[sdoering]

> The comment you’re replying to is kind

My definition of kind is somewhat different, then.

The comment I replied to clearly stated that OP was missing "clarity about yourself, your own motivations" when OP had made that perfectly clear and even took action once they had realized it.

These projections are imho not "kind", nor "constructive, and non-judgemental".

But YMMV.

[playpause]

> The comment I replied to clearly stated…

No it didn’t. You’ve just quoted a few words out of context and prefixed it with “missing”, adding an accusative tone that was not present.

[sdoering]

Let me quote the whole part:

> But it's also important to not project your own previous potentially ego-driven activities towards everyone else in the world. Yes, I'm sure there are other people that had the same insecurities/ego, but it definitely doesn't mean everyone who ever blogs is like that.

Please enlighten me how this is "kind". I would love to know how you rationalize/explain this. And I mean it. I get up every day to learn something. So maybe there is an opportunity for me here.

As I already said, your mileage may vary, but I yet fail to see the kindness in these words.

You quoted the original author. I need to split it in two to better explain my thoughts:

> I think it boiled down to a realization that no one really gave a damn about me, my writing/work/creations/etc.

That is a realization. Fair if one looks at the grand scheme of things.

So then, what's the point? Is it entirely ego driven? Chasing dopamine hits when your post or your project is tweeted about?

These are as much rhetoric questions as questions towards us as the audience imho. So I didn't read it as statement about OP themselves.

But if I see this as a rhetoric figure, how can I use this as argument to say OP had "potentially ego-driven activities"?

To me this was using rhetoric figures against OP to construct an "argument".

Especially the additional comment from the commenter as answer on the original comment I replied to:

> Oh and, dear OP, if you're comfortable with personal growth, it may be helpful to realize that, our frustrations often stem from our disappointments, that our feelings of anger are often a protection from more vulnerable feelings like sadness.

To me that sounded awfully condescending. How was that not projecting onto OP?

If I want to be seen talking down onto someone, I would talk/write that way.

Would, as said, love to know your thoughts.

[samh748]

Don't know if it helps, but read the qualifiers. They exist for a reason.

> To me that sounded awfully condescending.

I think we all have our triggers, we all define and recognize differently what things like kind/mean/etc mean to us. It sounds like you get triggered when people tell you how feelings work, or how to interpret something, like what I'm doing right now. I can see that the things I say could be condescending, but it's one possibility out of many. You could say I am projecting, but my intention is to share my understanding of things with people, and I was careful not to make it definitive by adding all the qualifiers. Does that make sense?

I'm not perfect in this regard either. I just recently lashed out on someone on HN because I got triggered by what I thought was patronizing comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30951970