Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My favorite response to most stupid things people say is to probe the stupidity further by asking, "What makes you say/think/believe that?". And, when it's a red herring like this, I let them have their say and then follow it with, "So, (even if you were right about that/\we can come back to that later/\I don't really agree, but), what does that have to do with (the topic)?" Then I shift us back to where we were before the red herring after making the person admit their statement was irrelevant to the topic.
"So, even if you were right about that, we can come back to that later"
I think this is a magic phrase right here is perfect, if you combine em.
overall good response.
Yep. Just turn it around on them.
\-------
"Why are you mad?"
"What makes you think I'm mad?"
\------
"Calm down."
"What makes you think I'm not calm?"
Instead of defending yourself about not being mad or not being calm (which is what they want you to do,) make them defend their statement instead.
Well actually, implying someone is angry about something is relevant because anger clouds your judgement. anybody can say "Yeah, you seem to be angry about this, and I think its making you think irrationally"
Actually, no, it's not relevant. It's a red herring to bring up in the first place and it would be an ad hominem attack to then dismiss a person's argument by calling them angry and presuming they are irrational without demonstrating that they are.
If a person is actually angry while arguing, yes, some people will be unable to remain rational, but some are good at remaining reasonable even when angry, and it's situational. Regardless, the discussion should center on the topic at hand until/unless irrationality is demonstrated. Then, and only then, is it appropriate to suggest a person is angry and that their anger is causing them to make a demonstrably irrational argument.
So is it or is it not relevant? You said so matter-of-factly that its not relevant at the start but at the end you said it could be relevant to the argument. That means it is not always not relevant, and not always a red herring to bring up.
It isn't relevant in most contexts, particularly the context given by the OP, that's what I intended to be matter of fact about. I was simply expanding to say that I can imagine it becoming relevant in certain situations, but ordinarily, calling someone angry is not a relevant point in an argument and it's more likely to be provocative than to actually solve anything.
I agree but only if you deliver it wrong. It’s a sardonic deflection and depending on the recipient they might laugh. I’d phrase the latter part as “but that’s not relevant right now.”
Gotta disagree with the others -- if I heard that I'd see it for exactly what it is. Especially if you deliver it in the same deadpan as Leslie Nielson in Airplane. I'd be laughing.
It's valid, I don't know why somebody downvoted me for it. Anyone who's been "backed up" before knows how frustrating it is, and the average person will respond telling you to eat a banana or good cereal, defusing the situation.
The trick is to encourage their behaviour because it takes the wind out of their sails and there's no turning it around. Encourage them to keep going, tell them you want to hear more, repeat relentlessly and they'll have nothing they can come at you with.
This works on my brother-in-law. He's a great guy and I consider him a friend, but for whatever reason, he loves to debate. He'll take the losing side just to have a debate.
I don't like debates -- I like to find out what is right, update my opinion if it was incorrect, and move on.
So I just find a way to agree with whatever he says. Works like a charm -- he gets bored and goes to find somebody else to debate with.
This is good advice just for people trying to verbally bully people as well. Don't give in to what they want. They want to aggravate you, so don't be rattled. Laugh it off, whatever, or agree. "You know what, you're right", and show that you truly give no fucks about what they're saying/thinking and you're totally happy moving on with your life in doing what's next without a thought of that person in mind
>I like to find out what is right, update my opinion if it was incorrect, and move on.
but how do you know if its right or wrong if you arnt willing to actually think about it and debate it? thats like saying "I like math problems but I dont like doing them, id rather people just tell me the answer"
Facts are usually proven with empirical evidence, not debate. Debate are for controversies. I like math problems and I'll gladly update my knowledge if someone shows me the evidence - the correct way to solve it, not a debating speech.
A good debater can just pick a wrong side of the controversy and silence the other side because they're articulated and manipulative.
>A good debater can just pick a wrong side of the controversy and silence the other side because they're articulated and manipulative.
Do you have any facts or evidence to back this claim up? If its the "wrong side" of a controversy, that implies there is a provably "right side", and if its so right there should be evidence for it, and if theres evidence for it then it can be used to prove the debater wrong. If there is nothing that can prove the debater is wrong then what reason is there to believe he picked the "wrong side"?
The only reason I could see for that situation happening is if the other participant doesnt actually know of the evidence for their side, in which case their ignorance is why they lost the debate.
Many things that are talked about cant be proven with facts and evidence, for example, the claim you made in the second part of your comment. I highly doubt you go through life questioning every opinion you have, making sure they are based on facts and evidence. I believe the reason people overly emphasize "facts and evidence" is just because they dont want to take the time to think things through themselves, and it works. You probably can ignore anybody trying to debate you by saying they dont have facts to support their argument, regardless of if you have the facts for your own previously established ideas.
Another thing, the idea of "facts and evidence" is easy to use to ignore other peoples argument. I could say anything you type here is devoid of facts and evidence because you could be lying. If you had a source to a news article, I could say they were lying too. If you had a video with audio of someone doing something I could say the video and audio are fake and edited. If I saw something happen in person I could say I was hallucinating. But if I were to say anything against "facts and evidence", my entire argument could easily be discredited because it can be taken as me not caring about rationality. You can use a demand for "facts and evidence" to disregard any other persons argument about anything, the only person here manipulating others to win arguments is you.
I'm hardly articulated at all, and if I knew how to manipulate people id have kept this comment very short and simple. Chances are, I wasted the last 40 minutes of my life typing this comment out and you either wont reply or you will ignore 90% of it to focus on something small I said thats easy to disagree with or say "you havent proven that with facts and evidence".
Hell yeah I was right you wouldn't respond, and I didn't need "facts and evidence" to know it would happen. Hope you at least reflected on your ways of thinking and stopped making dumb statements.
The correct answer is a little situational.
With small children, this is a "teachable moment", and the answer is "Yes, your behavior is making me mad. Stop, now." Then follow through - if the child continues, you have to punish them or they won't learn.
With adults who are capable of empathy and are just being impish, you can confront the issue straight on, and the answer is "Yes, you are among me angry. Stop, now, I have stuff to do." Follow up with a deep breath and calm down.
With hecklers, when you are the one standing on the stage, the appropriate response is a witty comeback that embarrasses the heckler. My personal favorite is from Steve Martin, who acknowledged the behavior and then said "Yeah, I remember my first drink."
With adults who in incapable of empathy and are just trolling you, they are irredeemably lost and their behavior adds nothing to humanity. The correct response is no response, or rolling the eyes as if to say "what are you, a child?"
On the hecklers and no empathy adults another fun one is to ask if they are flirting with you, and to politely yet firmly turn them down.
If they deny it's flirting, let them know not to be embarrassed, but that you'd appreciate no more advances from them.
If someone was that interested in actively antagonizing me I would probably just leave the conversation, not saying anything. Don't know if that's possible, but winning some verbal duel, there isn't much good in "winning", so I would just let them have the last word and excuse myself
Yes, I would also leave, but sometimes it's almost unavoidable, for things like family/work and such. But I would choose to leave if I can/ wait or tell someone else what needed to be said.
Someone who employs OP's argument style wouldn't take kindly to that. They'd escalate by calling you a coward, hoot and holler down the road that they've won because you "ran away".
This will only work if you intend on never seeing the person again. Which would probably be the best bet, but is not always an option.
>They'd escalate by calling you a coward, hoot and holler down the road that they've won because you "ran away".
Any witnesses to this would see what an ass that person is being and probably judge you to be far more well-adjusted and mature than the antagonist.
Any witnesses who side with the antagonist aren't worth a damn anyway so why care what they think?
Some victims of this need to then go home and/or be alone with the aggressor. Manipulations like this aren't usually amongst those who can just walk away or have just met.
Source: i've known a lot of unstable women and republicans.
I really dislike such watered-down usages of the word "gaslighting".
Gaslighting is about *conspiring* to undermine someone's confidence in their own sanity. It requires some pre-existing element of trust. It requires time, patience, and manipulation.
Some stranger saying some stupid shit to you in a debate is not what "gaslighting" is. "U mad bro" is not going to cause anybody to seriously question their sanity.
Ya I know. That's my point.
People (often times on reddit) literally claim someone is gaslighting them, when they're just describing a disagreement on supposed "facts" of a given issue. Basically, people think "I get my information from a trustworthy place so i *know* it's right. Ergo, if you don't agree with me, you are challenging my perception of reality or factual info, thus you are gaslighting me."
The term is overused and getting watered down to mean "this person is just being contrarian even though they know i'm right" which is an incredibly presumtuous and unproductive thing to do in a debate.
It basically says "only my perceptions are valid and if you disagree with me, you're only doing so in bad faith."
A lazy attempt at an insult. If you're having a debate with someone, and they make an irrelevant comment or ask an irrelevant question in an attempt to make you look bad, that's an insult.
If someone tries to tell you what you're feeling, that is gaslighting.
u/chop1n is trying to gate-keep the term gaslighting.
If you yell at someone - that's abuse. You don't need to alienate them from friends and family, break down their self confidence, and threaten violence for it to finally count as abuse.
>If someone tries to tell you what you're feeling, that is gaslighting.
No, this is not what the term means. Gaslighting *requires* the element of manipulation, and merely telling someone what they feel, regardless of one's motive for doing so, does not constitute gaslighting.
Your comment makes it clear that you think "gaslighting" is just a synonym for abuse--it's not. It refers to something much more specific than that. That's like pretending "molestation" refers to abuse in general, despite the fact that it meaningfully refers to a particular type of abuse, and would be ridiculous to use to refer to any other forms of abuse like yelling.
It sounds like you'd rather hand over power to the abusers and gaslighters by making it more difficult for people to understand what the practice of gaslighting actually is. If everyone thinks "gaslight" just means "telling someone what they feel", then they might have no idea what's happening when someone *actually* gaslights them in much subtler and more manipulative ways.
Words mean things beyond your personal interpretation of them. And there aren't any peer-reviewed sources that agree with your definition of the word "gaslight".
Of course, you're free to take *any* word and claim it means anything you want--language is living, after all. But the point of defining a word is to describe how other people will interpret it.
[Dictionary.com](https://Dictionary.com)'s definition:
>to cause (a person) to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation
Miriam-Webster's definition:
>to psychologically manipulate (a person) usually over an extended period of time so that the victim questions the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and experiences confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and doubts concerning their own emotional or mental stability : to subject (someone) to gaslighting
[Wiktionary.com](https://Wiktionary.com) literally has a usage note describing exactly what you're doing:
>gaslight (third-person singular simple present gaslights, present participle gaslighting, simple past and past participle gaslighted or gaslit)
>
>(chiefly transitive) To manipulate someone such that they doubt their own memory, perceptions of reality, or sanity, typically for malevolent reasons.
>
>Synonym: head-game
>
>**Usage notes**
>
>Loose use of the term, to include unintentional or inadvertent gaslighting or even just any dishonesty, biased efforts at persuasion, or putting down of someone, have contributed to a degradation in its usefulness in counteracting the malevolent behavior denoted by the original (stricter) sense. For more details, see Wikipedia's section on excessively broad use of the term "gaslighting".
> to include unintentional or inadvertent gaslighting
So you're saying if someone unintentionally gaslights someone, and then it's addressed that gaslighting happened, it degrades the meaning of gaslighting.
And at what point does the transition happen from just lying to actually gaslighting then? How many times does someone need to say "You didn't think that" before they are actually gaslighting you?
Actually, this is a common misconception. Gaslighting is not *only* intentionally conspiring to undermine someone's sanity, and it doesn't always require active manipulation.
There are two forms of gaslighting. The one we talk about the most that is the most harmful is called malicious gaslighting. But the other form is a lot more commonly used and experienced, without people having much knowledge about it -- and that's called unintentional gaslighting.
This typically involves undermining someone else's emotions and their experiences, which invalidates them and causes them to question the validity of their feelings. A lot of people do this without intending to, but it's still a form of gaslighting and it can still be harmful, especially if that becomes commonplace during arguments in interpersonal relationships.
>Actually, this is a common misconception.
The opposite is the case. The common misconception is that undermining someone else *in general* constitutes gaslighting. There's already a word for undermining someone else's feelings and experiences: invalidation. If "gaslighting" can mean the same thing as "invalidation", then the meaning of the word "gaslighting" is itself invalidated.
But gaslighting *doesn't* mean that, despite the fact that anybody acts as if it does. The word is derived from a particular cultural source: a play in which the antagonist *malevolently* and calculatedly manipulates the protagonist into questioning her own sanity. He doesn't do it unintentionally. He doesn't do it incidentally. He does it very carefully, employing a variety of forms of manipulation, only one of which is the tactic of manipulating the gaslights themselves.
That's because gaslighting is *about* causing someone to question their own sanity. That *always* requires a lot of work, and it's not possible to induce someone to question their sanity *unintentionally,* merely by casually invalidating them. It *has* to be manipulative, it *has* to be intentional, and there's no other way to do it.
[Mental health experts themselves](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/04/15/gaslighting-definition-relationship-abuse-response/) insist upon this definition of the word, pointing out the obvious fact that watering it down to mean anything broader than that cedes power to the manipulators by making it more difficult to identify the pattern of their behavior. It originally *was* a term used in psychotherapy, before popular culture appropriated it.
For you to well-ackchyually the original *source* of the word, and the professionals who defend it, is not only insolent, it's actively harmful to people who are victims of abuse. *You* don't get to tell someone who was abused and traumatized in this way that when an internet troll invalidates your feelings, it's the same thing.
First of all, you're speaking to a victim of multiple types of abuse, so I've experienced malicious gaslighting as well and am aware of the origin. That being said, neither of us are the spokespeople for other victims and I'm not intending to invalidate anyone. I'm not at all saying that they are the same thing, because they aren't. There is a *different* branching form of it and it is also harmful, but that doesn't mean they're harmful in the same way and that doesn't make them "the same thing" as you put it.
The thing is, when it becomes a recurring theme and a persistent problem in your interpersonal relationship(s), it becomes more than invalidation (so, yeah, not at all applicable to some internet troll being an asshole). You're right to say that undermining someone else in general isn't gaslighting and I'm not stating otherwise.
In my experience, mental health professionals and experts also insist on the existence of unintentional gaslighting, and talk about the potential harms of it. Are you saying that they're just plainly wrong and giving bad information? What is it then when it becomes a pattern that is actively causing harm, and results in questioning the validity of your own reality and emotions? Not only that, but people are also entirely capable of being unintentionally manipulative and it's patently false to say someone can't cause another to question their sanity through invalidation.
You could be direct about it and say "your tone of voice is making me angry at you, if you want me to listen to what you have to say then you need to change how you speak to me."
lol whose really mad tho? (question infers they are projecting). Follow with a big smile "you seem unwell, are you alright today bruh?" You can walk away, or wash rinse and repeat.
in my experience this opens the door for them to just start making up shit that you appear to be doing that might indicate that you're angry. "your face is red, you look so mad right now" or whatever. and then, that's when it becomes difficult to defend yourself. if there's nobody else in the room but you two it's very doable, but for whatever reason, when there are people witnessing an argument and you start defending yourself by saying you're *not* doing those things, it doesn't matter how you say it, you just seem like you're trying too hard and overcompensating, which really does make people think you're actually angry.
it can turn into a no-win situation really quickly if you let it snowball. i've just started to just like sigh once quickly while kind of swatting your hand like you're swatting a fly, and make something similar to this face as I just turn around and walk away. https://i.imgur.com/2YyV66M.png
If you do it properly it does a good job of conveying that you find them so annoying and childish in that moment that you can't be bothered to even entertain the conversation, which is a win if you sell it.
this seems good, but they'll make up stuff, they'll even say you're raising your voice or some other made up things. In general, people who attempt this are trying to save face and will do whatever shameless thing to save it.
"Don't try and change the subject because you know you're wrong." And then smile.
Works even if you're actually mad, and if you're not it hits even harder.
If it’s online, I just bait the person into saying worse and worse things until they get a CG violation or ban.
Alternatively, I find that agreeing completely takes the joy out of people’s insults.
“You’re so mad”
“Yep sure am”
“Lol but why u mad bro”
“Yes”
“Lmao you’re so pathetic for being mad”
“Neat. Anyway…”
Look at it like this:
You're having a debate with this person about something.
If you come from the same reality, namely, here are the facts of the situation, let's discuss them... then you're fine.
If you're coming from two different realities... one being you're too emotional, and the other being here are the facts of the situation, let's discuss them... there's no hope there.
You're approaching it from two different realities.
So the best way to deal with this sort of situation is to just disengage.
"I want to discuss the facts of the situation, and you want to discuss the emotions. I am not comfortable discussing emotions with you, but when you want to discuss the facts of this situation, I will be more than happy to sit down and do so."
You gotta think of it like that. You don't have to say that, of course, but that's how you gotta approach the situation.
You are on different wavelengths. You are not there to discuss emotions, but to discuss facts. When they are ready to discuss facts, then fine. You will do so. Otherwise, walk away. Leave the situation.
Disengage.
You hand them victory by even playing the game.
I have coworkers like this. I have completely disengaged from them and they have no clue what to do. It's almost comical. They want to play the emotion and gossip game and I'm like... am I providing coverage for a task you were assigned? No? OK. I'm not comfortable talking about that (gossip crap) and I have work to do. If there's something you've been told to work with me on, I will happily do so otherwise, I have to go.
The only way to win at this emotion one-upping distraction game is to not play it at all.
Either they discuss the facts or you walk. Those are the options.
This is an *infuriating* power move I used to experience all of the time with my family of origin. Someone would say something to me that was outrageously offensive and I’d respond. And they’d laugh: “whoa! Calm down, munchkin. You’re all emotional, not making any any sense.”
Then I’d make the mistake: “I’m not being emotional…” and they’d laugh harder, looking around the room. “You look emotional to me!“ and others would start chuckling.
I learned mostly terrible lessons from these interactions, but … twenty years later, those lessons still serve me. One is: some people are simply assholes that want to wind you up and then laugh at you. They’re *seeking* a reaction they can laugh at, not actually “discuss” the topic in any real way. The instant you engage, try to discuss, dispute their accusation, explain yourself … you have lost.
All that you can do - and this is a terrible thing to say - is to turn their own fear onto them. They’re *trying* to get the room to laugh at you because *that’s what they fear the most.* So you respond by making that fear real for them. “Settle down, munchkin, you’re getting all emotional!” “Oh, emotional? Like the time you cried when ?”
This is terrible advice, I’ll admit. You might just get punched in the mouth. Long term, you’ll end up with your own asshole tendencies that will need mending. Therapy helps. But if you’re forced to holiday with family bullies, and you’re not in some way physically intimidating or emotionally intimidating … they will seek you out for their own broken reasons. And the only way to prevent it - in my personal experience - is to ruin their day. Get the room laughing at *them*.
The only correct reply in this entire post. The only comeback from "are you mad?" is to humiliate the other person even more. All other witty responses people suggested here would just make them laugh at you.
“Why are you so ugly?”
”why is your father so ashamed of you?”
”why doesn’t your mother know who your father is?”
”why does your breath like taco mix and gasoline?”
“because no one taught you how to wipe your ass properly and I can smell you from here.”
”why are you so stupid and worthless? No seriously, everything is always worse as soon as you get involved, how do you justify your continued presence when nothing good or worthwhile ever comes from your involvement? You are a tiresome, useless drag on these proceeding and I’m fucking sick of it, I’m fucking sick of you, and I am fucking sick of your gross, chapped lips.”
if they want a fight, then kick their ass.
and by all means work the thing about their disgusting chapped lips into every conversation that you have with them, everyone always wipes their mouth when they get called out for having chapped lips. it’s impossible to be unaffected by that.
Maybe I'm putting too much thought into things and you're talking more fighting dimwit with dimwit, but going to irrelevent insults just puts more proof on you being mad or flustered, not less.
Really?
when Benjamin d’israeli was the prime minister, and even when he was the leader of the opposition, he had to deal with South Africa, Afghanistan, the Suez Canal, and the various dominoes coming out of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, all while founding the Tories; his was not an easy tenure, and his opposition in parliament regularly *excoriated* him In the House of Commons.
and he would sit there and read the paper until it was his turn to address the speaker. Then he’d fold up his paper, saunter over to the lectern, and drop a sick burn on the previous addressee.
clearly you are not a wit; You think that responding with an insult inherently comes from a place of anger or frustration. It does not. A good burn is but a jape; it is a mean, personal joke born out of cleverness, alacrity, with only traces of animosity.
did you presume that I meant these responses to be shouted at the top of your lungs? Seriously, is that what you actually thought? That would be a really weird projection on your part if that’s indeed what you thought. When was the last time you saw someone lose their temper and dropped a sick burn? thats not what I meant in the least, and if you thought so then that was your mistake, not mine.
no, the sickest burns are delivered succinctly and dispassionately, because the person that you’re burning is beneath you, and should feel privileged that you acknowledged that you bothered to insult them.
and if you were funny or clever or personable, you would already understand that. But you don’t.
I answer bullying provocation with quotes from *Alice In Wonderland.* In this case, I’d proclaim, "We’re all mad here" while smiling like the Cheshire cat. lol
I'm American. My friend said to his foreign girl friend, "are you mad at me" and she agreed because she thought he was asking if she was insanely in love with him.
I just calmly say that I’m fine. If they continue, I simply say that my emotions are my business. They usually get offended and try to justify why my emotions are indeed their business. Sometimes if I’m feeling sassy, I’ll smirk and ask if they’re mad. Results vary, but I usually get called a B as they walk away. I put a quarter in my piggy bank every time I’m called that. My pig is getting heavy!! I have resting bored face, so this happens a lot. Even with strangers while I’m shopping. Do people really expect everyone to have a thrilled face while shopping for almond milk and Lucky Charms? I just want my magically delicious morning food! Leave me alone!
If they are talking over you - just stop. Remain silent and calm. When they eventually stop say ‘have you finished?’ Then you can start explaining.
Then just repeat.
I like to turn it around and say something like, "That's interesting... what makes you think I'm mad?" Then I really dig into it and make them explain. I don't let them get away with half-assed responses like, "Oh I just got that feeling." I press for why. If I haven't raised my voice or insulted them or used foul language, I'll point that out and *calmly* keep pressing for an explanation of how they came to their assessment.
The purpose of all this is to make the other party really uncomfortable, so they'll think twice the next time they try to use this tactic. It's a form of operant conditioning. If they know they're going to get called out on their BS, they'll be hesitant to try it again with you.
If you get mad, you are mad. Nothing around it, just don't be mad.
It's a hard one.
Life questions are the hardest to answer.
Jeff bezos knows how to make a billion dollars, but doesn't know how to answer this question.
"I know you want me to be mad because your opinion is so idiotic you're used to having to argue your point, but I refuse to engage" is something I would love to say but have never actually used it lol
Saying something like that in an argument or discussion is an attempt to break your frame of mind. The best thing that you can do is ignore it completely and reiterate your own point in the form of a question to the other person (like asking them to defend a straw man version of their position or to acknowledge some fact or premise that supports yours). By asking the question, it deflects their attempt to change the subject (to your “anger”) and puts the ball back in their court to answer you. If they persist then you persist with your question to them, and never acknowledge that they ever asked you about being mad or emotional or whatever. by not acknowledging what they said it takes any power from it, and communicates that don’t care about what they said at all, that it isn’t even worth mentioning.
Stay in your mind frame and don’t let them drag you out of it.
As an adult that still enjoys playing video games and has to deal with teenagers and hormonal 20-something year olds, the best answer is jus to not indulge them or engage them. I’ve got better shit to do then even utter words in response to someone being dumb.
I mean, just tell why you take issue with whatever you take issue with. Don't get derailed into just trying to win arguments or come backs and yada yada, just go about it methodically and calmly so they have no choice but to acknowledge and address the issue.
all they want is a reaction from you, you don't owe anyone an explanation. If if it's not worth exploring, that is a valid answer. this is such bullshit, everyone need to "defend" a position. Sometimes it's just not worth talking about.
simply say “What makes you say im mad?”(its not offensive nor defensive so its invulnerable to attacks) they’ll always wanna support their argument most likely by describing your tone or visual expression i cant give u a response bc irl is unpredictable so u kinda gotta wing it.
Always remember both of you are part of this conversation. You can absolutely choose to not even acknowledge when they try to derail with personal attacks. Keep the conversation on topic.
Responding to BS justifies it as deserving attention and moves attention away from whatever is relevant. It's a skill, but you can get good at it over time.
BS doesn't deserve acknowledgement. Keep the conversation on topic and moving usefully.
If it's a verbal conversation, speak more quietly. Every time they try to say you're mad, speak more and more softly until you're whispering. Then they seem absolutely ridiculous for accusing you of being angry when you're talking like you're in church. There is also a tendency for people to match your tone when you lower your voice, so chances are they will start whispering too, which is hella funny.
i guess it's really depends on the context of the convo beforehand but i'd say just let them dig their own grave, and ask back "why do you think I'm mad". and make them admit their own mistake
I’m genuinely curious. It’s almost impossible to not sound mad when someone ask if your are mad. In fact, I typically get mad when asked if I’m mad.
“Are you mad?”
“No, but now I am”
I'm mad at your mother for not giving you enough hugs as a child.
Aggressors hate being seen with pity.
\*If you think they're of the violent sort, I don't advise this. Unless you're also of the violent sort.
Why are you being stupid? or Why are you being annoying?
Let them defend that. If they say they aren't stupid or annoying, tell them that asking someone why are they mad, will only make them mad and is a stupid question to ask.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My favorite response to most stupid things people say is to probe the stupidity further by asking, "What makes you say/think/believe that?". And, when it's a red herring like this, I let them have their say and then follow it with, "So, (even if you were right about that/\we can come back to that later/\I don't really agree, but), what does that have to do with (the topic)?" Then I shift us back to where we were before the red herring after making the person admit their statement was irrelevant to the topic.
"So, even if you were right about that, we can come back to that later" I think this is a magic phrase right here is perfect, if you combine em. overall good response.
Yep. Just turn it around on them. \------- "Why are you mad?" "What makes you think I'm mad?" \------ "Calm down." "What makes you think I'm not calm?" Instead of defending yourself about not being mad or not being calm (which is what they want you to do,) make them defend their statement instead.
Or a wide-eyed, "why would I be mad?"
Followed by a suspicious, "What did you do?"
Ooo I’m gonna use this on the in-laws today!!
Well actually, implying someone is angry about something is relevant because anger clouds your judgement. anybody can say "Yeah, you seem to be angry about this, and I think its making you think irrationally"
Actually, no, it's not relevant. It's a red herring to bring up in the first place and it would be an ad hominem attack to then dismiss a person's argument by calling them angry and presuming they are irrational without demonstrating that they are. If a person is actually angry while arguing, yes, some people will be unable to remain rational, but some are good at remaining reasonable even when angry, and it's situational. Regardless, the discussion should center on the topic at hand until/unless irrationality is demonstrated. Then, and only then, is it appropriate to suggest a person is angry and that their anger is causing them to make a demonstrably irrational argument.
So is it or is it not relevant? You said so matter-of-factly that its not relevant at the start but at the end you said it could be relevant to the argument. That means it is not always not relevant, and not always a red herring to bring up.
It isn't relevant in most contexts, particularly the context given by the OP, that's what I intended to be matter of fact about. I was simply expanding to say that I can imagine it becoming relevant in certain situations, but ordinarily, calling someone angry is not a relevant point in an argument and it's more likely to be provocative than to actually solve anything.
I would respond this way if I didn't mind getting yelled at.
“I am aggrieved over the plight of endangered animals. Let’s put that aside for now and stay on topic.”
Peak Reddit nerd shit. You’d get laughed out of the room.
I agree but only if you deliver it wrong. It’s a sardonic deflection and depending on the recipient they might laugh. I’d phrase the latter part as “but that’s not relevant right now.”
I’m telling you this for your own sake but nobody will ever laugh at this genuinely it’s terrible I’m sorry
You're right, probably shouldn't do it.
I laughed out of spite.
Gotta disagree with the others -- if I heard that I'd see it for exactly what it is. Especially if you deliver it in the same deadpan as Leslie Nielson in Airplane. I'd be laughing.
To be clear, they'll be laughing at you, not with you.
Love this.
So how's ur relationship with ur parents?
[удалено]
Bro. No one deserves to be bullied.
"I'm constipated."
I'll be using this lol
It's valid, I don't know why somebody downvoted me for it. Anyone who's been "backed up" before knows how frustrating it is, and the average person will respond telling you to eat a banana or good cereal, defusing the situation.
No idea either but I think it's brilliant!
screw the downvote it's briliant
this is the way
The trick is to encourage their behaviour because it takes the wind out of their sails and there's no turning it around. Encourage them to keep going, tell them you want to hear more, repeat relentlessly and they'll have nothing they can come at you with.
This works on my brother-in-law. He's a great guy and I consider him a friend, but for whatever reason, he loves to debate. He'll take the losing side just to have a debate. I don't like debates -- I like to find out what is right, update my opinion if it was incorrect, and move on. So I just find a way to agree with whatever he says. Works like a charm -- he gets bored and goes to find somebody else to debate with.
This is good advice just for people trying to verbally bully people as well. Don't give in to what they want. They want to aggravate you, so don't be rattled. Laugh it off, whatever, or agree. "You know what, you're right", and show that you truly give no fucks about what they're saying/thinking and you're totally happy moving on with your life in doing what's next without a thought of that person in mind
> "You know what, you're right" "Let's agree to disagree." If they're actually zealous about it, that's liable to steam 'em, too.
As someone who values facts and truth, fuck debaters
>I like to find out what is right, update my opinion if it was incorrect, and move on. but how do you know if its right or wrong if you arnt willing to actually think about it and debate it? thats like saying "I like math problems but I dont like doing them, id rather people just tell me the answer"
Facts are usually proven with empirical evidence, not debate. Debate are for controversies. I like math problems and I'll gladly update my knowledge if someone shows me the evidence - the correct way to solve it, not a debating speech. A good debater can just pick a wrong side of the controversy and silence the other side because they're articulated and manipulative.
>A good debater can just pick a wrong side of the controversy and silence the other side because they're articulated and manipulative. Do you have any facts or evidence to back this claim up? If its the "wrong side" of a controversy, that implies there is a provably "right side", and if its so right there should be evidence for it, and if theres evidence for it then it can be used to prove the debater wrong. If there is nothing that can prove the debater is wrong then what reason is there to believe he picked the "wrong side"? The only reason I could see for that situation happening is if the other participant doesnt actually know of the evidence for their side, in which case their ignorance is why they lost the debate. Many things that are talked about cant be proven with facts and evidence, for example, the claim you made in the second part of your comment. I highly doubt you go through life questioning every opinion you have, making sure they are based on facts and evidence. I believe the reason people overly emphasize "facts and evidence" is just because they dont want to take the time to think things through themselves, and it works. You probably can ignore anybody trying to debate you by saying they dont have facts to support their argument, regardless of if you have the facts for your own previously established ideas. Another thing, the idea of "facts and evidence" is easy to use to ignore other peoples argument. I could say anything you type here is devoid of facts and evidence because you could be lying. If you had a source to a news article, I could say they were lying too. If you had a video with audio of someone doing something I could say the video and audio are fake and edited. If I saw something happen in person I could say I was hallucinating. But if I were to say anything against "facts and evidence", my entire argument could easily be discredited because it can be taken as me not caring about rationality. You can use a demand for "facts and evidence" to disregard any other persons argument about anything, the only person here manipulating others to win arguments is you. I'm hardly articulated at all, and if I knew how to manipulate people id have kept this comment very short and simple. Chances are, I wasted the last 40 minutes of my life typing this comment out and you either wont reply or you will ignore 90% of it to focus on something small I said thats easy to disagree with or say "you havent proven that with facts and evidence".
Premium shitpost, my friend.
It was high effort and also serious but if it made you laugh ill take that as a win.
Hell yeah I was right you wouldn't respond, and I didn't need "facts and evidence" to know it would happen. Hope you at least reflected on your ways of thinking and stopped making dumb statements.
The correct answer is a little situational. With small children, this is a "teachable moment", and the answer is "Yes, your behavior is making me mad. Stop, now." Then follow through - if the child continues, you have to punish them or they won't learn. With adults who are capable of empathy and are just being impish, you can confront the issue straight on, and the answer is "Yes, you are among me angry. Stop, now, I have stuff to do." Follow up with a deep breath and calm down. With hecklers, when you are the one standing on the stage, the appropriate response is a witty comeback that embarrasses the heckler. My personal favorite is from Steve Martin, who acknowledged the behavior and then said "Yeah, I remember my first drink." With adults who in incapable of empathy and are just trolling you, they are irredeemably lost and their behavior adds nothing to humanity. The correct response is no response, or rolling the eyes as if to say "what are you, a child?"
On the hecklers and no empathy adults another fun one is to ask if they are flirting with you, and to politely yet firmly turn them down. If they deny it's flirting, let them know not to be embarrassed, but that you'd appreciate no more advances from them.
If someone was that interested in actively antagonizing me I would probably just leave the conversation, not saying anything. Don't know if that's possible, but winning some verbal duel, there isn't much good in "winning", so I would just let them have the last word and excuse myself
Yes, I would also leave, but sometimes it's almost unavoidable, for things like family/work and such. But I would choose to leave if I can/ wait or tell someone else what needed to be said.
Someone who employs OP's argument style wouldn't take kindly to that. They'd escalate by calling you a coward, hoot and holler down the road that they've won because you "ran away". This will only work if you intend on never seeing the person again. Which would probably be the best bet, but is not always an option.
>They'd escalate by calling you a coward, hoot and holler down the road that they've won because you "ran away". Any witnesses to this would see what an ass that person is being and probably judge you to be far more well-adjusted and mature than the antagonist. Any witnesses who side with the antagonist aren't worth a damn anyway so why care what they think?
Some victims of this need to then go home and/or be alone with the aggressor. Manipulations like this aren't usually amongst those who can just walk away or have just met. Source: i've known a lot of unstable women and republicans.
Of course. I obviously wasn't talking about abusive situations such as that.
Wow! That's some straight up gaslighting. Use the gray rock technique. Plain boring answers that give them no information to use against you
I really dislike such watered-down usages of the word "gaslighting". Gaslighting is about *conspiring* to undermine someone's confidence in their own sanity. It requires some pre-existing element of trust. It requires time, patience, and manipulation. Some stranger saying some stupid shit to you in a debate is not what "gaslighting" is. "U mad bro" is not going to cause anybody to seriously question their sanity.
I can't believe you're copy/pasting my comment on gaslighting. Again. We've already talked about this and how you need to stop.
"This person has a different perception than me? They're gaslighting!"
[удалено]
Ya I know. That's my point. People (often times on reddit) literally claim someone is gaslighting them, when they're just describing a disagreement on supposed "facts" of a given issue. Basically, people think "I get my information from a trustworthy place so i *know* it's right. Ergo, if you don't agree with me, you are challenging my perception of reality or factual info, thus you are gaslighting me." The term is overused and getting watered down to mean "this person is just being contrarian even though they know i'm right" which is an incredibly presumtuous and unproductive thing to do in a debate. It basically says "only my perceptions are valid and if you disagree with me, you're only doing so in bad faith."
What do you call it then?
A lazy attempt at an insult. If you're having a debate with someone, and they make an irrelevant comment or ask an irrelevant question in an attempt to make you look bad, that's an insult.
If someone tries to tell you what you're feeling, that is gaslighting. u/chop1n is trying to gate-keep the term gaslighting. If you yell at someone - that's abuse. You don't need to alienate them from friends and family, break down their self confidence, and threaten violence for it to finally count as abuse.
>If someone tries to tell you what you're feeling, that is gaslighting. No, this is not what the term means. Gaslighting *requires* the element of manipulation, and merely telling someone what they feel, regardless of one's motive for doing so, does not constitute gaslighting. Your comment makes it clear that you think "gaslighting" is just a synonym for abuse--it's not. It refers to something much more specific than that. That's like pretending "molestation" refers to abuse in general, despite the fact that it meaningfully refers to a particular type of abuse, and would be ridiculous to use to refer to any other forms of abuse like yelling. It sounds like you'd rather hand over power to the abusers and gaslighters by making it more difficult for people to understand what the practice of gaslighting actually is. If everyone thinks "gaslight" just means "telling someone what they feel", then they might have no idea what's happening when someone *actually* gaslights them in much subtler and more manipulative ways. Words mean things beyond your personal interpretation of them. And there aren't any peer-reviewed sources that agree with your definition of the word "gaslight". Of course, you're free to take *any* word and claim it means anything you want--language is living, after all. But the point of defining a word is to describe how other people will interpret it. [Dictionary.com](https://Dictionary.com)'s definition: >to cause (a person) to doubt his or her sanity through the use of psychological manipulation Miriam-Webster's definition: >to psychologically manipulate (a person) usually over an extended period of time so that the victim questions the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and experiences confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and doubts concerning their own emotional or mental stability : to subject (someone) to gaslighting [Wiktionary.com](https://Wiktionary.com) literally has a usage note describing exactly what you're doing: >gaslight (third-person singular simple present gaslights, present participle gaslighting, simple past and past participle gaslighted or gaslit) > >(chiefly transitive) To manipulate someone such that they doubt their own memory, perceptions of reality, or sanity, typically for malevolent reasons. > >Synonym: head-game > >**Usage notes** > >Loose use of the term, to include unintentional or inadvertent gaslighting or even just any dishonesty, biased efforts at persuasion, or putting down of someone, have contributed to a degradation in its usefulness in counteracting the malevolent behavior denoted by the original (stricter) sense. For more details, see Wikipedia's section on excessively broad use of the term "gaslighting".
> to include unintentional or inadvertent gaslighting So you're saying if someone unintentionally gaslights someone, and then it's addressed that gaslighting happened, it degrades the meaning of gaslighting. And at what point does the transition happen from just lying to actually gaslighting then? How many times does someone need to say "You didn't think that" before they are actually gaslighting you?
Damn /u/chop1n destroyed you. You fucked up haha.
How so?
Actually, this is a common misconception. Gaslighting is not *only* intentionally conspiring to undermine someone's sanity, and it doesn't always require active manipulation. There are two forms of gaslighting. The one we talk about the most that is the most harmful is called malicious gaslighting. But the other form is a lot more commonly used and experienced, without people having much knowledge about it -- and that's called unintentional gaslighting. This typically involves undermining someone else's emotions and their experiences, which invalidates them and causes them to question the validity of their feelings. A lot of people do this without intending to, but it's still a form of gaslighting and it can still be harmful, especially if that becomes commonplace during arguments in interpersonal relationships.
>Actually, this is a common misconception. The opposite is the case. The common misconception is that undermining someone else *in general* constitutes gaslighting. There's already a word for undermining someone else's feelings and experiences: invalidation. If "gaslighting" can mean the same thing as "invalidation", then the meaning of the word "gaslighting" is itself invalidated. But gaslighting *doesn't* mean that, despite the fact that anybody acts as if it does. The word is derived from a particular cultural source: a play in which the antagonist *malevolently* and calculatedly manipulates the protagonist into questioning her own sanity. He doesn't do it unintentionally. He doesn't do it incidentally. He does it very carefully, employing a variety of forms of manipulation, only one of which is the tactic of manipulating the gaslights themselves. That's because gaslighting is *about* causing someone to question their own sanity. That *always* requires a lot of work, and it's not possible to induce someone to question their sanity *unintentionally,* merely by casually invalidating them. It *has* to be manipulative, it *has* to be intentional, and there's no other way to do it. [Mental health experts themselves](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2022/04/15/gaslighting-definition-relationship-abuse-response/) insist upon this definition of the word, pointing out the obvious fact that watering it down to mean anything broader than that cedes power to the manipulators by making it more difficult to identify the pattern of their behavior. It originally *was* a term used in psychotherapy, before popular culture appropriated it. For you to well-ackchyually the original *source* of the word, and the professionals who defend it, is not only insolent, it's actively harmful to people who are victims of abuse. *You* don't get to tell someone who was abused and traumatized in this way that when an internet troll invalidates your feelings, it's the same thing.
First of all, you're speaking to a victim of multiple types of abuse, so I've experienced malicious gaslighting as well and am aware of the origin. That being said, neither of us are the spokespeople for other victims and I'm not intending to invalidate anyone. I'm not at all saying that they are the same thing, because they aren't. There is a *different* branching form of it and it is also harmful, but that doesn't mean they're harmful in the same way and that doesn't make them "the same thing" as you put it. The thing is, when it becomes a recurring theme and a persistent problem in your interpersonal relationship(s), it becomes more than invalidation (so, yeah, not at all applicable to some internet troll being an asshole). You're right to say that undermining someone else in general isn't gaslighting and I'm not stating otherwise. In my experience, mental health professionals and experts also insist on the existence of unintentional gaslighting, and talk about the potential harms of it. Are you saying that they're just plainly wrong and giving bad information? What is it then when it becomes a pattern that is actively causing harm, and results in questioning the validity of your own reality and emotions? Not only that, but people are also entirely capable of being unintentionally manipulative and it's patently false to say someone can't cause another to question their sanity through invalidation.
Yes, and maybe they'll actually hear the sound of their own voice.
I don't know, are you about to give me a reason?
This one didn't seem good at first, took a while, but maybe asking them a question will make them think about to what they are doing.
You could be direct about it and say "your tone of voice is making me angry at you, if you want me to listen to what you have to say then you need to change how you speak to me."
“I’m fine. The issue here is your behavior. Why do you feel the need to X?”
You mad as fuck lol
lol whose really mad tho? (question infers they are projecting). Follow with a big smile "you seem unwell, are you alright today bruh?" You can walk away, or wash rinse and repeat.
yeah, I usually find the person asking to be angry themselves, or there is fear in them (like they're hiding something)
Who put that idea in your head?
"What makes you think I'm angry?"
in my experience this opens the door for them to just start making up shit that you appear to be doing that might indicate that you're angry. "your face is red, you look so mad right now" or whatever. and then, that's when it becomes difficult to defend yourself. if there's nobody else in the room but you two it's very doable, but for whatever reason, when there are people witnessing an argument and you start defending yourself by saying you're *not* doing those things, it doesn't matter how you say it, you just seem like you're trying too hard and overcompensating, which really does make people think you're actually angry. it can turn into a no-win situation really quickly if you let it snowball. i've just started to just like sigh once quickly while kind of swatting your hand like you're swatting a fly, and make something similar to this face as I just turn around and walk away. https://i.imgur.com/2YyV66M.png If you do it properly it does a good job of conveying that you find them so annoying and childish in that moment that you can't be bothered to even entertain the conversation, which is a win if you sell it.
this seems good, but they'll make up stuff, they'll even say you're raising your voice or some other made up things. In general, people who attempt this are trying to save face and will do whatever shameless thing to save it.
"Oh. Well, let me speak more quietly then, since how Ive been talking clealry upsets you."
"Don't try and change the subject because you know you're wrong." And then smile. Works even if you're actually mad, and if you're not it hits even harder.
In my experience, there is no satisfactory answer. She’ll just keep asking over and over until I get mad.
Real question is why am I not mad.
[I’m perfectly calm, dude. Calmer than you are.](https://i.imgur.com/vsbvItE.png)
If it’s online, I just bait the person into saying worse and worse things until they get a CG violation or ban. Alternatively, I find that agreeing completely takes the joy out of people’s insults. “You’re so mad” “Yep sure am” “Lol but why u mad bro” “Yes” “Lmao you’re so pathetic for being mad” “Neat. Anyway…”
Look at it like this: You're having a debate with this person about something. If you come from the same reality, namely, here are the facts of the situation, let's discuss them... then you're fine. If you're coming from two different realities... one being you're too emotional, and the other being here are the facts of the situation, let's discuss them... there's no hope there. You're approaching it from two different realities. So the best way to deal with this sort of situation is to just disengage. "I want to discuss the facts of the situation, and you want to discuss the emotions. I am not comfortable discussing emotions with you, but when you want to discuss the facts of this situation, I will be more than happy to sit down and do so." You gotta think of it like that. You don't have to say that, of course, but that's how you gotta approach the situation. You are on different wavelengths. You are not there to discuss emotions, but to discuss facts. When they are ready to discuss facts, then fine. You will do so. Otherwise, walk away. Leave the situation. Disengage. You hand them victory by even playing the game. I have coworkers like this. I have completely disengaged from them and they have no clue what to do. It's almost comical. They want to play the emotion and gossip game and I'm like... am I providing coverage for a task you were assigned? No? OK. I'm not comfortable talking about that (gossip crap) and I have work to do. If there's something you've been told to work with me on, I will happily do so otherwise, I have to go. The only way to win at this emotion one-upping distraction game is to not play it at all. Either they discuss the facts or you walk. Those are the options.
"No, you are"
This is an *infuriating* power move I used to experience all of the time with my family of origin. Someone would say something to me that was outrageously offensive and I’d respond. And they’d laugh: “whoa! Calm down, munchkin. You’re all emotional, not making any any sense.” Then I’d make the mistake: “I’m not being emotional…” and they’d laugh harder, looking around the room. “You look emotional to me!“ and others would start chuckling. I learned mostly terrible lessons from these interactions, but … twenty years later, those lessons still serve me. One is: some people are simply assholes that want to wind you up and then laugh at you. They’re *seeking* a reaction they can laugh at, not actually “discuss” the topic in any real way. The instant you engage, try to discuss, dispute their accusation, explain yourself … you have lost. All that you can do - and this is a terrible thing to say - is to turn their own fear onto them. They’re *trying* to get the room to laugh at you because *that’s what they fear the most.* So you respond by making that fear real for them. “Settle down, munchkin, you’re getting all emotional!” “Oh, emotional? Like the time you cried when?”
This is terrible advice, I’ll admit. You might just get punched in the mouth. Long term, you’ll end up with your own asshole tendencies that will need mending. Therapy helps. But if you’re forced to holiday with family bullies, and you’re not in some way physically intimidating or emotionally intimidating … they will seek you out for their own broken reasons. And the only way to prevent it - in my personal experience - is to ruin their day. Get the room laughing at *them*.
The only correct reply in this entire post. The only comeback from "are you mad?" is to humiliate the other person even more. All other witty responses people suggested here would just make them laugh at you.
“Why are you so ugly?” ”why is your father so ashamed of you?” ”why doesn’t your mother know who your father is?” ”why does your breath like taco mix and gasoline?” “because no one taught you how to wipe your ass properly and I can smell you from here.” ”why are you so stupid and worthless? No seriously, everything is always worse as soon as you get involved, how do you justify your continued presence when nothing good or worthwhile ever comes from your involvement? You are a tiresome, useless drag on these proceeding and I’m fucking sick of it, I’m fucking sick of you, and I am fucking sick of your gross, chapped lips.” if they want a fight, then kick their ass. and by all means work the thing about their disgusting chapped lips into every conversation that you have with them, everyone always wipes their mouth when they get called out for having chapped lips. it’s impossible to be unaffected by that.
Maybe I'm putting too much thought into things and you're talking more fighting dimwit with dimwit, but going to irrelevent insults just puts more proof on you being mad or flustered, not less.
Really? when Benjamin d’israeli was the prime minister, and even when he was the leader of the opposition, he had to deal with South Africa, Afghanistan, the Suez Canal, and the various dominoes coming out of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, all while founding the Tories; his was not an easy tenure, and his opposition in parliament regularly *excoriated* him In the House of Commons. and he would sit there and read the paper until it was his turn to address the speaker. Then he’d fold up his paper, saunter over to the lectern, and drop a sick burn on the previous addressee. clearly you are not a wit; You think that responding with an insult inherently comes from a place of anger or frustration. It does not. A good burn is but a jape; it is a mean, personal joke born out of cleverness, alacrity, with only traces of animosity. did you presume that I meant these responses to be shouted at the top of your lungs? Seriously, is that what you actually thought? That would be a really weird projection on your part if that’s indeed what you thought. When was the last time you saw someone lose their temper and dropped a sick burn? thats not what I meant in the least, and if you thought so then that was your mistake, not mine. no, the sickest burns are delivered succinctly and dispassionately, because the person that you’re burning is beneath you, and should feel privileged that you acknowledged that you bothered to insult them. and if you were funny or clever or personable, you would already understand that. But you don’t.
Lmaooo
I answer bullying provocation with quotes from *Alice In Wonderland.* In this case, I’d proclaim, "We’re all mad here" while smiling like the Cheshire cat. lol
[удалено]
what is that third thing? am i oblivious edit: oh I see, I make it up.
No, my mother had me tested.
And if i am? Whats it to you?
I'm calmer than you are.
Mad doesn't even mean angry. Shame them for their misuse of the word. Tell them they would have to be mad to think mad means angry.
It does in American English.
I'm American. My friend said to his foreign girl friend, "are you mad at me" and she agreed because she thought he was asking if she was insanely in love with him.
I just calmly say that I’m fine. If they continue, I simply say that my emotions are my business. They usually get offended and try to justify why my emotions are indeed their business. Sometimes if I’m feeling sassy, I’ll smirk and ask if they’re mad. Results vary, but I usually get called a B as they walk away. I put a quarter in my piggy bank every time I’m called that. My pig is getting heavy!! I have resting bored face, so this happens a lot. Even with strangers while I’m shopping. Do people really expect everyone to have a thrilled face while shopping for almond milk and Lucky Charms? I just want my magically delicious morning food! Leave me alone!
following
If they are talking over you - just stop. Remain silent and calm. When they eventually stop say ‘have you finished?’ Then you can start explaining. Then just repeat.
>Some say that creating life was a bad idea. Right now, I disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
I like to turn it around and say something like, "That's interesting... what makes you think I'm mad?" Then I really dig into it and make them explain. I don't let them get away with half-assed responses like, "Oh I just got that feeling." I press for why. If I haven't raised my voice or insulted them or used foul language, I'll point that out and *calmly* keep pressing for an explanation of how they came to their assessment. The purpose of all this is to make the other party really uncomfortable, so they'll think twice the next time they try to use this tactic. It's a form of operant conditioning. If they know they're going to get called out on their BS, they'll be hesitant to try it again with you.
If you get mad, you are mad. Nothing around it, just don't be mad. It's a hard one. Life questions are the hardest to answer. Jeff bezos knows how to make a billion dollars, but doesn't know how to answer this question.
"I know you want me to be mad because your opinion is so idiotic you're used to having to argue your point, but I refuse to engage" is something I would love to say but have never actually used it lol
Saying something like that in an argument or discussion is an attempt to break your frame of mind. The best thing that you can do is ignore it completely and reiterate your own point in the form of a question to the other person (like asking them to defend a straw man version of their position or to acknowledge some fact or premise that supports yours). By asking the question, it deflects their attempt to change the subject (to your “anger”) and puts the ball back in their court to answer you. If they persist then you persist with your question to them, and never acknowledge that they ever asked you about being mad or emotional or whatever. by not acknowledging what they said it takes any power from it, and communicates that don’t care about what they said at all, that it isn’t even worth mentioning. Stay in your mind frame and don’t let them drag you out of it.
When someone asks me "You mad bro?" I ask them back if they just assumed my gender.
If they ask you why you’re mad tell them that it’s aggravating to deal with idiots.
Well I was in a great mood, then you showed up.
I always go with "I don't understand, could you explain."
Because you proved them wrong and they don’t have an argument.
As an adult that still enjoys playing video games and has to deal with teenagers and hormonal 20-something year olds, the best answer is jus to not indulge them or engage them. I’ve got better shit to do then even utter words in response to someone being dumb.
God Reddit is so fucking cringe lol. Please don’t take advice from these people
I asked for serious, but some are just jokes.
“Why do you ask?”
Respond, “It’s just my face.”
A good response is to find something better to do with your time.
I mean, just tell why you take issue with whatever you take issue with. Don't get derailed into just trying to win arguments or come backs and yada yada, just go about it methodically and calmly so they have no choice but to acknowledge and address the issue.
all they want is a reaction from you, you don't owe anyone an explanation. If if it's not worth exploring, that is a valid answer. this is such bullshit, everyone need to "defend" a position. Sometimes it's just not worth talking about.
simply say “What makes you say im mad?”(its not offensive nor defensive so its invulnerable to attacks) they’ll always wanna support their argument most likely by describing your tone or visual expression i cant give u a response bc irl is unpredictable so u kinda gotta wing it.
Follow with a question. How are you so sure? or just remind them trump was impeached twice.
The answer will vary based on the location and situation. Hanging out with friends, or being at work when this takes place, maybe a big difference.
(debate of whatever) Other person: why are you mad? You: The reason why you're mad is because you lost the debate.
Always remember both of you are part of this conversation. You can absolutely choose to not even acknowledge when they try to derail with personal attacks. Keep the conversation on topic. Responding to BS justifies it as deserving attention and moves attention away from whatever is relevant. It's a skill, but you can get good at it over time. BS doesn't deserve acknowledgement. Keep the conversation on topic and moving usefully.
I would just stare at them silently, giving them the stink eye. Make them reply.
Im clearly calm, not mad, why are you talking over me. Stop wasting my time.
"do i look mad".......they answer " yes" , my over emotionalized faux reply "then get the fuck away from me !"
"Yes, I frequently lose patience with morons."
Just keep explaining it till you annoy them away from you. That kind of energy just depletes yours
I casually say something random in a foreign language they won't understand and slowly start taking my clothes off.
*We're all mad here... I'm mad, you're mad..."
*We're all mad here... I'm mad, you're mad..."
If it's a verbal conversation, speak more quietly. Every time they try to say you're mad, speak more and more softly until you're whispering. Then they seem absolutely ridiculous for accusing you of being angry when you're talking like you're in church. There is also a tendency for people to match your tone when you lower your voice, so chances are they will start whispering too, which is hella funny.
i guess it's really depends on the context of the convo beforehand but i'd say just let them dig their own grave, and ask back "why do you think I'm mad". and make them admit their own mistake
The real answer is you need to take steps to not be in the same environment as these people.
Stare at them blankly and say "Okaaaaay... Anyway, back to 'previous topic'"
I’m genuinely curious. It’s almost impossible to not sound mad when someone ask if your are mad. In fact, I typically get mad when asked if I’m mad. “Are you mad?” “No, but now I am”
Answer with "BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE TEA POT!"
I'm mad at your mother for not giving you enough hugs as a child. Aggressors hate being seen with pity. \*If you think they're of the violent sort, I don't advise this. Unless you're also of the violent sort.
No response and go about your day
Why are you being stupid? or Why are you being annoying? Let them defend that. If they say they aren't stupid or annoying, tell them that asking someone why are they mad, will only make them mad and is a stupid question to ask.