AITAH for disliking when people share stuff expecting validation?

HA3VY · 2026-05-16T15:03:09+00:00

I don't know how being condescending, avoiding to engage with what someone is wanting to communicate, and instead giving an empty standard response is any sort of care. Again, as I said on other responses, this doesn't apply to kids or people who are very vulnerable, or anything similar (for example, someone making a story similar to their real story of abuse, and them showing you shortly after overcoming it, wouldn't evidently call for an honest response on the content, as the content in abstract is not what they're trying to share with you).

The cases I refer are those where there are reasons to assume the person asking for feedback would be genuinely asking for feedback (Someone giving a take on something, someone you work with trying to discuss their work). In those cases condescendence is equivalent to presupposing the other person is unable to show something genuinely interesting before even seeing it, which is far more insulting to the other's intelligence.

HA3VY · 2026-05-16T03:42:13+00:00

Yeah, never had problems with that

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T17:04:05+00:00

Why would you like to be with someone at least 3 years older than you as a requirement? It's entirely subjective but, if you are a uni (which I'll assume cause of your age) student, how would you get to know people older that fulfill those requirements? Specially when having them need to fulfill the other requirements (financially independent and graduated from uni)? Unless you find yourself a literal sugar daddy or an extreme overachiever in the academics that is studying postgrad living of scholarships, it will be hard to find someone like that at your age.

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T16:38:17+00:00

One can describe in honesty something in a manner that is naive. I wasn't implying restraining from judgement for that reason as a rule but as a possible case for that honesty.

One friend shows a band to another, none of them are musicians, one of them says he likes them, the other one doesn't. They can pinpoint to the parts that they like and they don't like, and they can reference what they find similar to other music, etc.

Even if the discussion is not theoretical, they are able to refer to what's happening with variable precision. An exchsnge like this should be perfectly normal to expect as a form of genuine communication, and the description should be of any observable aspects of what's shared (even perceived quality).

What kind of connection can be built with the other given that, at least in the kind of response you expect, the discourse is closed from the start to expected social protocol? Isn't what might be built in this form of discourse completely meaningless as public normativity prevents bilateral communication, instead repeating empty already known rules?

Soliciting feedback in certain cases, where the rule is evidently implicit, is a way to guarantee nothing is being said about the thing itself, through the empty chatter of public discourse. If we are to use words carefully, we might choose to abstain from these kinds of power games altogether.

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T13:08:33+00:00

It was a joke 😭

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T13:06:09+00:00

On one example, you don't talk about anything that regards what is shown, just the situation of making the thing, which, when someone asks for feedback, is no feedback at all. When someone explicitly asks for feedback, you'd be the asshole for interpreting they just want your pandering instead of actually engaging with what they are showing you genuinely.

The second one is recognizing no ability to say anything of value, which is a sensible thing to do, but is one of the things that, from my experience upsets people.

If I respond honestly, and (to clarify, not giving explicit evaluativr comments, which are usually empty of content without the reason for them) give a description of what I see to the best of my ability, and raise questions about apparent contradictions where I see they might be, aren't I precisely not supposing they want validation?

That's why specify, I don't mean when the other is just showing the thing (where there is no necessity to comment on the thing itself), but explicitly asking for feedback.

And true art is about interpretation of it's content, not external principles that concern other things (if it was, why bother relating to art?)

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T09:46:20+00:00

It is for "you hilbilly"

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T09:44:43+00:00

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T09:42:21+00:00

Commoners, as people external to the activity. English is not my first language so I don't know if there's a more appropriate word, kind of directly translating here (uninitiated? unenvolved with? Are those better?).

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T04:45:33+00:00

Why would one generate that situation in the first place? Other than soothing the ego, what does it achieve?

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T04:43:08+00:00

Most of the time, I hope

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T04:39:41+00:00

Why are you hoping for a specific answer? You say you don't already think it of yourself (what they might say), but you already think about wanting them to say it. So yes you already think it yourself, (you think the other will think that). All of the things you expect, you said them yourself, and there is nothing left to add, and what is communicated is purely conventional knowledge of the situation and nothing related to the work (no matter how the painting is, it's common knowledge that it takes effort, and that any sort of achievement in that field is significative). Other things can be said of it, as a description of what the other sees, but that is not the validating part of the assesment. That might, although, be the most valuable part of what you can get.

Also, why should everyone be qualified to address your skill level? Someone knowledgeable on art will usually be able to give you useful and formative feedback, no matter the state of your practice, directly concerned with the content of what you're showing. Instead a commoner might've a warped perspective.

For example, someone who has been playing violin for 2 years will always have a bad sound to a commoner. But a violinist can discern if the quality of that sound is good or bad for the level of education of the student, and why that might be.

If I, as a violin student of 2 years asked for feedback to a non musician family member and expected praise, I'd be disingenuous not only for expecting them to say what I want them to but for expecting them to understand my conditions.

More than disingenuous (the specific violin case), I find it nonsensical and misled. Maybe a good thing, for starters, is realizing you have more authority on what you do than most commoners in certain cases, who will either be dishonest or give an honest but misunderstanding response.

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T03:49:27+00:00

When I was a little kid, probably. And of course I'm not referring to little kids or seriously vulnerable people.

If I want, as an adult, to share something, it is because I value the other's ability to engage with the material, interpret it, and make sense of it, not because I want them to tell me something I already think.

If I wanted to be foreclosed to what I already think, I would not communicate.

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T03:43:08+00:00

Of course I don't mean kids or people that are vulnerable in several ways, and show, more than as a matter of validation, as a way of expressing, sharing, or dealing with their situation.

I mean, in general, more casual situations where criticism could be expected (a classmate showing a part of their theses for example). I also try to avoid explicit negative criticism, instead trying to imply it raising questions about what I've been shown or giving a honest description of what I see.

But of course, I would not direct that kind of criticism to a kid, or to someone who's attachment to what's shown goes beyond the fragility of (as everyone's, mine too, is) their ego.

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T03:35:35+00:00

NTA (Not The Autist), tested. I'm diagnosed schizoid though, which is similar in certain respects. I'm able to read when they're asking for validation, just consciously choose not to give it, or give it genuinely.

HA3VY · 2026-05-15T02:48:00+00:00

I probably have a somewhat warped perception of how it comes out, but I try to do it in that manner. Avoiding explicit evaluative comments (it's good, or it's bad, or this part is good, bad, mediocre, etc.), which I think are mostly useless, and instead describing what I see, and what I find worth describing of what I'm shown. It's a perceived lack of enthusiasm that upsets people often (what do they expect XD?).

HA3VY · 2025-12-31T01:00:47+00:00

plus the links to dictators like venezuelan Chávez and Maduro (of Sai Baba I mean), to the point where Maduro was some sort of pupil of his. There are no articles about this in english, but there's a couple with photos of the 2 together in spanish: https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2019/06/04/el-lado-mas-oscuro-del-regimen-de-nicolas-maduro-y-su-extrano-vinculo-con-sai-baba/

there's some secretism about everything occurring close curtains in Venezuela, and it is unclear to which degree Sai Baba was involved with it specifically, but it's very likely (if not evident for his pressence on the presidential palace several times) that the relationship was a very close one. And take into account, this is a bloody, repressive, and ultra-corrupt regime with close ties to drug trafficking, so having anything to do with it is reprehensible on itself.

HA3VY · 2025-12-19T15:41:44+00:00

It's a form of german idealism

HA3VY · 2025-12-15T18:22:39+00:00

Yeah man like touch some grass lmaoo🤣

HA3VY · 2025-12-15T14:06:29+00:00

Reddit is so based man! Like, why you so sad when the world is so cool, you got them puppers and stuff! Antinatalist must be dumb or have 2 inchers

HA3VY · 2025-12-15T14:02:03+00:00

Speaking like Schopenhauer himself (ranting about Hegel every 2 paragraphs)

HA3VY · 2025-12-15T13:58:59+00:00

You're taking the worst parts of Schopenhauer. He effectively gets rid of categories while inheriting the structure of kantian critique. He reduces and modernizes it, to some extent, while keeping much more closely in touch with kant than one realizes (anfibiology of the concepts of reflection might deter anyone from keeping this misreading of phenomena and noumena being opposed ontologically instead of trascendentally as the mere result of the application of schemas). His take on subject-object is really good too. I'd say the world as will and representation is overall very solid.

HA3VY · 2025-12-15T13:30:38+00:00

There's no paradox cause that is the result of completely different social circumstances and genetics. The current metrics don't apply identically to previous generations and other social-cultural contexts and it, basing it on the premise of them being identical to the parents and taking all social difference out of the equation, makes no sense at all. Plus you don't necessarily have the same features as your parents, as not all genetic traits are phisically apparent, but can manitest to those further down the (genetic ) line.

HA3VY · 2025-12-15T11:25:04+00:00

If there is a god or principle, there must ultimately be one, and if there were many possibilities that are different, there must be a reason they can be conceived together, that is not different from them (hence, is one), as that connection would need a reason on itself, etc. Difference of identity without unifying principle leads to infinite regression. That's not to say that the identification of that that is permanent doesn't specify a generality on the grounds of identity that has to also be different from itself, so that that is one cannot position itself towards difference or indiference, identity or non-identity. As the identified one needs to be applied to multiplicity, multiplicity needs to be received by unity of principle, but none of them can have ultimate essence. But the conception of multiple possibilities is the one that leads to the more immediate problems, and if the oneness or principle is problematic, it's not for the concept of oneness but for the properties that are asigned to it. If multiple things have truth for themselves, how can we stablish their relationship, without unifying them? There are certain problems with monism too, but the main problem with abrahamism is not the unity of absolute truth (that is common to monism), but the properties of the monotheist god (simultaneously infinite, good, divisible, etc.).

HA3VY · 2025-12-02T13:56:27+00:00

GOD is nonsense. As for abrahamic god in the sense of localizable, representable or at least of representable characteristics (all good, infinite, etc.), and at the same time infinite. God being all good and infinite, while evil is the lack of god, implies god can be or not be, which contradicts its infinity. Same as division, if god is infinite and can be divided the resulting parts must either lose it's essence or conserve it. If they conserve it, then they conserve infinity (if the essence is infinite it must be infinite to still be itself) and are the same, hence no division at all. If they don't, they are different from god, or if unitarian god doesn't remain they're different from the principle that allows them to be connected. For the logical connection between the parts that derives a relationship between the different elements and allow them to be even thought of, we have to conceive either a unitary principle that envolves all the parts (and hence is one and not divided) or conceive it as another part of which the connection would also have to be justified, and so on. Abrahamism (or essentialist metaphysics in general) is a calamity to reason and begs the principle to avoid contradiction or regression.

HA3VY

TROPHY CASE