....I mean the definition of hers you quote makes me viscerally say "fuck you" and also "okay so what are you trying to get from me, when you decide to define me as being 'unable to withstand' the hurt, oh sorry 'injury', that you've just dealt out, and thus weak?"
But this is largely because of how that rhetoric is used and has been used against me, and as a result I call bullshit on the idea of differentiating "hurt" and "injury", and I also call bullshit on "okay you know what define 'withstand', because basically it SOUNDS like you're trying to make 'vulnerable' mean 'getting hurt but not TOOOOO much just enough that I can convince myself to be comfortable with the risk and also to accept that I'm going to react to the injury when/if it happens, but as long as I Keep My Chin Up then I don't have to deal with the concept of weakness or the idea that I might, in fact, get fucking wrecked.'"
Which is . . . another aspect of my problem with her work? In that she's trying! really hard! to convince you to take risks. But she refuses to, like, ADMIT that she's asking you to take risks. She's trying very hard to convince you that this risk! it will be okay!
Whereas your definition honestly makes perfect sense, because yes, that is in fact what's happening.
And in most cases this is actually going to be a good idea! Because MOST PEOPLE will actually use that data to make a better model in order to get along with you better.
But there's also no obscuring the fact that, welp, sometimes that better model is not going to be used to your benefit, and that's a thing that exists, and a risk that we have to take.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2020-01-09 10:44 pm (UTC)But this is largely because of how that rhetoric is used and has been used against me, and as a result I call bullshit on the idea of differentiating "hurt" and "injury", and I also call bullshit on "okay you know what define 'withstand', because basically it SOUNDS like you're trying to make 'vulnerable' mean 'getting hurt but not TOOOOO much just enough that I can convince myself to be comfortable with the risk and also to accept that I'm going to react to the injury when/if it happens, but as long as I Keep My Chin Up then I don't have to deal with the concept of weakness or the idea that I might, in fact, get fucking wrecked.'"
Which is . . . another aspect of my problem with her work? In that she's trying! really hard! to convince you to take risks. But she refuses to, like, ADMIT that she's asking you to take risks. She's trying very hard to convince you that this risk! it will be okay!
Whereas your definition honestly makes perfect sense, because yes, that is in fact what's happening.
And in most cases this is actually going to be a good idea! Because MOST PEOPLE will actually use that data to make a better model in order to get along with you better.
But there's also no obscuring the fact that, welp, sometimes that better model is not going to be used to your benefit, and that's a thing that exists, and a risk that we have to take.