deleted by creator

Wow all 8 of their non-bot users will surely be very disappointed.

Why would anyone ever interact with the police unless it was absolutely required? They’re not gonna care about your phone, and they might shoot your dog in the process.

ACAB

You should never ever ever purposefully attempt to interact with the police.

deleted by creator

I don’t think you understand what’s being discussed here.

You: “We actually do understand that”

You: proceeds to not understand that

So all of your bullshit in this thread is just the result of you having a shitty boss and throwing a temper tantrum, then blaming all other neurotypicals for the behavior of one person? Jesus christ, I feel like that guy that was arguing with someone about food only to learn that person was a pissdrinker and their opinions were worthless.

This explains so much about you.

As if we needed more proof that you have absolutely no clue what “reading into” actually means. Just give up.

And regarding the animal stuff, you should seek professional help, because that was 100% some weird Freudian projection.

Lmao whatever helps you sleep at night. You can’t just scream troll every time you’re wrong about something.

Keep telling yourself that. You’re mad because you know I’m right, and you don’t want to admit it. And I don’t need you to admit it. Be wrong if you want. I tried to help. You chose ignorance.

My point exactly. According to the previous comment, no they wouldn’t. Which is why it’s wrong.

“whole conversation is just trying to correct their assumptions so we can focus on what was actually said.”

Please read this over and over until you understand why its so hilariously ironic that you just said that.

What was “actually said” is that inferring information from people’s statements is a bad thing, which is ridiculous, and the exact statement I’m attempting to address. Everyone in this thread assumes I’m saying something else, and that I am somehow attacking them rather than engaging in a discussion.

Imagine if every conversation had to contain every single explicit detail of what’s being discussed, imagine being completely unwilling and unable to form a conclusion based on information provided to you. That would be awful. This leads me to believe that this is not actually what OP intended, and upon further discussion they revealed what they actually have a problem with is people jumping to incorrect conclusions based on insufficient evidence. A sentiment with which I agree entirely, but which is not equivalent to the wording of what was, as you put it, actually said.

Lmao you can’t agree with the 2nd point and not with the 3rd, it’s literally the same point. Once again you have demonstrated a complete failure to understand what’s being discussed here.

And with your sad attempt at a strawman argument (and your bizzarre animal comment that really just reinforced how unhinged you are), we know that you have nothing substantial left to say to support your ridiculous argument. You’ve contradicted yourself at least twice now and proven my point for me. Thank you. Maybe next time you’ll keep your braindead take to yourself.

Okay but should I interpret that comment literally like you suggest or should I “read into” it and determine you’re being sarcastic?

Weren’t you just saying people should “say exactly what they mean”?

Am I to interpret this as a sincere thank you, then? In which case. You’re quite welcome. You seemed very confused and I’m happy to have provided some clarity in this matter. I hope what you learned today will be helpful to you going forward.

I mean, it wasn’t, though. I didn’t actually do the thing they described, they just failed to understand their own point.

No, I didn’t! You have no idea what you’re even trying to say! I’m sorry but you’re just incorrect. At no point have I interpreted anything you’ve suggested to mean anything other than exactly that.

Most people wouldn’t just assume a random reason. They might assume there is a reason, and they would be correct even if that reason is “just dont feel like it”, which is a perfectly valid reason.

Furthermore, what you’re describing is not “reading into”, its “drawing likely inferences based on evidence and observation” and it’s literally the foundation of every piece of knowledge we currently possess.

What you’re objecting to is called “thinking”.

An example of what you’re trying to describe would be if person A said “I can’t hang out tonight, I’m busy” and the person B thinks “they’re just saying that to be nice, they actually hate me” when really person A is actually just busy. Person B is “reading into” person A’s response. Which ties back into my previous point about what you’re actually objecting to, which is people assuming someone is lying when there’s nothing to suggest dishonesty.

I understand what you’re saying perfectly well. What you’re saying is absolutely incorrect.

Neurodivergent =/= not neurotypical

Neurotypical =/= not neurodivergent

Each is defined by their own set of criteria and neither term is simply the antithesis of the other.

Ah I see the confusion. You said “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” but defined that as “assuming someone intended to say something completely different than what they actually said.” This is not, in fact. “reading into phrases past their actual meanings” and is, in fact, called “assuming someone is lying”. With that cleared up, I agree with you. People should definitely stop assuming others are lying without a good reason.