> I'd say the fact you are at -10 karma on your original account and had to make a new one demonstrates pretty effectively my point. You communicate poorly or a troll. Either way, it simply reinforces my point that your behavior ITT is not that of someone who has an interest in communicating effectively.

What part of intentionally shunning social norms did you not get from the previous posts?

You seem to be laboring under the terrible misconception that wish to surround myself with a bunch of people who think they are going to be the next Zuckerberg if only they could land a Series 1 for their Social Justice Dog Walker ecosystem.

I am communicating efficiently to PRECISELY the kinds of people I wish to surround myself with. You just don't see them because they have no desire to participate in the systematic downvoting of anyone who isn't towing the political/moral line that HN is notorious for enforcing.

> My desires stem from a desire to have sufficient income to be comfortable, sufficient ability to acquire wealth as to be secure in the long term, and an enjoyable personal life. I have these things and I have no particular interest in acquiring anything beyond that.

Then you shall never have anything beyond material and sensory.

> The fact you seem to feel the need to belittle me is hilarious because I only engage with you on the off chance you are not a troll and I find your absurd statements entertaining.

Glad I can be of service, but bad comparison skills had to be examined.

> The fact they are social norms means they are cues used to communicate. I'm confused why you would think they were anything other than communication cues?

Social norms are just memes of an unusually consistant level of infection, generally caused by centrally homogenizing vectors. (Institutions, media, etc) If you think those buried memes exist solely for others to try and extract and then have the gaul to call that extraction process "communication", you're in for a real shock when you realize those memes exist entirely to steer self-censorship behavior.

Communication isn't a like mining Bitcoins. Jesus, people. Come on. Here, I'll spell it out: E-M-P-A-T-H-Y.

>I'm discussing communicating effectively at that your method is fundamentally flawed by the fact a large segment of the population [those who subscribe to social norms] will assume you meant something other than your intended communication if you disregard social norms as a factor in communicating.

I have no interest in large segments of the population and if that's your metric of measuring communicatino, then you've been on social media for far too long. Accumulating the most "likes" doesn't mean you are a pro at communication. It's means your a pro at superficial meme excavation.

>The fact you insist it is about me rejecting your lifestyle choices by pointing out the relevance of social norms in communication is silly. I don't give a fuck about your lifestyle choices. You can sexually identify as an apache helicopter, declare every day a day to celebrate Valentines Day, and enjoy sex with men who view the world similarly for all I care. None of these things alter the fundamental fact that you must anticipate the way your message will be received by other people to communicate effectively. Given that a very large group ascribes to "social norms", one must assume that your action will be viewed in such a light regardless of your other intentions.

I have anticipated the way other people are reading these words. I've done so to great detail, in fact.

The memes you subscribe to DO affect HOW you anticipate your impact. It's the entire foundation of your position: Valentine's Day is statistically relevent to X people, therefore, the meme should be considered.

And I am separating superficial statistical meme excavation from actual, meaningful communication that allows for affection, nuance, and all of the things your model desires to stamp out.

> The fact you blatantly ignore the topic and try to move things in a different direction [my view of your personal worldview] isn't relevant to the conversation and ultimately a symptom of you being a troll or simply unwilling to admit that you are impacted by the worldviews of others when it comes to communicating with them.

The concept of nuanced emotional communication is CENTRAL to the topic. You want to believe that the concept of expressing affection is de facto sexism that only administrative policies and rigid time-based rules are capable of eliminating, and I'm saying expressing affection is CENTRAL TO HUMAN EXISTENCE and ASSIST professional and creative endeavors immeasurably.

> Given you acknowledge that social norms exist, a large number of women likely ascribe to them regardless of your ability to pick out a handful of anecdotal counterexamples. That is why they are called "norms" rather than total universal truths. If a large group [say 35%] ascribe to social norms while the majority [65%] have either a variation or a counter view, that doesn't change the fact that a large group of people would construe an attempt to communicate in a certain light.

Refer to my statistical meme excavation vs. actual communication above.

> I'm not defending social norms. I'm stating that they are relevant to communicating with the general population of people and must be taken into consideration and that "Being Nice + Mentoring" and "Sexual Flirtation" should never be construed as equal and equivalent.

... while clinging on to the puritanical idea that "sexual flirtation" and "expressing affection" are inseparable.

> The fact you continue to insist I must ascribe to the world view that opposes yours because I tell you that you are being absurd makes you a troll, or frankly, ineffective at persuasion.

Anyone is free to pretend to be a robot for as long as they can deny themselves to themselves.