this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1410 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
7939 readers
3833 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Each couple's relationship's are different. So that sounds like your advice would be compatible with your desired relationship.
I can assure you that what the boyfriend did in this example can be being "a partner". Part of being a partner in my relationship is offering a "check" on a course of action. We do this for each other. If escalation is called for, we have to generally agree on it. When you escalate, you commit the other person to your cause (and the consequences). If the consequence in the above example would have been to screw up months worth of planning on a vacation before we even left the airport, that affects both people. It has to be worth it. In this situation, I agree with the boyfriend, it wasn't worth the battle.
Everything that would ultimately be accomplished from escalating with the worker (and possibly facing immediate consequences) could still have been accomplished without escalating, including contacting the company and complaining. In a moment of passion many times that's not clear. If one partner is thinking more clearly than the other in the moment, then it helps both if the clear headed one provides the "check". In my relationship I've been in both roles, the checker and the checked. I love my partner for both.
If my partner told me "[don't be] a ref", I'd probably nicely communicate "Don't write a check you might require me to cash without my buy-in."
None of this says your relationship or approach is wrong. There is no universal objective "right" or "wrong" in this one. You and I have different approaches, so the only way it would be "wrong" is if we are in a relationship together. From our differing opinions here, I think we're both equally glad we're not together.
At no point did I suggest that right or wrong was of concern here, and your use of quotes is bizarre. I simply stated what I would do in that situation. I'm honestly not sure what the goal of your straw man is here.
What an absolutely weird thing to say. Friend, I've never met you, have zero desire to interact with you further, and I have absolutely no idea why you feel the need to evaluate the degree to which you and I want to be together. I think you need a snack and a nap, then maybe go take a walk outside.
Don't treat others like children just because you don't like the conversation. It makes you look less mature by comparison, not more.
If you invite conversations in an open forum don't be surprised if people respond.
I don't mean to go grammary-Nazi on you, but I wanted to give you this information to communicate I had no intention of trying to offend you or strawman you here.
I believe you concluded that I used reason #1, when I wasn't:
"1 To quote a source directly or indirectly - Direct quotes use the exact words from a source and require quotation marks. Indirect quotes restate or paraphrase those words or ideas and don’t require quotation marks."
In fact, I was using reason #5:
"5 To discuss words - If you want to discuss a word, phrase, or letter in writing without using its intended meaning, set it apart with quotation marks. Depending on the styling format, some writers alternatively use italics without quotation marks."
source
I used this because "right" and "wrong" have subjective meanings, and putting them in quotes meant I was intentionally avoiding adding my own subjective values of those words to the discussion. I was recognizing, in text, that different audiences can and will land on either side of an argument, and in this case there isn't one side that is objective because its subjective to each of us.
I wasn't evaluating our degree to be together. We are talking about relationship style preferences. The style you communicated is not one that everyone is compatible with. The style I communicated is is also not one that everyone is compatible with. There's nothing wrong with either of our relationship styles. Should two completely rando people that neither of us know each hold the relationship style we each hold, they would be incompatible with each other, and neither would be wrong. They would just be wrong for the relationship style of each other. That is all I was saying in that text.