sp3ctr4l

… and now add into that experience the knowledge that the game Monopoly was intentionally designed, 100+ years ago now, to show the evils and dangers of capitalism.

What you and your friends experienced in microcosm is what happens to all of society at a grander scale and slower timeframe, and the game itself was designed to cause the experience ya’ll had, to illustrate this.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20170728-monopoly-was-invented-to-demonstrate-the-evils-of-capitalism

Every doctor visit I’ve ever had, for anything, since roughly 2010, possibly earlier, ends with them handing me a packet of paper that describes the doctor’s evaluation of me during that visit.

Usually at least 3 pages long, sometimes longer.

For those in a rush:

Initial paper outlining theorem (2021):

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.12800

Paper that demonstrates and proves its validity (2025):

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.02305

I tried a quick search, but I’m not seeing any public implementations that specifically mention or cite ‘Krapavin’ or ‘Tiny Pointers’ anywhere.

Nah, its ok to quickly compliment random people if you do it tactfully and respectfully, without expecting any reciprocation or expanding follow up conversation.

I do this fairly frequently to random people I walk past, and they very often explicitly thank me for it, or fire back with a compliment of myself, or at least say something generally kind or positive in response.

Then we both just go about our day.

This only doesn’t go well with extremely paranoid people, or people who are so emotionally traumitized or insecure/low self esteem that they interperet a genuine compliment as an attack or demand.

the problem was in the compliment being poorly formed, and then basically trapping the girl/woman into a conversation she didn’t want to have, which is a demand.

The idea of trying to compliment a random passerby is not inherently bad, sumguy’s execution was just very poor.

Like… just say hi.

That is not very good advice for the described situation of randomly walking past someone you don’t know and trying to compliment them.

‘Hi’ is a greeting, not a compliment, and using it as a compliment in the described scenario would likely be even more awkward and intimidating than ‘You look nice…’

A greeting implies a response to that greeting and probably a conversation following that is expected.

So now, the girl/woman is going to either outright think, or subconsciously run through:

‘who is this person?’

‘do i know this person?’

‘why do they want to talk to me?’

‘what are their intentions?’

…in the span of a single word.

This is terrible advice for the described situation, far more likely to illicit fear and panic than what gandalf described his attempt at a compliment illiciting.

I don’t think your analogy really works, its overly complex.

You’re basically describing the concept of people being in, or out, of another person’s ‘league’, the idea that social dynamics can become unbalanced when there is a wide disparity in percieved attractiveness between members of a group, or relationship, which is more pronounced the more people judge/evaluate others more heavily by outward appearance.

…but, it is an empircally validated fact that people who are percieved as more beautiful get more leeway in social interactions, have an easier time being hired, are used to receiving more praise, have an easier time manipulating others, have anneasier time making friends, are more likely to be forgiven or punished less for an offense than people who are percieved as unattractive.

Being pretty doesn’t just directly cause narcissism at some kind of purely deterministic, genetic level, but the way that society treats prettier people encourages them to become narcissistic.

But also, unattractive people who are narcissistic, manipulative and mean often figure out that prettier people have pretty privelege, and will focus on making themselves appear prettier, so as to have an easier time being narcissistic, manipulative and mean.

There are pretty people who aren’t mean, but yes, in general, prettier people are more likely to be mean.

Hey for what its worth, I didn’t downvote you.

I’m not a woman and have not had a mammogram, but how do you know its a mammogram?

Couldn’t an ‘exam’ be a manual examination, as in, the doc uses his/her eyes and hands?

I ended up abandoning most of my online ‘friends’ because their entire vocabulary devolved into thought stopping cliches, canned meme responses to almost every situation, apathy, Schrödinger’s Irony style statements that are either ‘obviously ironic jokes’ or ‘completely sincere and serious’ depending on their immediate reception…

Just completely duplicitous hypocrites, actively mocking any attempt to have a serious conversation about a serious subject… but highly interested in having extremely lenghty discussions about trivial, unimportant topics, in ambiguous, inconsistent and highly emotionally charged vocabulary, with anecdotally, vibes based ‘logic’ always trumping actual empirical data and properly backed theories.

Good to see you too =)

Not sure if you outright stated you are autistic in other comments, but I’m autistic as well, I’m guessing I just have more experience with it than you, as I’m 35, and I’m guessing you are younger than that.

Socializing with NTs, and even other NDs can be quite difficult and complicated… a whole lot of people will tell you ‘bro, everyone interprets things exactly like I do’… even though their own interpretations are inconsistent, and they are obviously wrong, different people interperet the same phrase, in the same context differently.

The best you can do is trial and error or learn from gathering lots of data, and try to make some general rules that work most of the time.

Anyone who tells you ‘this will work 100% of the time to ensure great social interactions’ is lying… people are different, their moods change, and social norms change over time.

Human psychology is very complicated. It is an academic field that can be studied… but a whole lot of people just hear and see pop psychology tidbits on apps like tiktok, and end up wildly misusing terms.

This has actually been studied, and aomething like 50% of relationship advice and psychological info on tiktok is just flat out wrong, and about 25% of it is dangerously, greivously wrong.

But anyway, its good that you doing some self reflection is leading you to greater understanding of yourself!

Unironically, if you can afford it, a therapist may be able to help you by directing and advising you in that process of becoming more aware of aspects of yourself, and how they differ from others.

I personally agree with you that being average is fine… but again, the point of a compliment is to make someone feel better than average, to highlight something that makes them execptional.

The reason ‘you look nice’ evoked a negative reaponse is that its indicative, to most people, of a compliment that is not really sincere… it isn’t specific, it isn’t emphatic or strong… most people will conclude that a vague, weak compliment is actually just a person who doesn’t really think there’s anything special about a person, but they want to appear as if they think the person is special.

The weak and vague compliment then backfires and evokes the opposite result because it indicates the complimenter is being duplicitous, disingenuous.

Also as a final note, your last msg in this chain used ‘euphoric’ when I think you meant emphatic.

Euphoric, euphoria, is a sense of overwhelming happiness, joy and/or pleasure… its a state of being of a human or conscious subject.

I don’t think a phrase can be euphoric… it can maybe evoke euphoria, but it can’t be euphoric.

Emphatic, on the other hand, basically means strong or severe, more intense or charged with emotion, of a higher degree, unambiguous.

So… nice, good, great, wonderful, stunning, amazing, incredible, impeccable, flawless, iconic… at least for me, that’s roughly in order of rising ‘strength’, as an end to the phrase “You look ___”… but other people may order that list differently.

Yeah, if you follow the Flesch-Kincaid reading level of Presidential speeches over time, that’s another way you can broadly track American English just literally being dumbed down over time.

Trump basically only speaks in stream of consciousness, run-on sentences that are so vague that my 6th grade English teacher would describe as ‘word vomit.’

Speaking of 6th grade… the average adult American reading proficiency is now between a 5th and 6th grader.

Less than 10% of the population is capable of critically comparing contrasting stories about the same thing from different sources, and pointing out their differences and comparative biases.

Something like 30% of the population is functionally illiterate, only able to read extremely simple instructions and basically children’s books.

EDIT: Also, its not a coincidence.

Republicans, for longer than I’ve been alive, have been wrecking public education.

Why? Stupid people are easier to lie to.

Unfortunately, I can’t give you an answer that makes sense, in the way that solving a simple math equation follows well defined rules and just does have a correct solution.

This is a social / psychological kind of question, and if you try to break it down to a mechanistic way of understanding it, well, good luck, a single human brain has almost as many neurons as there are stars in the Milky Way, and they all operate on heuristics and fuzzy logic.

Maybe think of it as … ‘stunning’ is a +5 modifier to ‘You look ___’, whereas ‘nice’ is only +1, and you gotta roll at least a 4.

As to your last question:

You’re not wrong to ask that, but you are overgeneralizing to jump to it straight from ‘why do some compliments often work while others often don’t?’

Part of the point of a compliment is to make someone feel like they are indeed better than most others.

I am still fucking furious about Games for Windows Live.

So, are you telling me that the author used vagueing incorrectly?

Or are you telling me that my translation, which did correctly translate what the author wrote, is incorrect?

Doesn’t really matter, you’d be incorrect either way.

A way that person A can imply something about person B, is to describe person B, or something person B did, without directly naming person B.

Whenever person A ‘does a vagueing’ about person B, they are intentionally referencing person B, but in an indirect manner.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply

imply

transitive verb

: to express indirectly

Her remarks implied a threat.

The news report seems to imply his death was not an accident.

This means the implied object of the person A’s vagueing is person B, as opposed to person B being the outright stated, directly specified object.

This means when they are indirectly talking about person B without directly mentioning them, they are implying that they are talking about person B, they’re just doing so in a manner that allows for plausible deniability if actually directly asked who they are talking about.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vagueing

Vagueing

Posting or talking about drama without naming the specific details.

“Lindsay just tweeted ‘no tears left to cry over you b’”

“OMG no way, she’s totally vagueing about Connor”

The entire point of vagueing / vagueposting is to passive aggressively complain about a person / event whilst also setting up a plausible deniability defense, so that the vagueposter can gaslight anyone who wants to clarify what the object of their vaguepost was.

Linguistically, ‘vagueing about’ is itself a less active voiced and less direct way of saying ‘implying’.

Its akin to ‘the cop shot the dog’ vs ‘the dog was killed by gunfire from the cop’.

The entire construction makes the person who did the implying, did the vagueing, less directly connected to the object they were making implications, or vagueing, about.

In that sense, vagueing is an even more vague amd indorect term to use than implying.

…

Bottom line:

Ableism Accuser is implying Tumblr Poster is ableist by vagueing about Tumblr Poster.

They are indirectly complaining about and accusing them, by not specifically directing the complaint and accusation at Tumblr Poster by name.

Vagueing / vagueposting is always, necessarily, also implying, always involves implying… because all these terms refer to speaking about a specific person, action, event, thing… indirectly, without full detail.

Did you not read the text in the tags?

one time i talked about the weather to someone i didn’t know that well

and later that night i checked their twitter and they were vagueing abt me being ableist bc ‘i forced them to do small talk’

We have the author, and a specific, other person, the person the author talked about the weather to, whom the author knows the twitter handle of.

Again, the author states:

they were vagueing abt me

abt is shorthand for about.

they were vagueing about me

The ‘vagueing’ is directed at the author, according to author.

Is it theoretically possible that some other person asked twitter person about the weather, temporally near when the author did, and the author is mistaken?

Sure.

… And also, no, you can’t meet my girlfriend, she goes to another school, and yes I can get your Xbox Live account banned, my dad works at Microsoft.

You can’t prove those things aren’t true, so if you challenge me on that, that means you don’t trust me and that means you’re a bad friend.

Now I’m gonna post “Boy it sure is disheartening when your friends question everything you ever say to them” on twitter.

… See how this works?

You see, an alternative way to make your AI pass the Turing test is just to use it to make all humans more stupid.

Lovebombing is derived from the first stages of entering a cult, where initially, everyone is extremely, unconditionally friendly and accomodating, but then later all of that becomes extremely conditional, requiring strict adherence to rules and unwavering obedience to avoid punishment, shaming, and/or ostracization.

This meaning actually comes from academics that study cults.

This definition then migrated over to mostly women describing one on one relationships with mostly men.

The problem is that this carries an immense amount of negative connotations and implications over to a one on one relationship that are very rarely actually present.

It is a completely normal relationship dynamic to have an initial exciting phase, that then changes to mutually recognizing and respecting boundaries, and mutually agreeing on and trusting each other with responsibilities, as the relationship matures.

What I have seen over and over is a (usually, but not always) gal will say that a guy was very affectionate and loving at first, but then that lessened over time…

… but if you ask the (usually, but not always) guy, they’ll say that they lost interest and intensity in the relationship because the gal just didn’t respect the guy’s boundaries, did not hold up to responsibilities she agreed to, or just kept making requests or demands the guy has told the gal he is not financially capable of meeting.

The (usually, but not always) gal will describe this as ‘lovebombing’, as if the guy was putting on a front, being duplicitous the whole time, with all the implications that this guy was as dangerous and manipulative as a cult leader…

… and the (usually but not always) guy will describe the gal as some kind of phrase indicating self-centered and/or greedy and/or overly demanding, all take and no give.

Tweeting vaguely / Vaguely tweeting.

I don’t think archaic is the word you mean… as the use of vagueing as a verb is fairly new, not fairly old.

Archaic would be like… betwixt, hither, goodly, plain (meaning not very attractive), anon (meaning immediately), methinks…

… words that once were commonly used, but have much more widely used modern replacements.

Anyway, yes I’m familiar with the term vague posting, and I agree that it is a very likely etymological antecedent of vagueing.

Doesn’t change that vagueing as a verb is more clumsy to use in a sentence which intends to specify an object.

Both vague posting and vagueing work well to describe the actions of only a subject, but yeah, they are more awkward to use when you want to specify an object of the vague posting or vagueing.

They can’t be conjugated on their own, to do that requires helper words, auxilliary verbs.

On their own, they are always in the continuous tense.

… Though I guess you could say vagues, vagued, vagueing…

… but at that point I’d argue the connection to communicating in online posts is lost, and it would begin to apply to any kind of communication where a person is being vague, losing the specificity of ‘it’s not vague to those with insider/first-hand knowledge’.

3rd candidate pun:

Oink-oborous