark in the first place is entitled to storm off raging because they were told, simply, "that's an interesting assumption". That, to me, is "the crazy" that I would be happy not to engage.

Can you clarify where you are getting the "entitled to storm off raging" bit?  I'm pretty sure most of us are just saying he's going to avoid the OP in the future, which would be a perfectly reasonable reaction to the situation and not rude in the slightest.

[Surianne]

edit: And in case I'm not clear, in the case actually described, it sounds like DM did not want to engage the person, did not want to continue the converstion and wanted the other person to stop talking to her and therefore she responded correctly.

I agree.  As long as her goal was to make sure this guy didn't speak to her again in the future, I think she was perfectly fine. 

[Mental Magpie]

edit: And in case I'm not clear, in the case actually described, it sounds like DM did not want to engage the person, did not want to continue the converstion and wanted the other person to stop talking to her and therefore she responded correctly.

I agree.  As long as her goal was to make sure this guy didn't speak to her again in the future, I think she was perfectly fine.

He can talk to me again if he wants, just not with offensive and accusatory "jokes".  If he thinks talking to me would be "engaging the crazy" so be it; it's not crazy to not want to talk about my medical needs.

[Surianne]

Sounds like you're good, then!

[JacklynHyde]

If "that's an interesting assumption" is snarky and unacceptable, why is it considered an acceptable response here on E-Hell?  I think DM used it beautifully to counter a rudely asked question and ruder follow-up.

[Audrey Quest]

I think in this context it wasn't a good use of the phrase.

For one thing, it didn't shut him down at all, she continued talking to him and then used it again.  I think its harder to use this phrase among people that do have social standing to engage you in small talk, like a classmate.  Usually, it is better employed with complete strangers who don't care at all that they are being rude--kind of drive-by rudeness.
 
A better response would have been "Excuse me?"
 
And if he then said "well, those a lot of pills" the response is "Yes, well, that's none of your concern." and then turn your back and ignore him.

Never share that you need them, why or anything else.
 
Saying "excuse me" at the outset gives the other person some room to backtrack if they were just making a poor effort at making contact.  If they double down, then they get the cold shoulder.

But, if they were to say "Oh, I'm just kidding.  Hi, my name is Steve."  then no harm, no foul.  Some people are just bad at making small talk.
 
Of course, if you take the opening comment in jest you can respond to "wow dealing drugs much?" with a joking response like "yeah, my nickname is CVS."  That could be followed by "Hi, my name is Doris..." 
 
At that point if he asks about the pills then bean dip can be deployed.  "Oh, its nothing, so, did you have any trouble with that homework?"
 
I don't think the OP using the phrase was rude, but I don't think it really had the intended effect.

[Twik]

The point of "that is an interesting assumption" is that it is NOT intended to be snarky.

If that's really the case, I think it fails spectacularly most of the time, unfortunately. 

I find it very strange that the person who makes the offensive remark in the first place is entitled to storm off raging because they were told, simply, "that's an interesting assumption". That, to me, is "the crazy" that I would be happy not to engage.

Can you clarify where you are getting the "entitled to storm off raging" bit?  I'm pretty sure most of us are just saying he's going to avoid the OP in the future, which would be a perfectly reasonable reaction to the situation and not rude in the slightest.

If it "fails so spectacularly," why is it a suggested phrase here? If it's on par with "shut up, jerk," I doubt that people like Judith Martin would recommend it.

As to the "storming off raging," I'd say proclaiming as one poster did that she would assume it meant the speaker "hated her," and other people said it meant the speaker was "crazy". You consider refusing to ever speak to the person again is pretty much storming off in a snit.

Honestly - if you happen by mistake to make a joke that a stranger doesn't like, and they respond this way, the polite thing is to apologize for your mistake. It`s no big deal, b utI can`t see why people feel it`s ok to offend someone else, but that if they indicate they`re offended, they`re the villain in the piece.

[Deetee]

As to the "storming off raging," I'd say proclaiming as one poster did that she would assume it meant the speaker "hated her," and other people said it meant the speaker was "crazy". You consider refusing to ever speak to the person again is pretty much storming off in a snit.

Honestly - if you happen by mistake to make a joke that a stranger doesn't like, and they respond this way, the polite thing is to apologize for your mistake. It`s no big deal, b utI can`t see why people feel it`s ok to offend someone else, but that if they indicate they`re offended, they`re the villain in the piece.

There is a huge, huge difference between feeling that someone hates you (or your sense of humour) or feeling someone is a bit volitile or crazy and "storming off". Absolutely no-one said anything about storming off. As I said above, realising that a friendship is not meant to be is not storming off.

As for "villain", I can only respond for myself that there is a huge difference between "that person is horrible" and "that person is completely incompatible with me".

To me, they are (to quote my 3 year old) "nothing like the same"

In one you dislike the person and in the other, you just avoid. The first requires caring and effort, the second is simple logistics.

[PastryGoddess]

The point of "that is an interesting assumption" is that it is NOT intended to be snarky. It is a neutral statement, meant to disengage. If that's "hyperdefensive", I dont' know what you'd call someone saying straight out, "I'm not a drug dealer, and I find what you said offensive." A declaration of war, perhaps?

If you know enough from this site to consider it snarky, you should know enough to not to be commenting on other people's medical conditions, nor accusing people you don't know, even in jest, of being felons. If I have to carry medication around with me, I don't want to have to be defending myself against accusations of being a drug dealer (and however hilarious you find that, there actually are drug dealers out there, and people can easily find themselves accused for real of being one if they don't take steps to counteract gossip).

I find it very strange that the person who makes the offensive remark in the first place is entitled to storm off raging because they were told, simply, "that's an interesting assumption". That, to me, is "the crazy" that I would be happy not to engage.

"It was just a joke," is the feeblest excuse that can be given for being obnoxious to other people. If you then get your nose out of joint because someone tries a disengage statement on you, you're the one who is hyperdefensive. You should be apologizing for your actions, not raging because, oh my goodness, someone didn't appreciate your humour.

POD to Twik

Those comments seemed to be deliberately provocative for no apparent reason.

[Twik]

As to the "storming off raging," I'd say proclaiming as one poster did that she would assume it meant the speaker "hated her," and other people said it meant the speaker was "crazy". You consider refusing to ever speak to the person again is pretty much storming off in a snit.

Honestly - if you happen by mistake to make a joke that a stranger doesn't like, and they respond this way, the polite thing is to apologize for your mistake. It`s no big deal, b utI can`t see why people feel it`s ok to offend someone else, but that if they indicate they`re offended, they`re the villain in the piece.

There is a huge, huge difference between feeling that someone hates you (or your sense of humour) ...

Well, I would say someone who gets out of "that's an interesting assumption" that that person hates them, or, even worse, that the person is "crazy" because they dislike being accused of a felony, is making some pretty interesting assumptions of their own.

Does your sense of humour *really* involve prying into other people's medical conditions, and expecting them to think it's funny? Because that's what this person did. No one should have to justify their medication to strangers, and if the joker gets all huffy and offended rather than simply apologizing for being annoying, that's their etiquette blunder, not the person who chose not to fake laughter.

I find it interesting that you sympathize with a person who (a) meddled in a stranger's medical condition, and (2) when told that the pills were medicine, announced "there's no way you could use all of those". To me, "interesting assumption" is the *least* I would have to say to someone that obnoxious. Maybe, indeed, I would "hate" them (or at least, their behaviour). And I think I would be justified.

[RingTailedLemur]

As to the "storming off raging," I'd say proclaiming as one poster did that she would assume it meant the speaker "hated her," and other people said it meant the speaker was "crazy". You consider refusing to ever speak to the person again is pretty much storming off in a snit.

Honestly - if you happen by mistake to make a joke that a stranger doesn't like, and they respond this way, the polite thing is to apologize for your mistake. It`s no big deal, b utI can`t see why people feel it`s ok to offend someone else, but that if they indicate they`re offended, they`re the villain in the piece.

There is a huge, huge difference between feeling that someone hates you (or your sense of humour) ...

Well, I would say someone who gets out of "that's an interesting assumption" that that person hates them, or, even worse, that the person is "crazy" because they dislike being accused of a felony, is making some pretty interesting assumptions of their own.

Does your sense of humour *really* involve prying into other people's medical conditions, and expecting them to think it's funny? Because that's what this person did. No one should have to justify their medication to strangers, and if the joker gets all huffy and offended rather than simply apologizing for being annoying, that's their etiquette blunder, not the person who chose not to fake laughter.

I find it interesting that you sympathize with a person who (a) meddled in a stranger's medical condition, and (2) when told that the pills were medicine, announced "there's no way you could use all of those". To me, "interesting assumption" is the *least* I would have to say to someone that obnoxious. Maybe, indeed, I would "hate" them (or at least, their behaviour). And I think I would be justified.

POD.  It's no different to the "cane" and "handicap spot/placard" threads we have had here.

[Deetee]

As to the "storming off raging," I'd say proclaiming as one poster did that she would assume it meant the speaker "hated her," and other people said it meant the speaker was "crazy". You consider refusing to ever speak to the person again is pretty much storming off in a snit.

Honestly - if you happen by mistake to make a joke that a stranger doesn't like, and they respond this way, the polite thing is to apologize for your mistake. It`s no big deal, b utI can`t see why people feel it`s ok to offend someone else, but that if they indicate they`re offended, they`re the villain in the piece.

There is a huge, huge difference between feeling that someone hates you (or your sense of humour) ...

Well, I would say someone who gets out of "that's an interesting assumption" that that person hates them, or, even worse, that the person is "crazy" because they dislike being accused of a felony, is making some pretty interesting assumptions of their own.

Does your sense of humour *really* involve prying into other people's medical conditions, and expecting them to think it's funny? Because that's what this person did. No one should have to justify their medication to strangers, and if the joker gets all huffy and offended rather than simply apologizing for being annoying, that's their etiquette blunder, not the person who chose not to fake laughter.

I find it interesting that you sympathize with a person who (a) meddled in a stranger's medical condition, and (2) when told that the pills were medicine, announced "there's no way you could use all of those". To me, "interesting assumption" is the *least* I would have to say to someone that obnoxious. Maybe, indeed, I would "hate" them (or at least, their behaviour). And I think I would be justified.

I responded to a small part of the quote only in post 39, but please do read post 31 where I put down the disclaimers, groundwork to my discussion because you are reading in way too much and ascribing me motivations and sympathies that are becoming insulting.

But if I need to be clearer, no, I don't run around making fun of peoples medical conditions. I think that is an unpleasant and cruel thing to do. I also don't trip people who have canes and have rarely stomped on cute kittens or made prank bomb threats. Because those are not nice.

My feelings and sympathies that you are describing with  ONLY ONLY apply in the situation I outlined several times and I have been very clear about the situation outlined by Black Magdelene (where she has clarified her feelings) and that she used it correctly to get the response she wanted.

In one of my current friendships, I was asked if I could design special  drugs for them about 2 minutes after meeting them, (a much more significant crime) but somehow that was recognised by both of us as simply amusing banter.

[Twik]

Do you, then, never make a mistake and make a joke that, though innocent to you, may annoy or hurt someone else? Because if I made a joke, and got the "interesting assumption" comment, my thought would be, "Oh, I put a foot wrong there. Better apologize, and move on." Not "Wow, that person HATES me, and is probably crazy. I'd better never speak to her again."

Even with the best of intentions, people make mistakes in humour*, but getting offended because people react to those mistakes in a mildly negative way strikes me as blaming the victim.

*For example, if your friend repeatedly asks strangers for designer drugs, they may one day ask a recovering addict, or someone who recently lost a friend to an overdose, or someone who is on probation for a drug offence and hopes no one knows. That's part of the risk with making those sorts of jokes with people you don't know. You assume that if the person asked says, quietly, "that's an interesting assumption," that the rudeness is on them, and I do not agree with that.