(I am already doing 75% better) I used to think that keeping your identity small is laudable. The reasoning goes that if "me" and "you" are interchangable instead of being only applicable for "me" there is a wider scope of applicability. And there is an effect.
At some point the other reduced to a hollow propertyless "x" means that people can not apply it or do not find it meaningful.
Lurking works well for abstract objective patterns.
If you actually do things, you have stakeholders which might not to a sufficient degree fit one general mold. Irreducable diversity might be real and it might be important.
I find myself writing still in a fact-stating manner. Sure, if two people are correct their takes should mesh without regard which specific turns were taken. But two experiences of (a facet of) reality do not have this automeshing property.
Look, I had negative experiences, emoted about it and often passively waited if/when a non-harmful action about it was possible. But what I now find signficant is that the "non-harmful action" takes an objective form, the action in itself is non-harmful. But if you ask about the affected parties, it is not a tag you put on the action, it is a line you draw between the party and action.
I might be trying to prematurely abstract, but, the emotion is about being turned into something more "correct". That a answer that is too unintellible, wrong ideological leaning or using a forbidden communication method will just be left stranded cold alone. Keeping your mouth shut when you have poor or no answer.
A question of "how" in the meaning technology, can be packaged so its customer does not need to opine about its operation. This works in a static environment. But environments are not static. Placing an art piece in a new context is especially dynamic.
In order not to drift into hurt, the receiver (customer) needs to know why it works the way it works, in order to have a chance to take the significance of a new context into account. This means essentially all kinds of behaviour profile specifications are pointless (bite me, don't actually bite me, but talk to me).
I am a middle-aged autistic programmer. I am trying to show more of me when I communicate. Pause of monologue, to turn into dialogue
Hello.
(I am already doing 75% better)
I used to think that keeping your identity small is laudable. The reasoning goes that if "me" and "you" are interchangable instead of being only applicable for "me" there is a wider scope of applicability. And there is an effect.
At some point the other reduced to a hollow propertyless "x" means that people can not apply it or do not find it meaningful.
Lurking works well for abstract objective patterns.
If you actually do things, you have stakeholders which might not to a sufficient degree fit one general mold. Irreducable diversity might be real and it might be important.
I find myself writing still in a fact-stating manner. Sure, if two people are correct their takes should mesh without regard which specific turns were taken. But two experiences of (a facet of) reality do not have this automeshing property.
Look, I had negative experiences, emoted about it and often passively waited if/when a non-harmful action about it was possible. But what I now find signficant is that the "non-harmful action" takes an objective form, the action in itself is non-harmful. But if you ask about the affected parties, it is not a tag you put on the action, it is a line you draw between the party and action.
I might be trying to prematurely abstract, but, the emotion is about being turned into something more "correct". That a answer that is too unintellible, wrong ideological leaning or using a forbidden communication method will just be left stranded cold alone. Keeping your mouth shut when you have poor or no answer.
A question of "how" in the meaning technology, can be packaged so its customer does not need to opine about its operation. This works in a static environment. But environments are not static. Placing an art piece in a new context is especially dynamic.
In order not to drift into hurt, the receiver (customer) needs to know why it works the way it works, in order to have a chance to take the significance of a new context into account. This means essentially all kinds of behaviour profile specifications are pointless (bite me, don't actually bite me, but talk to me).
I am a middle-aged autistic programmer. I am trying to show more of me when I communicate.
Pause of monologue, to turn into dialogue