this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1399 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
7906 readers
3153 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
Honestly, if I were her I'd be at least a bit miffed at the boyfriend at that point, for undermining my righteous fury.
There's only so much energy each of us has to fight the bullshit. You aren't going to win every battle. So you need to pick your battles and spend your energy wisely. The post says they were getting on a plane. Travel in general comes with a lot of bullshit to navigate. If you use all your energy up and you haven't even gotten on the plane yet, you're going to be fully exhausted before you reach a safe recharge space and be in meltdown territory.
I think bf properly chose to defuse this situation because the lowly worker making the demands may have zero ability to influence policy and has their job at risk if they don't follow it. Alternatively, the worker may be on a power trip and has the ability to use their power to fuck up your travel. Yes, you'll get grounds for a complaint, maybe a refund, but that "justice" will arrive days, weeks or months after the offense. Your travel will have already been screwed, and it was totally avoidable by providing enough benign info to satisfy the worker.
I'm not saying "always capitulate", but make sure the rage is worth the cost. If the jackboots show up at my front door asking me for information on activities of the gay couple that lives next door for no other reason than that they are gay, I'll tell the jackboots to pound sand.
All of that is well and good. But I'd still spend a teeny tiny bit of energy to say "Next time let me handle it, or back me up. I need a partner, not a ref." If mama's going in, help or get out of the way.
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.
That doesn't sound like a good relationship to me. It seems like you're letting your ego get in the way of a better life. My partner helps me do things and i help my partner do things. When my partner helps resolve a situation that was not going well for me, then I'm very happy they did
I'm not sure you're reading their meaning the way OP intended it. From my read, it sounds like you're saying that she (assuming she's a woman because she called herself "mama") is unable to determine when to pick her own battles, and/or is ill-equipped to fight her own battles alone. I don't think that's what you meant, but I don't know why you assume that a woman who wants to take charge of her own problems is "letting (their) ego get in the way" and must not be in a good relationship? It seems a wild jump. The OP reminds me of my own relationships.
My partners know that when I decide to actually speak up about something, it's because it's something important to me. If they were to see me advocating for myself, they would never tell me I was letting my ego get in the way - they would cheer me on. They know that if I need help, I can ask them for it and reliably receive it. They don't swoop in assuming I'm a damsel in distress that can't fight my own battles.
I'd be more concerned if my partners didn't implicitly trust me like that. I'd feel coddled, thinking they see me as a child they need to keep control of.
That's absolutely ridiculous. He was doing his part in trying to keep her calm and trying to help defuse the situation. To be mad that he noticed a problem starting to boil over and handled it is insane. A partner helps in exactly these situations. Its not us vs ourselves. The issue can be addressed after. Why risk getting thrown off
Yeah in most places airlines have zero obligation to actually put you on a flight. If you start to raise your voice, act upset, cause a scene, it nearly always results in your ticket(s) getting cancelled and airport security getting called. Don't let a braindead airline agent ruin your travel plans, it's not worth it
They're allowed to arrest you for something they completely made up. Probably not the safest hill to die on.
These aren't actually cops. They have as much authority as a mall rent-a-cop. They have no authority to make arrests. The most they can do is report you to the FTC (I think this is the right alphabet org.) and get you banned from flying.
I think meant agent like flight attendant, not like air marshall, although I would be okay with giving them this authority.
Anyone who works at an airport can call security on you and get you arrested. My ex with anger issues started going off on someone at the front desk and we almost didn't make a flight.
I was hoping the story ended with “my usually cheerful unbothered bf told them politely but firmly to eat shit” but he just instantly capitulates to the bureaucracy? Wack
Getting on the airplane is way more important than feeling superior to a bottom-rung worker.
Nah they can kick you off at the "Captain's discretion"
we as a unit must put up a united front