[blueflow]

Nothing you wrote is about errors in itself, you exclusively talk about the social interpretations/construction of it. These are things that every adult needs to be able to improvise and express on-the-fly, nothing 'static' that could be fruitfully discussed independently of specific occurrences.

Late edit: So, when interpreted in my context, its utter crap! Your article is shit! You explicitly invited your readers to disregard cross-checking against your own intentions[1], saying they "don't matter". Its basically a free card for me to project my prejudices onto you, without you having anything to conter it. You are a fragile individual who does not think things through.

[1] https://ferd.ca/inclusiveness-in-language-for-outsiders-look..., Section "Death of the Author"

[mononcqc]

So this disagreement is an interesting example of error being a construction in itself: I will posit that you are wrong or not interpreting my point of view properly, and you will say that I am wrong or possibly not explaining things properly.

There is an objectively quantifiable disagreement. But its nature (and even whether it is desirable or not) are possibly camped in subjective terms. Of course you could argue that I am objectively wrong — though trying to prove that with my own writings is risky since we’ve established I’m not a trustworthy source — but that in itself does not resolve the overall disagreement from existing.

This sort of situation can also happen in software where an ambiguous specification yields two distinct compliant implementations that nevertheless do not work together.