I'll take "broad questions that can only be answered in context" for $200 Alex.

Seriously, ask me this question on 10 different days in 10 different ways and I'll never give the same answer.

Even in the context of your vanilla perfume hypothetical I don't have enough information to answer. How severe a reaction, what percentage of the population is affected, where is the perfume wearer at the time, why hasn't it been banned and/or what makes me an expert who's opinion is worth a damn, etc etc etc?

From what little info I have on the hypothetical (either directly stated or assumed via omission), no, I wouldn't be upset. I didn't see anyone being harmed, the perfume wearer wasn't doing anything illegal, I am personally unbothered by the perfume, and I've got my own shit to deal with.

Eta: To make this more clear, I am an ex smoker, who fully agrees that bans on smoking in public areas make sense, but am in no way personally bothered by cigarettes.

If you are smoking on a crowded street, I'll be upset. In an allyway to get away from the crowded street, good on ya, you did what you could.

Smoking near children, get fucked. Smoking while walking home from the pub, you do you. Context is key.

If I agree with the moral logic behind it, then yes - it’ll upset me even if I’m not personally affected. If I hear someone shouting slurs at a black person, I’ll obviously take issue with it, despite not being black myself.

On the other hand, if I hear someone say, for example, “this thing is retarded,” then even if society broadly considers that offensive, I still wouldn’t personally have a problem with it - because I don’t agree with the reasoning behind that judgment.

Getting upset at someone for wearing perfume is utter insanity

Yes absolutely. Thats called Solidarity and is a big part of what I stand for as a leftist. Its not all about me and not everything has to only bother me for me to fight it. Im a withe men. Sexim or Racism aren't issues for me personally. Im lucky. But im obviously still against Sexim and Racism even tho only other people are suffering from it.

Last year on the 4th, I was walking home from the big fireworks show, and I saw a teenager on a scooter, who was briefly crouching down and not being safe. But he came up beside a lady and surprised her, and she swatted at him and tried to push him over, which would have crashed him into several people walking. More than just a startle response, and the kid stopped, looked back, angry - but he was a black teenager and there's this white lady and her beefy white boyfriend/husband staring him back, so he turns and disappears back into the crowd.

And I'm instantly furious.

"That's assault," I told her.

"Mind your own fucking business" she says. Several other people are watching.

Thankfully my husband and her husband pulled us in different directions and the crowd separated us.

But I was so fucking angry, and that lady looked like she had started a fight or three in her life. Her boyfriend looked like he wasn't happy to be there in that moment.

So yes, but it has to be something serious.

If they effect others greatly and only reason to use them is for convenience it actually does bother me to be honest.

Like if some stranger tells me they often commit drunk driving I see them as assholes even if they never almost hit me.

Interestingly, how nuch I care would depend on physical distsnce between us. I care less if they are in a different state and even less in a different country.

I rarely care about stuff people do outside the continent I am living in.

Generally yes, For me it depends on how significant the discomfort is and how broadly it impacts people, but also, how much doing the thing really matters a lot to someone.

Like, there’s a point at which “ok someone else’s discomfort about this thing is marginal compared to how much it matters to a large number of people” at which point I get annoyed at someone trying to force other people to stop doing something that matters to them, even if I’m not doing the thing.

Eating an allergen loaded sandwich to yourself - A-OK.

Coating yourself in allergens and going on tour - No.

Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.

For matters of personal preference, I would invite the offended to suck it up and deal with it. For anything with consequences beyond offense, each individual situation is nuanced and common sense should apply. Maybe don't eat that PB&J just before meeting a bunch of people for the first time.

No, not in general: too much unjustified outrage & self-absorbed idiocy in the world over unreasonable shit. Karens, bigots, culture warriors, pearl clutchers, holy wars. Too many people need to cool it & chill the fuck out.

There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ.

They need to be justifiably upset. Only then is it understandable. However, getting upset over it is not generally a good move: it may lead to poor decisions. Better to stay collected, acknowledge the problem, apply fair judgement to correct the matter.

I'd say no, you can develop an allergic reaction to many things, doesn't mean we should ban it all because of that or because it's upsetting to some people. As for "upsetting" I think it's everyone's freedom to perfume however they want, if it's something socially concerning like idk, smell of puke, then feel free to raise an eyebrow at their choice and vacate the premises (if possible, if it's on a plane then yeah might need to get them to cover it up), but just because it's generally unacceptable to use that as an aroma doesn't mean it should be banned still, unless it directly causes death. Banning something should be a last resort.

If I understand and agree with the reason for being upset, yes.

Like I agree with banning peanuts on airlines because of allergy issues and think people who are upset about that are wrong so their being upset doesn't impact me at all. Although I am not able to have an abortion, seeing people being upset that their rights are being denied does make me upset as well.

Then there are tons of things I either can't relate to or understand and I don't really care either way. There are lots of things I think people should choose to do voluntarily, but don't want it to be required. I don't get upset when I see people not do those things, even though they really should.

My response might be sligtly convoluted, but I'll try to keep it simple. It relates to allergies.

For me, I am extremely allergic to oysters, and largely also allergic to shellfish. I'm so badly allergic to oysters that I cannot be in the same room as someone else eating them, the smell alone makes me gag, my eyes water, and makes my bronchial tubes swell where I can't even breathe.

I however am luckily not allergic to peanuts. Regardless, I totally understand how potentially deadly a peanut allergy can be to those with the allergy, and if I'm in a public place around strangers, I tend to assume that anyone around me might have a peanut allergy.

Last year, I was in line at a gas station, and the woman in front of me waiting to pay had bought boiled peanuts. And she was fucking shelling and eating the peanuts while waiting in line, the bitch couldn't even wait to pay for them, with cash, and exit the store first.

I called her out on it, and even pretended that I did have a peanut allergy, and what she was doing was not only nasty, but also a danger to others handling her peanut juice covered money.

She proved to be a Karen and not give a fuck, but I did speak my mind, on behalf of people that could possibly fucking die over her nastiness and carelessness.

Anti-social behavior should be shunned. There are varying degrees of harm which people tip the scale on, but I think minimizing harm is an admirable attribute, doing no deliberate harm reduction is sociopathic, and maximizing harm is sadistic.

I think the latter two traits are rare, but education on effects is just as rare.

A dog without leash shows that the owner hasn't bothered taking dog training classes or in the case of my country that they haven't bothered learning the law. If they can't be bothered to do that, I worry that they are not responsible enough to take care of the dog, and they shouldn't be allowed to own a dog. Dog ownership ought to require a license or mandatory training.

The person using the perfume might also not even know about the issue, but in that case, I don't think it makes sense to blame the consumer. There are simply too many types of products that are potentially dangerous when used wrong. Perhaps the seller ought to have warned about it, but I doubt that would make much difference. You can still be upset about it being produced. Lots of things are like that.

Sometimes you can blame the consumer and sometimes you can't.

Nah. Only when I need to be upset to fit in socially. Would that hypothetical vanilla smell upset me? Nah. They probably bought it before it went illegal, maybe even hoarded it because they like it.

But if it was socially needed to be upset about that to gain something, I’d probably be. That’s why I agreed to have it banned in the first place, because the situation at that time made it socially useful.

I think I’m kind of autistic/sociopathic? Didn’t get testet yet lol