One thing I've found really helpful for thinking about this stuff is ring theory. Short version is knowing your role in a crisis situation--if you're someone who's there to support someone more directly impacted, sure, you can dump your feelings about it outwardly to someone who's not directly impacted (say, a therapist, a parent) but you should only be offering support inward to the person who's more directly impacted and not complaining to them, for instance.

Emotionally Validating Someone's Feelings

The ND corollary I work with: if someone seems to be more emotionally impacted by a topic than I am, it is not my job to engage with them at the level of facts but to accept this is more of an emotional topic for them and proceed accordingly. I can talk all I want about the facts to someone less directly impacted, but it's not the kind of support the person in crisis generally needs, and where we often get accused of being callous or unthinking is when we respond to requests for emotional validation with the facts.

The whole "why didn't you take out the trash?" bit--I very well may have a factual explanation that I had a meeting run late and didn't get to it, but what my roommate really wants to hear is some acknowledgment of the fact that my not doing that was inconvenient for them and that's where I might get accused of making excuses. It's less about the actual content of what I'm saying and more that I'm not actually saying what they want to hear.