> The point was that, though the article suggests loneliness stems from being unable to describe your feelings simply and concisely, it is more complex than that.

I think the point we're all trying to make is that a text barrage is _not_ expressing yourself simply and concisely.

"I feel like garbage" is simple and concise. This is pedantic nitpicking, so that's my final word on the subject.

I am trying to imagine what I would say to someone who drops ‘I feel like garbage’ within a long rambling communication with many thoughts expressed.

Now..if it was a singular sentence or text that says ‘I feel like garbage’, then I know the purpose of the communication and enquire what’s going on.

If ‘I feel like garbage’ is preceded by the reasons that explain the conclusion of ‘feeling like garbage’, then it is a conclusion of everything before it.

If it’s in the middle of the communication, then what comes after could be the explanation for ‘feeling like garbage’.

So ..at no point is it the focal subject of the communication.

One effective way is including: What, Who, Why and if they’re an ask, make it clear. Most people can’t read minds.

I am trying to be mindful about my communication and I keep changing how I communicate based on feedback. How my family reacts is diff from how it is at work.. so we need to have different groups..like concentric circles: closest circle, family..friends, colleagues..neighbors etc. it’s always equal give and take. Don’t expect more than you can give. Sometimes, certain relationships aren’t worth it and it’s better to walk away or have no expectations.

I know I said my other comment was my last word, but I've found a more productive way to express this.

This group of commenters in this subthread are laboring under the misunderstanding that I don't understand this criticism; I accepted it in my top reply in this subthread. The statement I think you're interpreting as a rejection of this criticism (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34436762) is an expression of a boundary; I'm saying, you don't have enough context to understand this, you're overextrapolating from a single data point, and I'm not going to enlighten you with additional context - I'm deliberately limiting the amount I share in this thread.

Additionally, this isn't actually what I was arguing; if we accept the axioms presented in the article, a poor presentation of thought doesn't indicate a lack of understanding, a poor expression does. That it is possible to be lonely as a result of a poor presentation is contradictory to the article's conclusion; make of that what you will.

When you continue that line of criticism - without asking questions, without understanding the boundary I expressed, and generally without showing me that you've listened to my previous statements & just repeating the criticism - I take that as transgressing my boundaries, and I draw the inference you are more interested in nitpicking my statements and expressing your criticism than respecting my boundaries.

I'd ask that, if you want to express such direct and personal criticism, you read much, much closer, especially with an eye to when I tell you that I'm not comfortable engaging with that criticism. If you didn't understand that saying, "I would not treat you this way, please do not treat me this way" was an expression of a boundary - now you know to be on the lookout for this common script for expressing boundaries. If you understood that it was a boundary and interpreted that as a challenge, or you don't feel it's legitimate for me to express a boundary in an online space - that is something to think about.

Sorry, if it came across as criticism. I was trying to put myself in your shoes.

Edited to add after reading the comment again: Having said that, by the way you have reacted to my comment..I think it would serve you well to be more introspective of your thought process.

Why are you so sensitive to criticism and if you expect others to toe the lines of the boundaries that aren’t clearly defined, you shouldn’t have shared the details.

Engaging in any kind of interaction where people lend their ears to your words is calling upon their time and attention. If you call upon our time and ask for our attention and then complain about perceived criticism that you are not comfortable with it..then perhaps you should be aware that people can’t read your mind.

It comes across as manipulative where you are instructing the public as to the kind of response you’d like to hear. You have to pay people for that. Those people are called therapists and they charge $250/hour.

I think you need take some time off and ask yourself why you react like this. It isn’t normal and it must be difficult for you to interact with the RoW. It would be in your best interest to not consider everyone as against you.

Also: I didn’t read every comment and your reply to it in the thread. This is not my homework. I only replied to the parent.

ETA: good grief!! I read some more of the thread. Perhaps you need to speak to a woman instead of chatting with other men with the same problem. Someone needs to say this. As a female, I have a dim view of this chit chat amongst what seems to be a mostly a male bubble.

If a man wants to improve their relationship with women, then they need to speak to women. Not speak to other men who are essentially enablers here.

I never said my SO was a woman, I never said my SO and I were having problems, I never asked for advice; I made a counterargument to the argument in the article, sharing a single moment of my life, and talking equally about my SO as much as my friends and family. I asked that you not try to read between the lines and offer me the criticism of that person you imagine me to be - I'm not that person. You chose to double down on that.

> Also: I didn’t read every comment and your reply to it in the thread. This is not my homework. I only replied to the parent.

Do whatever you want. Understand that if you don't have the full context, you might not be received in the way you expect. If you are curious, for your own edification, you may find these comments enlightening:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34436172

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34435037

I'm sorry if I made you feel called out or defensive.

This is how the thread made me feel: 1. You are an unreliable narrator. (“My SO isn’t a woman”. Somehow I knew you’d make this statement. You are still vague.) 2. You place the burden of understanding elsewhere without taking responsibility for unclear communication. 3. There is a lot of shuffling around framing of your statement. 4. The responsibility of clear communication lies with you. It is not our burden to carry. 5. I do not know you. It’s a big ask to trust your word when everything you have communicated says the opposite. 6. This is a manipulative tactic that is very subtle but not uncommon.

I want to say that I did feel attacked but because I chose not to get triggered by it, I was able to make a few more observations. But I respect your request and will not further this discussion as you will likely construe it as criticism and uncalled for..

There is nothing further to discuss. Thanks for engaging thus far. It gave me something to ponder over.

> You are an unreliable narrator.

Everything I've said is true. I think you object to not indulging your curiosity about details of my life; I'm not here to be a narrator, I'm here to discuss an article.

> “My SO isn’t a woman”.

That isn't what I said; I told you that you making suppositions. I have neither said my SO is or is not a woman. If you think you know whether they are, the only explanations that I can see are that you've mistaken someone else's comment for mine, misread one of my comments, or that you have confidence in stereotypes.

> Somehow I knew you’d make this statement.

You are likely experiencing confirmation bias. You felt so confident in what I would say that you "knew" it, and didn't listen to what I actually did say.

> You are still vague.

I told you I was doing this intentionally. It should be pretty clear from context that it is to protect my privacy; I don't have to justify withholding personal information. If you didn't interpret my telling you that

> The responsibility of clear communication lies with you. It is not our burden to carry.

I think I've been crystal clear with you, I think you're not reading what I've said very closely. You're explaining criticism to me I've already acknowledged, telling me to get a therapist I've already mentioned having, etc. I don't know what your thought process is, but it seems like you're interpreting my declining to elaborate on details as a deception. It isn't. I told you I wasn't at liberty to discuss this.

> I do not know you. It’s a big ask to trust your word when everything you have communicated says the opposite.

Forums run on the presumption of good faith. But believe what you want, I asked you not to rant at me about how I need to fix my relationship with my SO because of problems you suppose we have. I'm not this person you imagine me to be; I don't really want to hear the criticism you intend for this person.

> This is a manipulative tactic that is very subtle but not uncommon.

There's no manipulation. I think you're ascribing entirely different motives to me than I actually have, and not believing me when I tell you I'm discussing an article, and that my statements are related to an article. So I think that when I made my comments, you interpreted them in an entirely different context than I created them, and imagined me to be some sort of monster.