Unfortunately, the consequence in this case seems to be problematic arguing. Because I exaggerate all the time, I'm very comfortable with my own mode of speech, and it doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother (subconsciously) other people. I'm using it to make a point, and I see nothing wrong with that. But people who are irritated (for lack of a better word. I just wouldn't understand if someone were really pissed off by exaggerating. Again, it's harmless?) can't see the point I'm trying to make for the exaggeration, and, much like Phoenix Wright games, latch on to the contradiction with a bit of "Objection!" and a bit of "Take That!" and the argument quickly de-rails from the initial point to, 'everything you're saying is inaccurate so why should I listen to you'. Infuriating.
If the only way to avoid this path is to not exaggerate during an argument, I guess I can do that. To ask me to stop exaggerating entirely, just so YOU can retain the ability to pay attention would be asking too much, though. So I refuse to acknowledge this as a solution to the other concern of people ignoring me in general. I would rather make use of a bullwhip, because this is not my problem.
And that shall bring me to my other point of the day. Sorry if it is all so preachy today, but I gotta get this one out.
You know how nobody, ever (especially men, as that is how a man is raised in society) is able to take blame for anything? And don't think "everyone but me," because that is the exact kind of not-taking-blame that I'm talking about right here. Well, this is going to be about semantics, so bear with me.
Let me present you with a situation, exaggerated (of course) for emphasis. You go to handshake one of your friends, and instead, your friend sucker punches you in the stomach. Doubled over in agony on the ground, you manage a 'WTF!' to which he replies: 'Oh. I didn't mean to hit you.' And then he proceeds as if he's done no wrong. 'But you did,' you say. 'You did hit me, right there.' And he gets irritated. 'But I didn't mean to,' he repeats, as if maybe you didn't hear him the first time, because it's a faultless, iron-clad statement of his innocence int he matter. He clearly doesn't feel that he needs to take any blame, here, and is pretty offended that you're making such a scene out of it.
Now I'm not saying that the next time someone complains to you about something you're doing, or accuses you of ill-treatment, you have to get down on your knees and beg forgiveness, and for God's sake, please don't apologize insincerely instead and think that will work, because that may be even worse, but come on. Think about this from the other side. At least make an effort to understand what's going on instead of outright dismissal and defense against taking blame - you might, in fact, be to blame for something or need to do something different.
This will be hard. You won't see yourself doing it. You'll insist that you're not to blame for anything, and you'll probably suggest that the person doing the accusing is crazy, or is 'blowing things out of proportion' or something similar. But try to watch for this, specifically: someone is saying to you that you insulted them, hurt their feelings, punched them in the gut, and you're about to say, "I didn't mean to" and thus clear yourself of all blame. Stop right there, and ask yourself if you 'not meaning to' actually makes everything okay. Because in the example above, it does not, and most of the time, not meaning to doesn't mean the other person has no legitimate complaint. Just like in crime shows, you can't use "I didn't mean to kill that guy" as a defense case. 'That guy' is still dead. Sometimes it's the last words you hear on CSI or Law and Order before someone is taken away in cuffs.
And I'll work on not letting that get to me. Because yes, it is mostly semantics. But other people's semantics really get to me, sometimes.
