I get terribly angry.
Do you express that anger verbally or physically?
Neither.
You bottle it all up?
I want to show anger to let the offending party know that their action is immoral. At the same time, I do not want to, because anyone---save the offender---should not suffer from my anger. In fact, I prefer not to get angry, because I don't enjoy it myself.
So, what do you do?
As I said, nothing. I don't slap or stab anyone. I don't blurt out anything on the spot. I don't start talking more because of it, or less, and keep my voice the same.
Hmmm, is that your honest assessment? I think your voice changes and you tend to talk much less. Plus, your face reminds me of how to draw angry cartoon figures.
Let's say I am much better than most people in controlling myself. But apparently, it shows quite a bit, because people around me become tense.
Wasn't humility your credo?
Somebody has to say the truth out loud, especially when... Anyway, it's inconvenient, because even when I contain myself, the gossip version would be that I became angry. And, I can get quite upset over what may be trivial matters to others.
Like people giving you the smallest piece of cake?
I got upset when one person gave me a huge piece, although I asked for a small one. It seems that he thought that was funny. When we talk about dignity, we tend to think that it concerns heavy-duty moral issues. However, we are capable of hurting others' dignity by ignoring, mocking or deriding their wishes, desires, gestures and thoughts.
Does that mean that our dignity could be hurt by reactions to anything we do in our daily lives?
Exactly. It can be as simple as a comment on where you are from, which languages you speak, where you live, etc. I am always amazed how little imagination people seem to have. Some of us have complicated lives, and even seemingly innocent questions should not be posed care-free.
Are we allowed to ask you anything then?
It all depends on how you ask. Talking about manner of presentation, many of the rumors we hear are stripped not only of context, but also of how each line was enunciated. No wonder gossips get juicy as they are passed on.
Incidentally, I heard that you blew up the other day when someone assumed that the weird tasting cookies in a bag with weird characters were your contribution.
I did not blow up, but certainly took offense. The question was, "Did you bring those cookies?", and that in a tone which would have been justified had I brought in a bag of cookies with worms crawling in and out. It looked like she was going to tell me how weird the cookies tasted, had I been the culprit.
It doesn't sound that bad.
I think she should have been appreciative faced with a person whom she thought had made the contribution. She showed zero respect for the good-will gesture. That is already pretty bad, but for me, it was offensive because the description of the package was in characters that she could not read.
Doesn't it mean that she values your linguistic skills?
I give benefit of a doubt, even after all these years of abuses related to off-the-mark assumptions based on my appearance alone. This incident was not an exception to that rule.
What made you think that it was an offense, rather than appreciation?
Her manner of presentation. You see, if this exchange travels along the grapevine, I am sure that it will soon become monstrous, because an important element will be inevitably left out, namely how she articulated the question.
"You know what happened? I simply asked if s/he brought in these goodies, and then..." Like that?
You have already used the more positive word 'goodies,' in place of more neutral 'cookies'!
It was for the purpose of demonstration.
I have my sense of morality, and it tells me that I should be polite to people, including her and the like. Politeness and friendship are two different animals.
Is that why you are considered stuck-up?
I suppose so, and I don't mind at all. What amazes me is that such people engage in hefty rounds of hurting and offending each other and still think they get on well.
For example?
They would lose temper over misplaced items and send nasty notes about it. They even get into a shouting and yelling match.
Isn't it shouting again that is bothering you?
As I may have said before, I don't know any good occasion for yelling except for asking for help in emergency situations. Another thing that I find incomprehensible is that they want some kind of a pecking order and that is established by intimidation and fear.
Isn't there an official hierarchy?
What on earth makes you think that this is all about my work place? Anyway, they follow what the more forceful one says at the expense of the other less forceful ones.
Don't they believe in collective decision making, a pillar of democracy?
Apparently, not. Mind you, if you ask them whether they believe in democracy, the answer would be an astounding 'yes.' Back to the issue of pecking order, if you don't intimidate them, they think you are not confident enough. Further, it amounts to self-acknowledgment on your part that you are not competent enough.
Don't they want to follow the one with the most reasonable opinion or strategy?
That used to be my question, too, until I found out that they don't want to think and they simply want to be told what to do.
They need a forceful person, who is even intimidating, because that is the only way to obtain reassurance that they are doing the right thing, and that without thinking on their own.
That's why I have very little tolerance for non-independent thinkers...
I'd say they have thought enough to realize that an intimidating person would defend them if they pledge allegiance to her/him.
They are so used to the situation that they are unaware of the intimidation-fear equation. The same kind of unawareness must be at work when they think they get along well, although they yell at and insult each other.
You know, ignorance is bliss, and they may be happier than you are.
Let them be!
Hey, it's a happy ending, did you know that? They are happy the way they are, and so are you!
Posts
