[smoldesu]

There's some merit to what they're saying here. Arguing that this isn't a two-person problem is where I have to suspend my disbelief, though.

> “She says, ‘I need to address this. You made me feel unsafe and unloved tonight,’” Hakala says. “I went, ‘Excuse me?’”

Like, this is an extremely straightforward and honest way of addressing your feelings. It sounds like that person was fed-up with their behavior and the host didn't understand. After that, if you still go on the defensive, maybe you should feel bad about the way you treated them. These articles always conspicuously leave-out details to these situations, but I doubt it extends beyond the slice-of-life sitcom script in your head.

The rest of their anecdotes are similar, ham-fisted interpersonal problems that seem less one-sided than they're made out to be. The article is clearly trying to loop this back onto an anti-woke sentiment, but it's just not there. It mostly sounds like the author is trying to make a universal theory of friendships gone sour.

[likeclockwork]

That phrasing makes her friend responsible for her feelings. It's an accusatory way of expressing one's emotional state. Nothing straight forward or honest about that. It's pure manipulation and I don't see why her friend wouldn't become defensive upon hearing that.

[dragonwriter]

> That phrasing makes her friend responsible for her feelings.

Expressing the speakers understanding of the impact that listener had on their emotional state so that it can be addressed is the point of the expression (which is not in exactly the optimum recommended form, but that’s a side issue), so that’s not at all an unintended result.

> It’s an accusatory way of expressing one’s emotional state.

It’s not a way of expressing an emotional state, its a way of expressing a relationship problem, of which the emotional state is a component, but not the central feature. And, yes, the speakers understanding of causation (the feature you call "accusatory") is central to the purpose.

> Nothing straight forward or honest about that.

It is exactly straightforward and honest, provided that it reflects the speakers honest understanding of the relevant causal chain.

Obviously, if that's not the case its not straightforward and honest, but then we are speculating beyond the information provided.

> It’s pure manipulation

No, its not.

[likeclockwork]

It IS a way of expressing one's emotional state. Perhaps one's emotional state is a relationship problem but causation has to be demonstrated.

Misunderstandings happen all the time. Sometimes people are in a fragile emotional state or have an "eggshell psyche". Goodwill doesn't grow on trees.

The form "you made me feel X" starts from the premise that the listener somehow assumed direct control over the speaker's emotional state and turned the dial setting them to feel terrible. That's not causation, unless you believe in magic.

The person who's feelings are injured has a responsibility not to make other people responsible for their emotional state. Their feelings don't just automatically create responsibilities in others. What kind of standard would that be?

[smoldesu]

Would the situation be any different if 2 or 3 guests came to the host and said they felt unsafe?

A lot of people in this thread are focused on questioning the guest's psyche and discrediting their reaction. Yes, people control their reaction to bad events. However, if you spend an entire evening being racist/sexist/somethingist, even inadvertently, then people will likely blame you for their reaction. There are a lot of dinner topics that would make me feel unsafe, and it's not hard to see how that would make someone feel unloved or ostracized.

So, the volley of blame continues. Instead of showing humility and mutually acknowledging that neither of you care about the problem, we need to write a Bustle.com article to absolve ourselves and extend the conversation into "therapy speech".

Regardless of who is right and wrong, this article promotes childish escalation over common understanding. It's such a ridiculous fallacy that it poisons the topic it actually wants to discuss, which is the impact of impersonal rhetoric between friends.

[DANmode]

"I had feeling or negative consequence X because you Y."

is the "correct" method, for anyone else wondering.

[bbwbsb]

It's a bit more verbose, but I would recommend as a base framework (using Nonviolent Communication as reference): "When you X, I felt Y, because I wanted/needed Z". A few points. The first is that Y should not be something like 'that you are an asshole' or 'judged'. It should be 'mad', 'sad', 'hurt', etc. (see the book for a sizable list of suggestions). Principally it should be subjective and almost impossible to disagree with. Further X should be something that is objective and not a judgement. E.g., 'when you lazed around' is a fight starting judgement while 'when you slept earlier' is not. Z should ideally be something simple and candid like 'attention'.

It doesn't have to follow the exact formula. The formula is a crutch. For example 'you made me feel unloved' might instead be 'Today, you didn't talk to me as much as you normally do, and I felt hurt because I was wanting more attention'. The goal is to get across to the other person what you need/needed and how you felt without implying they did something wrong. If you say 'you ignored me' they might say 'What!? I did no such thing'.

Likewise the person responding to them could have tried to listen to they they 'really meant' instead of responding defensively. E.g., 'it sounds like you feel hurt because you wanted more attention?'. If you get it wrong, and the other person wants you to know, they will keep talking. If they keep saying the same thing over and over again, you just haven't gotten it yet.

Also, I caution against thinking of it as the correct way for any that don't take the scare quotes in the parent comment to heart. Eventually you may irritate someone severely by implying they are doing it wrong, and it will not help you achieve what you wanted.

[smoldesu]

That's even more of a therapy-ized response than the first one! You can accuse someone else of hurting your feelings, it just arguably doesn't matter. The host should honestly reply that it was a mistake or that they don't care, because both are better than arguing over whether it happened or not. The guest didn't present their concern perfectly, but the Ben Shapiro-esque response from the host doesn't exactly show much concern for what their friend is expressing. "Excuse me," is an erudite interjection best suited for when a kid at the country club accuses you of breaking their iPhone. If your first instinct is to question your friend's judgement call instead of showing humility, you probably don't respect them much at all.

Just my two cents, though. Nothing about the exchange these people had was unsalvageable or friendship-ruining, which is why I find it so funny that it's story is being used as an anti-woke polemic. Nothing bad happened here, they just ruffled some feathers and instead of telling us why, they accuse their friend of being the "therapy-speak" problem. It's practically paraphrased from an episode of Glee or something.