Author Topic: Snarky or guilty conscience?  (Read 7157 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6747
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2014, 03:27:50 PM »
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.

shhh its me

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2014, 03:42:47 PM »
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I agree there isn't , on its own.  I think its possible it was "off" for MIL and DIL may have noticed what was "wrong" with the pics after the comment was made.  I am conceding this is unlikely. 

A PA response to a snub is still PA.  Say the DIL was mad and deleted all the pics of her MIL or out of anger chose not to include them I agree thats childish and hurtful but its also DIL's FB page she doesn't have to include her MIL.  If someone doesn't want to include you "make" them want to include you or even tell them you are hurt. 

MIL was PA (since MIL is the person by proxy asking the question) MIL knows how she meant her comment she doesn't really need to ask. " I meant this to be PA but if you don't know the facts it looks totally innocent , right?" (I know this is not how she phrase the question but I beliave its likely this is the actually question she was asking)" I don't think is a polite concept.   It's a totally different question then " I was hurt but really trying to be cheerful, does this seem snarky to you?".  I do believe people can be PA without unconsciously . 
 

If DIL was asking my first question would be "why wasn't MIL in any of the pics".  I'd follow with "well that was mean*." and "yes she was PA."

* assuming the answer wasn't "I knew MIL wasn't in the pics but everyone of her had something wrong with it."/ "the pics of her were on someone else camera/phone" etc.   

mj

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 571
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2014, 05:58:14 PM »
I have bit of a different take, I don't think "excluded" from pictures is the right word or phrase, because MIL was not.  She was not asked to step out of the pictures or deliberately not taken a photo of, the photos just were not posted to her DILs facebook page.

Since there were 20 people there, it seems like looking to make sure the other 19 were represented in DILs pictures seems like a very intense interest and somewhat obsessive.  It would be different had the MIL said "I wasn't in any of the posted pictures" to the OP, but what it is coming across is saying that she was *excluded* therefore she went and looked through 70 pictures to make sure that the other 19 participants were in someway represented.  That's a LOT of time and effort for something that is on anothers page.

On another note, she could have just asked for some pictures of her if they meant that much, she really didn't have to comb through her DILs pictures to make sure 19 other people were in them and then exclaim she was *excluded* which makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is, the only thing that she did not get was pictures of herself on her DILs facebook page.  Her behavior to this as described is seriously overkill in my books and I can see myself saying the same thing as the DIL here to my husband, it is snarky and very passive aggressive.  If you are that upset, you could contact your son to get the pictures.  It's clear from what she told the OP was not about getting pictures but about being represented on her DILs facebook page, that is very controlling to me.

mj

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 571
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2014, 06:02:03 PM »
OP, here.  Just to clarify, as this was a conversation between DF and I, I don't know if she had a comma there or not.  I just typed one while posting this.  But no, there was no conversation between DF and her DIL about any pictures.  DF commented when she first saw them and was aware of them. 

It may have been an accident but I personally find it a little hard to believe that out of 70 pictures, not one had DF in them.  Not even group shots.  If it was something like 10 or 20, I would find it more believable.  But I don't know for a fact she did it intentionally.   My take on it was more along the lines of lowspark's and maybe her DIL felt she was called on her behavior (whether that was the intention or not, according to DF, it wasn't) and did not like it.

I'm not sure how anyone could be called out on this and any attempts to will be seen poorly, imo.  This would be similar as to a MIL making remarks about not being in photos that the DIL displayed in her home, the MIL simply has no ownership over what the DIL puts on her own facebook page.  None.  So to attempt to call out is going to be seen as snarky or passive-aggressive, you cannot control another adults decisions in these matters.

Arila

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 665
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2014, 06:08:20 PM »
Along the lines of MJ, I can see that DIL might have only posted/taken photos with her or her husband in them. If there is tension between one/both of them and Friend, Friend might not have been in any of the photos taken with them, even if she was in some of the ones taken by/with the other 18 people there.


Question:
Has Friend ever un-tagged herself or asked DIL to remove or not post photos of her? If so, DIL might be feeling a little "Damned if I do, damned if I don't" about it.

LifeOnPluto

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6450
    • Blog
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2014, 06:07:44 AM »
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.

I must be dense, because I don't see anything snarky about it either.

I'm guessing that perhaps there's a lot of "history" between the OP's friend and her DIL that we don't know about?


Owly

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2014, 08:50:47 AM »
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.

I must be dense, because I don't see anything snarky about it either.

I'm guessing that perhaps there's a lot of "history" between the OP's friend and her DIL that we don't know about?

Because she doesn't think it's "very nice". She's upset that the photos of her were left off. The message she's sending is "I'm not one of your loved ones", except she's using rather passive aggressive sarcasm to get her point across instead of directly addressing her hurt feelings.

You can argue that the snark is justified, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

auntmeegs

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3152
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2014, 09:21:58 AM »
My feeling on it is that if you behave badly (and assuming that the OPís friend is not toxic, I consider purposely not including your MIL in a single photo out of dozens at a family event, pretty nasty behavior), then you are inviting snarky comments and you should not be surprised when you receive them.  The fact that she identified the comments are snarky is, IMO, proof that she did it on purpose.  And thatís just really mean. 

lowspark

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3669
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2014, 09:58:58 AM »
OP, here.  Just to clarify, as this was a conversation between DF and I, I don't know if she had a comma there or not.  I just typed one while posting this.  But no, there was no conversation between DF and her DIL about any pictures.  DF commented when she first saw them and was aware of them. 

It may have been an accident but I personally find it a little hard to believe that out of 70 pictures, not one had DF in them.  Not even group shots.  If it was something like 10 or 20, I would find it more believable.  But I don't know for a fact she did it intentionally.   My take on it was more along the lines of lowspark's and maybe her DIL felt she was called on her behavior (whether that was the intention or not, according to DF, it wasn't) and did not like it.

I just reread this post. And it suddenly occurred to me that not only does the OP not know whether there was a comma or not, the OP may not really know the exact quote. Since this was told to the OP in a conversation, I gotta wonder if the friend sort of paraphrased her comment in the nicest possible light.

OP, any way you can see the exact quote? I don't use facebook so I don't know how it all works but I'd be curious to know the exact wording of the comment your friend made.

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5610
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #69 on: February 12, 2014, 10:03:46 AM »
I have bit of a different take, I don't think "excluded" from pictures is the right word or phrase, because MIL was not.  She was not asked to step out of the pictures or deliberately not taken a photo of, the photos just were not posted to her DILs facebook page.

Since there were 20 people there, it seems like looking to make sure the other 19 were represented in DILs pictures seems like a very intense interest and somewhat obsessive.  It would be different had the MIL said "I wasn't in any of the posted pictures" to the OP, but what it is coming across is saying that she was *excluded* therefore she went and looked through 70 pictures to make sure that the other 19 participants were in someway represented.  That's a LOT of time and effort for something that is on anothers page.

On another note, she could have just asked for some pictures of her if they meant that much, she really didn't have to comb through her DILs pictures to make sure 19 other people were in them and then exclaim she was *excluded* which makes it out to be a bigger deal than it is, the only thing that she did not get was pictures of herself on her DILs facebook page.  Her behavior to this as described is seriously overkill in my books and I can see myself saying the same thing as the DIL here to my husband, it is snarky and very passive aggressive.  If you are that upset, you could contact your son to get the pictures.  It's clear from what she told the OP was not about getting pictures but about being represented on her DILs facebook page, that is very controlling to me.
I agree with this.  I am not certain what the MIL was trying to accomplish.  Her behavior in "calling out" DIL did nothing to improve relations between them, and probably contributed to the decay of the relationship.  MIL doesn't want photos from the event, or she would either have taken her own or asked for a copy of the photo.  MIL wants to "prove" that DIL is treating her shabbily, which....well, if DIL is treating her shabbily, calling her out like that isn't going to improve things and if this was simply an oversight it isn't going to help either.  I see MIL as simply wanting to feed the drama, which is something I personally do not have time for.

Winterlight

  • On the internet, no one can tell you're a dog- arf.
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9665
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2014, 10:46:09 AM »
I think that it's entirely possible that a photo of MIL was left out accidentally. I think MIL took a PA dig at DIL. I think they both need to step back and cool down.

And I've been the one person who was left off of a FB pic post- the pictures were in another camera and hadn't been processed yet. You all talked me down from getting upset!
If wisdomís ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care,
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak,
And how, and when, and where.
Caroline Lake Ingalls

wolfie

  • I don't know what this is so I am putting random words here
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6747
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2014, 10:48:06 AM »
I guess I just don't get what's snarky about "Very nice, pictures of your friends and loved ones" (with or without the comma) if she actually were included in the pictures.

I don't see what was snarky about if she is excluded. It seems like a simple statement of fact to me.

I must be dense, because I don't see anything snarky about it either.

I'm guessing that perhaps there's a lot of "history" between the OP's friend and her DIL that we don't know about?

Because she doesn't think it's "very nice". She's upset that the photos of her were left off. The message she's sending is "I'm not one of your loved ones", except she's using rather passive aggressive sarcasm to get her point across instead of directly addressing her hurt feelings.

You can argue that the snark is justified, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The problem with using passive aggressive sarcasm is that not everyone understands it. If you posted that one a post on my wall I would just cheerfully agree with you because it is true and wouldn't even think you were trying to tell me anything at all.

shhh its me

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2014, 11:01:22 AM »


The problem with using passive aggressive sarcasm is that not everyone understands it. If you posted that one a post on my wall I would just cheerfully agree with you because it is true and wouldn't even think you were trying to tell me anything at all.

That's not the problem ,well at least not the big one.  With PA statements you are trying to make a person feel something negative(hurt , shame , guilt etc) , then when they say "that hurt "  you get to say "what? why? that was pleasant comment." *innocent maybe even wounded expression*

If the receiver doesn't get it it only frustrates the PA person , which I don't see as a problem.

Coley

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1106
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2014, 12:34:51 PM »


The problem with using passive aggressive sarcasm is that not everyone understands it. If you posted that one a post on my wall I would just cheerfully agree with you because it is true and wouldn't even think you were trying to tell me anything at all.

That's not the problem ,well at least not the big one.  With PA statements you are trying to make a person feel something negative(hurt , shame , guilt etc) , then when they say "that hurt "  you get to say "what? why? that was pleasant comment." *innocent maybe even wounded expression*

If the receiver doesn't get it it only frustrates the PA person , which I don't see as a problem.

POD. The bolded is called "gaslighting," and it's one of the hallmarks of the toxic relationship.

Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4702
    • This Is It
Re: Snarky or guilty conscience?
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2014, 04:01:41 PM »
My feeling on it is that if you behave badly (and assuming that the OPís friend is not toxic, I consider purposely not including your MIL in a single photo out of dozens at a family event, pretty nasty behavior), then you are inviting snarky comments and you should not be surprised when you receive them.  The fact that she identified the comments are snarky is, IMO, proof that she did it on purpose.  And thatís just really mean.

If I'm uploading photos from an event I pick my favourite shots, and ones of myself.   It's my Facebook.   I don't see it as a public service or something I owe my guests, and I certainly don't sit there checking that there's at least one photo of everybody who attended.    Yes, if it's a deliberate slight it's a bit mean, but I think it's more likely unconscious.   I don't think it's nasty.
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"