I was in an incident that led to people complaining about me here and by extension in Ask Lemmy, one which I explained my perspective on elsewhere. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by a certain Blaze to share it in YPTB, only for those in charge there to give what amounted to a signal of disregard for it and to take it elsewhere. Going by their own words, I then shared it in !fediverselore@lemmy.ca as the only close alternative available, which, as a part of their own ārules subtextā, sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because āYTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebarā.
The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word āfalseā, and he even alluded to that after it began to be discussed elaborately, albeit before using an appeal to the masses (story of my life) and say āmost people seem to understandā, which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the āthe truth we all wanted to speakā remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with āI can spot rules broken by the other personās thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mineā and got only thumbs down for it and no responses, yet when I actually dissected the rules piece by piece in front of him to point out that any rule I supposedly broke wasnāt there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a āfair point to be honestā, the mod then delved into the concept of āunspoken rulesā as an excuse for himself and said he didnāt want to ārules-lawyerā, which not only disproves what he said about āspecific posting guidelinesā being āin the sidebarā that supposedly explained what I did wrong, but proved a point I commonly mention about people in different places including here always being uncritical and unwilling to see things for themselves and just taking peoplesā word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypherās last reply, intellectual =/= intelligent). A part of that is it also suggests, by extension, that the quantity of thumbs down you garner is unreliable as consistently meaning anything, unless the rule is actually to apply gladiator logic and say a thumbs down signals mercy, as indicated by the very Roman-esque culture around here. I guess all this time, I was being praised and didnāt realize it?
This idea of āunspoken rulesā and āreading between the linesā seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether youāre akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to askā¦ hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldnāt read the āunspoken rulesā or anticipate mod discretion, what if I were to go to the places I have authority over and ban everyone who says or has said anything positive or supportive about Luigi Mangione or what he did? Would I be able to accomplish this without being called a PTB? After all, that is how this all started, and again, that would be an āunspoken ruleā on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldnāt it? Those are the terms.
I await your choice.
If youāre expecting each reader to undertake a research project to understand whatās going on, you are mistaken. Thatās your job in writing the post. Summarize the situation (with citations if appropriate).
What do you think I did?
This could all be understood without the links, I should point out. Sentences being long doesnāt make something not make sense.
Unquestionably the aforementioned (for posterity, the length of sentences) can be demonstrably shown not to inherently manifest itself as without sense, rather it is the wilful extension of the content of the post and obfuscation of the meaning behind via superfluous verbiage and lexical tomfoolery.
Or
No, sentences being long doesnt necessarily make them not make sense. But length and word soup, both without reason, makes it harder to parse, without reason.
I understood both of those just fine, even understanding the first one before even attempting the second one. Not saying this to throw shade on anyone, but it wasnāt impossible if I stayed with it because youāre supposed to be steady with it.
When saying something complicated (not because of its word choice but because of its premise), is it not typical or natural to tend to choose what one says based on what will expand more easily and what one considers accurate? Suppose you were describing an attitude. You could say āthey have a lot of hateā, with āhateā being a recognizable word. Or you could say āthey have a lot of disdainā, which is more specific than āhateā but which might be more accurate. You could choose a word for the vibes, the simplicity, the accuracy, the generalization, the speed, etc. and I tend to choose precision because of transparency and because I am anti-lazy.
The problem comes when someone is confused and I offer to paraphrase and they give me the cold shoulder due to displeasure (as well as saying they donāt understand something to be avoidant, which, and Iām serious when I say this, you can often guess based on how they do the first thing and inconsistently exaggerate the issue just to dominate the vibes). I am not entitled to anything, none of you are entitled to anything, and I try to make things as easy as I can and be negotiative (quick note, letās use this word negotiative as an exampleā¦ I literally couldnāt fit that in any other way and still have the effect I was aiming for), but then the reaction turns into a weaponized fad rather than something genuine, and I can prove this. Again, transparency. That guides a lot of my habits.
Paragraph 1:
The second version is, obviously, easier to read and understand, and thus more accessible and a better way to get your point across. Its not that your post is impossible to understand, its that it is harder to understand (and, to read, and to gain context for - a 5 minute screen recording scrolling through a thread?) than it should be for no gain.
Paragraph 2:
Yes, you make choices based on āwhat will expand more easily and what one considers accurateā, undeniable fact. But an equal part of the writing process is making those same choices with the reader in mind. You can maintain precision while still making your communication more easily understood and succinct. These are not in opposition to one another, they are in service of the same goal - communicating with others.
Paragraph 3:
That is a problem, for sure. I make no debate about the existence of those who behave wilfully ignorant. I agree with 90% of what you wrote in this paragraph, but:
You say transparency guides your habits, but I hope that you can accept feedback that the way you are communicating in the OP and your linked post are not resulting in transparency, but opacity.
It wasnāt for a lack of trying.
I have no doubt you put a lot of effort into your post! Its not meant as a personal attack or anything malicious, just what hopefully comes across as a well-intended bit of feedback when it seems like you might have a lot of less well-intended stuff coming your way.