|
nemorosa
Ranunculaceae
Joined: Aug 06, 2010
Posts: 1121
Location: Amongst the leaves.
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| nessa238 wrote: |
You thought someone was attracted to you. I was saying that if a person finds another one sufficiently attractive they often act on it ie you have sex. To say you think a person finds you attractive is no proof at all - having sex is the conclusive proof of the matter in my opinion. |
Well, indeed. That would be conclusive proof. Sadly fate works against us sometimes.
The whole point was to provide and example of how hopelessly inadequate to the task autistic males were when deciphering the messages. I laugh at myself for getting it so wrong for more than 20 years before the penny dropped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
nessa238
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 02, 2011
Age: 47
Posts: 3908
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nemorosa wrote: | | nessa238 wrote: |
You thought someone was attracted to you. I was saying that if a person finds another one sufficiently attractive they often act on it ie you have sex. To say you think a person finds you attractive is no proof at all - having sex is the conclusive proof of the matter in my opinion. |
Well, indeed. That would be conclusive proof. Sadly fate works against us sometimes.
The whole point was to provide and example of how hopelessly inadequate to the task autistic males were when deciphering the messages. I laugh at myself for getting it so wrong for more than 20 years before the penny dropped. |
I can understand as it's the men who are usually meant to make the move so it is different for women in that respect.
On the other hand I get the impression a lot of men will ahve sex with a woman they don't fancy - I mean what's the cut-off point before a man says no?? Although I would have thought they couldn't get a 'you know what' without fancying the person - is that right? I find what males like and dont like very confusing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 6403
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just read an article from today at Salon.com about Samantha Brick, in which the author, Mary E Williams, quotes, and agrees with, a comment in Jezebel magazine suggesting that the person who was really set-up here was Samantha, and that the Daily Mail knew what would happen.
This sounds like more evidence for my theory that Samantha is on the autism spectrum; naivety! She wrote and posted her article in good faith. It was the newspaper that knew it would attract the mobs.  ...
In fact both the article at Salon and the piece it refers to at Jezebel call it "bullying".
| Salon wrote: | | In Jezebel, Lindy West astutely called the Daily Mail’s decision to publish Brick’s piece “a master stroke of carefully orchestrated misogyny” that “feels uncomfortably close to bullying.” |
Here is the Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/samantha_bricks_pretty_ugly_week/singleton/
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
nemorosa
Ranunculaceae
Joined: Aug 06, 2010
Posts: 1121
Location: Amongst the leaves.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nessa238 wrote: | | nemorosa wrote: | | nessa238 wrote: |
You thought someone was attracted to you. I was saying that if a person finds another one sufficiently attractive they often act on it ie you have sex. To say you think a person finds you attractive is no proof at all - having sex is the conclusive proof of the matter in my opinion. |
Well, indeed. That would be conclusive proof. Sadly fate works against us sometimes.
The whole point was to provide and example of how hopelessly inadequate to the task autistic males were when deciphering the messages. I laugh at myself for getting it so wrong for more than 20 years before the penny dropped. |
I can understand as it's the men who are usually meant to make the move so it is different for women in that respect.
On the other hand I get the impression a lot of men will ahve sex with a woman they don't fancy - I mean what's the cut-off point before a man says no?? Although I would have thought they couldn't get a 'you know what' without fancying the person - is that right? I find what males like and dont like very confusing. |
I'm afraid I'm the wrong person to ask about men. I find my own sex strange and can't relate to them on many levels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Acedia
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Feb 27, 2012
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, not at all. I don't think she is on the spectrum. She just comes across as typically English to me - like an average middle-class woman of her age.
This whole furore around Samantha Brick's proclamations of her beauty, and other women's envy, just show how insane average people are. It's a non-story, no one should even care, yet in typical secondary-school-fashion people revert back into the sneering, melodramatic adolescents they are.
The tragedy of all of this is that no one has realized how poorly this reflects on all of us as a human species.
How truly imbecilic all of this hubbub is.
But self-reflection isn't the strong-point of many humans out there.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
nemorosa
Ranunculaceae
Joined: Aug 06, 2010
Posts: 1121
Location: Amongst the leaves.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ouinon wrote: | Just read an article from today at Salon.com about Samantha Brick, in which the author, Mary E Williams, quotes, and agrees with, a comment in Jezebel magazine suggesting that the person who was really set-up here was Samantha, and that the Daily Mail knew what would happen.
This sounds like more evidence for my theory that Samantha is on the autism spectrum; naivety! She wrote and posted her article in good faith. It was the newspaper that knew it would attract the mobs. ...
In fact both the article at Salon and the piece it refers to at Jezebel call it "bullying".
| Salon wrote: | | In Jezebel, Lindy West astutely called the Daily Mail’s decision to publish Brick’s piece “a master stroke of carefully orchestrated misogyny” that “feels uncomfortably close to bullying.” |
Here is the Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/samantha_bricks_pretty_ugly_week/singleton/
. |
The Mail only cares about a good headline. Of course they knew there would be a reaction though I don't doubt even they were surprised at how big the story became. They will not care about the people or the consequences though.
They will happily throw people to the wolves. How else did they become the worlds biggest online newspaper?
Having said all that it is pretty hard to "write an article in good faith" like hers and come out of it looking good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
League_Girl
Proud mamma
Joined: Feb 05, 2010
Posts: 13675
Location: My house
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ouinon wrote: | Just read an article from today at Salon.com about Samantha Brick, in which the author, Mary E Williams, quotes, and agrees with, a comment in Jezebel magazine suggesting that the person who was really set-up here was Samantha, and that the Daily Mail knew what would happen.
This sounds like more evidence for my theory that Samantha is on the autism spectrum; naivety! She wrote and posted her article in good faith. It was the newspaper that knew it would attract the mobs. ...
In fact both the article at Salon and the piece it refers to at Jezebel call it "bullying".
| Salon wrote: | | In Jezebel, Lindy West astutely called the Daily Mail’s decision to publish Brick’s piece “a master stroke of carefully orchestrated misogyny” that “feels uncomfortably close to bullying.” |
Here is the Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/samantha_bricks_pretty_ugly_week/singleton/
. |
Another example of "bully" being misused. I don't think she bullied anyone with that article.
But I still feel sorry for her. I saw nothing wrong with her article, I saw no indication of arrogance. All I wondered is if I am so pretty, then why don't I get the same treatment she gets? Am I just average looking and were men being "nice" when they say I am pretty? Maybe that is why women got so upset? Because it made them feel average looking than pretty so they took it the wrong way?
Also from reading the comments at Babycenter about this and reading some comments to the article, people were saying it could be her attitude or how she acts about her beauty because they mentioned they are pretty too or know people who are and they don't get treated the way she does. Plus some don't think she is that pretty and some say they know people who are prettier than her and don't get treated that way.
But at least some of the commenters noticed she may have something going on with her because they said she needed professional help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Rasta is about freedom and the living God
![]()
Joined: Jun 19, 2008
Posts: 7998
Location: Babylon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't feel sorry for her at all. This is just a clever way to stir people up and get a reaction. That is what Daily Mail is all about. For one thing, I don't believe women hated her. She's too sweet to garner that reaction. The ones I feel sorry for are the people who responded negatively and let their emotions get the better of them. That's just what Daily expected and wanted. Now they can pit woman against woman and say "see! told ya!" It's crap journalism.
_________________
JUST LET THE GUY BE FROM K PAX!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
tweety_fan
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 03, 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 3577
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote: | | I don't feel sorry for her at all. This is just a clever way to stir people up and get a reaction. That is what Daily Mail is all about. For one thing, I don't believe women hated her. She's too sweet to garner that reaction. The ones I feel sorry for are the people who responded negatively and let their emotions get the better of them. That's just what Daily expected and wanted. Now they can pit woman against woman and say "see! told ya!" It's crap journalism. |
I hate that kind of journalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Rasta is about freedom and the living God
![]()
Joined: Jun 19, 2008
Posts: 7998
Location: Babylon
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tweety_fan wrote: | | ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote: | | I don't feel sorry for her at all. This is just a clever way to stir people up and get a reaction. That is what Daily Mail is all about. For one thing, I don't believe women hated her. She's too sweet to garner that reaction. The ones I feel sorry for are the people who responded negatively and let their emotions get the better of them. That's just what Daily expected and wanted. Now they can pit woman against woman and say "see! told ya!" It's crap journalism. |
I hate that kind of journalism. |
I don't like it either.
_________________
JUST LET THE GUY BE FROM K PAX!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
League_Girl
Proud mamma
Joined: Feb 05, 2010
Posts: 13675
Location: My house
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote: | | I don't feel sorry for her at all. This is just a clever way to stir people up and get a reaction. That is what Daily Mail is all about. For one thing, I don't believe women hated her. She's too sweet to garner that reaction. The ones I feel sorry for are the people who responded negatively and let their emotions get the better of them. That's just what Daily expected and wanted. Now they can pit woman against woman and say "see! told ya!" It's crap journalism. |
So she actually wrote it to make people mad and get a reaction out of them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 6403
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| League_Girl wrote: | | ouinon wrote: | Just read an article from today at Salon.com about Samantha Brick, in which the author, Mary E Williams, quotes, and agrees with, a comment in Jezebel magazine suggesting that the person who was really set-up here was Samantha, and that the Daily Mail knew what would happen.
This sounds like more evidence for my theory that Samantha is on the autism spectrum; naivety! She wrote and posted her article in good faith. It was the newspaper that knew it would attract the mobs. ...
In fact both the article at Salon and the piece it refers to at Jezebel call it "bullying".
| Salon wrote: | | In Jezebel, Lindy West astutely called the Daily Mail’s decision to publish Brick’s piece “a master stroke of carefully orchestrated misogyny” that “feels uncomfortably close to bullying.” |
Here is the Salon article: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/samantha_bricks_pretty_ugly_week/singleton/
. |
Another example of "bully" being misused. I don't think she bullied anyone with that article. |
I obviously didn't put that very clearly. Both Salon.com and the Jezebel article it refers to are not accusing Samantha of bullying; they are accusing the Daily Mail of doing so. They appear to think, and I agree with them, that the Daily Mail set Samantha up, it threw her to the wolves, it used her as bait, it knew that she would get lots of online abuse, they wanted a willing, and naive victim for some spectacular online bullying, in which she got savaged by thousands.
And my belief is that only the most naive, perhaps aspie/autie, person would have allowed themselves to be set up this way. I think that Samantha may have believed that the Daily Mail were seriously interested in her "theories".
| ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote: | | I don't feel sorry for her at all. This is just a clever way to stir people up and get a reaction. That is what Daily Mail is all about. For one thing, I don't believe women hated her. She's too sweet to garner that reaction. |
Either she is genuinely sweet, and therefore not just stirring people up to get a reaction, or she is not sweet at all, and is stirring people up to get a reaction! You can't have her being genuinely sweet and also stirring people up. :lol ...
So ... if she is genuinely sweet then she is telling the truth about women disliking her and which case the question is WHY? I am suggesting that it is because she is on the autism spectrum, doesn't know how to small talk, seems snooty/snobby/superior when timed out/spacing-out in social situation, is inadvertently acting out girly-seduction behaviour with men in general which puts women's backs up, etc etc etc.
This is precisely why I think that it is relevant to discuss whether or not she is on the spectrum; so many autist women so often experience exactly this sort of reaction, in which our motivations seem suspect, in which our behaviour, perfectly innocent, none the less elicits anger/resentment/hostility, etc. Because we seem so relatively normal, so apparently socially skilful, so ostensibly "able" to attract/seduce etc, the fact that very often/most of the time we are actually only just managing to stay afloat with our limited reportoire of mimicry/roleplay, and that it is not always the most adapted or appropriate or that it exhausts us so that we suddenly look stern/severe or bored as our social skills evaporate, and this seriously jars, making us look like liars, fakes, etc or as if we were only patronising/condescending.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ouinon
chemical reaction
Joined: Jul 11, 2007
Posts: 6403
Location: Europe
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Acedia wrote: | | No, not at all. I don't think she is on the spectrum. She just comes across as typically English to me - like an average middle-class woman of her age. |
It's a very good copy of a stereotype, ( though I think she has overdone it somewhat, to the point of pastiche :lol Did you see the pictures in the articles, the clothes she wears, etc? ) ...
But did you notice in the video, ( whether with the sound off or on ), how she stares off into the distance at regular intervals and her whole face goes slack with the effort of following the social interactions, and thinking about her argument at the same time? Do you see this sort of "time out" in most women when they talk?
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
League_Girl
Proud mamma
Joined: Feb 05, 2010
Posts: 13675
Location: My house
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So ... if she is genuinely sweet then she is telling the truth about women disliking her and which case the question is WHY? I am suggesting that it is because she is on the autism spectrum, doesn't know how to small talk, seems snooty/snobby/superior when timed out/spacing-out in social situation, is inadvertently acting out girly-seduction behaviour with men in general which puts women's backs up, etc etc etc. |
She could truly think that is why she gets such treatment is because of her beauty but that may not be the case actually as people in the comments have said. She could come off as arrogant or put people off with how she acts and she assumes it's her beauty but I don't know for sure. People are interpreting that as her thinking she is better than others and thinking less of other women just because she thinks they aren't pretty as her so thus the angry comments she is getting. Just an example of human stupidity I see online when someone writes something and people take it the wrong way or over react. |
|
| Back to top |
|
League_Girl
Proud mamma
Joined: Feb 05, 2010
Posts: 13675
Location: My house
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
