When I hope someone understands conversational energy flows, interpretating via a clean slate, listening to intent, purpose, & human need. For a moment this *thing* just IS? Whether true or not does not matter. Feels like gathering around a campfire.

Instead I'm challenged to prove claim's existence, via critical thinking, mental puzzle solving pathway. Proof before belief an effort is valid? Feels like drawing a sword ready for battle where winning is the focus.

We men very often fall into that puzzle solving pathway. To an outsider this is an extra step required from them, to suitably fit the conversation into *your* mental model.

Energetically demanding someone take that extra step to resolve the crisis in your brain, is not the outsider's duty.

Seen a lot of struggle with that over the last week. Completely unaware their attempt to outwardly resolve an internal crisis is perceived by the outsider as a provocation ⚔️

@david_ross
If you make a post that is hard to understand to anyone other than you, because you have weird definitions of some words, inconsistent with how most of other people understand those words, then don't be surprised that people either ask you to define those words, or assume a meaning that is different from what you intended.

If you don't care if people understand your post, why publish it?
If you do care, pls put some effort to help them understand.

@david_ross
(and by "you" I don't mean you specifically)

@david_ross @Wolf480pl I think writing to learn is a valid activity. As such, the audience is incidental. Keeping a diary online invites people to read it but does not automatically invite them to comment or ask questions even the medium affords just that. Public activities are not always invitations. Conversely, I’m happy to ignore or unfollow where my mental model does not fit what other people use the medium for.

@kensanata @david_ross
IOW,
1. wanting to publish one's thoughts,
2. and caring that people read it,
3. but not caring if they understand it,1
4. and explicitely not wanting them to reply,
is a valid usecase in your opinion?

Or should point 2 be:
2. not caring if people read it
?

@Wolf480pl @david_ross Both are valid use-cases. The important part is that nowhere does it say that others (us) need to read it. Anyway. I guess what I wanted to say is that it try not to jump into conversations with strangers because so often it doesn’t always go well. On the one hand that’s sad but on the other hand it’s understandable because of the expectation mismatch I described. So it can’t be helped.

@kensanata @david_ross
I think it could be helped.
First of all, post followers-only if you don't want strangers jumping in.
The main case of strangers jumping in, from my perspective, is after a boost.

Furthermore, we could have some checkbox on whether a post is meant to invite discussion, or if the person just expects confirmation.

@kensanata @david_ross

Finally, if a person is doing advocacy, i.e. trying to spread their opinions and convince others to share their ideas, then we should discuss that person's opinions, even if that person explicitely doesn't want discussion.

A position of "hey everyone listen to me, you must agree with me, if you don't agree with me you musn't reply or I'll call it harassment" is IMO unacceptable.
Ofc it's exaggerated, I haven't seen it happen like this.

@Wolf480pl @kensanata @david_ross
> I haven't seen it happen like this.

I've seen this plenty on the fediverse. I get shit for striking up a conversation when I disagree with the original post (however respectfully), but I've *never* seen the same people get upset when "strangers" post replies that agree with their OP.

@strypey @Wolf480pl @david_ross I’m not surprised. Of course a stranger coming up to me saying “I agree” is something I will nod to where as somebody coming up to me and saying “I disagree and here’s why: ...” is when I’ll say “Do I know you? Go away!” I find that absolutely understandable.

@kensanata @strypey @david_ross
yet you keep doing it. You keep saying you disagree.

@Wolf480pl @strypey @david_ross same here. I hope you see the difference between the situation. My point is that this has to be navigated. Starting conversations with strangers is not as simple as you two would make it seem. In my case, right now, your approach is fine. But we all need to keep in mind that not every conversation is the same.

@kensanata @Wolf480pl @david_ross if what you're saying is that when communicating with random strangers on the internet, it's hard to always keep it pleasant and constructive, then we agree. For sure. I wonder if the point of difference is where we think responsibility lies for each person's experience of that?

@strypey @Wolf480pl @david_ross I see there are two ways the situation can develop: those who don’t want to read your comment can go somewhere else, or you can take your comment somewhere else. One requires you to change, one requires the other to change. One leads to less people being in this community (them, and eventually their friends). Clearly the other offers better outcomes, and is entirely up to you. 🤔

@kensanata @Wolf480pl @david_ross think this a little black and white. I think what we're suggusting is people post their private venting or hold sensitive private discussions somewhere else, and use the elevator for travelling between floors. But yes, I agree that once it become clear all-comers discussion/ critical dialogue is unwelcome, it's best to move on and talk to someone else. I tend to take unreasonable aggression as a #RedFlag, and unfollow people.

@kensanata @Wolf480pl @david_ross as I've noted elsewhere, I think the super-busy #UX of vanilla #Mastodon amplifies (if not creates) the problem. Almost every person who's lost their shit at me for chiming in has been on a Mastodon instance. Having no way to navigate away from that notifications column is so in-your-face, it was making me feel anxious and grumpy until I decamped to #Pinafore.