Is there always somebody worse off than (whoever)?

We've all heard it..."there's always someone who is worse of than (you, them, whoever)".

I maintain that this is a BS argument that trivialises someone's situation, and that those who purport this argument have no empathy for the person that they are spruiking it to. The fact of the matter is that there is actually some poor bugger who actually is the worst off on the planet (that is completely logical). Think of it this way: let's find the second worst off person on the planet (who would obviously be in a diabolically bad situation) and say to them "There is always someone worse off than you. Okay, okay, in your case there's only actually one person worse off than you, but still.......my argument holds!" What a load of crap! Just for starters, when the actual worst off person dies (and you'd have to think it would be imminent) then the second worst off becomes "the" worst off. I'd be pretty sure that the second worst off person would not be particularly bothered about knowing the circumstance of the next person either......

Furthermore, there is a corollary to this argument, and that is that the exact opposite must also be true, but we never raise it. That is "There is always someone better off than him/her/you/them". Of course that depends upon the benchmark of being "better off": is it monetary wealth, happiness, well-being, security, lifestyle, health, climate, availability of fresh food, etc etc, a good supply of defect free timber :D? The corollary belies the BS in the primary argument. If one is true then so must be the other. If one is false or non-sensical, then so must be the other.

I have had cause for some introspection of late - call it navel gazing if you like - some (or one) might even somewhat naively or ignorantly call it selfishness because the thought topics have often only involved me. But then, you kinda get that with introspection.....(the act or process of looking into one's self.....)

A little more perspective here (a short read):
https://www.elephantjournal.<wbr>com/2017/10/what-we-are-<wbr>really-saying-when-we-say-<wbr>someone-else-has-it-worse/

That was sent to me from someone I know and respect very well, and the title of the email was "Those that invalidate the pain of others are 'king wimps".

is there a point to this

There is barely a person who hasn't expressed that sentiment at some time in their life, me included but does one either express sympathy or support with the sufferer to placate them because you don't really have an honest/practical answer to their situation or that there is literally nothing that you can do to help or does one offer a reply that is hollow/false support or empathy for them. Unless you know the background/intricacies of their situation or are a professional/experienced in the particular realm of their situation, it would be inhumane or immoral to give false hope to that person, but to be sympathetic and gently inquire/suggest/recommend a person/organisation that could assist/help/guide/manage their situation would be beneficial.
There is a lot of philosophical aspects to this topic just as there are courses of action that can be taken depending on the situation.
Beyound Blue, R U OK, etc as well as medical support groups for trauma, etc that assist in all sorts of areas but it takes time and effort and commitment either as a truly sympathetic friend or a qualified person/organisation to help that person.
In the examples in the attached link in Brett's post, there are some truly horrendous victims of war, natural disaster, inhumane acts, crime that has happened spontaneously that both the victim/sufferer or ourselves have no control over.
So I suggest that the phrase we use is (all be it generic) is possibly the best that the average person can come up with at a moments notice and without the time/skills or resources to be more effective. On contemplation, its probably better to ask if there is something they would like you to do for them and either which you may be able to do, no matter how trivial but never give false hope or information.

Yeah well when someone tells you this, technically the correct answer is "I don't give a ****".

You shouldn't say it though because what they say is usually well meant, although it's actually insulting.
Because the only way this would make you feel better is if seeing someone suffer makes you feel nice, or if you don't understand your own feelings and you need to measure yourself against someone else to see if your condition is good or bad.
Which really, if you think about it, makes you either an asshole or an idiot.

But usually none of this matters because the person saying it really just wants to help and that's just one thing they can think of saying, so I guess just nod and move on.
Now, if you suspect that they don't actually want to help, please see the technically correct answer above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenderbelly

is there a point to this

---

philosophically yes

empathy, I think



worst off / better off is IMO just a weak comparator that is part of the glass half-full or half-empty dichotomy. (where the real answer is found in redefining the glass to being the "right size".)

a half-full (20 oz) glass of double malt would be a waste, while a half-empty (4 oz) glass of the same substance would be a particular treat.

God, I hate sites like that link. Having a whopping great splash-screen obscure what is essentially simply a three or four paragraph blurb, demanding I either login in to farcebook or create an account to see someones short ramblings... :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't think I've ever said "there's always someone who is worse off than you." :no: I'm inherently lazy... instead I've always (AFAIK) said "It could be worse."

To my mind, that is not only shorter but also more accurate a statement. I don't think it could be misconstrued as demeaning to someone else either, but then again, there are people who, after you greet with a "G'day," wonder "what did he mean by that?" and mull it over until they can find something to take offence at... :(

Weird things, people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

empathy, I think

---

You obviously 'get' Canadians. When they say "I'm sorry" they're not apologising, they're empathising.

Here in Oz, we seem to assume the reverse, which has caused Annette all sorts of odd social situations. Can be entertaining to watch... :D

Sometimes there is not much more you can say for someone in a bad situation and you say it to try and keep the person in a more positive mindset with their circumstances
The flip side is imagine going to see a cancer victim in hospital and telling them how their life sucks and how good everyone else’s life is compared to theirs.

Not everyone wants to hear the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

God, I hate sites like that link. Having a whopping great splash-screen obscure what is essentially simply a three or four paragraph blurb, demanding I either login in to farcebook or create an account to see someones short ramblings... :rolleyes:

---

Totally agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

....instead I've always (AFAIK) said "It could be worse." To my mind, that is not only shorter but also more accurate a statement.

---

Depends on the situation. If it is some kind of physical problem (with an object not working properly), then that's ok, and it may be ok for a physical injury (but not a disease), but for someone suffering emotional pain it may not be particularly well received.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Sometimes there is not much more you can say for someone in a bad situation and you say it to try and keep the person in a more positive mindset with their circumstances

---

There's nothing worse than feeling useless and unable to help someone, especially someone we are close to. It is still probably wisest to simply ask "Is there anything I can do to help?" even if it just sitting there holding the person's hand so that they don't feel so alone (if that is part of the problem). Feeling isolated can be devastating.

Hi,
Me thinks some people have been gazing too deep into the bottle.

:rolleyes:

I think you hit the mail on the head with the other end of of the spectrum .... all depends on the benchmark [emoji6]

What is bad to one may not be so bad to another. Each has their own pain and it is real to that person regardless of what others may or may not be feeling and how they may be effected in a similar situation.



Sent Dave TTC
The Turning Cowboy

Turning Wood Into Art

It is much easier to cope when your experience is relative to those around you. If you are poor and those around you are equally so, perhaps you don't feel so deprived. (No one enjoys being impoverished, I'd imagine.)

I believe, personally, the experience of human unhappiness is seated in desire, or want. Our entire society is based on incessant greed. It is unsustainable, rewards only the worst amongst us and confers no social benefit other than one-upmanship and environmental destruction.

Many people think they need something, when in fact they simply want it.

I had as my Facebook* catchline "remember when you wanted what you currently have?". It's a truism. The race for more is never finished. More money, more property. More gold. More shares. More. More. More.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, fundamentally, but what we have is toxic and based solely on greed, exclusion and psychological manipulation. It is inherently bad for us as individuals, family, countries and societies.

End rant :wink:


* (until I deleted everything off the damned thing)
Edit: https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...29-p506vl.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

I believe, personally, the experience of human unhappiness is seated in desire, or want. Our entire society is based on incessant greed. It is unsustainable, rewards only the worst amongst us and confers no social benefit other than one-upmanship and environmental destruction.

---

I don't believe it. I believe we are just terrible at understanding our own happiness.
And because of not understanding what really makes us happy we either instinctively resort in quick fixes (substances, food, etc) or we set our targets based on what we see around us, what other people do. "That dude has that car? Must be a reason, if I get the same or better I'll be happy. And if I'm not happy at least I'll be accepted, or someone will be jealous of me which is also strangely satisfying"

We're pretty dumb :)
And also happiness is not as simple as it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spyro

I believe we are just terrible at understanding our own happiness.

---

Agreed. Happiness is not a spectrum. You are either happy, or you are not. If you are happy, you would be a damn fool to seek change because the only possible outcomes are continued happiness or sadness. You can't become more happy. hell..."more happy" isn't even good english!

Once they have the necessities different people think different things will make them happy, or possibly think that different things make them who they are. I had neighbours who believed that they were what they had. When I was working in my 'real' job I was, to a large extent, what I knew. Really, we are what we do, and if we do what is right and can take pride in it, we should be happy. It's easier to change what we do than what we have or know.