Anon is pleasantly (?) surprised

[-]

Horrorifying@reddit

Hosting a social gathering once a week is very normal adult behavior.

[-]

ykzdropdead@reddit

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.

[-]

JoeyPlaysSomeGame@reddit

Most Reddit comment that has ever existed

[-]

SonTyp_OhneNamen@reddit

Source: i‘m not doing it, so it’s normal.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Only if all people living on that place agree on it.

[-]

Horrorifying@reddit

I like these relationships you guys have where one person gets to fully veto you.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

That's not what I said but Ok. Go ahead and interpret it as you will.

[-]

BanEvador137@reddit

Thats literally exactly what you said.

"all people living on that place agree"

Theres no other way to interpret that.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

I like these relationships you guys have where one person gets to fully veto you.

That's the reply I got from the comment you're referring to, those comments clearly don't say the same thing.

[-]

Is English not your first language? Because they do say the same thing. You said all have to agree to do a thing. If one person doesn't agree that means all aren't agreeing and thus can't do the thing.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Here, hope this clears things a bit.

[-]

HawasYT@reddit

Doesn't it clear it for you?

All people living in a place have to agree on a plan implies unanimous vote which in turn implies one person can veto your votes

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

What? I never said I am on a relationship where one person can veto something. I said everyone has to agree. A veto is not everyone agreeing, a veto is when someone puts their voice and vote above everyone else's (such as a veto in the UN). So yeah, I do think my words are being misinterpreted here.

[-]

FunMarketing4488@reddit

Nothing is misinterpreted here. You're just wrong. Sorry, guy.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Everyone agreeing is not the same as someone veto8ng something. A veto is when someone imposes themselves over a situation instead of agreeing. Glad I could clear that up for you, guy.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

If one person disagrees and the other people don't get to do whatever, that is the same as a veto, is it not?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is:

everyone agreeing ≠ someone vetoing

For everyone to agree there's a compromise being made by all parties involved either by a vote or convincing everyone through arguments or by trading something or etc...

A veto is simply imposing the decision of a party to the rest and making something null.

If one person disagrees and the other people don't get to do whatever, that is the same as a veto, is it not?

This is an example of the latter. I've always said that my comment referred to the former.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

But if they vote and somebody votes no, then everybody doesn't agree

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Which is something I never said. I said that in situations such as the one described in the post, a couple should be able to reach an agreement on how to handle guests and invitations.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

And what if they don't?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

That would be what people refer to as a red flag.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

"The three of us voted for you to be kept as a sex slave in the basement. You not agreeing is a red flag"

See how it's absurd

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Your example is absurd. My statement wasn't. That's a fake parallel.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

Yes, my example is absurd, but it is the exact same argument. See how the argument in and of itself is absurd?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

No it is not, the two situations are not comparable.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

Yes, it absolutely is. The majority wanted something, but one person couldn't be convinced, therefore the one is the bad guy. Your argument is bad, and you can't accept it

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

You're definitely not understanding the point I was making, you're arguing something else.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

Nope, exact same argument, just changed a couple words, but the argument is the same

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Man, all I said was, reaching an agreement ≠ vetoing a decision.

Whatever goalpost your howling at, isn't the same I'm at.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

You said not reaching an agreement is toxic and bad, go read your arguments again, then again, then ine more time to understand what you actually said

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

You're reading too much into this... I'm not sure what you're going to do anymore. I prepared an illustration that perfectly resumes my argument. Anything beyond what this image entails, you made it up.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

And you said if they couldn't reach a decision that was a red flag

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

I was answering a question you made, but that wasn't part of my argument. There's an illustration on my comment above. Anything beyond that illustration isn't part of what I'm arguing. If that wasn't clear before, I am making it clear now.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

So you're saying people should always be able to come to an agreement?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

You know what I said, quit twisting it.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

Well, apparently I don't cause what you said is completely illogical

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

In case of confusion, refer to the illustration provided.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

The illustration is oversimplified and doesn't cover every possibility. Nobody is saying agreeing with something is vetoing, but you seem to not be able to comprehend the possibility of people not coming to an agreement,

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Or maybe you're just trying to derail the conversation into something different. The situation is oversimplified, that you're reading other things into it is a you problem.

Refer to the provided illutration, anything beyond that is not within the scope of what I am saying.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

Then you are saying your opinion isn't thought out

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Nope, I'm keeping things focused. This started with a post regarding relationships, and for some reason, you brought up sexual slavery into the mix, odd.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

You used a bad argument and I pointed it out

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Nope, you just don't or are purposefully derailing the subject because you can't admit you don't get.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Nope, I'm just keeping my argument focused. If this causes further confusion, please refer to the illustration above.

[-]

RaEndymionStillLives@reddit

"The three of us voted for you to be kept as a sex slave in the basement. You not agreeing is a red flag"

See how it's absurd

[-]

HawasYT@reddit

I never said I am on a relationship where one person can veto something. I said everyone has to agree

I never said you did, I only said that the former follows from the latter. I think you misinterpreted my words here.

A veto is not everyone agreeing

That's true, a veto is when someone disagrees and refuses to allow something

a veto is when someone puts their voice and vote above everyone else's (such as a veto in the UN)

That's you overinterpreting the word. Basically everyone else meant the second definition in this comment thread but not even the first one fits your proposed meaning.

So yeah, I do think my words are being misinterpreted here.

Let me ask you this, what happens to a plan when not everyone agrees? Does it cancelled or does the plan go through anyway?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

[-]

BanEvador137@reddit

What do you think you yourself said?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

What I said is everyone living in the same place has to agree, and the reply I recieved was something that along the lines of "I can't believe some couples are ok with having one person with a veto" as if I had say that I do think that it is ok that one person in the relationship has a veto, which I don't.

[-]

Sir_Ridyl@reddit

Yeah it was somewhat thought terminating to watch the back and forth. I understood what you were saying getting over 200 downvotes is insane work for a simple misunderstanding/ mischaracterization of what you said.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Today, I was the victim of mob mentality. Oh well, it's only karma and also, I am stubborn lol.

[-]

Sir_Ridyl@reddit

Lol welcome to reddit, glad you took it on the chin.

[-]

Sir_Ridyl@reddit

It's only a veto in a two person system. If it relies on a "vote" then in a way a veto is technically possible. But normal people don't describe coming to a fair comprimise of a shared space (whether it be a two person relationship or a something like a college dorm situation) as someone vetoing the other.

This would apply more to a family situation where the parents have most if not all of the power in the relationship.

Both of you guys are arguing semantics in the dumbest way by using euphemisms as a means to curtail the actual argument which should be about OP and their lack of communication and ability to be socially present in her own relationship.

[-]

akgogreen@reddit

Yeah you are taking the L here. He is saying what your saying, just in different words.

You say only if everyone agrees to a social gathering, then its okay.

Meaning the inverse, if one person says its not okay, then its not okay.

They said one person can Veto something.

Its the same thing.

If you're being pedantic because it isnt the exact words you said, then fair it isnt word for word what you said, but the meaning is the exact same

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

I don't believe I'm being pedantic here, but ok...

I said everyone has to agree on the decision of having people over, to which I got a reply stating "I love it when you guys are on a relationship where someone can veto something" or some shit like that (I'm paraphrasing).

Everyone agreeing is not the same as someone vetoing something. Think on how a veto in the UN works, most countries agree on something and the vote passes, until, one of the countries that has a veto right vetos the vote effectively cancelling it.

In other words, someone vetoing something is someone not agreeing but imposing themselves over a situation. So what I said is not what y'll claiming I said at all.

So maybe next time you think about calling someone pedantic, learn how to fucking read first... cheers.

[-]

akgogreen@reddit

I think you're a lil confused as to what everyone's getting at.

Saying "only if everyone agrees thats living there that company can come over" means that if any ONE person says no, then its not happening. Which is explicitly "someone having veto power" in the relationship/household. That's what we're all getting at that you aren't grasping.

What you said, means any person in the house or relationship has veto power, instead of it being a balanced relationship/household, where things can still happen even if someone doesnt agree.

In your own words you literally are saying what we are saying, but then saying that isnt what you said.

In your own words, please, learn how to read

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

only if everyone agrees thats living there that company can come over" means that if any ONE person says no, then its not happening. Which is explicitly "someone having veto power"

Damn, you must live with some toxic people then. No, in a functional household, everyone agreeing ≠ someone vetoing decisions.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

I don't believe I'm being pedantic here, but ok...

[-]

throughcracker@reddit

You live in a house with three other people. Three of you want to have someone over, one person says no. What happens?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

[-]

throughcracker@reddit

That AI generated image does not answer my hypothetical

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

And I'm not answering hypotheticals.

[-]

akgogreen@reddit

You're edit literally means, ONE person can say no (which would be having veto powers), and it wouldnt happen. That would be one person imposing themselves over a situation. Its literally the same thing, explain how it isnt please

If it was a majority rules situation, or a compromise situation, then it would be different, but if everyone has to agree to something or it doesnt happen, thats a Veto Powers situation.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

explain how it isnt please

Man, if you can't still figure it out, that's a you problem. Here, let's try with a kid-friendly illustration.

*

[-]

akgogreen@reddit

Everyone agreeing ≠ coming to an agreement.

Your original post said only if everyone agrees can it happen.

You can disagree on something but come to an agreement that it can still happen, but that's not what your original argument is.

Keep up

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Let's tey this again. Focus. It isn't that hard.

[-]

BlutarchMannTF2@reddit

It’s okay man, there’s a reason the majority of people out there can’t find a healthy relationship. Or, on reddit, any relationship.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

You know shit about me bud ;)

[-]

BlutarchMannTF2@reddit

Not sure if I phrased that wrong but I’m agreeing with you.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Sorry man, I got carried away...damn.

[-]

BlutarchMannTF2@reddit

Idk I actually totally agree with you. A healthy relationship involves two people talking and expressing how they feel to one another.

“Hey hon, I understand that you like to have your friends over. Problem is, when I’m done with work, I want to come home and relax in OUR house, because I am tired from work. Seeing your friends over first thing when I’m home is not conducive to that.”

This is regardless of gender. There are so many ways you could, again, come up with a reasonable compromise. But no, my way or the highway, right?

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

Thanks, I thought I was going crazy for a moment. Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to lol.

[-]

J0hnBoB0n@reddit

There is a certain point where if you can't reach an agreement you should probably consider if you're really ready to cohabitate with someone. If this guy is having wild parties and staying up late, sure that makes sense to not be agreeable. If he's having some buddies over to chill and play videogames once in a while, that is a reasonable thing to do. Key words being "once in a while", if you agree to share space with someone you kind of need to realize that have a life too and you might see instances of them having a life from time to time.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

In short, communication is key. That's the best way to see if you're compatible with someone.

[-]

Gnotter@reddit

If that's true I don't want to be normal.

[-]

pre_nerf_infestor@reddit

my parents (60s nearing retirement) play cards once a week with old friends. keeps the dementia at bay you know?

[-]

darklightmatter@reddit

Not that you had a choice, but you're not. Normal people would want to be normal and, upon reading that comment, go "Yep, sounds about right".

[-]

Horrorifying@reddit

Well the actual normal adult thing is to have standing plans that constantly get rescheduled because of kids, work, family, or some combination of those.

[-]

TopSafe5871@reddit

Once a week ? That's 5 times a month. Mentally exhausting as hell. Most I can do is send a happy birthday message once a year. Regardless of the day being your birthday or not.

[-]

HakosbaelZhusband@reddit

Seeing your friends once a week is exhausting? What?

[-]

TopSafe5871@reddit

Redditors when I forget to put "/s" after a joke.

[-]

HakosbaelZhusband@reddit

Reddit the kind of shut ins where that isn't a joke.

[-]

Coppola_Mistakes@reddit

No I dont think so!

[-]

Pol123451@reddit

It depends a bit on context, but i feel like hosting every week is above average.

[-]

Hongkongjai@reddit

Depends on the person I’d argue. Having a weekly social gathering is normal but some might prefer these gatherings to not be held at their home, at least not that frequently. In terms of how frequently, they have to work it out. To me once a week is a lot of have my house to have guests especially ones that I didn’t invite. They could always just take turn going to each others places I reckon.

[-]

Sir_Ridyl@reddit

I mean once a week, and they leave right after she comes home. It’s not that big of a deal. Like THIS is the comprise between not having anybody over or them being over all the time and staying long hours. This is chill.

[-]

cocaineandwaffles1@reddit

Someone posted the actual Reddit thread.

Only valid complaint from her is that sometimes they come over twice a week instead of once a week. And it doesn’t seem like a set day of the week, like sometimes it’ll be one day of the week then next it’s another. But since she came to Reddit instead of trying to figure out how to solve this problem herself, I’m gonna wager doing any sort of planning and compromising will be too much for her.

[-]

Hongkongjai@reddit

It’s not really a big deal but just saying it can be uncomfortable to some people. Due to some childhood stuff I’d want my place to be as private as possible and not just a social ground. I can maybe tolerate once a month but once a week will make me feel actually feel uncomfortable at my own place.

[-]

Sir_Ridyl@reddit

Please don’t say obvious things dude, it makes the conversation go no where. It’s obvious that can be A possibility but extrapolating details to make your point more relatable is unhealthy behavior regardless of intent.

She isn’t living alone, she is sharing her space with a whole other person. That’s already a social space. Plus they are dating, what’s gonna happen when they have kids?

Like I get what you’re saying but none of that is applicable and the bf is already compromising what he what’s to do to keep the space fair.

[-]

NibPlayz@reddit

Yeah I haven’t read the AITA post but I’m assuming gf didn’t communicate anything with the bf.

After studying relationship therapy for my degree, 99.99% of all relationship issues can be fixed or prevented with honest and open communication

[-]

Sir_Ridyl@reddit

She did and he said the same points. It’s once a week and it wouldn’t be fair to the guys that offer up their places to hang out.

[-]

NCD_Lardum_AS@reddit

Depends on the person I’d argue

That's not how normal works

[-]

Cykablast3r@reddit

Normal is a pretty wide range.

[-]

cell689@reddit

Communicating with your partner and valuing their needs is also very normal adult behavior.

[-]

Horrorifying@reddit

Ah, you’re right. You cleverly picked up on the fact that my comment implied you shouldn’t talk to your girlfriend.

[-]

SpaceBug176@reddit

While you didn't imply it then, your new comment implies that exact thing.

[-]

Horrorifying@reddit

You’re inferring. I’m not implying.

[-]

cell689@reddit

You can only infer something when someone is implying something.

[-]

paranormal_shouting@reddit

This is just patently false

[-]

cell689@reddit

I'm glad you're proud of knowing the word "patently", but it's definitely not false.

[-]

i_liesk_muneeeee@reddit

To infer is to conclude from available information and/or reasoning rather than explicit statements.

It is completely untrue to say inferring only exists with implication

[-]

WarlordHelmsman@reddit

Yea you're confirmed brain damaged

[-]

SpaceBug176@reddit

Someone: Only if all people living on that place agree on it.

You: I like these relationships you guys have where one person gets to fully veto you.

What did you mean by this then

[-]

Horrorifying@reddit

That I can’t just say no to things my wife wants to do because I’m more important than her.

[-]

El_Taita_Salsa@reddit

You, got caught on that one, you're totally implying things.

[-]

cell689@reddit

Yup

[-]

avagrantthought@reddit

..?

The woman elaborates that:

Her husband the friends all work from home so they rotate between houses every week day.

She doesn't know them and they are largely strangers to her

They stay untill 7:30PM.

They sometimes come twice a weak.

Why is everyone saying it's unreasonable to be at least a little pissed that once or twice a week you return home to a bunch of random men in your apartment that stay until 7:30..?

'She should communicate!!1'

Yeah, it seems to me though that the husband was the one who didn't communicate first.

Like, what the fuck, you just decided you're going to have some men in your house 1-2 a week untill 7:30PM..? And you don't even think about having a discussion with your wife?

Lmao

[-]

Inuakurei@reddit

That elaboration is one sided. There is no way in hell, in any universe, on any plain of existence, that he could have friends coming over every week, and she not interact with them at some point. She even admits that it’s been going on “for a while”.

Like, what does she do? What does her bf do? I refuse to believe she sees “strangers” as she puts it, in her house, and neither her or him, or they, attempt to communicate. Someone at some point will say “hello I’m X, how are you”.

This entire situation is odd, but not because of the situation; it’s her. The only way this escalated to her making a flipping Reddit thread instead of communicating to literally anyone else about this is if she refuses to engage in the situation at all.

She sounds like she flees to her room at the sight of his friends until they leave.

[-]

avagrantthought@reddit

She's not obligated to communicate with them lol she states that they're already there when she gets home. Talking to a bunch of your husband's friends when you get home tired is the last thing you want to do.

She said that they're essentially strangers to her. Even if she talked to them, it's totally normal that they'd still essentially feel like strangers to her.

"Hello, I'm Jacob, how are you?"

Cool. Bacon still feels like a random dude at your house. Just because you know he is a friend of your husband's, know his name and made casual conversation a few times, doesn't make seeing Jacobs stupid face at your kitchen when you get home tired after work, any less taxing.

[-]

Inuakurei@reddit

All I can say to that is both you and her sound like you have very healthy social skills.

[-]

avagrantthought@reddit

Very nice of you. You raised a counter claim, I took the time to read it and address it while offering you my perspective, and you choose to respond by making a dismissive snide character attack.

[-]

Koalachan@reddit

She also says it's her bfs friends, and it's been happening awhile. The fact they are still strangers to her is on her at that point, if she hasn't even once tried to meet her boyfriends friends.

[-]

TheNieno@reddit

If her bf doesn't even bother to introduce his friends to his gf whilst they are in their literal home once a week. The problem is not her in this case

[-]

Pass_us_the_salt@reddit

Do you need someone's permission to say hi to a person you see once a week?

[-]

Koalachan@reddit

So the question is, is he not introducing them, or is she not meeting them? I read OP, and it sounds like she just gets home and is mad there is people there, meaning she doesn't even try to meet them.

[-]

MrBingly@reddit

Depends how often it's twice a week.

[-]

J0hnBoB0n@reddit

Luckily I will never have to deal with my SO having friends they want to see, or any other intricacies of cohabitating with a SO because I'm gonna stay single living in my parents' attic where everyone else is afraid to go, and play videogames the rest of my life.

[-]

baudmiksen@reddit

could be worse, could be getting home and hating it when your wife's boyfriend is still there, compromise that

[-]

Modred_the_Mystic@reddit

Part of the deal is he has to stay and let me win at Mario Kart. If he isn't there, then whats even the point?

[-]

igerardcom@reddit

Uh, hello Based Dept....?

Yeah, I think I just found your new CEO....

[-]

WasteOfTimeAndEffort@reddit

No you can’t do that I’m already living in ur parents attic doing the exact same thing. My culture is not your costume

[-]

DoJ-Mole@reddit

Based

[-]

stumbledalong@reddit

Normalise hating each others friends ✨

[-]

avagrantthought@reddit

Dude, imagine your SO just decided that their friends are going to come over to your house 1-2 a week until 7:30PM.. forever... without even discussing it with you first.

[-]

MrBingly@reddit

Once a week would be fine. I don't hate my wife's friends, and I can always retreat to my own space to "give them girl time."

[-]

Tuber993@reddit

These people cannot even conceive that things are not always about them.

[-]

CFogan@reddit

That would be great? I could just do my own thing in the meantime?

[-]

avagrantthought@reddit

While having random men in your apartment?

[-]

Abysswalker2187@reddit

They’re not random tho?

[-]

avagrantthought@reddit

To her husband no but to the woman that's how she feels like. She doesn't even really know these guys.

[-]

EntryLevelOne@reddit

If you can't trust your SO to invite friends once a week, then that's a bigger problem than just their friends

[-]

Atompunk78@reddit

Ok? I wouldn’t mind personally

[-]

stumbledalong@reddit

I don’t have to imagine that buddy

[-]

eenhoorntwee@reddit

Normalise wanting a space to wind down and decompress in peace after working all day

[-]

neproood@reddit

The original post was 3 hours ago and this one is from 2 hours. How did this make it to 4chan and back to reddit in like an hour

[-]

AuelDole@reddit

Op here is the anon

[-]

baudmiksen@reddit

Finkle is einhorn

[-]

Darkenmal@reddit

Laces out!

[-]

CHUD_Adams@reddit

Einhorn is a man?

[-]

Cykablast3r@reddit

And the girlfriend.

[-]

StrictFatherlyFigure@reddit

Had a friend who hosted dnd night at his appartment every week, once a week. His wife would get mad at us for being "too loud" so we quieted down when we were there, then us being there in general so we stayed over for less. Eventually it got to the point we just stopped meeting up entirely, and now most of us talk to him like once every 2 months on discord.

[-]

googlin@reddit

as long as i'm here, reddit will never be based

[-]

MrBingly@reddit

I can't say it would be my favorite, but it seems perfectly reasonable to have people over once a week. Honestly, I would be happy if my wife spent time with her friends that often. More than happy enough to put up with that small inconvenience.

[-]

Setekh79@reddit

Broken clock moment tbh.

[-]

JacobLuck@reddit

what the fuck is a foid

[-]

J0hnBoB0n@reddit

Don't worry, you'll never meet one

[-]

throwtheclownaway20@reddit

So, he agrees with the OOP, but thinks Reddit is based for having a completely dogshit take? What the fuck sense does that make? No wonder these guys get shit on whenever they leave the house.

[-]