Hamlet once said that the very personal perception of things makes events whether good or wrong. Most people already have enough criteria to disntinguish these events as years go by. While experience comes out, we have really tough times in building up a criteria of our own, crushing some people’s lives in-between.
In pursuit of sheltering ourselves beside a merciless, corrupted world, we sometimes focus on trivial actions which may not be as harmful as they seem. In turn, those neutral actions stand a nuance as our all-seeing eye (paranoia, social criticism or common sense). At times, we think we see actions against us, do something to work them out positively and then, a turn of the screw: those who committed those actions against us blackmail us to justify their behaviour. So, who’s to blame for that: the one who committed the action or the other who perceived it as such?
For if it was a harmless event, why did this person not clear it out at the moment? And if it was a misreading, would the action’s doer be able to recognise lack of good common sense in the receiver of the action?
Conclusion: lack of communication
