Jun 14, 2026, 1:40 AMNative English speakers (and I would say: especially people from US) don't seem to understand how much emotional work international conversation is.
They just see that someone is failing to talk in the same way you do, but don't have the tools/skills to contextualise does this failure stem from poor registry, poor understanding of local cultural conventions, difference in perspective, etc. At worst the failure is then seen as insult.
½
Jun 14, 2026, 1:45 AM2/2
And the worst thing is that doing one-sided emotional work leaves you open for trauma.
I've had some extremely unimportant conversations that still hurt emotionally. Trying to reach someone (to understand their needs, perspective, etc) is a leap of faith: it leaves you open to be hurt, if it isn't respected.
Such experiences of being hurt have almost as a rule been with US people.
@iju @hongminhee let's not dilute the meaning of "trauma", shall we? There are better words, like "distress". (Sorry but this is a strong pet-peeve of mine, being a psychologist and all...)
Jun 14, 2026, 6:51 AMChecked the definition from an "official" source. I will, respectfully, stay with what I said.
@iju @hongminhee that's not a good answer in so many ways. But whatever.
Jun 14, 2026, 7:45 AMPerhaps "up to traumatic"? I'm not claiming every conversation I've had felt like an existential threat.
The most recent I'd describe as such was about a year ago. It lasted well over three hours, starting from me saying that free movement at EU in context of social security is regulated, based on several court cases I cited.
It ended with them going through my message history and challenging my political views as fascist. And like a chump I tried to argue against.