It’s the charitable campaign that’s managed to float to the top, of COURSE it’s obnoxious. I used to work at a place next to a store that allowed the Salvation Army to do their holiday drive, by Christmas day I was ready to kill anybody that even owned a bell. That’s the nature of successful campaigns, they get annoying because they become unavoidable. But by the age of 30 I got pretty good at selectively ignoring stuff. By the time we hit the second half of the early games the pink was just another team color to me.
I’m not projecting anything on you, you’re the one arguing against a stupid ribbon like it actually matters. You clearly are mad about it, if you weren’t you wouldn’t be complaining. And it is definitely a silly thing to get upset about.
In my view, it’s very immature to accuse someone who disagrees with you on some point of doing so only for emotional reasons.
Good arguments (civil discussions between people with different viewpoints) lead to good insight, if not always, or even often, agreement. This cannot occur if one party continually claims that the other’s stated reasons are not the reasons for that person’s conclusions.
I am saying nothing more than what you said about your observation about the Salvation Army campaign: it had become obnoxious to you because of its pervasiveness in your particular experience and situations.
And I’m sure you would agree that a point could be reached at which many people shared your annoyance at an omnipresent Salvation Army campaign.
Your reasoned observation should be accepted, and I accept it. I don’t claim that I know that you are simply having an over-the-top emotional reaction, that in your heart of hearts you are “against” the Salvation Army campaign or find it obnoxious in your situation just because you are “mad” about some silly bell-ringing.
Good day!