"Others have it worse than you do"

Post Reply New Topic

How would anyone actually know that someone has it worst than the next person? "Abilities" is a good predictor, yes, but that neglects how people actually feel with themselves.

Last I heard, telepathy doesn't work so we really can't define how someone else "feels" with their predicament.

Others don't have it worse at the moment...I've run out of bacon and no beer. I can hopefully solve the small stuff first then start on the big stuff second, if I started on the second first not much would change, I'd starve and there would still be no bacon/beer.

Exactly!!

I thought about this thread yesterday. Someone used that line on me - "Others have it a lot worse than you do" - and I wanted to punch her in the face!

Oh my goodness, how I hate to be told that phrase...to me, it's belittling, condescending, and just another way of saying, "No one gives a *wordthatrhymeswithtruck* about you." Why can't people just LISTEN when other people need to talk about their problems and not make them feel even worse or offer useless advice that may not even work for them and their situation??

People, it's just a way of telling you to shut up. I figured that one out when I had a friend who would always say that when I came to her with my problems. Then one day when she came to me with hers as usual, instead of being supportive as usual, I gave her her own line. She got very offended. People want you to be there for them but shut you up if you want them there for you too.

Context here:

So this is what Jesus said to a rich guy who apparently seemed to believe that all you had to do to be good was to follow a bunch of rules. Jesus is making the point here that the fact that this guy is rich means that he has been keeping for himself more than he needs, while others don't have enough. He often had to come down pretty hard on people who couldn't tell the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. By "Come follow me", Jesus would have meant "join the many disciples who are traveling with me". This of course isn't possible for us because Jesus is no longer on Earth; but the principle is still there: "Stop collecting more useless money. Instead, give it away and start living for other people instead of for your bank account balance."

I guess where I got the idea of Jesus being in favor of being sensible with your altruism, was his example more than anything else. Jesus could've just miracled away tiredness and hunger, and spent 24/7 preaching and healing and whatnot. But he didn't. He slept, ate, and socialized. He played with children and went to parties. When his disciples were hungry and picked grain to eat, he defended their decision. Why'd he do all that, if not to be an example to others that you have to take care of your own needs as well as those of others?

TD, maybe it's because Jesus was a Jew, and according to Jewish Law, you have to first take good care of yourself so that you'll be strong enough to take care of others. And when it's a survival issue, according to Jewish Law your obligation is to save yourself instead of your friend.

Also, a former friend of mine (whom I mentioned to you on another thread) who is a Catholic priest, told me that Jesus said to give your other cheek, but only two cheeks in total and not add the 2 cheeks of the tushy. What he meant is that Jesus preached giving, but not letting other people use you.

Well, as an atheist, you know where this is going with the miracles if I argue. But I agree the quote isn't as cast-iron as it looked.........one loophole is that you could take it as an instruction to just the one (rich) man. I'm always doing this......admitting people are right but not for the reasons they think. Most folks just argue the toss.


Sounds about right to me. Can't speak from experience because I have trouble sharing my problems at all, but I've angered people by doing as I've been done by a few times.

A lot of the Jewish laws seem quite smart to me. I gather the original sabbath was basically a proper rest break, which certain Victorians turned into another opportunity to make everybody suffer.

I never liked the "turn the other cheek" thing so it's good to know there's some sharp rhetoric about that. Blake's "Poison Tree" does it in another way.

At least you can have beer... (wheat intolerant; so no beer for me!)

Indeed. Overwork can kill. Having a law to establish rest for workers might benefit any society, provided it wasn't used to force people into boredom one day of the week. Today, with huge technology-heavy societies, we have laws that dictate that employers can't make you work too long without a break. Principle's the same.
Yeah, the "turn the other cheek" thing is a pretty difficult thing to live by. The idea that it's better to accept being taken advantage of than to seek revenge... well, it goes against a lot of human nature. Still, Jesus wasn't advocating being a complete doormat. This was the guy who practically single-handedly destroyed the marketplace near the temple; not to mention the verbal beatdowns he regularly leveled against the religious leaders and various jerkasses of his day.

Puddingmouse mentioned the Buddhist "Middle Way"--I think Jesus would've agreed with it, really. I studied a bit of that myself in philosophy class and I was often interested to see how much Christianity and buddhist philosophy tend to agree. It's a source of wisdom, anyhow, and I can't reject it just because it's not part of my own culture.

Hehehe, that's more of a cultural thing. It's the way we behave here normally, we are verbally aggressive and we do turn a desk on an unreasonable clerk when we want things done, but we don't mean any harm. Tourists from other cultures see it as us being violent when they watch us, say, in the marketplace from the side. It's now 5 am here, and if there was sound on WP you could hear the yelling in the street downstairs, in the background as I type, already this early. I just live above the market and the workers are now coming into work. I'm going down now to feed the stray cats and yell at these guys to shut up! In a few hours it'll be Shabbath and there'll be total silence and no cars...aaaah bliss!

The whole point of what Jesus was trying to teach the rich man is that he did NOT follow the commandments perfectly. He was guilty of idolatry, and the idol he had was his money and wealth. What Jesus basically did was make the rich man make a choice between spiritual riches and Earthly ones. The thing is though, the lesson is applicable to all. We may not have to give away all we own to follow Jesus, but we do need to hold it with an open hand and realize that it belongs to Him, not us. In the end, it matters little what your riches are. You may only have $2 to your name or you may be Bill Gates. If you are unwilling to give all that you are to God, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. The principle is submission and acquiescing your dominion over your life to Jesus.

Yeah, seriously. Some people mope 24/7 overdramatically about how "bad" they have it.

There's a difference between acknowledging your own problem, while also realizing how fortunate you are.

Not acknowledging that you do, in fact, have it better than millions of other people easily leads to a "woe is me" mentality where people fail to take responsibility for their own lives. That's not to say that you can't be sad at the same time, such as if you lose your phone. It's realizing what you do have, what you have the opportunity to do, and that you can make changes in your life that makes someone wise.

If someone is moping 24/7, then odds are there's something diagnosable and serious going on.



This is a pretty terrible thing to say to people. It is true that no matter how bad you have it, odds are someone somewhere else has it worse. However, it is usually not the least bit relevant. People are allowed to have their troubles and they don't need anyone lecturing them on the proper threshold for "real" problems.

I think people can get stuck in a loop where they wallow in self-pity, yes. There's an Eric Berne game known as "Ain't it awful!" which is much the same, though he reckons it's played to avoid intimacy.

I doubt that it would often be helpful to use the "others have it worse...." argument though, because as we've established only means STFU. A better response might be to tell them, without withdrawing attention or affection, that you've noticed this loop they're in, and to ask them if they have any idea why they do it. Another way (I heard that R.D.Laing used to do this successfully) is to change the subject......it still has to be about them, but you just invite them onto positive ground. Problem with the self-pity loop is that although it comforts them in a way (it exonerates them from blame and responsibility), it also reinforces their conviction that their situation is hopeless, so it's important to break the cycle.


You can see how the modern mind could see that as inconsistent though......I think a lot of his ideas weren't really being expressed in a precise way like we tend to expect these days......alltogether a more flowery, emotive style. Allegorical truth and all that.


Please come to the UK with your violent friends and sort the bankers out for me. Nobody over here does anything but whinge about them.