Judgement in any way can lead to a hatred, for absolutely no reason. You don’t have to agree or disagree with everything.
Someone chooses to quit their job for peace of mind? Let them
Someone advocates for themselves or others? Let them
Someone’s spiritual path looks different than yours? Let them
Someone doesn’t want to “fix” their body? Let them
Someone identifies differently than you’re able to understand? Let them
Someone sets boundaries that you wouldn’t? Let them
Someone doesn’t keep a spotless house? Let them
Someone lives their life differently than yours? Holy shit! Let them!!!
Respecting the choices of others, so long as they are not harmful, isn’t hard. (By harmful I mean; actual, measurable harm based on facts, not opinions. And by facts I mean; anything widely agreed on throughout history, statistics, evidence – and based on reality. It’s sad I even have to clarify that.)
Simply let people live their damn lives. Not everything needs your input. Life is a lot easier when you stop judging everyone else’s choices for theirs.
E: (The book mentioned is not widely recommended apparently, the entire post is not based on the book – so I deleted the mentioning. The post is about being judgmental to things that do not cause harm to you, or others. And yes, harm can be measured through repetition, evidence, impact, & scale.)
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
so if someone is being judgmental, then you should let them
I think the phrase you’re looking for here is “Mind your own damn business”
Someone neglecting their puppy? Let them.
Someone intentionally misrepresenting information to allow the conversation to tilt toward their own ends? Let them!
Someone writes a moronic book that disguises apathy as empathy? LET THEM.
> so long as they are not harmful
That’s the crux. The issue arises because people have a different view of what ‘not harmful’ is. Quite a few of the things you list are things that there’s VERY different views on what harmful is.
The timing of this post seems supernatural. I literally just came from a YT analysis of Mel Robbins by Scott Carney . I think it provides some important context.
There’s an episode of If Books Could Kill that details why the book focused on this mindset is not particularly legitimate or useful.
Being able to let go, and to listen to my mind rather than my emotions, is a massive struggle for me. If anyone has advice or places to look for assistance I’d greatly appreciate it.
Hey y’all,
So the Let Them theory is a book by Mel Robbins, and it’s really really important after you say “Let them” to remember the second part
“Let me”
You let go of what you can’t control(others) and instead focus on what you can control (your own actions)
It doesn’t fix all your problems, it just makes things easier to manage
Someone is constantly disrespectful to you? Let them?
I bought this book around Christmastime, but haven’t read it yet. I have a very long trip (14 hrs) planned this weekend and looked into buying the audiobook but it’s $36.99 😳
Yes and no. This is a good sentiment for a lot of situations, but this can easily turn into becoming passive in other people’s lives. Some people need a wake up call or a metaphorical slap in the face.
Go AI!
The “Let Them” theory, popularized by Mel Robbins, has faced criticism for oversimplifying complex issues and potentially leading to avoidance of healthy communication and conflict resolution. Critics argue it can be used as an excuse to passively accept harmful behaviors, especially in abusive or toxic relationships. Additionally, some find the theory to be a repackaged version of existing philosophies like stoicism.
Here’s a more detailed look at the criticisms:
Oversimplification:
The theory is seen as a simplistic approach to complex interpersonal dynamics. It might not be helpful in situations where active communication, boundaries, or even ending a relationship are necessary.
Avoidance of Conflict:
Critics argue that “Let Them” can encourage individuals to avoid difficult conversations or healthy conflict, leading to unresolved issues and potentially harming relationships.
Failure to Address Abuse:
The theory is criticized for potentially allowing individuals to passively accept abusive or toxic behavior instead of setting boundaries or seeking support.
Lack of Nuance:
Some argue that the theory is too broad and doesn’t account for the nuances of different relationships and situations, where action may be required instead of simply “letting go”.
Lack of Proper Acknowledgement:
Robbins’s theory has been criticized for not acknowledging the source of the idea, which originated from poet Cassie B. Phillips’s poem “Let Them”.
Redundant Content:
Some reviewers have noted that the book feels redundant, with the same core message repeated throughout, rather than providing in-depth insights.
Hustle Culture:
Some argue that the theory might inadvertently perpetuate the “hustle culture” mentality by focusing on individual effort while neglecting the need for systemic change and addressing underlying issues.
Misuse of the Principle:
The theory can be misused as an excuse to avoid conflict, stay silent on issues, and let harmful behaviors go unaddressed.
While the “Let Them” theory can be helpful for some in managing their reactions to others’ behaviors and reducing frustration, it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s crucial to recognize when active communication, boundary setting, or even ending a relationship are necessary for one’s well-being.
The issue is how their decisions can impact us – a person making bad financial decisions who is likely to ask for support from people who I know will feel obligated to give it ends up impacting me, even though it shouldn’t, if I end up having to set boundaries later on. It’s easier to say “don’t do that” early on and warn people of consequences, rather than have people circle around with “if you’d told me, I might have done differently” !
Generally a nice mindset. However I think if everyone only follow the you do you I do I mindset there would be more difficulty to build up connections.
One friend of mine set up boundaries When I brought up topics I feel struggling and really needed people to talk about. It might be fine if there was once or two, but when I was feeling pain, I’d always bump into her wall by how she understood as me “being disrespectful for keeping mentioning the subjects she didn’t like”, even if I had no intention of changing her but only wanted to share with her how I felt.
There was also cases when I simply brought up my spiritual experiences, and maybe linked with my religions, she’d push it back without understanding what I really was talking about. She avoided Any conversation that made her feel uncomfortable with the saying of “you do you”. I feel like whenever I wish I could be more connected to her, I’d be the bad person seemingly forcing my ideas on her while I don’t have that intention. Sometimes you also need to be taking just one step back to understand other people and listen to their thoughts, or feelings instead of pushing it away because it’s different.
So if I’m sexually assaulted, and people say women lie all the time, and I wasn’t really sexually assaulted, I should just let them? After all, if there are no witnesses and the bruises I incurred when I tried to escape could have come from other experiences, then there are no “facts.”. And if those people are in positions of social or political power ostracize me because the rapist is a popular guy, let them, right?
Or if I’m a child who’s mentally and emotionally tormented by a parent, but only when others aren’t around, I should just let them, right? After all, they leave no marks, and nobody else witnesses it.
smh
I agree. Got this friend at school who thinks some people try to shut me out(they might be, idk) but I just kinda… don’t care. Like I’ve got friends, why would it bother me if these people I’m not really friends with don’t want to be friends with me. But he keeps complaining about it for me, to me, and I just keep saying “who cares, let them”
There’s a big difference between “let them” and “be obligated to facilitate them”.
I highly recommend the If Books Could Kill Podcast’s episode on “The Let Them Theory.” It’s just another airport impulse buy feel-good baloney tome that just repeats common sense until it tricks you into thinking it’s clever.
Mel Robbins doesn’t make room for nuance though and she contradicts herself, and thats what you’re missing.
She says “let them” do all these harmful things, like letting people walk over you—all in the name of relinquishing control so you can be peaceful. But then she has videos “how to make people stop walking over you.” What do you want people to do? “Let them” do their thing, or learn to manipulate them to make them stop?
Then in another video, she says that if your kid doesn’t want to go to Nana’s birthday party, that you should acknowledge that, then talk to them about their Nana’s feelings to manipulate their feelings into going to the party. This is essentially not “letting them” skip the party, so again, is she really on board with this theory? Communication with kids and touching in to their emotions is something thats not only isolated to parenting. It can be used in real life.
She just thinks she has this revolutionary idea, then contradicts herself in every other video where she’s trying to act like the most pretentious person. Like, her advice for navigating conversations and social negotiations is not too bad honestly, but it just contradicts this “Let Them” theory that she’s riding her career on right now. The way she delivers this message is just inconsistent and potentially harmful.
The part that i find the most harmful about the way she delivers her message is she doesn’t provide the caveat that after you “let them”, you can draw boundaries and leave to a place where you don’t have to “let them” walk over you anymore. This might be discussed in her book, but the average person won’t read it, and it’s not in her videos. It’s just a slippery slope that just encourages you to be a bystander in the name of self-preservation.
I think your intended point is absolutely not unpopular. The examples are where the division is
So how do i make peace with political opinions of family members that actually cause harm to others by supporting them/ being indifferent to the suffering of others?
Bruno’s Law #3: Don’t shit on other people’s parades.
> The book mentioned is not widely recommended apparently, the entire post is not based on the book
The person who wrote that book said the same thing about the poem! It’s unaccountability all the way down.
I hate the “As long as it doesn’t cause harm its okay” mentally, because its such an insultingly low standard of what is acceptable, and most people who believe this usually are just trying to protect themselves from judgement because of how scared they are of being judged
>By harmful I mean; actual, measurable harm based on facts, not opinions. And by facts I mean; anything widely agreed on throughout history, statistics, evidence – and based on reality. It’s sad I even have to clarify that.
The fact that you present this as if there’s a clear definition is kinda sad too. But, eh oh well, I’ll let you 😛
This is mostly why I’m a libertarian. If it ain’t hurting you or anyone else, let them. The Non Aggression Principle is great.
Not my pig, not my farm
>
Simply let people live their damn lives. Not everything needs your input.
>
Except for writing long posts about how we shouldn’t give input. If people want to stand on their soap boxes and push their beliefs why don’t you just let them?
This is definitely unpopular.
Though it shouldn’t be.
Take this mentality and apply it to all earthlings and you get veganism.
Stop harming animals.
well, i’m the kind of person that if i see you doing something stupid, i don’t just hold my laugh and wait for the disaster to then crack my ass laughing, i try to stop you instead, probably cos i don’t find disasters “interesting”… so in other words i’m against carelessness, and i dunno how much your argument works with mine
While it’s dead on to suggest that minding one’s business is the best thing for their mental health, it’s also ridiculous to expect to be immune from any and all judgment. If you can’t handle what people have to say to you or about you, put less of yourself on display. The more you show about yourself or say about yourself, the more people are going to have to say about you. If you don’t want people to be giving you budgeting advice, quit whining about your financial struggles. If you get offended by people telling you that your tattoo makes you look trashy, cover it up. In no way am I condoning for people to pass judgment on others either. People are responsible for what they put on display and how they present themselves.
I’m a strong proponent of Tough Love and holding people to high standards for their own good, whether they like it or not.
But you know what? I agree.
There is a point beyond which being tough on mediocricy is counterproductive. Discipline without responsibility (and responsibility without authority) is illegitimate, so, speaking in plain terms, don’t ever bother listening to whoever is not paying your bills, on anything, and don’t bother wasting synapses and breath on someone whose bills you aren’t paying.
Failing to follow this principle will inexorably result into very impolite but warranted invitations to mind your business, because whatever you are doing is grievously overstepping your lane so you are spending time and energy contributing nothing to any cause you care about and building up ressentiment and bad impressions on people because nobody likes a nagging prick.
Judgement must come from a place of love and material responsibility, as it’s the protector’s prerogative to dictate what the protected must do to help at maintaining their security; otherwise, it is just unhelpful negativity.
> Respecting the choices of others, so long as they are not harmful, isn’t hard.
Even simple life choice can be harmful, driving a car kills over a million a year.
There were points in history when systems of discrimination on the basis of race were widely agreed upon, so your definition of facts is… really loose to say the least.
Also, a lot of behaviours are considered harmful by people, either to the individual or due to the effect on society and obviously, morals.
Someone wants to gamble away everything they have? Let them (go into debt and ruin their life)
Someone wants to stay an alcoholic? Let them (potentially continue behaviour that harms themselves and in time, their families)
‘Let them’ is a very simple mindset and a good slogan but by that same token it fails to account for complex issues.
If someone doesn’t want to end their written sentences with punctuation, do we let them?