Latest news with #deflection
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
15 Phrases That Reveal You're Talking To Someone Who Will Never Take Responsibility
Do you ever find yourself in a conversation where you just know the other person won't own up to their actions? It's like talking to a wall that deflects everything you say. These folks have a knack for dodging accountability, and it can be super frustrating. If you've ever felt like you're going in circles during a discussion, chances are you've encountered someone who just won't take responsibility. Here are 15 phrases you'll hear from someone who's a pro at passing the buck. 1. "It's Not My Fault." Hearing "It's not my fault" is like a red flag waving in your face. You know you're dealing with someone who's more interested in sidestepping blame than finding a solution. These folks often have a slew of reasons why things went wrong, and none of them have to do with their own actions. They believe that the universe conspires against them, and they're just an innocent bystander. According to Dr. John Grohol, founder of Psych Central, this mentality is a classic sign of a deflective personality. When someone defaults to this phrase, it might seem like they genuinely believe they're not at fault. But dig a little deeper, and you'll often find they're just uncomfortable with self-reflection. Admitting fault can feel like a huge blow to their ego, so they avoid it altogether. Over time, this can create a pattern where they never grow or learn from their mistakes. Instead of improving, they stay stuck in a cycle of blaming the world around them. 2. "You Made Me Do It." Blame-shifters love this phrase because it takes the heat off them and puts it squarely on you. It's a clever way of saying they had no control over their actions, and you were the puppet master pulling the strings. The idea is to make you feel guilty for their poor choices, which is both unfair and manipulative. It's a classic technique for evading responsibility and shifting the spotlight away from their own behavior. If you've ever been on the receiving end of this, you know how it can leave you questioning your own actions. The reality is, no one can make someone else do something against their will. This phrase is just a smokescreen to avoid facing up to their own decisions. When you hear it, it's a sign that the person lacks the emotional maturity to admit their part in the situation. They're likely to repeat the same mistakes because they haven't taken the time to learn from them. Instead of accepting their role, they choose to play the victim, hoping you'll buy into their narrative. 3. "I Was Just Joking." This phrase often emerges when someone's been caught saying or doing something inappropriate. By brushing it off as a "joke," they're trying to downplay the seriousness of their actions. It's a way to deflect criticism and make you second-guess your reaction. According to psychologist Dr. Susan Heitler, humor can be used as a defense mechanism to avoid uncomfortable truths. This tactic can leave you questioning whether you're overreacting or being too sensitive. It's important to recognize that genuine jokes make people feel good, not uncomfortable. When someone tries to mask hurtful behavior as humor, it's a sign they're not willing to take responsibility for their words. This deflection can strain relationships and create a hostile environment. It's not about lacking a sense of humor; it's about understanding the impact of one's words. People who habitually resort to this phrase often struggle with accountability, preferring instead to hide behind laughter. 4. "I Didn't Mean To." "I didn't mean to" is a phrase that's thrown around casually, but it often serves a deeper purpose. It's an attempt to minimize the consequences of one's actions by suggesting they were unintentional. While intentions do matter, they don't erase the impact of what's been done. This phrase can lead to a cycle of repeating the same mistakes without learning from them. By focusing solely on their intent, the person neglects the need to make amends or change their behavior. When you hear this, it's crucial to look at patterns rather than isolated incidents. If someone frequently resorts to "I didn't mean to," it might indicate they lack awareness of how their actions affect others. They may also be trying to dodge the effort required to repair the situation. The absence of malice doesn't absolve them from taking responsibility. Growth comes from acknowledging mistakes and actively working to prevent them in the future. 5. "Everyone Else Does It." This phrase is an attempt to dilute personal accountability by pointing out that the behavior is widespread. The logic is that if everyone else is doing something, it must be acceptable. But according to ethical psychologist Dr. Linda Elder, this mindset can lead to a dangerous erosion of personal values. It creates a culture of conformity where individual responsibility is overshadowed by group behavior. By justifying actions with this phrase, people avoid facing their unique role in the situation. The danger of this mentality is that it discourages personal growth and self-improvement. People become complacent, thinking that if the masses do something, it's somehow less wrong. It's a convenient way to skirt responsibility without facing any real consequences. When you're stuck in this mindset, you miss out on opportunities to learn from your mistakes. Instead of using others as a benchmark, it's crucial to hold yourself to your own standards. 6. "That's Just Who I Am." This phrase is a favorite among those who prefer to avoid change. By declaring "That's just who I am," they're essentially saying they have no intention of altering their behavior. It's a way to shut down any conversation about self-improvement or accountability. This statement implies that their personality is fixed and immutable, which can be a cop-out for not taking responsibility. While everyone has traits that define them, this doesn't mean they can't evolve. When someone uses this phrase, it often signals an unwillingness to engage in introspection. They might see their behavior as an intrinsic part of their identity, which is why they resist change. Yet, personal growth requires a willingness to adapt and learn from experiences. By hiding behind this phrase, they're choosing stagnation over development. Embracing change doesn't mean losing oneself; it means becoming a better version of oneself. 7. "You're Too Sensitive." When you're told "You're too sensitive," it feels like a dismissal of your emotions. This phrase is often wielded by those who wish to invalidate your feelings while deflecting their responsibility. According to Dr. Brené Brown, an expert on vulnerability and empathy, dismissing someone's emotions can prevent meaningful connections. It's a way to sidestep accountability by making it seem like the problem lies with you, rather than their actions. This tactic can leave you feeling isolated and questioning your emotional responses. It's important to stand firm in your feelings and recognize when someone is using this phrase as a deflection. Your emotions are valid, and being sensitive isn't a flaw. When someone tells you otherwise, it's usually because they're uncomfortable with the consequences of their actions. They might not want to face the discomfort of having hurt someone, so they pin the blame on your sensitivity. Understanding this can help you see through the deflection and maintain your sense of self-worth. 8. "I Was Having A Bad Day." Everyone has bad days, but using them as an excuse to dodge responsibility is another story. When someone says, "I was having a bad day," they're trying to justify their behavior without acknowledging the impact it had. It's a way to make you feel like their actions were out of their control due to external circumstances. This phrase often serves as a temporary band-aid rather than a solution. It might explain the behavior, but it doesn't excuse it. Understanding that everyone goes through tough times is important, but it shouldn't be a free pass for negative actions. Bad days don't give anyone the right to mistreat others or evade accountability. When someone consistently uses this excuse, it might signal an unwillingness to develop better coping mechanisms. Instead of taking responsibility, they're attributing their actions to things outside their control. Real growth comes from recognizing your impact on others, regardless of the kind of day you're having. 9. "You Know How I Am." This phrase is a cousin to "That's just who I am," and serves a similar purpose. It's a blanket statement meant to excuse behavior by implying it's an unchangeable part of their character. By saying "You know how I am," they place the onus on you to accept their behavior, rather than on themselves to improve. It's a tactic that discourages further discussion or criticism. The implication is that if you know them well enough, you should tolerate their actions without expecting change. However, knowing someone well doesn't mean you have to accept their poor behavior. Relationships thrive on mutual respect, and part of that is being willing to adapt and grow together. When someone uses this phrase, it's often a sign they're resisting accountability. They're signaling that they're not interested in taking steps toward bettering themselves. Realizing this can help you understand whether they're willing to work on themselves or are stuck in their ways. 10. "You're Overreacting." Being told "You're overreacting" can make you question the validity of your feelings. It's another way people deflect responsibility, making it seem like your response is exaggerated rather than addressing the issue at hand. This phrase can undermine your confidence and make you second-guess your perceptions. It's often used to dismiss genuine concerns without taking them seriously. Instead of addressing the root cause, it shifts the focus to your reaction. When you hear this phrase, it's vital to trust your instincts and recognize it for the deflection it is. Your feelings are your own, and they shouldn't be dismissed because someone else is uncomfortable with them. This tactic often stems from an unwillingness to look at how their actions contributed to the situation. By labeling your reactions as overblown, they avoid having to take responsibility. Understanding this dynamic can help you maintain your self-assurance and not get swayed by their words. 11. "It's Not That Big Of A Deal." Dismissing a situation with "It's not that big of a deal" is a classic way to downplay its significance. This phrase is often used to make you feel like you're making mountains out of molehills, even if the issue is serious. It's an attempt to minimize the impact of their actions and avoid addressing the consequences. By belittling the situation, they're trying to deflect accountability and put you on the defensive. This tactic is about making you feel like you're overemphasizing the issue. However, if something matters to you, it is a big deal, and it deserves acknowledgment. Minimizing a problem doesn't make it go away; it just buries it temporarily. When someone frequently uses this phrase, it signals a reluctance to engage with the gravity of their actions. Instead of dismissing your concerns, they should be listening and working toward resolution. Recognizing this mindset can help you advocate for your feelings without getting overshadowed by their deflection. 12. "I Was Just Following Orders." Claiming "I was just following orders" is a classic way to dodge responsibility by shifting it to a higher authority. It's a phrase that absolves personal accountability by suggesting they were merely a cog in a larger machine. This tactic is often used to justify actions without taking ownership of them. By putting the blame on someone else's directive, they avoid examining their own role. It's a way to deflect criticism and shirking responsibility for the outcome. While following directives is often necessary, it doesn't absolve someone of the consequences of their actions. Everyone has a personal responsibility to consider the impact of what they're doing. Using this phrase frequently can indicate a lack of critical thinking and an unwillingness to stand up for what's right. It's an avoidance tactic that prevents growth and perpetuates a lack of accountability. Recognizing this can help you understand when someone is trying to deflect rather than address their behavior. 13. "Nobody Told Me." When you hear "Nobody told me," it's usually an attempt to sidestep responsibility by claiming ignorance. This phrase suggests that the person is only accountable for what they are explicitly told, rather than actively seeking information. It's a way to deflect blame by implying that the fault lies with others for not keeping them informed. However, this mindset disregards the importance of taking initiative and being proactive. It's a convenient excuse for avoiding accountability. While it's true that communication is a two-way street, relying solely on others for information can be a cop-out. Everyone has the responsibility to seek out the knowledge they need to fulfill their obligations. Using this phrase frequently suggests a lack of ownership over their actions and decisions. By shifting the blame to external sources, they dodge the need for self-improvement. Recognizing this pattern can help you see through their deflection and understand their reluctance to take responsibility. 14. "It's Just The Way Things Are." Saying "It's just the way things are" is a way to shrug off responsibility by implying that the situation is unchangeable. This phrase suggests a resignation to circumstances, rather than a willingness to challenge or improve them. It's an attempt to deflect accountability by making it seem like there are no alternatives. However, this mindset ignores the potential for growth and positive change. It's a convenient excuse for maintaining the status quo. While some aspects of life are out of our control, many things can be influenced by our actions. Resorting to this phrase indicates a reluctance to engage with the effort required to make a difference. It's a signal that the person isn't interested in taking proactive steps toward improvement. By recognizing this mindset, you can better understand when someone is deflecting responsibility rather than embracing opportunities for change. It's about choosing to be part of the solution rather than resigning to the problem. 15. "I Didn't Think It Would Matter." This phrase is an admission, albeit indirect, of negligence. By saying "I didn't think it would matter," the person acknowledges their actions but minimizes their significance. It's a way to deflect by suggesting the outcome was unforeseen and therefore not their fault. However, this mindset reflects a lack of foresight and consideration for the impact of their actions. It's a way to dodge accountability by claiming ignorance of the consequences. While not everything can be predicted, using this phrase frequently signals a lack of responsibility for one's actions. It suggests that they're not taking the time to consider the potential outcomes of their behavior. This mindset can lead to repeated mistakes and a cycle of deflection instead of learning. Recognizing this phrase for what it is can help you understand when someone is trying to skirt responsibility. It's about encouraging reflection and the willingness to acknowledge the broader effects of one's actions. Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
28-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Scholar on what Trump's allegation against Obama says about his state of mind
Distinguished fellow and former director at Chatham House Robin Niblett joins 'Early Start' to discuss the latest in US politics, including President Donald Trump's attempts to deflect questions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein.
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Crashing into an asteroid creates chaotic space boulders
In the almost three years since NASA proved that it could successfully deflect an asteroid, we've learned a lot about these space rocks. The September 2022 collision of a spacecraft into the asteroid moon Dimorphos completely changed the space rock's orbit. However, this groundbreaking test also showed smashing into an asteroid can trigger a barrage of boulders. The resulting chunks of rock carried more than three times the momentum of the spacecraft that crashed into Dimorphos. The ejected boulders created forces in unexpected directions that could complicate other attempts to deflect an asteroid, according to a study published this month in the Planetary Science Journal. 'We succeeded in deflecting an asteroid, moving it from its orbit,' study co-author and University of Maryland astronomer Tony Farnham said in a statement. 'Our research shows that while the direct impact of the DART spacecraft caused this change, the boulders ejected gave an additional kick that was almost as big. That additional factor changes the physics we need to consider when planning these types of missions.' The team used images taken by LICIACube, a small Italian spacecraft that observed DART's aftermath. They tracked 104 boulders ranging from 0.2 to 3.6 meters (about half a foot to 11 feet) in radius as they shot across space away from Dimorphos at speeds up to 52 meters per second (116 miles per hour). Using those images, the astronomers determined the three-dimensional locations and velocities of the ejected rocks. 'We saw that the boulders weren't scattered randomly in space,' Farnham said. 'Instead, they were clustered in two pretty distinct groups, with an absence of material elsewhere, which means that something unknown is at work here.' [ Related: 5 ways we know DART crushed that asteroid (but not literally). ] The largest debris cluster they studied contains about 70 percent of the objects measured in the study. It was ejected south of the asteroid at high velocities and shallow angles. The authors believe that these ejected boulders likely came from specific sources. One source could be the larger boulders on Dimorphos that were shattered by DART's solar panels in the seconds before the main body of the car-sized spacecraft hit its surface. 'DART's solar panels likely hit two big boulders, called Atabaque and Bodhran, on the asteroid,' added study co-author and astronomer Jessica Sunshine. 'Evidence suggests that the southern cluster of ejected material is probably made up of fragments from Atabaque, a 3.3-meter-radius boulder.' Sunshine served as deputy principal investigator for the NASA Deep Impact mission to probe the surface of Comet P/Tempel 1. She compared DART's results with Deep Impact's, noting that the surface features and target composition of the space rock fundamentally shape the impact outcomes. 'Deep Impact hit a surface that was essentially very small, uniform particles, so its ejecta was relatively smooth and continuous,' Sunshine explained. 'And here, we see that DART hit a surface that was rocky and full of large boulders, resulting in chaotic and filamentary structures in its ejecta patterns. Comparing these two missions side-by-side gives us this insight into how different types of celestial bodies respond to impacts, which is crucial to ensuring that a planetary defense mission is successful.' Additionally, the momentum from the DART impact's ejected boulders was mostly perpendicular to the spacecraft's trajectory. This indicates that it could have tilted Dimorphos' orbital plane by up to one degree–potentially sending it tumbling into space. Understanding the effect that this boulder debris has will be key to the European Space Agency's Hera mission, which will arrive at the Didymos-Dimorphos system in 2026. 'Data gathered from LICIACube provides additional perspectives on impact events, especially as DART was originally designed to solely rely on Earth-based observations,' Farnham said. 'Hera will do the same by giving us another direct view of the impact's aftermath, relying on the predictions we've made using data gathered from DART.' Farnham notes that these perspectives and close-up images from LICIACube gave the DART team crucial information that would have been impossible to detect from Earth. This includes the data on the asteroid boulders themselves. This new study suggests the importance of considering all of these variables when planning future asteroid deflection missions. 'If an asteroid was tumbling toward us, and we knew we had to move it a specific amount to prevent it from hitting Earth, then all these subtleties become very, very important,' Sunshine added. 'You can think of it as a cosmic pool game. We might miss the pocket if we don't consider all the variables.'
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Fox News Host Slams Musk for Dodging Drug Use Question
Fox News host Howard Kurtz has called out Elon Musk for deflecting questions about his alleged drug use while serving in the White House. The New York Times published a bombshell report this week on Musk's alleged drug habits when he was President Donald Trump's senior adviser at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which reportedly included taking magic mushrooms, ecstasy, Adderall, and enough ketamine to cause bladder issues. Musk was asked about the Times report during a press briefing at the Oval Office marking the end of his tenure at DOGE on Friday. 'Wait, wait, The New York Times, is that the same publication that got a Pulitzer Prize for false reporting on Russiagate? Is it the same organization?' Musk replied before saying, 'Let's move on.' Kurtz pointed out on Media Buzz Sunday that Musk 'decided to talk about something from five years ago involving the Pulitzers because he knew that he did not want to answer that question. That's my take.' 'That's called deflection,' he added. But Fox News contributor Toni Lahren said that she wasn't sure if the Times 'produced any real evidence of a so-called drug problem,' claiming that the left was simply 'looking for some kind of scandal.' 'The left loved Elon Musk even if he was a billionaire that did mushrooms on the side and maybe a little ketamine. They didn't have a single problem with it. They loved the Teslas. They loved Elon. They loved space flight. They loved all of it,' she said. 'And then he came out as a Trump supporter and now you've got headline news—with everything going on in the country, in the world—about Elon Musk allegedly, maybe doing some mushrooms, maybe a little adderall,' Lahren added. 'Again, please spare me.' She said that even if Musk was actually taking drugs, his potential 'recreational drug use' didn't impact 'everyday Americans.' 'I know that they're looking for some kind of scandal there, but I think it's a real nothing burger and I don't think many people quite frankly, care what Elon Musk does in his personal private time,' she said. Musk has previously publicly acknowledged using ketamine. In an interview with former CNN host Don Lemon last year, he admitted to taking a 'small amount' of ketamine to treat depression. A clip has also recently resurfaced of Musk at Trump's Bedminster golf club in New Jersey in March balancing spoons with Shivon Zilis, one of the mothers of his children. Social media users have accused him of 'tripping on ketamine' in the clip. 'I'm not on ketamine ffs,' Musk wrote in response to the clip.
New York Times
12-05-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
Winnipeg Jets lament controversial Game 3 winner: ‘That is no goal'
When does a deflection turn into possession of a puck? Kyle Connor looked, wide-eyed. He didn't know what to say. The Winnipeg Jets had just let a close Game 3 slip away and given the Dallas Stars a 2-1 lead in their series. But it was a vital question: the Stars' game-winning goal in Game 3 depended on the answer. Connor didn't have it. Neither did Morgan Barron, who deflected it to Jets head coach Scott Arniel. Arniel was unequivocal in his disagreement. The goal that won Game 3 never should have counted. But Alex Petrovic's goal stood as the game-winner. 'The rule states that if the puck gets kicked, if it hits a body or a stick of anybody else other than the goaltender, it counts as a goal. It hit our goaltender's stick and went in the net. That is no goal,' Arniel said. Advertisement 'I'm not sure that's how the rule reads,' said Stars' coach Pete DeBoer. 'I think the rule reads that if, I believe, the goalie is making a play on the puck, that it's a goal. So that's the difference. Is it just deflected off him or is he trying to make a play with the puck? And I think they got it right.' Petrovic scored it three minutes and 51 seconds into the third period, following up on a Dallas rush by kicking the puck toward the net. The puck struck Connor Hellebuyck's stick and deflected into the net. It was initially called a goal at ice level. THE STARS HAVE A GOOD GOAL TO START THE THIRD ⭐️ — Sportsnet (@Sportsnet) May 11, 2025 A video review initiated in Toronto started a lengthy review process — first, to determine whether or not Petrovic had kicked the puck, second, to determine whether or not the puck hit Petrovic's stick after he kicked it, and third, to determine whether or not Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his own net. It was called a goal, with this explanation given by the NHL Situation Room: The Situation Room initiated a video review to further examine if Alexander Petrovic kicked the puck into the Winnipeg net. Video was then used to determine if the puck made contact with Petrovic's stick prior to it entering the net. After looking at all available replays, video review supported the Referee's call on the ice that Connor Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his own net. 'They said that Helle 'propelled' the puck in. I haven't seen the word 'propelled' in the rulebook,' Arniel said. If it had been determined that Petrovic had propelled the puck into the net, then the 'kicking motion' rules would come into play: The goal would have been disallowed. Instead, the ruling was that Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his net. The kicking motion rules did not apply. Here are the kicking motion rules, which the NHL deemed inapplicable given their determination that Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his own net. Arniel is right that there is no reference to a goaltender propelling the puck into his own net. It seems clear in the video that Hellebuyck's stick does redirect the puck into the net. It's hard to view the goal as a case where Hellebuyck had enough possession to propel the puck into his net — as opposed to it deflecting off of him and in, as per No. 2 in the rules above. Advertisement Then again, if the rule states that a goal should count if the goaltender makes a play at the puck, DeBoer is right. The NHL's determination that Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his own net appears to indicate 'own goal.' Rule 79.4 states: 'A goal shall be scored if the puck is shot into the goal by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal but no assist shall be awarded.' Ultimately, that's the decision the NHL appears to have made — although, if that's the case, then Mikko Rantanen and Sam Steel's assists should not apply. The NHL had a lot to deal with: kicked puck, any number of deflections between Petrovic's kick and Hellebuyck's stick, and then the determination that Hellebuyck played the puck into his own net as opposed to it deflecting off of him. It makes sense that they took nearly eight minutes to come to their deliberation. But when does a deflection turn into Hellebuyck shooting the puck into his own net? It seems like a difficult interpretation to make, by video, in slow motion. The rest of the game played out quicky: Rantanen scored 49 seconds later, giving the Stars a two-goal lead, and Wyatt Johnston added another before the third period was done and Dallas won 5-2. (Photo of Graham Skilliter and Chris Rooney reviewing the game-winning goal: Jerome Miron / Imagn Images)
