[caf]

A useful way to think about it is to shift your view from "can I do X?" to "will I bother anyone else by doing X?".

I don't think that's particularly useful, because the answer to the second is trivially Yes, regardless of the value of X.

[avar]

Are you suggesting that someone could shut down all human activity on the European continent by declaring that everything bothers them?

[tremon]

There is a lot of leeway to be had between "will I bother anyone else by doing X" and "will anyone else be bothered by me doing X": it's active interference versus passive objection-taking. Socially aware people can learn the difference.

[ux-app]

>the answer to the second is trivially Yes, regardless of the value of X

then don't do it?

[hutzlibu]

There are still many people bothered by the fact, that I as a men have long hair.

I am sorry to dissapoint you and those people, but for now I keep my hair.

You cannot please everyone and I think it is a path into madness to even try it. There are maaany things people feel bothered about …

[filoleg]

Your response to "by that metric, essentially almost everything is disallowed" is "well yeah, just don't do it". I don't think that stance would sit well with most.