I don't know that you and I should get into a discussion here.
It sounds like we're so diametrically opposed that it could get pretty heated. At least from my end. You do have a right to your opinion, but I don't want to play in the space where I could get emotionally dysregulated by some dude on the internet.
I'd rather not bring a flame war to the HN community.
I'm also not entirely sure that your argument is in good faith and i'm really not in the sort of place where I want to tease out the things you say which are hyperbole versus the things you really believe.
Do you really think that I said all interviews should be tailored to all people throughout all time and space? I can't believe that you really think that, so you can't be arguing in good faith.
Are you really saying that you think it is unreasonable that we expect accommodations be made "for amputees"? Like their role or position in society is somehow a burden on you, or god forbid employers?
Honestly, maybe you do. Maybe you're super into eugenics. I don't want to find out really. It is best that we go our separate ways.
Ok, before you read this, I need you to sit down and take some deep breaths. If nothing else, just remember:
1. It's going to be okay.
2. One day, you will recover from this comment and move on
with your life. It will take time, but just take it day by day for now. Every day you're able to regulate your emotions after this comment is an achievement.
___________
Now for the comment:
0. Intro
Thanks amigo. I think you've taken it in the wrong direction, intentionally. (Given the current politics of hyperbolic outrage bait, I typically assume overly sensitive people prefer to [i.e. at least pretend to be] outraged over strawmen, because that's the current trend I see in western society.)
________________
1. The strawman
Your strawman implication: "You don't think accomodations should be made for amputees?!?!"
My actual quote: "For example, if I write something... do I need to make sure it's prepared for" ... <examples of various potential peoples' widely divergent qualities>
Good lord. Way to take things out of context, and then get outraged over your own strawman.
Look... I literally said "if I write something".
and you literally implied "you think it is unreasonable that we expect accommodations be made"
Where did I say anything about "accomodations"... my comment is essentially that you fail to see that no one can predict what stranger (and the qualities of their life) could possibly happen upon their comment.
Our interaction went something like this:
A. Random father arrives to see a comment wasn't tailored to his needs and claims the comment doesnt empathize with him
B. I tell the father that it is he who lacks empathy for expecting internet strangers who arrived in a discussion before he did, to somehow prospectively predict his life qualities/needs for empathy as a father, and tailor their comment specifically for him.
C. The father doesn't appreciate the exposure of his hypocrisy. Decides to paint a strawman involving employer accomodations for amputees, eugenics, and emotional dysregulation due to online commentary (while also assuming my gender, for bonus points of course)
________________
2. The strange & unrealistic
... Also, regarding: "the space where I could get emotionally dysregulated by some dude on the internet."
Uhh... yeah, First of all, you just assumed my gender... something tells me you're not very consistent in your political pretense.
That said-- welcome to Earth. It could get a little rough for ya... <sarcasm> Maybe you should avoid everything that could possible evoke stress, rather than adapting to inevitable stress</sarcasm>
___________________
3. Left field
Am I into eugenics? (Firstly... What part of left field did that come from?) We all are, whether we like it or not.
Are you attracted to attractive people? Guess what-- you're a eugenicist.
All organisms are designed by evolution to seek the best quality genetics for their offspring, so again, welcome to Earth.
"Just like adults, newborn babies prefer to look at an attractive face, according to new research carried out at the University of Exeter."
It sounds like we're so diametrically opposed that it could get pretty heated. At least from my end. You do have a right to your opinion, but I don't want to play in the space where I could get emotionally dysregulated by some dude on the internet.
I'd rather not bring a flame war to the HN community.
I'm also not entirely sure that your argument is in good faith and i'm really not in the sort of place where I want to tease out the things you say which are hyperbole versus the things you really believe.
Do you really think that I said all interviews should be tailored to all people throughout all time and space? I can't believe that you really think that, so you can't be arguing in good faith.
Are you really saying that you think it is unreasonable that we expect accommodations be made "for amputees"? Like their role or position in society is somehow a burden on you, or god forbid employers?
Honestly, maybe you do. Maybe you're super into eugenics. I don't want to find out really. It is best that we go our separate ways.
I hope you have a very peaceful day.