What is a heirarchy, really?

"Veto Power" really is just an prearranged agreement regarding a future deal breaker. It's like having the argument beforehand and deciding not to break up, but to instead capitulate to the desires of the one with the issue. Instead of saying "I don't trust that girl, she gives me the willies, you need to break up with her or I'm leaving you" and his responding "No, no, don't leave me... I'll break up with her because my feelings for her are irrelevant"... it's just done prior to the issue coming up.

Yucko!

I know that in practice, they end up amounting to the same thing, but I agree that there is a huge change in meaning between a "game-changer" and a veto.

A veto puts your issue directly onto your partner rather than on yourself. It's saying, "I don't like <x>, therefore YOU need to do <y> or I'm done."

Letting your partner know what could be a game-changer, regardless of when it's done (I've let my partner know ahead of time what potential game-changers or deal-breakers of mine could be) still rests the decision where it belongs - on the person who has the problem. "It's my issue, therefore it's mine to take care of however I need to when/if it ever occurs."

A veto is expressed in a much more controlling manner and tends to have that vibe of "my opinions mean more than yours". I'd rather get my cards out on the table, say that I may have issues that could cause me to rethink the relationship if <x> occurs, and then agree to go down our path and deal with it if it ever occurs. My partner's informed, I'm not going to be surprising him, and it's not telling him how to behave.

*shrug*
I dunno. It may all be semantics, but the different ways of wording things can convey a heck of a different meaning.
 
I dunno. It may all be semantics, but the different ways of wording things can convey a heck of a different meaning.

"I dig you, but I'm going to take care of myself even if that means I have to adjust the nature of our relationship". To me, this is a fair statement and one that everyone makes even though most don't vocalize it. We can call them boundaries, game changers, deal breakers, etc.

The brunt of the actions needed due to a veto is put on the one being vetoed. There has already been an agreement that if one of us says "no way" the other will capitulate and make whatever changes are required to assuage their insecurities. This is basically the same principle as a boundary or a game changer; it's just that the discussion has been pre-decided for some reason. Personally I think it would be better to actually discuss what is going on than to fall back on a general purpose "nuh uh".

[Edit] I agree with YouAreHere, if that wasn't clear
 
Last edited:
Though my meter may be loose
and not as tight as Doctor Seuss
the rhyming lilt in my reply
is solely due to BoringGuy






Burma-Shave
 
Last edited:
Though my meter may be loose
and not as tight as Doctor Seuss
the rhyming lilt in my reply
is solely due to BoringGuy






Burma-Shave

Marcus deserves some credit, don't you think?
 
You might be smart, you might be shy
But that doesn't matter to Boring Guy
Stick your head over the parapet
And he'll make sure you get some shit

:D
 
You might be smart, you might be shy
But that doesn't matter to Boring Guy
Stick your head over the parapet
And he'll make sure you get some shit

:D


"shit" and "parapet" don't rhyme. But i'm sure you knew that. Nice try though.

By the way, we're having fun here. This is not "being passive-aggressive" even though some might want it to be.

Now, do better. If you want your insult to register on my radar, it MUST rhyme PROPERLY. "Again" does not rhyme with "rain" even though the last 3 letters are the same. So cover up that cake or better yet, have it and eat it too.
 
Back
Top