How judgmental are you?

What I am finding is that DH has morphed into "Disgusted Tunbridge Wells"
He has taken to sounding more and more like Victor Meldrew crossed with a crusty colonel. Thank god there is usually only me and the dog to hear it. Sometimes I argue back, but mostly I just let it go. It's his blood pressure, not mine [sigh]

There are two meanings ascribed to 'judgemental' and they are a) using judgement and b) being overly critical. You would hope we all do the first, so in that sense we are all judgemental.

You did!! No, you wernt the only entry, but by far and away the best
It's OK, anthems are all over now, your medal can be awarded in a ceremony by all the other proud Gransnetters.
You can wave the GN flag (found at the top of the page).

Did I realy get Gold? oh was I the only entry? Please say no , crumbs do I hsve to sing the national anthem ?

ps don't take it seriously [oops]
pps you did enter yourself voluntarily in the GN Olympics
ppps I thought your spelling was innovative and original

What judgement have you reached Tricia and Standgran on people like me and on me who hsve a problem with spelling? And I do not have a smart phone
Anniebach did you check the GN Olympic thread? You were awarded the gold medal!
You were judged outstanding, well done

I too grew up in a household with mixed religious and political affiliations and with mixed heritage which is probably why I am not terribly judgmental and am fairly open minded. It also helps that I have known a life of relative financial comfort and great poverty.

Judgements in general, not about the people kitty speaks to, is how I interpreted the post...

Kitty, you say you make your own judgments after talking to people; therefore you are judgmental.
Isn't everyone?

What judgement have you reached Tricia and Standgran on people like me and on me who hsve a problem with spelling? And I do not have a smart phone

Many of us are, as you say 'confused' - I'd say 'complex'.
Some of us try to not fall into the trap of being one thing, or another, and fit into clear boxes.

Perhaps it comes from our own background. If someone is born with all their family and friends being of one nationality, one political affiliation, one religion, one colour, one etc, etc- then it must be hard at times to perceive different ways of looking at things.

If on the other end, 'one' grew up in a mixed religious household, and encountered mixed all of the above- then perhaps it is easier to always consider that there are many ways to look at 'things' and be a little more flexible. So no, not 'confused'.

I reckon that I'm quite confused. I read the Times, The dm, our 2 local papers. Watch the news on BBC and Sky. I vote Tory and yet I voted Remain!

It is an insult to make judgments on me because of one fact. I meet people from all walks of life, engage them in conversation and make my own judgments.

It is not so much being judgmental as making assumptions about people because of one or two facts they let slip. It is a particular internet problem. I read the DM. I also read the I and the Observer and, at times either the Telegraph or Guardian.

Admit to reading one of these papers and an immediate stereotype comes to mind, but find the full range I read and the stereotypes dissolve in confusion.

It applies to so many things, political persuasion, religious beliefs. It is lazy thinking that slots people into stereotypes and means nobody has to think intelligently about who someone really is.

Indeed Anya, indeed ;)

TerriBull- depends if in real life or a forum- and if the question has been asked for others to comment, give opinion- as in this thread? If someone asks you what you think- then it is fair to reply- and often agree to disagree. If you can't then you have 2 choices, withdraw or hold your own, hopefully with evidence, links, research, etc. And yet many here would say that this is being 'judgemental' - and as said, extremely 'judgemental' in itself.

If only closed minds came with closed mouths

I'd rather say I don't understand, rather than judge, people who claim to be socialists but send their kids to private school. I'm not judging anyone for being a socialist, or for that matter sending their kids to a private school, it's just the two together , unless there is some special needs issue that cannot be addressed in the state sector, but then that would also apply to others who couldn't afford an alternative. The main ethos of socialism as I understand it, is equality, a level playing field for all, or do socialists who educate privately want a level playing field for everyone else's kids..........but not theirs (cos they're ever so special) and they need to get them right to the top of the greasy pole, just like they did and cos they're kids are worth it

It's four years since I bowed out as a CAB adviser, but still carry some of my training with me and one thing that I remember is that as advisers we had to remain neutral even if we disagreed with and/or disapproved of a client. I have never been one to suffer fools gladly, but realise there are some whose views are so deeply entrenched that there's no point in arguing. I know a few people like that in a group I belong to, but we have enough things in common to get along together. They don't like my politics and I don't like theirs. So - there are other things to make social contact enjoyable.

Hasn't done you any good, has it Stansgran?
Although you might get UKIP next time, but I'm sure that's not who you want.

"those who carnt spel" etc - it's because they're using those stupid smartphones and texting.
There, that's me being judgemental.

I think Shelagh got it right
However judgemental one might be - surely everyone is judgemental but surely we know when to reveal it or how right or wrong we probably are?
I'm a Times reader and I vote strategically in the hope of getting labour out of this area( so entrenched that the population is taken for granted and treated very very badly) and I'm very impressed that people have so much time to read all these newspapers. I'm still doing the crossword at bedtime. I'm extremely judgemental of those who carnt spel and cannot see that another person is entitled to their opposing views as in some political threads.

I think you're right, granjura. Newspapers use sophisticated methods to target their readership (so they sell more). They then reinforce those views. All newspapers (online or paper) have an agenda and, therefore, bias. It's dangerous if people can't recognise the bias and accept opinion as fact. I try to read a wide range of media from the Daily Express to the Guardian and Al Jazeera, etc etc and try to pick out and check facts against more original sources.

Surely people choose to read a paper that espouses their 'judgements' , their views and their opinions. So if a paper is routinely treating groups of people by using stereotypes and 'judgements' - then it seems only fair to come to the conclusions that they match to some extent with the reader - unless reader reads a wide range of papers to balance this out.

Same in the USA for people who only wach 'Fox News'.

Some newspapers (and politicians) tend to use many 'fixed epithets' to describe certain groups of people. Examples are 'hard-working' for families, 'feckless' for teenage mothers (but not fathers), 'scrounging' for the unemployed, etc. Over time, groups of people are associated in people's minds with certain characteristics and people begin to judge them as a group, rather than as individuals. To my mind, that's what being judgmental is all about.