In answer to the OP, is the guest rude for lecturing everyone? Yeah, probably. Your job as the host is to make everyone as comfortable as possible. An answer to the person lecturing might be “those are points I wasn’t aware of, I will certainly look into that”
I have a coworker / friend who is part of the lbgt+ community. When Chick Fila came to our area, they expressed those concerns. I haven’t actually looked into the claims that they “want them dead.” But ultimately, it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to possibly hurt another person over a chicken sandwich. So I have never gone there. I also don’t go to Hobby Lobby for many of the same reasons. Also because they are so aggressively “Christian.” I am a Christian but they are just creepily so.
If that person is constantly doing this, maybe don’t invite them to group settings. Honestly, If I were that person, I would rethink gathering with those who don’t support your ideals.
With regards to the situation of the OP and their friend, what’s crucial to me is not the content of the friend’s objection but the manner of it.
There are three way in which you can state deeply held views to friends; I’ll try describing them in pseudocode.
Person 1 is within their rights, if the view is phrased without undue hostility to their audience.
Person 2 and person 3 are out of order (Yes, person 2 is too, because you should not compel someone to agree by holding the threat of the conversation never ending over them).
The guest isn’t engaging in recreational outrage. She is in fear for her life. But the mustard packet isn’t going to jump out and hurt her, and the money has already been paid, so there’s no urgency in her telling her host about her concerns. She’s rude to do so in such an overwhelming manner that it felt like a lecture.
That being said, if you like her and respect her, the correct reaction to her concern is to listen to it, without letting the lecture chew up too much of the game time. And consider boycotting the place. And if you decide not to boycott it, put the packets out of sight when she visits, so you aren’t actively reminding her of her fears. That’s rude, once she lets you know that it bothers her, even if you think she’s wrong to be bothered.
I would also put it in the “rude but understandable” camp. I’m not even a minority, and I find it infuriating how much bigotry just gets accepted in our society. I totally get why someone who is actually a minority might be overzealous on the attack. It sounds like she is genuinely scared, and reacting emotionally.
It’s the type of rudeness I would probably let slide, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand. It’s not like she doesn’t have a point. And I do think it would at least be reasonable for me to avoid having stuff that represents these organizations when she’s around.
The exception would be if she yells when doing it. In that case, my own issues come into play, as that’s the sort of thing that can push my fight/flight reaction. That said, I have no experience in how to deal with that except with close friends. I know saying “calm down” would be bad, but that’s about it.
At the same time, I always wonder on third hand accounts, as I’ve been witness to times when a simple observation turns into a thing. Either the “recipient” blows it up, calling it a lecture, or they turn it into a thing right then by getting immediately defensive.
If someone sees Chik fil a paraphernalia in your kitchen, and says, “You know they donate to anti-LGBTQ hate groups?” is that a lecture?
Some would say yes. Some would turn it into a confrontation.
Not all that many would take such an observation gracefully.
I am often left wondering if there is any happy medium, any way of pointing something like that out that won’t result in them being badmouthed and ostracized, or if they should just shut up if they want to get along.
Actively reminding her of her fears (for her life) by not removing the mustard packets one is gaslighting the victim. That’s where that came from I’m not sure where the fear comes from.
That’s not remotely close to the definition of gaslighting. Gaslighting would be something like deliberately leaving the packets where she would see them and become upset, then hiding them and pretending like they never existed.
The “fear for her life” part is in reference to the increased amount of politicized homophobia in the country. She’s not literally afraid of mustard packets.
Yes, of course she isn’t afraid of the mustard packets. But seeing the mustard packets reminds her that there are people out there who prefer she were dead, and that makes her uncomfortable. I try to avoid making my friends uncomfortable in my home.
The “friend” in the OP is at least somewhat of a nut. Sorry, but unless we have A HECKUVA lot of additional info, a bug out bag for a bisexual person who feels they may need to hurriedly flee the US is an irrational overreaction. But that’s fine. She’s entitled to act irrationally. But I am also entitled to choose not to associate with people who lecture others about their pet causes in social situations.
That was the old definition. Ironically many are trying to gaslight you into thinking you have being gaslighted. And they also think everyone is a narcissist.
I mean, the old definition is noun, not a verb, and refers to lights that burn gas.
The Hitchcock movie was about a guy who tried to convince his wife that she was nuts by playing with the gaslights and pretending he didn’t notice anything, so she thought she was hearing stuff that wasn’t there. And that led to the modern verb. Googling gives me a reference to the Oxford English dictionary, saying:
gas·light
/ˈɡasˌlīt/
verb
gerund or present participle: gaslighting
manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
“in the first episode, Karen Valentine is being gaslighted by her husband”
I have no idea what definition you are using. Can you point me to a reference?
YouTube is full of videos that claim people are abused by narcissists who are gaslighting them. In one instance the definition of gaslighting claimed that calling someone an offensive name and then saying they are too sensitive when they complain is gaslighting. It seems like anyone who disagrees with you or attempts to change your mind is gaslighting you according to these videos. Calling people offensive names is not right, but it’s not gaslighting. And telling people they are too sensitive even if they are not is still not gaslighting.
Sure, you could. But I’d call that a pretty big overreaction. We’re talking about people who are friends, who care about each other. And this is over an issue of social etiquette. There would have been nothing wrong with her discussing this with him later on in private.
It’s not like she’s wrong here: Chick-fil-A does give money to people who are trying to eliminate LGBT people. Rowling is herself trying to eliminate trans people. And people giving money to them is what allows them to do what they do.
Whether or not her bug out bag is a rational response isn’t really all that relevant. What it does tell me is how scared she is, which is a reason to have more compassion, not less. It makes her rude behavior more understandable and thus more tolerable.
It would take a whole lot more than this for me to end a friendship with anyone. Sure, maybe it’d affect just how close we’d be, but to completely disassociate with her would seem as much or more an overreaction than any lecture.
Oh, and I do not think it’s fair at all to call this a “pet cause.” I dislike that sort of minimizing language.
The part I bolded does not follow from the other parts. They aren’t talking about disagreement or changing minds, but two aspects of abusive behavior. Nor can you look at either aspect by itself.
What they seem to be describing is deliberately trying to hurt someone, then blaming them for being hurt. It is about blaming the abused for their abuse. It is saying that the abused is the one with a mental issue.
It’s an extended definition of gaslighting, I’ll admit. But I can see the connection between it and the classical definition. It’s nowhere near merely disagreeing with someone.
Well, people are wired differently. I do not understand exactly how narrowly the OP defines “friends.” How close these 2 are.
Hell, I don’t eat CFA or shop at HL, but after the first episode, I would’ve directly told the “friend” that while I relish people freely expressing their views, I did not appreciate that being taken to the length where I am being “lectured” in my home about such things. I imagine that at some point early on in the lecture, I woulda unequivocally asked her to drop it.
I had one similar instance recently w/ a guy I thought was a friend. He said something about me publicly which I took great offense to. I privately told him that I did not appreciate it, and he said he stood by it. I told him I had thought. of him as a friend, but a friend wold not act in that manner. I don’t need that sort of shit - especially from people I consider friends. We still see each other regularly, and are polite. But I know know that we are not friends.
Too bad you don’t like the term pet cause. I feel it very appropriate in describing folk who have very specific worldviews which they feel the need to share widely and at length, including in social settings where doing so is not relevant or appreciated. I’m not sure I’m a fan of any flavor of evangelizing. Maybe that qualifies as MY pet cause!
Yes, there are bad things to describe there, but the use of the word goes farther afield than that. I don’t think many people understand what the word means.
Of course not, but what happens in popular culture tends to leak into reality.