3 ms·
I’m not going to debate ratio of blame here because that would be a silly hypothetical about someone we don’t even know. However It’s pretty clear from the GPs
by hnlmorg 2y ago
I’m not going to debate ratio of blame here because that would be a silly hypothetical about someone we don’t even know.
However It’s pretty clear from the GPs post that they took steps to integrate themselves.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago> pretty clear from the GPs post that they took steps to integrate I didn't get that at all. I'm telling you that I spent all my time with TV, computers, and video games and as a result did not learn how to socialize well until much later. If you think simply knowing the details to a popular TV show is going to win friends, at least in my case you'd be wrong. If you're a kid that's going to get bullied/shunned, the specifics don't matter. Change them and the bullies will pick on something/anything else they can find.
- hnlmorg 2y agoThat’s an extremely simplistic view and what worked for you isn’t going to apply to everyone. However I am glad you’ve found your own path to zen.
- mixmastamyk 2y agoIt’s no different than the original anecdote, Mr. extremely simplistic. (I won’t reply again.)
- hnlmorg 2y agoYes, the original anecdote was simplistic. Most “anecdata” is. However your response that their social anxiety wasn’t a result of their upbringing, and then expanding that with the evidence being your own anecdote, is far more simplistic and somewhat uncharitable too. You might be correct but you might also not. However you know less about the situation that the commenter (obviously) so I don’t really see how you can confidently assert anything about their condition. And that is why I responded the way I had. It’s not saying you are definitively wrong; just that you know far too little about the specifics to make assertions.