Idk if this is common it happens to me a lot.
Some people think they have to "win" conversations and will use anything against you, some people are just gaslighty, manipulative douches and i try to avoid as much interaction as possible with either of these groups. Nothing good can come off it.
All the damn time. I make a mental note of which people do that to me and stop explaining things to them.
My experience gives me unique insight vs Your experience gives you biased insight
Or do you mean like they store it for future use in unrelated discussion?
Sorry, they're probably not interested in a discussion, just winning an argument
That's happened to me once in a while.
It isn't a sure thing to instill class consciousness in a coworker; there's a rare but very real risk they do become class conscious, decide they hate their class in a way that makes them hate everyone around them that shares in that class, and they bootlick even harder to try to squeak their way into middle management or the like, kicking the ladder down that much harder behind them.
That was a horrid pizza place experience overall... and it got worse because the sycophant I just mentioned couldn't do basic math so she still needed the people she despised to do the balance sheets at the end of the day. No, she didn't pick me because she knew what she did.
Speaken about why I am a certain way and how my perspective came into being only for my "friend" to start pathologizing any and all disagreements we had.
It ended not too long after
Yeah, good advice but hard for me to do. My instinct is to share.
horrible evil bastard devil's advocate answer
It seems like explaining why you think a way about something should help with understanding, and often it can, but to be real people can fully understand why you think a certain way, and still think that the reason you do is scumfuck shit or whatever.
I mean it's definitely rude and shitty to actively use that info against you, obviously, and if it's a mundane thing that's autism related it shouldn't cause that kind of a reaction. But sometimes people's personal experiences can make them dislike certain explanations for stuff, I guess. I have learned this.
Basically greater understanding does not always lead to smoother communication, which kinda sucks.
For me, vulnerable discourse is a delicate dance and I frankly won't do it if there are too many unknowns on my end. I don't share what i perceive as a potential weapon to be thrust back at me unless I trust the person or people, or am in a position to take the blow (and answer it to "win" i.e. kill the angle of attack)
grew up being really good at debate. I know how to get most people to out their intentions, and how to get earnest people to stop and listen. Nothing works on everybody, and it's tiresome, so I mostly withdraw socially except from spaces I have some control of presentation over. I guess it's kinda manipulative but I genuinely just don't use it maliciously. I use it to make sure people understand me a bit better, because even for a ND person I think I frustrate most people's sensibilities.
In my youth I was at the mercy of someone who did that over and over. I don't play anymore: someone tries to pull that, they're out.
I'm mostly just a shut-in at this point. I recommend it, honestly. I tried explaining the concept of mutual aid from a quasi-anarchist perspective to a lib friend a while back after she said she pulled a gotcha on her nephew who refused to vote for the Dem candidate and is a loud and young anarchist. She was like "well if there are not 'rules' then how will roads get paved, hmmm?" My answer was basically "Those that know how to pave roads would pave roads and in turn they would get bread from those who know how to bake bread." Like sorry you gotta pick on your nephew by supporting the road paving boss who don't do much work but gets paid 3x more than the road pavers. It was a silly argument...
Malms talking about his daddy issues in that NYTIMES interview
