“You’re very judgemental”
Wow. A new phrase to me. OK, a new usage. Well, a new commonplace, it seems.
Elsewhere, and earlier, I have come across other modern misdirections in speech. So the guardette on the train on looking at my totally valid ticket didn’t recognise it so decided to bring down all Hades upon me. I replied with confidence and assuredness that the ticket was totally valid.
Using what may well be Rule 27b, subclause 4 of the training manual she stood up, stood back and told me to stop shouting at her “That is assault, you know, and you must stop at once”. I had not been raising my voice, however, she repeatedly refused to listen to my assurances that the ticket was totally valid. She left to summon assistance, although it was “her train”.
She did not return.
But it disarms one to first be labelled a thief and then to have an assault charge thrown in. Both wholly unjustified.
So today it was “You’re very judgemental” in response to my suggesting that the mountainscape of Snowdonia might be striking but that to call it beautiful was akin to praising a demolition site. “If I want to say it’s beautiful, I will” she went on.
Now, call me Judge Mental, but my approach to discussion, and enlightenment, is to introduce alternative spectra to people’s vision and to allow new lights to fall upon a subject. I hope then that these new lights will illuminate matters such that the topic may be viewed differently.
To say “Well I can see where you’re coming from and do have sympathy for your perspective but I still would hold to my seeing beauty in the panorama” I could accept. I would continue to press my whole range of reasons for assessing the stark, naked, windswept and denuded vista as tragic industrial decay but at least discussion would have begun.
“You’re very judgemental” – that’s a conversation stopper as well as a flat refusal to discuss. That’s a metaphorical slap in the face from someone scared to deal with any internal change, any personal reassessments. With any new ideas. That’s conservativism.
That’s the problem! My theory is, also, that it is an accepted stratagem like “You’re shouting at me” when one is not. In both instances the intent is to make their “opponent” back off, shut up and accept “defeat”. It is a total refusal to entertain thought they are unfamiliar with and is, thus, a symptom of cognitive dissonance.
Me, I’m still a scientist where objectivity requires all new inputs to be set against previously obtained data and conclusions. I actually find that, where inconsistencies arise I am propelled to resolve this and, even when I am unsure as to the exact location of disconnects and disharmonies I have to find them before I can use the conclusions again – and alter those conclusions if needs must.