• howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    You can’t live in a world where you’re not the “target audience”, can you?

    Why not? I’m pretty sure I’m not the target audience for Fox News articles.

    But I think what you’re trying to get at is that not everyone in the target audience will have the same interpretation? Some, like yourself, will read it the way that the author intended. So consequently, you can’t write a headline that will be correctly interpreted by everyone. The best you can do is to write in a way that it’s correctly interpreted by as many as possible.

    It appears you really don’t like the idea of being an outlier who didn’t get it

    I’m not a fan of being the outlier that put so much effort into learning how neurotypical communication works only to be told that my understanding of neurotypical communication is wrong with no actual correction. I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn’t how they would interpret this headline, I’d like to know how they actually do rather than just being told something like “if they interpret it differently, then they’re dumb and not worth your time”.

    • 3abas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      As a raging autist, I’d like to invite you to shut up!

      This is a person sharing something they find interesting on an online discussion forum, they’re not a professional author at a reputable outlet, it’s okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.

      You have no evidence at all that they are NT, much less that your neurodivergence is why you’re being so obtuse.

      I like to be able to understand other people, neurotypicals included, but if this isn’t how they would interpret this headline, I’d like to know how they actually do

      Then you should simply post a comment asking for clarification, like I said earlier. Instead you started berating and insulting them and started a long annoying pointless argument with multiple people insisting they used language wrong, their sentence is incomprehensible to native English speakers, and now a new goalpost is that their language wasn’t accessible enough for you.

      It’s plenty accessible, it’s a forum, you can clarify all confusions without ever needing to accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics from the initial interaction.

      if they interpret it differently, then they’re dumb and not worth your time

      Nobody made that argument. You’re dumb for insisting that despite being a minority who interpreted something differently than intended, it’s the speaker’s fault and malicious intent.

      It’s a communication forum, just have a conversation brother.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        it’s okay for the meaning of the post title to also be part of the discussion.

        Isn’t that what this entire thread is?

        accuse them of intentionally using malicious misleading tactics

        I never implied intent. Or rather, never intended to. If there’s a particular comment I made that did, do let me know. My communication skills are perpetual work in progress.

        • 3abas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          And that is indeed using misinformation tactics.

          This is where you went from “I’m not sure if you meant it the way I initiated l interpreted it” to “I was right all along, you’re intentionally spreading misinformation”.