Retaliation to rudeness

[gumisevil]

Hypothetical scenario using my "favorite" trigger:

Amongst the passengers of a train car there are two people, a gum-popper and a misophoniac. The misophoniac politely asks the gum-popper to stop. The gum-popper declines. The misophoniac informs the popper that the noise is very disturbing and that it is rude to do so. The gum-popper gives a dirty-look and continues. The misophoniac then goes on an angry tirade involving "colorful" language which in turn enrages the gum-popper.

Has the misophoniac gone too far? Are angry and vulgar words in excess of what the gum-popper has done?

(Note that many things, sound or otherwise, could be substituted in for gum-popping so long as they are potentially bothersome and easily avoidable. This issue comes up a lot with misophonia, but really transcends it and applies to human nature in general.)

I submit that the misophoniac is justified. Why? Because the misophoniac responded in kind. What is bothersome is certainly subjective, however, what constitutes a sound is not. The misophoniac here responded with a particular sound sequence, in this case spoken word. If it is the misophoniac's problem that some particular sound (gum-popping in this case) is disturbing, then it is the other person's problem if hostile spoken word is disturbing. Saying that spoken word is different is making a completely arbitrary distinction from an objective perspective. Note that violence against the person or their property would not be justified, as there is a clear difference between rudeness and aggression.

Do consider that much (some would argue most) of human communication is non-verbal. Body language conveys a great deal of information, both positive and negative. Oral sounds such as chewing and popping do similarly.

A counter-argument might be that the gum-popper did not originally have malicious intention. This may be true in some cases, however, intentions do not determine outcome. If we were to excuse harmful action based on good intention, then we would have to excuse the greatest atrocities in human history (seriously...think about it). Harmful action must be opposed if we are to progress as a species.

Yes, I would agree that one generally should try to reason with the person causing the harm before taking negative action, but if the person refuses, then it is justified to react negatively, so long as outright aggression is not used. Note that I am not arguing that this course of action is necessarily a good idea. Only that the misophoniac is not doing anything wrong beyond what the agitator has done.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

[JM97]

Whilst you can say the two are on par with each other I do not believe it justifies it. For starters what if there are then others who over hear the vulgar language and they don't like that. This is before we go into the morals of retaliation.

In my eyes at least the expression of anger leads to more hate and anger which ultimately makes the situation worse. In such a situation I would attempt to move a way or put headphones in. If neither option is available I would simply do my best to ignore them, of course I'd be irritated but I do not believe aggression is the way to go.

[JM97]

Let me just clarify that those are my views and I could fully understand some expression of anger, I just wouldn't condone it. I am also aware that my misophonia is probably not as bad some on here and as such my calm approach is far more difficult for them. This are just my feelings on the matter

[Janswife]

You never know who you are dealing with. I was waiting for the guy in Florida who shot the texter at the movie theater to use Misophonia as a defense. You know that's going to happen someday. That may be the way we get the most publicity.

It would certainly be a better defense than "affluenza," but the perpetrator would do life., no doubt. No jury would buy that we can get homicidal when provoked.

So you need to realize there are people who only increase the offending trigger if you ask them to stop. Plan what your next move will be ahead of time. Vulgarity should not be on the short list.

[gumisevil]

Quoting myself, from the last paragraph of my original post:

Note that I am not arguing that this course of action is necessarily a good idea. Only that the misophoniac is not doing anything wrong beyond what the agitator has done.

Also, from "Introduction to Misophonia Philosophy":

Note that this likely isn't going to be pragmatic---Even if it is agreed here that the misophoniac has the high-ground, it is not necessarily a good idea to try to impose one's will on others. Besides, there is already a support forum if you are looking for pragmatic advice. This forum is more likely to be thought-provoking, and hopefully enlightening. Although, it may prove useful in refining our arguments against noise-makers and society in general.

I can't emphasize this enough...I'm not actually advocating that anyone curse out someone for making annoying noises. (Actually, if you look at my previous posts on this site, you'll see that I generally recommend a cautious/passive approach when dealing with people.)

This post and the philosophy forum in general are all intended to be hypothetical, not necessarily practical. The point of this post is that misophoniacs are often judged more harshly than they should be due to the fact that most "normal" people don't usually stop to think about how harmful it is to knowingly and needlessly make noises that aggravate certain others. That's all.

One thing I would concede though is that we must all be careful to not cause collateral damage (which is a real possibility in the example I gave). Otherwise, a misophoniac could end up causing more damage than the original rude person.

Hopefully this is clear now. Thanks for reading.

[ambiguosity]

The miso should have asked gum popper to stop in a respectful way, making sure they were not being self-righteous, entitled, or agitated. The gum popper should have stopped because it was affecting the other person. When the gum popper refused to stop the mi so probably should have just moved away if that was an option. I don't see any point getting into a stupid argument with a stranger.

[Deleted User 77]

Out of pure self-interest it's up to the sufferer to move away ASAP if they can see someone's about to, or is likely to, cause a trigger sound (in my case someone about to, or being likely to, slam or shut something). Recently, I didn't do this and I regret this as it left me with a 'nasty taste' for a day or so afterward (I didn't say anything out loud to the trigger-causer).

What was stupid on my part was the fact that I wasn't actually startled by this as I did have quite a bit of warning: this person came in to the same train carriage after the train had left the station, and wierdly, I had a 'bad' feeling about this person (I sort of knew this person a bit and knew they were 'heavy handed') even before they'd sat down, so I could've foreseen what was likely to happen (an open window which they then banged shut - as people always seem to do on trains).

So, whilst I was loathing the 'slammer' it was also my fault for not getting up and going into another carriage as soon as this person entered. I don't know to this day why I didn't. Was this some sort of trying to 'hope for the best', and, 'perhaps this time they won't / or they won't go and sit in that very seat next to the only open window'......

I hope that next time I would move away promptly and so wouldn't have to feel desolated and annoyed and violated and 'traumatized' afterwards.

About the most 'challenging' thing I would do is not caring if the person was aware of me getting up and moving off quickly as soon as they entered the carriage - I wouldn't try to conceal this action. In fact - as I knew this person slightly - I'd be rather satisfied if they were a bit affronted or baffled that I'd done this! After all, it wouldn't have been as if I'd actually said anything challenging to them.

And, more self-interestedly, it's far more likely that the sufferer would end up ostracized if one got into an argument with a trigger-causer. Non-verbal avoidant reaction is more powerful.

[suzycake]

I am not confrontational because confrontation raises my anxiety and blood pressure. I am also shy. So I would find it difficult to ask someone to stop popping gum. But if I could I fear that they will retaliate with maliciousness and that leaves me feeling helpless. I think this idea keeps me so entrenched in my misophonic state.

[raneeya]

To me it seems inhumane that the avarage human is given little choice but to live and work too closely to others. With only the richer humans having the choice to buy their way out of this. I put it down to un-thought-out, lazy, falsely-economic organization by governments and organizations and planners and suchlike - all they're interested in is cost-cutting, profiteering, preserving a 'good' image and saving themselves a lot of work (well, thinking is hard work and quite beyond the scope or interest of many of them! And it also costs money). Having a one-size-fits-all culture and one just geared to the majority is just so much easier and cheaper for them.