[throwaway8800]

> or because they shut down the conversation at some point.

That's the vibe I got from her post (that the conversation just stopped at a certain point), but that's really my point; in adult, human interactions, if you behave in ways that people find unacceptable, people can and will at one point simply say, "I've had enough" and shut down further dialogue because they do not find communicating with you to be constructive or productive. They are within their rights as human beings to do so.

Some people seem to have a "I have a certain approach and you must accept it and deal with me" attitude and that's just not how the world works. You can try to push a bad, combative attitude on other people, but there's just nothing that says that they have to accept it.

[RangerScience]

You're correct about this, so, let me be clearer: In my experience, they ghost; or they start ghosted.

Yes, there's a point at which you're completely justified in shutting down further dialogue because you do not find the communication constructive or productive. That point is after you have said that you do not find the communication constructive or productive.

(It sounds like your impression from the OP is that they didn't ghost too early; I didn't form an impression about that, but your take sounds reasonable.)

There's a flipside to your (correct) point about "that's not just how the world works"; basically, if you find yourself "having to accept my approach and just deal with it", are you sure you're not yourself requiring me to adopt to your communication modalities? Why are you sure you're not telling me to accept it and deal with you?

If I prefer directness and you prefer obliqueness, who is correct, and why?

(I find dealing with subtext and other "implies" to be the bad, evasive attitude - why would I have to accept it?).

[juki]

> are you sure you're not yourself requiring me to adopt to your communication modalities?

They are. That's the whole point. If someone comes to try and convince you of their point, you can either listen and engage in a discussion, or if you believe that isn't going to work out, you can refuse. Both are valid options and necessary at times.

Likewise if you want to convince someone of your point and they refuse to listen to you, you can either change your approach so that they do, or declare them a lost cause and move on. Both are again valid options and necessary at times.

The problem is when you keep trying the approach that the other person doesn't want to listen to. That will just alienate them further, and can easily turn into harassment.

[mistermann]

> Why are you sure you're not telling me to accept it and deal with you? If I prefer directness and you prefer obliqueness, who is correct, and why?

I've always wondered the same, after all, doesn't it take two people to have an argument or misunderstanding? And why is simply stating outright what the issue is considered unspeakable, is it some sort of an ego/pride thing?

I just don't get how people behave, but I'm pretty sure I'm the odd one out.