Re:Loneliness is a measure of self-understanding
by throwaway11823 on Sunday January 22, 2023 @08:36PM
(#34484389)
> 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.
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.