Pet peeve

[sessifet]

Please don't start shouting 'But it was worse 30 years ago!'; 'But there are worse problems in the world!'; 'Some people are worse off!' when people are ranting about large (or sometimes even small) things.

It does not make you look adult or wise. It makes you look like you don't give a rat's arse about what's eating the other party. It's patting them on the head and going 'Yes dear. The world is unfair. Now go play.'. It solves nothing and is rather insulting. (Also? I wish to introduce to a friend of mine. He is called Oscar the Ostrich. Say hi.)

So what if it's better now than it was 30 years ago? Does it mean there aren't some legitimate concerns right now? Stuff that needs to be addressed before it all blows up?

So what if there are worse problems in the world? Because people are dying of thirst and hunger all over the world means we shouldn't be fed up with and rant about the shitty situation at home?

So what if some people are worse off? Because there are people out there in the world who can't walk, I'm not allowed to rant and rave and yes bloody well whinge about the fact my hip just went 'klunk' again and it now feels like someone has inserted a red-hot dinner plate under my skin?

Fuck that. With sparkles. And a cherry on top. And those cool sparkly fireworks.

If you don't agree with someone's whinge/rant/whatever, then get into a reasoned discussion, by all means. But don't be an insulting twatmuffin and dismiss the issue out of hand because 'It could be worse.'/'Others aren't as fortunate.'/'You still have your health.'.

Comments

[supermouse.livejournal.com]

In discussions of feminism, I've been taught that 'but what about women in Iran' is a common shut-down technique for discussions of sexism at home. There are others, but what you cite is a strong one. I'm not sure if it's actually a logical fallacy, the fallacy of diminishing by comparison or something, but it's certainly a shut-up technique.

[purplepooka.livejournal.com]

< nods > It is that...
What those who use it fail to take into account is it's especially insulting to women in Iran, as it assumes a)they can't fight their own fight and need us to leave ours and do it for them and b)they wouldn't see our fight as being also important, and in fact part of the same fight, because patriarchy is a global deal. In fact, it's our patriarchs who are threatening to go and bomb them to save them from oppression from theirs.

[supermouse.livejournal.com]

Both excellent points I'll remember later, but I don't know if Sessifet is going to thank us for arguing a hot topic in her blog, so if you don't mind, I'll leave it there.

Having glanced at your own LJ, do you mind if I friend you?

[purplepooka.livejournal.com]

Please do :-)

And sorry, Sessifet.

[sessifet25.livejournal.com]

That's okay. Discussions of hot topics are allowed and welcomed, as long as people stay civilised and don't end up shouting at each other (well, in my journal, that is.). :)

[dmwcarol.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about 99% - if no-one bothered to complain no-one would ever do anything to make things better. So if people hadn't complained 30 years ago things would still be like they were then. Complaining and then acting on the complaints is a good thing, complaining because you've had enough and just need to vent before you can face getting on with things is also good and valid practise.

However, there does come a point when complaining becomes tedious and irritating and grounds for a reality check - certain people spend their whole lives moaning about things and using that as an excuse to achieve nothing and I really wish they would just stop it. Annoying or not I'd be inclined to fob those types with platitudes just to get em to talk about something different for once.

[swaldman.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, with an important "but":
When it comes to allocating resources to problems, one does have to take a more focussed attitude.

My favourite example, and the basis of a pet rant: rail safety. I apologise in advance if this drifts from the topic.

Every so often - fortunately rarely - there is a major rail accident. Typically 30-60 people may be killed in the one event, and so it becomes a major news story. Governments get drawn in by the media interest, pressure groups are set up by the victims, and before you know it people are talking about spending billions of pounds on upgrading railway safety systems.

At this point in the conversation I usually come along and point out that that many people are killed EVERY WEEK on Britain's roads, and that using that money to improve road safety would be a far more efficient investment in terms of lives per pound.
As I see it, I am being the person who says "But there are worse problems elsewhere". I can see how some people see this as being inhumane, or devaluing the lives lost on the train, or whatever.

In a world of unlimited resources then of course we should improve road and rail safety. In a world of fixed resources we should do the more efficient.
In a question where there are no limited resources available[1], then both problems are equally valid, and as such I agree with you.


[1] And for the purposes of this discussion I count listening time, hugs and sympathy as unlimited, on the basis that most (not all people) have spare reserves of at least the latter two.

[purplepooka.livejournal.com]

I know your pet peeve well... I think it sometimes wanders in through my cat-flap, and I feed it scraps.