i was gonna quote poly's "[often, users of] ot seem to turn small things into big deals", suggesting i agreed while noting i'm probably guilty of the same thing, but... :0
...as much as i may mean to be descriptive and careful and warm, this might prove that point by merit of how commonly my indulgent essays signal a certain kind of serious gravity even if i might believe myself to hold someone in neutral/positive/high opinion x')
Penguin wrote:
/serious
I agree wholeheartedly with the non-absolutes statement. My initial intent behind saying “poly in a nutshell” and claiming you “come to conclusions” was just a lighthearted friendly jab.
Then you responded in a serious manner.
So I responded with an observational statement for fun that had no intent of riling you up, but it ended up doing so because you could not read the meaning and intent behind my words.
Also, the quotations around “probably” was to emphasize that it was a joke. No ill-intent behind it.
Generally speaking, the more emojis I use, the less serious I’m being. But just because I’m unserious, does not mean that I’m being fake or untruthful.
Just being silly.
/end serious
TLDR: relax bro it’s just a joke 😎
i'll be writing on this since there were some notable things that i found interesting for myself that you might also be interested by, although i imagine poly understands your intention at this point-- this is more of a tangential report card on your hypothetical/rhetorical [COMM 201] "Principles of Communication" coursework
your intent seems sweet and i take it you're meaning to be sincere one way or another :>
...sadly, consequence and relationships are not solely dependent on intent, butin the interest of intent, having a generally reliable sense of how different people are likely to reasonably respond (as in, understandably self-justified by contextually-evident internal logic, partially inferrable both in common instances of autism and skepticism/caution toward ironic/ambiguous comedy) will serve you with an understanding of when something will be Effective in being fun for everyone involved (or an intended in-group)
in this case, a friendly jab is understandable given the culture of off-topic, but delivery and context (lack of setup to signal friendliness and lightheartedness, lack of a history of personal closeness and trust, reasonably presumable opposition in opinion even when any currently-expressible opposition is benign/mild) can make the nature of this more ambiguous, where responding seriously/sincerely could be a reasonably believable response to expect :0
further, upon noticing sincerity in your respondent's questions/guesses/answers, it is a bit harder for underlying Observational Statements to be expected to be received with fun in mind, which makes "[it] Ended Up [riling you up] Because You Could Not Read the meaning and intent Behind the words" a curious assessment of things (title case for selective emphasis)... "ended up" can be taken as a passive absolution of responsibility, "because /you/ could not" would seem to be an active absolution of responsibility which could be neglecting to note that interpretation is often dependent on what first exists for others to respond [lightheartedly in return] to and the conditions that prime our understanding of what is said
everything following that excerpt would have me repeating what i noted, so... yea :'p when convincing people youre offering an opportunity to laugh together, this process could be optimized by addressing these weak points for yourself
