Author Topic: You don't like that.  (Read 6811 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheBardess

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 660
  • I would not, could not with a goat...
    • Books in My Head
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2013, 10:04:13 AM »
It's interesting to see how people have taken this. 

BIL reacted to DH's "new" allergy/diet extremely defensively. All three of us were surprised he said anything like that at all, since it was completely unprompted in regards to the conversation, and with a "You stupid, I know you better than you!" tone of voice. DH's reply and tone were pretty mild considering.  I didn't want to get into the underlying cause, as it might not be relevant, but maybe I should? There's been family drama recently that we thought prompted the statement, but it has nothing to do with food.

I just thought is was amusing enough to post. I guess that was pretty stupid, but if that wasn't the time to say those exact words, well, I don't know what would have been.

That time would be when someone actually makes an "interesting" and completely rude and unwarranted assumption. That's not what happened here. Your BIL may have been defensive (and I do think his comment was not entirely polite), but it wasn't at all an unreasonable thing to assume, based on past experience.

I'll be honest- I think the term "interesting assumption" gets thrown around a lot here and used for a lot of situations where it doesn't really apply. As I said above, an assumption can be wrong, but still be a logical and reasonable thing to assume. For example- sometimes at church, someone might see me take communion and then head towards the back of the church instead of returning to my pew. They might then assume that I was ducking out of church early, before the Mass had actually ended. Their assumption would be wrong- what I would actually be doing would be going back to head up to the choir loft because I play in the handbell choir and we are playing the post-communion hymn that day- but it would not be "interesting" or unwarranted. It would actually be a perfectly logical thing to assume, because most people who don't return to their pew after communion *are* ducking out of Mass a little early.

To my mind, an "interesting assumption" is one that assumes the worst or most sordid motives based on no or very flimsy evidence. For example- assuming, based simply on the fact that the kid has different colored eyes than the parents, that the wife must be having an affair and her husband is not the father. Sure, that could be the case, but you have no other evidence to support it, and a genetic anomaly or an adopted child are just as reasonable explanations for which you have just as much evidence.
"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies DO divert me, I own- and I laugh at them whenever I can." -Jane Austen

Literary Adventures! http://thebooksinmyhead.blogspot.com

TheBardess

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 660
  • I would not, could not with a goat...
    • Books in My Head
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2013, 10:06:17 AM »
It's interesting to see how people have taken this. 

BIL reacted to DH's "new" allergy/diet extremely defensively. All three of us were surprised he said anything like that at all, since it was completely unprompted in regards to the conversation, and with a "You stupid, I know you better than you!" tone of voice. DH's reply and tone were pretty mild considering.  I didn't want to get into the underlying cause, as it might not be relevant, but maybe I should? There's been family drama recently that we thought prompted the statement, but it has nothing to do with food.

I just thought is was amusing enough to post. I guess that was pretty stupid, but if that wasn't the time to say those exact words, well, I don't know what would have been.

In reading your original post, my first thought was "it wasn't an assumption, comment was based on experience." But then I wondered if BILs comment was made in a tone to dissuade your DH from trying it.
Unless the OP's husband stated he didn't like chickpeas it was an assumption. A comment based on experience means that you see the person not eating something and assume that means they don't like it. Not necessarily. Maybe the "experience" includes hearing the person actually profess a dislike for the something in question And you might be wrong. For example I avoid curry so you would naturally assume I don't like it. But I love it - I think it tastes great - it just makes me spend all night in the bathroom. So telling me that I don't like curry is not a statement of fact just because you never see me eat it No, it's not a statement of fact, but if people notice that you always avoid curry, it is not unreasonable to assume it's because you don't like it. They might be wrong in that assumption, but it's a perfectly logical assumption to make and not "interesting" in the slightest..
"Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies DO divert me, I own- and I laugh at them whenever I can." -Jane Austen

Literary Adventures! http://thebooksinmyhead.blogspot.com

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6362
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2013, 10:14:26 AM »
It's interesting to see how people have taken this. 

BIL reacted to DH's "new" allergy/diet extremely defensively. All three of us were surprised he said anything like that at all, since it was completely unprompted in regards to the conversation, and with a "You stupid, I know you better than you!" tone of voice. DH's reply and tone were pretty mild considering.  I didn't want to get into the underlying cause, as it might not be relevant, but maybe I should? There's been family drama recently that we thought prompted the statement, but it has nothing to do with food.

I just thought is was amusing enough to post. I guess that was pretty stupid, but if that wasn't the time to say those exact words, well, I don't know what would have been.

In reading your original post, my first thought was "it wasn't an assumption, comment was based on experience." But then I wondered if BILs comment was made in a tone to dissuade your DH from trying it.
Unless the OP's husband stated he didn't like chickpeas it was an assumption. A comment based on experience means that you see the person not eating something and assume that means they don't like it. Not necessarily. Maybe the "experience" includes hearing the person actually profess a dislike for the something in question And you might be wrong. For example I avoid curry so you would naturally assume I don't like it. But I love it - I think it tastes great - it just makes me spend all night in the bathroom. So telling me that I don't like curry is not a statement of fact just because you never see me eat it No, it's not a statement of fact, but if people notice that you always avoid curry, it is not unreasonable to assume it's because you don't like it. They might be wrong in that assumption, but it's a perfectly logical assumption to make and not "interesting" in the slightest..

I wasn't responding to the interesting part - what I quoted says "it wasn't an assumption - it was based on experience" and that isn't true. It was an assumption - it might be a logical one but it is an assumption none the less. I think in that case asking "I thought you didn't like curry" is much less offensive then stating it as a fact "you don't like curry". One shows that you noticed I don't eat it and my eating it now confuses you, the other shows that you think I don't know myself as well as you do and invalidates my own experiences.

Hmmmmm

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6096
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2013, 10:27:24 AM »
It's interesting to see how people have taken this. 

BIL reacted to DH's "new" allergy/diet extremely defensively. All three of us were surprised he said anything like that at all, since it was completely unprompted in regards to the conversation, and with a "You stupid, I know you better than you!" tone of voice. DH's reply and tone were pretty mild considering.  I didn't want to get into the underlying cause, as it might not be relevant, but maybe I should? There's been family drama recently that we thought prompted the statement, but it has nothing to do with food.

I just thought is was amusing enough to post. I guess that was pretty stupid, but if that wasn't the time to say those exact words, well, I don't know what would have been.

In reading your original post, my first thought was "it wasn't an assumption, comment was based on experience." But then I wondered if BILs comment was made in a tone to dissuade your DH from trying it.
Unless the OP's husband stated he didn't like chickpeas it was an assumption. A comment based on experience means that you see the person not eating something and assume that means they don't like it. Not necessarily. Maybe the "experience" includes hearing the person actually profess a dislike for the something in question And you might be wrong. For example I avoid curry so you would naturally assume I don't like it. But I love it - I think it tastes great - it just makes me spend all night in the bathroom. So telling me that I don't like curry is not a statement of fact just because you never see me eat it No, it's not a statement of fact, but if people notice that you always avoid curry, it is not unreasonable to assume it's because you don't like it. They might be wrong in that assumption, but it's a perfectly logical assumption to make and not "interesting" in the slightest..

I wasn't responding to the interesting part - what I quoted says "it wasn't an assumption - it was based on experience" and that isn't true. It was an assumption - it might be a logical one but it is an assumption none the less. I think in that case asking "I thought you didn't like curry" is much less offensive then stating it as a fact "you don't like curry". One shows that you noticed I don't eat it and my eating it now confuses you, the other shows that you think I don't know myself as well as you do and invalidates my own experiences.
Wolfie, you don't know that. The husband could have stated in the past he doesn't like chickpeas, or I don't like peas of any kind. As siblings I would think the brother had some knowledge of what his brother liked or why even make the comment in the first place.

I have a BIL doesn't eat seafood. If he suddenly told me "my new favorite restaurant is The Fish Place" I might respond  "What? But you don't like seafood." I'm not making an unfounded assumption. He has not eaten seafood for the last 25 years and not because of an allergy. I would find a response similar to that of the OPs DH as odd. Instead I would expect him to say "my tastes have changed."

Miss Tickle

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2013, 01:20:02 PM »
Arg. I didn't want this to turn into one of those threads where the OP keeps adding info to confirm the bias of their position, so I'll just get it out.  DH likes chickpeas, but since their MOTHER never made anything with chickpeas in it, DH couldn't possibly like them.  This has nothing to do with DH changing an established protocol.

1) "People" include a couple of guys at DH's work who saw him go from pastas and sandwiches to bento and remarked that DH doesn't like sushi. Someone else told him he can't eat a wrap because tortillas are wheat, but it was a corn one (not so good for wraps, btw). Another told him he must hate being stuck eating raw veggies now. DH has always preferred raw over cooked veg. Just silly things like that. DH calls them the Food Police sometimes.  If it hadn't been for this incident, these comments wouldn't have even hit my radar.

2) DH and his brother are not close. We maintain a relationship for the sake of his father, but have never, in 23 years together, been invited to BIL's home for dinner (or any other meal for that matter). This is the first time we've had BIL over in at least a decade.  We used to host BIL at about once a month and he never declined, but never reciprocated, so we just stopped inviting him. Lately our shared meals have either been at his father's home or at a restaurant of his father's choice and at most two or three times a year. Prior to my IL's divorce 90% of our shared meals were at my IL's and 90% of those were exactly the same. MIL is not a great cook, so DH had a reputation in his family of being "picky". She was not impressed he would eat my (fill-in-the-blank) and not hers. For years I had to listen to her say to him - You don't like this, you've never eaten that, don't you like my (whatever) better, tell your wife to learn to cook the things you like rather than that stuff, who makes (whatever) at home anyway, it's better in the restaurants.

3)  This dinner was instigated by my BIL in order to get face time with DH so he could pressure DH into going with BIL and MIL on a trip to Europe this fall. A trip I'm specifically not invited on because it's for "family" only. When it became clear DH wasn't going to change his mind things turned sour. The whole set up was just that, a set up, and in hindsight we should have declined hosting. If it wasn't this then it would have been something else.  BIL is MIL's enforcer and wanted to show DH that "Family knows best" and I'm not family. There's a whole other part about the timing of trip I won't get into now.

4) Another part was guilt, I think. DH suffered with extreme eczema his whole life. He used to have mittens taped to his hands at night and be wrapped in saran wrap to keep him from peeling his skin off. MIL was a nurse, but she never had him tested for allergies because she didn't believe in them. She's the kind of person who would sneak gluten into a meal to "prove" DH was lying/wrong/faking. I don't know that BIL saw DH's arms last time they were together back in January, but this time DH was in short sleeves and it was obvious the lesions and cracks were completely gone. It felt like BIL was angry that DH had changed for the better so he lashed out.

I thought I'd edited most of the toxicity out of the evening, but it obviously bled through. Perhaps that was the wrong way to go about it. I told DH that some of "The 'Lions" (as we refer to you) suggested he could have chosen a less aggressive phrase.  He agreed, but assured me that compared to what he would have said a few years ago to someone dissing his wife, he felt he did very well.

If I can clear anything else up, please let me know.

MrsJWine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8748
  • I have an excessive fondness for parentheses.
    • Wallydraigle
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2013, 10:34:42 PM »
The backstory completely changes the situation. I think "What an interesting assumption" is snotty and rude most of the time. Sometimes it's warranted, but most of the time it just seems like a way to be rude with EHell approval.

In my family, I have a good relationship with my siblings. We joke around and can say things to each other that no one else can. We get under each others' skin like no one else can, but we also never *really* fight. We're (mostly :)) kind to each other, but formal etiquette and guarded speech are not a part of our interactions.

If I suddenly started serving myself fish at a family dinner, all of their heads would explode simultaneously. It would not be rude or weird or an interesting assumption to blurt out, "But you hate fish!" or, if the main ingredient weren't obvious, for one of them to say, "You don't like that!" before I put it in my mouth. I do hate fish. I have hated fish since I was a toddler. If I were the head of a family in Game of Thrones, our words would be, "Fish is the worst."

While I know that not all people have the same relationship with their siblings as I do, adversarial relationship are not the norm. It's not obvious that there's something behind BIL's statement that makes it more rude than it seemed at first. So that was essential information that got left out. In fact, it would be an interesting assumption to put more meaning into it than was given.

Knowing the backstory changes my opinion about this particular instance, but as it was originally posted, given a normal, healthy sibling relationship, it really seemed like an over the top response to a perfectly natural reaction.


I have a blog.  I hate that word.


Utah

cross_patch

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #36 on: May 05, 2013, 05:33:15 AM »
The backstory completely changes the situation. I think "What an interesting assumption" is snotty and rude most of the time. Sometimes it's warranted, but most of the time it just seems like a way to be rude with EHell approval.

In my family, I have a good relationship with my siblings. We joke around and can say things to each other that no one else can. We get under each others' skin like no one else can, but we also never *really* fight. We're (mostly :)) kind to each other, but formal etiquette and guarded speech are not a part of our interactions.

If I suddenly started serving myself fish at a family dinner, all of their heads would explode simultaneously. It would not be rude or weird or an interesting assumption to blurt out, "But you hate fish!" or, if the main ingredient weren't obvious, for one of them to say, "You don't like that!" before I put it in my mouth. I do hate fish. I have hated fish since I was a toddler. If I were the head of a family in Game of Thrones, our words would be, "Fish is the worst."

While I know that not all people have the same relationship with their siblings as I do, adversarial relationship are not the norm. It's not obvious that there's something behind BIL's statement that makes it more rude than it seemed at first. So that was essential information that got left out. In fact, it would be an interesting assumption to put more meaning into it than was given.

Knowing the backstory changes my opinion about this particular instance, but as it was originally posted, given a normal, healthy sibling relationship, it really seemed like an over the top response to a perfectly natural reaction.

So I hate to be the person who just follows people around agreeing with them without actually contributing, but this is just really perfect - sums up the situation exactly. I completely agree about investing assumption being snarky and I have to say, pretty overused in most situations. The missing information would have provided the necessary context.

Mental Magpie

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4835
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #37 on: May 05, 2013, 09:51:20 PM »
I think your DH did a lot better than I would have.   My immediate response would have been, "Apparently I do or I wouldn't be eating it right now" said in an almost "asking" rather than "telling" voice.  Now, had BIL said, "I didn't think you like that," my response would have probably been an upbeat, "I always thought I didn't either but I actually gave it a try and now I love it!  Who'd've thunk?"
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7623
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #38 on: May 05, 2013, 10:03:10 PM »
I've only used the words "That's an interesting assumption" out loud once in my whole life and I said it with a smile.  I certainly don't think it was snotty, snooty, rude or anything else negative.

I would assume that the OP's husband did the same.  That line CAN be delivered politely and even gently, you know.  Miss Tickle, I think your husband did fine and I thought so even before reading the back story.  Having now added that into my thought process, I think even more so your husband should be commended for his quick and appropriate use of the phrase!!

WillyNilly

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7490
  • Mmmmm, food
    • The World as I Taste It
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #39 on: May 05, 2013, 10:47:51 PM »
I think on an etiquette board its pretty ungracious to assume the OP is proudly telling a story where someone used the "interesting assumption" line with a snooty tone, as a response to a light-hearted comment. Sure we all had to assume some tone in the exchange, but considering the OP was proud, I personally assumed if any nasty tone were involved it was from the BIL, while her DH kept it light and simple and just shut down the nastiness (which is what the line is for... and which is what the OP came back and clarified was the actual case).

Seems like many people here made the interesting assumption themselves the BIL was jovial and upbeat while the DH was harsh and snippy  :(

enjoIi

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2013, 06:27:53 AM »
I think on an etiquette board its pretty ungracious to assume the OP is proudly telling a story where someone used the "interesting assumption" line with a snooty tone, as a response to a light-hearted comment. Sure we all had to assume some tone in the exchange, but considering the OP was proud, I personally assumed if any nasty tone were involved it was from the BIL, while her DH kept it light and simple and just shut down the nastiness (which is what the line is for... and which is what the OP came back and clarified was the actual case).

Seems like many people here made the interesting assumption themselves the BIL was jovial and upbeat while the DH was harsh and snippy  :(

Considering how frequently we get posters who want a pat on the back for rudeness disguised as politeness, and that the OP didn't originally give us a back story to go from, I would say that opinions either way were assumptions.    Whether they were interesting or not is up to the individual reading them.

If the OP had given a clearer background as to why her husband felt the need to respond in such a manner to his brother, then yes, all opinions would most probably been a cheer squad. 

I may be wrong, but I'm sure there have been many posts about making sure you include relevant information, otherwise you will be confused as to why people aren't immediately siding with you.


NyaChan

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3967
Re: You don't like that.
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2013, 10:17:36 AM »
I really just took it as one of those situations when someone randomly uses an ehell phrase without knowing.  As long as he wasn't snarky, I don't think it was rude even if it wasn't precisely correct in terms of it being reasonable or not for the brother to think he didn't like chickpeas.