I think a large part of this involves personal insecurities. I remember saying truthful things in very shitty ways during my younger years. But I also had a lot to prove, having just started out in life as an adult.
Somehow as I grew older (starting in my mid-30s I suppose), I became more and more aware of how I was affecting other people with my choice of words, and I had less and less reasons to "defeat" people in conversation. When victory is no longer the objective in a discussion, you tend relax, and can choose your words more carefully.
Similar experience here. I thought of us all more in terms of whether I & they were "doing it right", but I try now to see others as individuals of infinite worth, and remembering that things can be OK in the end, so I can hopefully think more about them as a person who (like me) is still learning, and has a unique background of experiences good & bad, likes/dislikes, choices, habits, ideals & dreams, and tremendous potential. I made notes on this for myself to review periodically (helpful for me at least), which I have also posted (at a simple site): http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854745184.html .
The reality is that, unlike yourself, most people replace "learning new things" with "actively avoiding learning new things" at some point after leaving high school. Correcting one of these people can snap them out of their self-imposed rut just long enough to correct a bad habit.
I think there is some truth to what you say, but you would be more productive if you approached the "problem" from a place of empathy, like the article discusses.
A lot changes after high school/college which frankly makes learning more difficult.The nature of brain development changes, people acquire new priorities like jobs, children, and family. Additionally, they have more cognitive inertia to work against.
If you are implying that harsh attacks are required to snap them out of a deep set belief, and I don't agree and have never seen it work in the real world.
That might be true sometimes, but my experience is that more often it just alienates them (or lowers their confidence), which reduces chances of future success working together. I've found that certain mental habits I try to cultivate help me to say what is needed, if/when needed, in a way to move forward more and back less.
Yes, especially if you follow links around (or start at the home page). If there is any page on the site where you would like more ideas or content added, let me know (the footer has an email address), as often I have much more written under that part of my private notes, just haven't taken the time to decide what more I should mark public for export and edit for readability. The last link on most pages has more info on how to read the site. Honest comments are much appreciated.
Edit: examples include, though I'm not sure if I have them concisely in these words (but I do have a ton of notes) are:
to try to ask gentle questions instead of making strong statements whenever possible, to observe more than I did, to wait 72 hours thinking things over before making a negative/critical/possibly hurtful statement, to use the "compliment sandwich" (sincerely) to clarify that I respect/love them as a person and they are more important than the issue, to remember a quote from Pres. Thomas S. Monson to never make a problem to be solved more important than a person to be loved, to pray about how to help someone or if/how I should say things, and not forgetting that saying nothing can also be a selfish disservice (ie, finding the right balance: some things really do need to be said), and a routine to review habits at the right times, mentally practicing, including praying daily until I am confident I will remember the most important things and have a comfort level that my plan for the day is good (which has been helpful).
Note: I have not spent much time as a manager, but we have grandchildren, and I see that clear statements of what needs to happen can be required more often than the above suggests, but with thoughtfulness and caring toward others. I also know that if someone is a threat to others or the org., that boundaries need to be set, sometimes immediately, and there are consequences for performance and for choices, which should be made clear, and it is worth helping people develop and learn from where they are. Authority with accountability, choices to consequences, are relationships that should not be disrupted, it seems to me. I also try to remember that I have learned for myself that God lives and will judge us all, that this person who is learning might be my superior in the eyes of God (for all I know), might be more humble or have overcome more than I have or such (I am not qualified to judge), so I had better treat them with respect, and that God has commanded us to forgive everyone, so some things I can just let go. But trust is different from forgiveness, and should be based on real reasons of performance over time, not words or wishes. And my mistakes are forgivable also, based on repentance, and there is much more, which is why I made a web site....
> Somehow as I grew older (starting in my mid-30s I suppose), I became more and more aware of how I was affecting other people with my choice of words, and I had less and less reasons to "defeat" people in conversation. When victory is no longer the objective in a discussion, you tend relax, and can choose your words more carefully.
Without trying to invalidate what it is you're saying: Would it be false to say that, you have also realized that how you say things will have consequences on your personal reputation and may be subconsciously taking them into consideration as well?
Most definitely this would be a part of it, but only when dealing with people with whom you'll have recurring interactions, or within your tribe (where word gets around).
Online this tends to disappear (at least to our perception). When there's no face-to-face interaction, we seem to lose that reputation instinct rather quickly...
There’s nothing wrong with being known as the type of person you want to be. It’s a side effect of being a version of you that you like. Of being able to live with yourself.
Not OP but 100% no for me. The difference here really is motivational difference of empathy vs selfishness. I think if you've learned the latter there's still much to be gained, even if the actions in this specific case are the same.
I think this pokes at the heart of what it means to be mature. To become more aware of how what we do and say impacts other people and their perception of us.
Social-positively mature. One can be mature and stable in their decisions, obligations, ideas, etc, but give much less damn about how others feel. There are people‘s people and things’ people, the latter usually discriminated for not thinking about someone’s insecurities. I met strangers on the internet who could rip off everyone insecure around and then discuss a topic freely being sure that the opponents who remained are strong persons not changing their minds or truths, not playing logical tricks when being offended. It is somewhat beautiful when a group of commenters almost kills itself only to continue in peace. The world that triggers on a minuscle misstatements has to learn from them, don’t you think?
I would say that a heart of being mature is when you don’t care how someone says something, but that is out of trend right now.
you hit the nail in the head. I cannot resonate with this enough. The more and more I realise, I dont have to win a conversation, the more relaxed it gets.
Yes, I experienced something like that as well. I don’t feel I have anything to prove anymore; listening and choosing my words more carefully comes as a very natural approach to conversation now. I’m also a lot less interested in convincing people of things, though. It’s not important to me for others to see things as I do anymore.
> I remember saying truthful things in very shitty ways during my younger years
People prefer to be deceived than proven wrong.
That's why young people are often thought of as shitty, because they have far less sovrastructures.
The more people age the more they think that when they where young they were shitty and insecure, because they need to justify becoming conformists (they prefer to deceive themselves)
I think it mostly has to do with other people's insecurities. If I say something like, "veganism is unhealthy" (because of lack of B12... yes I'm aware there are nuances), some vegans interpret that as a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact, or even as an attack on their lifestyle choices, because they are so involved with their egos.
I try to follow Paul Graham's dictum "keep your identity small", the saying "strong opinions weakly held" and/or I've extremely strong self-confidence (compared to most people), so I seem to be way less personally affected by statements like these (though I'm sure I have other triggers)...
Granted I'm only 30 so maybe that will change in a few years, but for the time being I've started to moderate my stated opinions to spare other people's feelings (though I still think it would be better if they grew more emotionally mature, but I realize that's unlikely to happen), to improve social relations and, frankly, also because it's getting more and more dangerous out there, with political correctness and/or China-driven character assassinations.
When you say things like, "Veganism is unhealthy," the issue is that it simply leaves no room in the conversation for the other person. Even just a slight change ("I understand that veganism is unhealthy") will almost certainly elicit a different response.
If you feel like you're often pushing people's buttons to the point of censoring yourself, maybe take a step back and see if you can communicate more kindly.
Smoking (or other forms of nicotine administration) is self-medication for a significant portion of the population, due to the not-completely-understood action of nicotinic receptors in the brain...
I think it's particularly harmful and sad to say there's no possible conversation about something when you are of two minds yourself!
> Smoking (or other forms of nicotine administration) is self-medication for a significant portion of the population
It is believed to be, but it isn't.
We could make the same argument for alcohol or even heroin, that stop a cough and relieves from physical pain.
> I think it's particularly harmful and sad to say there's no possible conversation
As a smoker, there is no possible conversation on the fact that smoking kills, cigarettes are killers, no matter the benefits one can take out of them, they are "responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers"
This is a fact that can only be acknowledged as true, even though personally many people decide to ignore this fact and smoke anyway (including myself).
> I think it mostly has to do with other people's insecurities. If I say something like, "veganism is unhealthy" (because of lack of B12... yes I'm aware there are nuances), some vegans interpret that as a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact, or even as an attack on their lifestyle choices, because they are so involved with their egos.
I'll bite. It's true that a vegan diet can be unhealthy, and that it's wise to supplement with B12, but that doesn't mean a vegan diet is unhealthy.
This is like saying "an omnivorous diet is unhealthy because you don't eat enough vegetables". Sure, some people with omnivorous diets need to eat more vegetables, but that's not true of all people who eat omnivorous diets.
I'm not sure whether you would benefit from increasing your precision or accuracy, but the "veganism is unhealthy" line is plain wrong.
The calling out of the example of being bad was perfectly topical. tomp is espousing advice that is nominally supposed to imply that s/he's risen above petty emotional investment in arguments, when in fact it's clear s/he's making misleading and inflammatory statements that are going to be directly insulting to a certain audience. Not only should s/he moderate their opinions, but s/he should reflect on their substance and accuracy. "My understanding is that veganism can lead to a B12 deficiency which is unhealthy" would be much better.
I’m happy to discuss, and I even indicated as much (a.k.a. there’s nuance). But people would rather play emotional games and feign being offended. Just look of what I’m being accused - wanting to win, misleadig, ego investment, trying to offend, being an asshole, ... I think the replies here perfectly demonstrate my point, ironically.
You are absolutely being misleading. The statement "Veganism is unhealthy" is objectively wrong in the sense that it implies that it cannot be done healthily. Practically any diet or activity in general is unhealthy if proper precautions are not taken. In the case of veganism, the proper precaution happens to be B12 supplementation. You clearly know this as indicated by your disclaimer about 'nuance'. You are making an equivalent statement to me saying "You are making asshole comments (but there is some nuance)" - there is an element of truth to the statement, but it is misleading and first and foremost designed to create an emotional reaction.
Edit: My last point is clearly demonstrated if the immediate downvote I received after posting this was from you.
> The statement "Veganism is unhealthy" is objectively wrong
The statement "vaccination is safe" is also objectively wrong (it's a medical procedure therefore it carries risk; the more correct statement is "vaccination is risky, but the tradeoffs are extremely worth it"), but saying it wouldn't "create an emotional reaction" in most people (except in anti-vaxxers, which AFAIK are a huge minority, and pretty much everyone would agree that they are extremely ego-invested in their opinion) (saying that it's wrong, however, might).
Anyway, my aim isn't to debate you on specific subjects like veganism or vaccines. Just be aware that stating things in a blunt, opinionated way can have undesirable effects on your communications, regardless of your intentions.
Eh, the upstream comment used bogus incendiary flamebait as an "example" so yes, people are going to reply to it. They might as well have gone with "the earth is flat". It's a show-stopper that challenges the veracity of the rest of their post. They aren't being "right but rude" when they are wrong about such a basic statement.
For example, B12 is in meat because animals are supplemented with it, like cobalt added to their feed. Humans can supplement directly.
It's like thinking you have to drink vitamin D fortified milk or iodine fortified salt to get vitamin D and iodine, and then asserting people who don't consume either must be unhealthy.
If I could find an extension that blocked the thousands of "ackshually" reply threads or replies like yours that miss the point entirely I would be so happy.
I realize and appreciate your point, but are you willing to consider the possibility that there's something important going on here that you may be overlooking? "Stop writing irrelevant stuff, just stop it" suggests not, but I try to not make assumptions.
> If I say something like, "veganism is unhealthy" (because of lack of B12... yes I'm aware there are nuances), some vegans interpret that as a statement of opinion, rather than a statement of fact, or even as an attack on their lifestyle choices, because they are so involved with their egos.
tomp wisely acknowledges, within brackets, that there are nuances, but statements like "veganism is unhealthy" are incredibly vague, and the very real nuances will be automatically constructed and appended to the message (and attributed to the speaker) by the listener's brain, typically without their conscious knowledge, and often in a manner not to your liking. Should people be like this? Who knows. Are they like this? Of course, and we all know it when the topic of conversation is psychology, but how easy it is to forget this when the topic is something else.
"they are so involved with their egos" seems to me of key importance, but it's so easy to forget that we are all involved with our egos. I listen to a fair amount of lectures by experienced Buddhists, people who devote their lives to observing their own minds, and a recurring theme that arises is that even with the substantial discipline and skills they've acquired in that field, they are still regularly fooled by their egos.
> but for the time being I've started to moderate my stated opinions to spare other people's feelings (though I still think it would be better if they grew more emotionally mature, but I realize that's unlikely to happen)
"feelings" is a tricky term in this context. What does it mean, really? Sometimes, it accurately refers to simplistic, emotional, low-information emotional reactions, as opposed to logical thinking. But is this always the case? Might there be times that it is perceived that this is what's happening in someone else, but in reality there is an unseen, complex multi-dimensional (nuanced) analysis taking place that happens to come to a different (and not incorrect) conclusion than the one (also not incorrect, considering the implicitly assumed nuances) that you or I might have formed?
Getting along can be amazingly difficult even in the simplest of situations (say, a family or team consisting of only 4 or 5 people, who mostly have aligned interests). But look at how the complexity, interconnectedness, and technical capabilities of the world has exploded in the last 50, 20, or even 10 years. And we're managing all of this complexity with largely the same political and psychological tools that we used when half of us were farming the land, with the addition of some "weaponized" psychological capabilities and techniques (mass media, internet, machine learning) thrown into the mix to make things even more interesting.
Considering all this, how reasonable does this common "just look at the facts and agree with me already" attitude seem?
GP's larger point is fair enough. But it would be telling, and germane to this discussion, if it turned out that many of their experiences were due to the fact that remarks they consider to be just "statements of fact" are more contentious than they realize.
(1) Heme-iron is really the only good way to get iron and it's only in meat
(2) You're not really going to get carnitine from vegetables
(3) You're going to have a really hard time eating enough calories and having balanced ratios of macro-nutrients. Beans and rice which have protein also have tons of carbs and no fat. Good luck with that.
I've seen literally dozens and dozens of videos and posts of really really malnourished people advocating veganism.
It's pretty much too hard to execute for the average person.
But “veganism is unhealthy” is an opinion. Your parenthetical about the lack of B12 indicates that you know this, and that the topic is more nuanced. If you don’t normally qualify that statement, why did you choose to do so here?
Frankly, I don’t believe that you don’t mean it as an attack on the lifestyle choices of others, and I’m not surprised that people get defensive.
correct. my vegan in-laws, have been vegan for 40 years now and they are in very good condition for their age. Saying it's "unhealthy" with no nuance is a ridiculous statement. It is in a no-way a fact. People that speak like this give people that speak in facts a bad name.
My uncle has been smoking for 50 years, suffering no consequences whatsoever.
It must be because cigarettes are good for the health.
/sarcasm
That's exactly why speaking the truth is fundamental, being kind is simply a plus: we all do reckless stuff in life, we all base some choice on assumptions or beliefs, it's usually not that bad, but it can be and someone needs to say it.
Just the fact that we are discussing about an unhealthy diet, that killed millions of people in poor countries, because in rich countries we have doctors and pharmacies and a lot of ways to overcome its dangers and we can't agree that a fact is a fact and choices are choices, proves that being kind before being right can be dangerous.
Doctors will never say "you should eat vegan because it's better for your health", they will say "you should remove this or that from your diet" if something is wrong (yes, bacon is unhealthy too, coke in unhealthy as well etc. etc.) and if you decide to go vegan they will say "it won't probably affect your health, but be careful. Also I want to visit you again in a couple of months".
That's just what it is, unhealthy means not healthy, it doesn't mean deadly at contact!
But people are more sensitive about their choices than their health conditions. People think that their choices defines them, they resist to changes and to facts that challenge their status, because it shutters their reality and trigger their insecurities.
It's not personal, If I say "veganism is unhealthy" it' because it's historically correct and still a cause of malnutritions around the World, not because I think vegans are stupid.
I think they are adults making unhealthy choices (I hope knowing it), just like driving too fast, drinking too much, living a sedentary life or, like my uncle, smoking for 50 years.
My dad worked in lung oncology and doctors couldn't stop some people from smoking even after they had to surgically remove one of the lungs because tumor destroyed it.
Lucky them in Italy healthcare is paid by everybody's taxes or we would have more than a few Walter White.
A popular similar episode happened in the UK, a former very popular soccer player, George Best, had a liver transplant because he drank too much. Even after that he kept drinking and it led to complications and a liver infection that killed him at the age of 59.
Few days before he died he asked to be photographed in the hospital and the photo published with the message "Don't die like me".
It took him 59 years, a liver transplant and an horrible death at relatively young age to understand he was wrong.
Do you think nobody was kind, empathetic or nice with him before about his alcoholism problem?
But how many more were nice with him just to take advantage of his glory, fame, and, of course, money?
Being nice alone serves no purpose, being empathetic or nice, sometimes requires "not nice" manners.
If somebody confronted him and actually forced him to quit, he could well be alive and that liver could have saved someone who deserved it more than a repentless alcoholic.
We should also ask to ourselves: why is it so important for some people to convince others?
What purpose does it serve to have tools (empathy, kindness) to win people trust (they value the messenger), when we have tools (logic, fact checking) to evaluate the actual message?
Back to cigarettes.
Hironically my dad was also an heavy smoker, and reduced it a lot when my mother was pregnant of my sister (she had medical problems while being pregnant of me) and completely quit when my sister was born, because she suffered from asthma.
He went from 3 packs a day to zero in a few months and has been cigarettes free for 43 years now.
He knew he was wrong, he just had no reason to change, he probably thought that without cigarettes he would have lost self-confidence. My mother has always been more kind than right, but she couldn't convince him to quit, no matter how she tried.
Your partner shouldn't convince you to quit smoking or drinking when you have little kids, you either understand it on your own or they make you. There's no amount of discussing the matter that can be considered acceptable. There should be no space for being nice or empathic or reasonable or compromising.
But my dad also taught me that "you smoke years of your life away" (just like Bezos with his grandma, it's true, you really do...) and I have never touched a cigarette before I was in my late 20s, not because I ws scared, but because I thought it was stupid!
I eventually started smoking to make breaks at work, admittedly one of the worst decision of my life, but I like it and keep smoking from time to time, no matter how nicely people advice me to stop.
p.s. many in the comments are assuming that people talking straight haven't tried being kind or understanding before.
“Unhealthy” is not an intrinsic, observable feature; it’s a label we use to describe things that cross some arbitrary threshold of having deleterious effects. Calling something “unhealthy” is the textbook definition of an opinion, my dude.
> Both of those statements have some element of truth to them,
No, they don't.
They are supercharged propaganda.
> but they're obviously incendiary, as is your 'veganism is unhealthy'.
Not at all.
Saying veganism is unhealthy is stating an opinion shared by many nutrition expert, it says nothing about vegans, it is just what it is.
meat is murder contains a judgement: if meat is murder, you are a murderer, if taxation is theft, who collects taxes is a thief.
I can accept "you eat corpses" because it's true, I don't eat animals alive, they are already dead when I eat them, but it is also imprecise, because I eat just bits of the corpses, not the entire carcass.
A majority of them studied and proved its unhealthy effects.
Unless you wanna say that every opinion counts, no matter the opinion, we can safely assume that being vegan is like drinking or having unprotected sex or speeding.
It won't probably kill you, it will even improve life for some, but it's not something one should take lightly like "it has no effects".
You seem like the prime example of someone who has to win the conversation.
Purposefully harsh wordings that require parenthesized nuance even here are hardly the listeners fault. If there's a breakdown in communication because you're being pithy and sharp that's a problem you can choose to fix.
Are you open to the possibility that even your deeply held beliefs, like “veganism is unhealthy” could be wrong? I have very frequently blundered into defending a false assertion for far longer than I should have, especially in work settings where you never know when you might meet someone much, much more well informed about a subject than yourself.
That burned me a lot when I was younger. Intellectual humility has never failed to serve me. I wish I was more humble about my strongly held opinions (that I thought were facts) when I was younger.
Maybe because you're mentioning one group specifically. Any diet can be unhealthy. The fact that Vegans need to be a bit more careful doesn't make it inherently more unhealthy.
No, it's just an example. Probably a poor example. In reality I don't often meet vegans, but people get upset for all kinds of reasons / statements, most commonly for political ones which are to be avoided on HN (and real life) (and are quite easy to avoid, if you want to).
Another (non-political) one that comes up fairly often, is that I don't think it's reasonable to congratulate people when they decide to get married... it's a decision after all, nothing to do with achievement and/or luck (for most people I know at least, who aren't extremely lonely to the extent that finding anyone that tolerates them is an achievement... in which case, "congratulations" would be more in order), and if anything, they should be warned (as many marriages end in failure). But if you say that, you're the asshole.
You don’t say congratulations to newlyweds because they overcame adversity and conquered something, you say congratulations to newlyweds because that’s the customary way of communicating to them that you are happy for them. Like so many things, it’s not literal. It’d be like refusing to say “I’m sorry for your loss” when a friend’s parent dies, and then making a point of explaining to them that the reason you’re not going to say that to them is because you didn’t personally kill their parent therefore you have nothing to apologize for.
There was never any conundrum. "Sorry" can be correctly used in both an apology or in expressing sorrow. In saying, "I'm sorry for your loss," the context makes it clear that the speaker is not penitent, but sympathetic.
I truly mean no offense but you kind of sound like an asshole.
I think these are perfectly acceptable thoughts to have but in the context of interpersonal relationships and society as a whole, these statements just seem confrontational and unnecessary.
Nobody's disagreeing with the statistics, they're disagreeing that statistical likelihood of success is a good criteria for determining whether to congratulate somebody on something or not.
I suspect that if we used that criteria, we'd end up reinforcing a lot of existing trends. For example, my daughter gets into a computer science program, but I know that most women don't end up getting jobs in that field, so I withhold congratulations. Why are you yelling? I'm right! I'm backed by decades of statistics.
If you find that people often get upset when you talk to them then maybe you should look for the common factor?
Of course if you're "warning" people when they proudly and happily announce that they're getting married then you're the asshole. It's a super strange superiority complex to have. I got over this "social constructs are dumb and we should only express ourselves in objective facts like Mr Spock" phase when I was in high school, I encourage you to do the same. I remember explaining to some friends that having a party for the New Year was dumb because, after all, it was just a random point in the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Ow, the cringe.
I don't think you understand marriage if you don't think it's an achievement.
If you give the people in question the benefit of the doubt, you would assume that they understand the gravity of the interpersonal and legal commitment they had made. Building up the trust to make that commitment is hard work.
It'd be like if somebody just made a commitment to donate periodically to charity. Presumably, those donations required that person to establish themselves financially to the extent that they can be reasonable sure that they will be able to keep their promise. So even though it's a "decision," it's closely related to an achievement.
Or maybe this illustrates it more clearly: You'd consider it an achievement to reach a 50th anniversary, correct? As you say, "many marriages end in failure." So why not a premarital relationship resulting in marriage? That doesn't always happen either. Most premarital relationships end in breaking up, not marriage.
So, as long as we're treating these people with maximum respect, we can see that:
1. Getting to the point where they were ready to commit to marriage was a challenging process. Big commitments require stable foundations, and stable foundations aren't free.
2. There is reason to hope that marriage will be a positive thing for the two who have decided to engage in it.
1 and 2 together are sufficient cause for congratulations, so they are in order.
I am married and I agree with the OP. I don't see it as a huge achievement and people who do are the ones who, in my experience, like to spend spend way too much (IMO) on a wedding. But we're proving his point really by discussing it!
Having experiences that suggest that an achievement is likely very minor should not be a cause for withholding congratulations, or any other social pleasantry. For example, in my experience, just being accepted to college at all is really not much of an achievement. There are plenty of colleges that will accept virtually anybody who applies. However, if a friend or coworker were to announce one morning, "I was just accepted to $LOCAL_COMMUNITY_COLLEGE," I would congratulate them. Maybe the hardest part for them was applying in the first place. Maybe it was harder for them to just apply to that college than it would be for you or I to get accepted into Harvard. We can't know, so we err on the side of warmth and encouragement.
As for,
> But we're proving his point really by discussing it!
> I don't think it's reasonable to congratulate people when they decide to get married... it's a decision after all, nothing to do with achievement and/or luck
‘Congratulate” has additional meanings: can be about success and good luck or simply happiness linked to some particular event. You share their joy, that’s all. Even if you don’t think they really have motives to be happy :-)
You could look at being in a relationship and making that decision as an achievement. Although most of the reason for congratulating the couple is to show support. Otherwise you’re just being opinionated about how much effort is deserving of being worthwhile. Which is fine as long as you accept people’s reactions.
Like you could decide nothing short of an Olympic record is worth congratulating but this is pretty obviously very socially inept.
Edit: Basically on aggregate there is nothing special about it but it’s important to the people involved and how plussed or non-plussed you feel about it should relate to your relationship with them rather than how impressed you are personally about it.
anything in life is ridiculous if you look at it a certain way. why the heck would you sit in one place staring at glass and poking your fingers against plastic all day? how dumb is that??!>>!
perspectives like this have an ideal place in humor, not in criticism. among friends in a trusting and relaxed environment, go to town on how silly we all are. do it in a funny way and you get cool points. otherwsie, not so much.
(also, you congratulate the engaged because they've made a lifelong commitment to another person, which is a hard thing to do).
Spoken like someone who has never suffered through trying to get pregnant! It’s not as easy as it sounds.
For both my kids we had another pregnancy prior that ended in miscarriage. The first one when you’re excited and the whole thing is new was particularly emotionally hard. Lying in bed with your partner mourning your lost future hard. Most parents wait until after the most dangerous period to announce their pregnancy to the world for this reason. There are a lot of hopes and dreams wrapped up in a very uncertain time.
There’s a whole bunch of luck involved, particularly when people start having to do things like IVF and as I said to the OP congratulating people is often about showing support. It can be an emotionally fraught time leading to physically and emotionally tough times ahead. Pregnancy, childbirth and raising kids is no picnic. The glib answer is “well you chose it” but that doesn’t make it any easier nor less worthy of support.
Somehow as I grew older (starting in my mid-30s I suppose), I became more and more aware of how I was affecting other people with my choice of words, and I had less and less reasons to "defeat" people in conversation. When victory is no longer the objective in a discussion, you tend relax, and can choose your words more carefully.