You're viewing a single thread.
This is usually a sign they are being nice, they try to emphasize the boundaries twice in a complimentary way.
they are being nice...
Nah they're trying to be nice. Honestly, to me, it reads much more like they aren't even registering that they are a potential romantic partner who is interested in them. It also makes it seem like they were using the guy who made the playlist, which is unlikely to be the actual intent. A more straightforward rejection would be preferable. Being ignored hurts more than being rejected imo. That being said I don't see how you could reject advances in a polite way in this situation.
Btw, have I mentioned how much I love taking funny Internet memes seriously?
Edit: I made an admittedly weird argument that wasn't an argumented well on my part (should have been more about how it can be interpreted differently rather than it being "not nice," whatever that means.) However I'm not a coward, so I'll keep this up. But the argument below is kinda mental, with nothing much to be gleaned, so be warned .
Believe it or not, women are much more likely than men to have platonic friends of the "It took me a couple hours to make this Playlist for you" caliber.
Women aren't stupid, they know what an advance looks like, but they're also not afraid of just being friends like this. Yeah, she was definitely drawing a boundary by mentioning her boyfriend, but she was also saying "I appreciate you in a platonic way" and not just burning that bridge by telling him to fuck off.
Another reason lots of women approach this way is because outright rejection can be actually dangerous, if they see that person in their day to day life.
I personally think dropping the boyfriend card is the right move here if she's not interested. If he knew about her boyfriend, it's his fault for trying to get in there. If he didn't, she's politely letting him know she's taken. Either way, the onus is on him to read the situation, not her to tiptoe around his feelings, and she still left the door open for friendship if he wants that.
It may not seem like it if you identify with the guy being spurned, but she is being nice.
First, there is nothing in the image that indicates that either speaker is of a certain gender.
Second, I was pointing out how it can be read as passive aggressive, not trying to say it wasn't the best course of action. If I comment on someone's funny video/meme/niche internet microblog, "This was unexpectedly funny!" There are both favorable and unfavorable readings of it. I was trying to be nice, it could still be interpreted validly as the opposite.
Third, I don't identify with the sender. I have never tried to engage in romantic relationships, and I'm not interested in doing so now. It is hard to identify with someone who is interested in romantic relationships when you aren't, but I can understand their perspective. If you have ever had a friend who is a straight guy, you can understand how they perceive social ques differently and have different expectations of communication differently than straight women.
However, I agree that this was the best course of action in the situation. Unfortunately, there isn't a nice way of straight forwardly saying, "Hey, I recognize this romantic advance, but that's not what I am looking for in this relationship/I am already in a committed romantic relationship." I think your justification of your argument isn't valid and seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to me saying something slightly against the grain.
First, there is nothing in the image that indicates that either speaker is of a certain gender
Given that the receiver has a boyfriend, it's safe to assume they are a woman. And also, given the context of the post, that regardless of the receiver's gender, the sender is a man, because they are going for that position, the position of boyfriend.
Although you're correct that it isn't specified, it's nitpicking unless you know what the genders are.
I was pointing out how it can be read as passive aggressive
Ok, but in your very example, and this one as well, it's only passive aggressive if you as the reader choose it to be so. It's a pretty good rule of thumb not to take something as passive aggressive unless there's proof that they meant it that way, because that can easily backfire and you'll end up looking like an ass.
If you have ever had a friend who is a straight guy, you can understand how they perceive social ques differently and have different expectations of communication differently than straight women
This is a round-about way of saying that straight guys' expectations of women are primarily romantic in nature. Which is true for a lot of them, but not all of them. There are straight men out there who are capable of being platonic friends with straight women. And more to the point, the ones who aren't capable of that shouldn't expect women to adhere to their expectations of how that communication should go.
Unfortunately, there isn't a nice way of straight forwardly saying, "Hey, I recognize this romantic advance, but that's not what I am looking for in this relationship/I am already in a committed romantic relationship."
I disagree with you. The only way what she said wasn't nice is if he went in with the expectation of being in a relationship with her, which is again, not her fault.
She didn't tell him to fuck off. She didn't say "I have a bf don't do that", she said, "wow that was nice, we really enjoyed it, love you buddy"
She's clearly trying to keep the door open as a friend, if he wants that.
I think your justification of your argument isn't valid and seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to me saying something slightly against the grain.
If what I said was a knee-jerk reaction, you should look at the several paragraphs you just wrote as a retort to the simple assertion I made that she was being nice, and tell me who's knee-jerking.
And lastly, and finally because it feels really stupid arguing this point in the first place, I'm not going to entertain the notion that she wasn't being nice just because you have a penchant for reading passive aggressive intention between two people that neither of us are ever going to know about beyond the words on the screen.
Occam's razor dictates the simple answer is often the correct one. She was being nice. Reading passive aggressiveness from that is an extra step that you added.
I was going to point out how you misrepresented my arguments in every one of your retorts, but quite frankly, this argument over a funny text meme has already gone too far and I have better things to do. However, I would like to point out more clearly than last time that to assume that the sender is a man and the receiver is a straight woman is the view heteronormative worldview. This could easily be read as a lesbian trying to get with a woman they didn't know was straight, a man trying to get with another man who is gay, or any other perceivable combination of queer individuals where one member has a boyfriend.
I will admit that I also used the flawed premise in one of my arguments, and I was being a bit of a pedant originally, but honestly your arguments have been less than insightful and that one detail kinda ticked me off.
Also, you used occams razor wrong.
Actually, one last thing:
when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest is likely the correct one.
when faced with competing explanations [obvious politeness vs subtextual passive aggression] for the same phenomenon [choice of wording for a rejection text], the simplest [the one that doesn't involve the extra step of assuming malicious intent] is likely the correct one.
Please tell me why this is an incorrect usage of occam's razor.
Occam's razor shouldn't be used as a rhetorical tool. An important requirement of using the razor is to have two hypotheses of equal possibility. Let's say you are deciding whether to worship the flying spaghetti and practicing scientology. While they both have the same amount of proof, none. This seems like a good use for Occam's razor, but it isn't. You can't assume that the simpler answer, the flying spaghetti monster, is correct because they are, by the premise of using the razor, equally plausible.
Even without this in mind, it makes no sense to choose the simper hypothesis. If you had no knowledge or data of atoms, so both earlier models and current models should f the atom seem equally possible. Occam's razor claims that the simpler earlier models are true, but we now know the more complex current models are truer. The world is complicated, too complicated to assume simple answers
Instead, Occam's razor is used in science to decide which hypothesis to test first. You choose the simpler hypothesis, because it is easier to prove. For example, if I had recently invented a machine that can answer any yea or no questions truthfully, the flying spaghetti monster theorum would be easier to test, so you should test that first. It is a time management tool
this argument over a funny text meme has already gone too far and I have better things to do
My thoughts exactly. I meant it when I said this feels really stupid to be arguing over and I was all ready myself to say that I'm done here.
honestly your arguments have been less than insightful
Wow, nail on the head. That's exactly what I'm feeling about your input as well.
Honestly, if your hook in this was just that I assumed the genders wrong in a situation that plays out similarly regardless of the genders at work, you're being pedantic.
I mean, given that a gay or non-binary person might actually take the news that the other person is open to a friendship better than a typical straight guy, your point is self defeating. You're literally just mad that I said "her" and "him".
Inclusivity matters. I get it. I'm not the kind of person who adheres to heteronormativity. But forcing inclusivity in a situation where it doesn't make a difference to give validity to an opinion that might go against the grain is just tedious and uncalled for.
Later.
I made an admittedly weird argument that wasn't
anargumentedargued well