And I do see the points that you’re making and I do agree with them on the whole. The problem is that you’re stating those facts in a instance of someone just looking for commiseration about not being able to do something that helps alleviate some of the stress of day-to-day life. For lack of a more accurate phrase, You misread the room.
And you are correct if you’re looking at a purely economic standpoint finding some way of streaming a movie is usually more cost-effective than going to a movie theater. But that discredits the event that going to see a movie is going to see a movie usually entails going with someone be that friends or significant other (sometimes you go alone), possibly getting you know some popcorn and a soda or a slushie, and experiencing it on a massive screen with a sound system and the event of it.
the issue is that this is a lot of assumption on the comment’s intention in their response to OP.
i feel the emphasis keeps moving back to how they misinterpreted OP, and their failing in doing so.
i’m both recognizing their ‘failing,’ but also suggesting that it is more of an issue on how people are interpreting it as invalid via their own biases and preferences.
not projecting the same preference becomes seen as ‘misreading the room,’ rather than a valid response for a different type of person. it becomes assumed as intentionally, or definitively ‘rude’ rather than just a different, and still valid way of responding to the information provided for some people.
i assume nothing negative was meant by it, even if it wasn’t the implied commiseration op was looking for, this does not make it suddenly antagonistic.
the issue is that so many view it immediately as antagonistic or ‘wrong,’ where it could have been entirely valid were i OP, and saying the same thing as OP. we all have many blindspots, and some things aren’t always salient.
if you experience this reaction every time society sees that you interpreted things differently, you get a bunch of autistic people (or other groups in preference/experiential minority) hating life.
this is also indicative of many other communication failures due to excess fitting towards homogeneity and unconsciously creating social rules to keep things simple and energy free. if you are a surprising element, you get chastised for making others expend energy interpreting your model, because you haven’t successfully been beaten into being less noticeable, even if it completely denies your lived reality. see gay conversion therapy/ABA (same source) for how that tactic is often applied.
not to escalate, but a constant barrage of these experiences, often without such context being given, leads to many otherwise well-adjusted autistic people hating life, and opting out enitrely. this is why i feel compelled to promote understanding of the different styles of interpretation. i don’t want to lose any more friends.
many autistic people are already trying, but the communication failure isn’t just on their side of the interaction.
but it’s easier to tar and feather the person as an easy pariah than to try and consider how the perspective may have had intention less as a slight, and more as a valid recommendation for those who have a different dialect for interpretating “…see a movie.”
i suggest looking up any autistic experiences, because a lot boil down to trauma of escalated antagonism just for existing and not already having the exact preferences of others, which makes predicting them impossible without a doctorate in non-autistic preference modelling, and writing that over your whole existence any time you interact with the public.
also understanding the double empathy problem can help with many other communication difficulties in non homogeneous groups
And I do see the points that you’re making and I do agree with them on the whole. The problem is that you’re stating those facts in a instance of someone just looking for commiseration about not being able to do something that helps alleviate some of the stress of day-to-day life. For lack of a more accurate phrase, You misread the room.
And you are correct if you’re looking at a purely economic standpoint finding some way of streaming a movie is usually more cost-effective than going to a movie theater. But that discredits the event that going to see a movie is going to see a movie usually entails going with someone be that friends or significant other (sometimes you go alone), possibly getting you know some popcorn and a soda or a slushie, and experiencing it on a massive screen with a sound system and the event of it.
the issue is that this is a lot of assumption on the comment’s intention in their response to OP. i feel the emphasis keeps moving back to how they misinterpreted OP, and their failing in doing so. i’m both recognizing their ‘failing,’ but also suggesting that it is more of an issue on how people are interpreting it as invalid via their own biases and preferences.
not projecting the same preference becomes seen as ‘misreading the room,’ rather than a valid response for a different type of person. it becomes assumed as intentionally, or definitively ‘rude’ rather than just a different, and still valid way of responding to the information provided for some people.
i assume nothing negative was meant by it, even if it wasn’t the implied commiseration op was looking for, this does not make it suddenly antagonistic. the issue is that so many view it immediately as antagonistic or ‘wrong,’ where it could have been entirely valid were i OP, and saying the same thing as OP. we all have many blindspots, and some things aren’t always salient.
if you experience this reaction every time society sees that you interpreted things differently, you get a bunch of autistic people (or other groups in preference/experiential minority) hating life. this is also indicative of many other communication failures due to excess fitting towards homogeneity and unconsciously creating social rules to keep things simple and energy free. if you are a surprising element, you get chastised for making others expend energy interpreting your model, because you haven’t successfully been beaten into being less noticeable, even if it completely denies your lived reality. see gay conversion therapy/ABA (same source) for how that tactic is often applied.
not to escalate, but a constant barrage of these experiences, often without such context being given, leads to many otherwise well-adjusted autistic people hating life, and opting out enitrely. this is why i feel compelled to promote understanding of the different styles of interpretation. i don’t want to lose any more friends.
many autistic people are already trying, but the communication failure isn’t just on their side of the interaction. but it’s easier to tar and feather the person as an easy pariah than to try and consider how the perspective may have had intention less as a slight, and more as a valid recommendation for those who have a different dialect for interpretating “…see a movie.”
i suggest looking up any autistic experiences, because a lot boil down to trauma of escalated antagonism just for existing and not already having the exact preferences of others, which makes predicting them impossible without a doctorate in non-autistic preference modelling, and writing that over your whole existence any time you interact with the public.
also understanding the double empathy problem can help with many other communication difficulties in non homogeneous groups