Or maybe people have varying degrees of how they take interest in something and semantics are just semantics according to interest.
For example: I have three relatives who are obsessed with the things they are interested in. One is into hoses…like really into hoses. and they have a computer and a car they use but they don’t like these two things nearly as much as they like their hoses. The other, while they use hoses and computers are really into cars. And a third who is super into computers while they have a hose and a car, they just don’t find the same interest in these other two things as they do with their computer.
None of them like each other.
Guess why.
Cuz like Fine. Go be a ‘fanboy’ about your one thing but people aren’t just dumb because they aren’t as obsessed as you are about your one thing. And they aren’t the problem here when you feel you’ve expressed your obsession language to their ordinary language about it. Cuz They get it. You like the thing. They just aren’t wanting to go deep like you do about it. But it gets annoying and old real fast if you’re so obsessed you’re pushing it on them. Their time and energy is worthwhile too.
I definitely read “horses” until I got to the part where all three of them have “horses” even though only one of them was interested in them, and that’s when I realized my brain had added in the “r” because horse people obviously exist, but hose people?
What exactly does this have to do with Autism? I might be misinterpreting what you mean, but Autism isn’t just having an interest or talking about an interest in great detail, and this Twitter post is DEFINITELY not about that situation. The way you say this definitely makes me think you’re seeing “Autism” as “hyperfixation with an object” since the OP didn’t even mention anything you just said…
Or maybe people have varying degrees of how they take interest in something and semantics are just semantics according to interest.
For example: I have three relatives who are obsessed with the things they are interested in. One is into hoses…like really into hoses. and they have a computer and a car they use but they don’t like these two things nearly as much as they like their hoses. The other, while they use hoses and computers are really into cars. And a third who is super into computers while they have a hose and a car, they just don’t find the same interest in these other two things as they do with their computer.
None of them like each other.
Guess why.
Cuz like Fine. Go be a ‘fanboy’ about your one thing but people aren’t just dumb because they aren’t as obsessed as you are about your one thing. And they aren’t the problem here when you feel you’ve expressed your obsession language to their ordinary language about it. Cuz They get it. You like the thing. They just aren’t wanting to go deep like you do about it. But it gets annoying and old real fast if you’re so obsessed you’re pushing it on them. Their time and energy is worthwhile too.
…hoses? Like the kind you use outside with a water spigot?
I definitely read “horses” until I got to the part where all three of them have “horses” even though only one of them was interested in them, and that’s when I realized my brain had added in the “r” because horse people obviously exist, but hose people?
Hose guy named Hosea
… I will fuck myself off
Yup. Hose people exist. They usually refer to themselves as ‘gardeners’ though.
What exactly does this have to do with Autism? I might be misinterpreting what you mean, but Autism isn’t just having an interest or talking about an interest in great detail, and this Twitter post is DEFINITELY not about that situation. The way you say this definitely makes me think you’re seeing “Autism” as “hyperfixation with an object” since the OP didn’t even mention anything you just said…