Reasons Aspies don't join/leave WP?

Post Reply New Topic

Ever hit your thumb with a hammer? Stubbed your toe really hard? Stepped on a rake? Did you, perhaps, feel the need to shout some obscenities, possibly about the item that caused you the pain? Would you jump down the throat of the person cursing at a rake because the language offended you, or they were generalizing about rakes, or point out that it was probably their own fault given their obvious disdain for rakes? Strained comparison, I know, but the basic idea is there, that venting pain, whether physical or emotional, is not a rational thing, and certainly not something worthy of getting all judgmental about. Nowhere have I argued that someone should have a license to abuse other people because of a bad experience, but rather that shouting at the sky type rants should be examined in context, not taken at absolute face value.



But would it be right to condemn you as a racist? I, for one, consider it to be perfectly rational, if incorrect, to draw on personal experience to draw conclusions about groups, it's actually much harder to recognize that your personal experience is far too small a sample size to justify those assumptions, and I don't judge others who haven't gotten that far yet.

If you think about it, it's pretty contradictory, as in nearly every other area people are expected to recognize patterns and are in fact derided for failing to (fool me once, etc), but if they notice a pattern with a race, sex, religion, etc and point it out, they are condemned as bigots. Paradoxically, this often causes the person to double down on the prejudice, as they're now experiencing a certain nobility of persecution, and get to feel like they know better than other people at the same time. In my experience, the only real way to get around these types of beliefs is showing an not telling, e.g. the homophobic who's best friend comes out, or the racist who gets a black grandchild.

Also, a lot of people are way too quick with the accusations of bigotry, especially where language is concerned. How people talk is so much a product of where and when they're from that it's incredibly dangerous to draw too many conclusions from their choice of words alone.



Note: the loaded language does not help you here, it just makes you look manipulative.



Did I say either one was acceptable or unacceptable? I happen to think that they're both real problems, and that both of them are on the verge of overuse, like terrorist or socialist. Do you take someone seriously who accuses others of supporting the terrorists or being a socialist? That's where racist and sexist are going if they keep getting used indiscriminately.



Which is the whole point of my initial post, L&D is unusable in it's current form, something has to change in order for it to function. Got any ideas? All I'm getting for my trouble here is strawmen and insinuations.

What's your point? Of course people's opinions are going to be inflammatory, cause other people are going to disagree with them, that's why they're opinions; I'm not seeing the problem here. Also, what is "the guise of discussion"? You seem to be implying that it's not really "discussion", but something else masquerading as such. Pseudo-discussion, perhaps?



I don't actually see much of that, excepting the occasional ignorant comment, but LFAs are hardly unique in that respect on WP, NTs probably have the most ignorant and inflammatory things said about them here of any group, period. The only time I personally really become aware of the difference is when I'm arguing with someone who seems notably out of their depth, and I have to consider whether I've encountered someone who's actually lower functioning than I am, or someone who's just not too bright (no nice way to say that). It's harder when the person in question is rude and unpleasant, I personally consider that a bit of a thumb on the scale, on the "not too bright" side. I suppose *that* particular scenario is less likely outside of PPR, where I spend the majority of my time.

What sort of comments are you objecting to in particular? It's hard for me to draw a conclusion without an example.

Well, see, if they're going there to say sexist things, they should be in PPR as you yourself suggested. So why go to Love & Dating when apparently they're going to trigger a debate?



I do not think that there is a lot of "someing seeing sexism lurking behind every innocuous post." However, I have seen a lot of guys insist that sexist statements, jokes, generalizations are somehow really innocuous, even though they are not.

The few times I've read Love & Dating, I've seen some rather vicious statements made about women as a group. These weren't innocuous.



So, if you say something that upsets another person the appropriate thing to do is to engage in debate over whether or not that person has the right to be upset? This creates excessive friction and inflames emotions further.

If you were familiar with my post history you would know that I tend to explain exactly why I perceive something as sexist (or any other kind of prejudice) when I point it out.



That wasn't a straw man, this is what you appear to be defending. And that was my answer, which was not deflecting. Using sexist language to refer to women is not exactly treating women kindly is it?



And apparently being sexist is being appropriate? That it is only the response to sexism that annoys you? Because that's what your argument here appears to be - that women shouldn't respond negatively to sexism.



On the contrary,



That is what you said. If you wanted to say something different, then perhaps you could have actually said something different. The above paragraph focuses almost exclusively on women calling out sexism. If there's some kind of hidden implication there intended to apply equal disdain for the use of sexist language, I don't see it. Your examples focus primarily on women calling out sexism, and you even phrase things to make it seem as if it's women calling out sexism that makes the men in question post even more sexist things.

Your exact words do not reflect what you say they reflect. If they did, I probably wouldn't have expressed this particular disagreement with what you wrote. Do you seriously think I have nothing better to do with my time than make things up to incorrectly attribute to people just to trigger a disagreement? I am not saying misreading is impossible here, but I can't find anything you wrote that would lead me to the conclusion you said that what you wrote should have led me to.



I have not attacked you. I disagree with you. I do not believe that simply tolerating sexist nonsense is any kind of solution.

Nothing you've said has indicated any level of support with the so-called feminist position. You've made it sound like men are being victimized by hordes of angry women, and making excuses for and rationalizing their sexism. That doesn't really sound like agreement.



No, I wouldn't be applauding that at all.

You're reading a lot more into my responses than is there, if you think I am attacking you, or if you think I would actually applaud and support such a mass expulsion. You are correct that being sexist doesn't mean that someone should be deprived of support, but I also do not think that other people should be effectively deprived of support because prejudicial comments against them are tolerated. Following your suggestion would make Love & Dating a haven for guys to talk about how terrible they think women are.

Last edited by Verdandi on 03 Jun 2013, 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

I've seen the particular kind of comment cyberdad refers to on numerous occasions. People in Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation especially like to tokenize low-functioning autistics by making claims about their capacity for cognition and communication that also happens to conveniently align with their desire to speak over, speak for, or speak over them. This most often comes up in cure threads.

The moment the word 'strawman' comes up, anyone who wants intelligent debate should run like f-k because you are now in the territory of a person who just wants you to be wrong, wrong , WRONG! (did I tell you you were wrong btw?)

Although the idea of a Men's forum isn't a bad idea seeing as there's already a Women's one - perhaps that's what's needed?
Then aggrieved men could offload about stuff on there and L&D would be more neutral

Rakes aren't groups of people.



Yes, they should, especially when you post your opinion in a public forum where words are your primary source of communication.

If you have a problem with your opinions being "judged" as written, don't post them in a public forum.



Yes.



I do.



No, it isn't, especially on a public forum where words are your primary source of communication.

If you have a problem with your opinions being "judged" as written, don't post them in a public forum.



Don't care.



Didn't say you did.



Except when someone is actually spouting racist or sexism drivel.

When you make negative generalizations about entire groups of people, that is racism/sexism. Full stop.



Create a "Controversial Topics" sub-forum where sexists douchbags can whimper about how terrible their lives are, sans moderator interference, and can leave the rest of the forum in peace.

Well I can think of two people who have (namely Alex, and in one manipulative way or another Tamborine Man) but that wasn't what I was saying.

I was saying it in a sense that WP has morphed their opinions and attitudes. WP (and in particular L & D) changes people's attitudes for the worst. They stay here so they can relate to the others who have also changed for the worst. Lurking guests see this toxicity and feel disinclined to join as a result.

I wouldn't recommend any AS friends of mine to join WP in a million years, in case I 'lose' them to here.

I know some aspies who don't go here. Their reasons (and remember that these are the reasons they give, these are not MY vies, if they were, I wouldn't come here, so please don't kill the messenger) :

- people here are too hostile

- people here are too negative to nts

- some people feel uncomfortable talking about the cure they want



Personally I post on and off. Sometimes I feel there are a lot of similar topics coming up and then I tend to leave for a while but I always come back. I like how there is always something new here. Most sites have both regulars and noobs coming and going.

[Moved from General Autism Discussion to WrongPlanet.net discussion]

I joined here thinking it would be a cool place to discuss stuff autism related, and while it may be a good site to do so, I just felt lost as soon as I joined up. I really didn't know where to go... I felt alone, really.

Also, I shortly realized it's something I don't feel comfortable talking about as much as I would like I cringe with every word I type about it. Hopefully this changes, but still, I felt lost.

Keltron, it's unfortunate that you feel alone here on WP. In your second paragraph, you indicate that you "don't feel comfortable talking about as much as (you) would like", do you mean talking about AS, or any issue you might have with WP?

Feel free to PM me if you'd prefer.

Do you even know what a strawman is? I ask because I've never actually seen you debate, you just snipe from the sidelines without actually adding anything, behavior that I believe you've even been warned about.

I happen to dislike people lying about my posts, which is what a strawman amounts to, a lie about me, which ironically enough is exactly the sort of thing someone who wants to "win" at any cost would do. Since I don't have an ex to sic on people, I call them out on things like lying, it's how actual debate is usually conducted.

So? My point was about context, which as can be seen below, doesn't seem all that important to you. You also don't seem to have any problem making insulting generalizations yourself, so long as they're about people you think deserve them.



Okay, you're uncritically judgmental, gotcha.



I have no problem with my opinions being judged, what I'm trying to point out is that the manor in which it's being gone about in L&D is not working, and I think the call out culture is a contributing factor.



Got the uncritically judgmental part.



See above.



See above.



Did you forget that you already wrote this? See above.



Of course you don't.



Maybe, maybe not, again, you don't get to just call bigotry and drop the mike, it's not that simple. Maybe you think it is, but it isn't. Especially on a forum specifically for people with a communications disorder, your views go from misguided to downright destructive in light of that fact.



Yes, they're all just sexist douchebags... See above.

WP is the only autism discussion place (out of other forums, blog sites, social media) that I find good for me. It has a mix of people talking from different perspectives instead of some other places where people all have the same views that are enforced.

This is more of an excuse than an explanation. I've seen autistic people all over the spectrum online and what I have seen are people who do try not to be (among other things) sexist, regardless of their level of impairment. I have also seen people who do not seem to care that they are saying or doing sexist things, regardless of their level of impairment.

I do get in trouble because I happen to have that communication impairment as well. But I am also capable of taking responsibility for what I say and not trying to exacerbate the situation by arguing whether people have a right to find what I said upsetting or not.

So, no, I personally do not accept "they have a communication disorder" as an explanation as to why they're saying or doing sexist things. They could choose to listen and stop saying or doing those sexist things instead of digging their heels in and saying or doing more sexist things. That behavior is virtually identical to NT men in the same situation.

Again, what you consider sexist and what I consider sexist are going to be radically different things, and since we're talking about a subjective concept here with no way of "proving" who is right, it's hardly that simple.



I see things differently, as do a lot of other people judging from the constant conflict down there. If someone believes what they said to be innocuous, who are you to say otherwise? Further, has the current method being particularly effective at changing things, or has it merely served to widen the divide?



Oh, anyone has the right to be upset at anything they want to, I've never said otherwise. What I have said is that the accusatory hair trigger labeling on display in L&D is not working as intended, and that perhaps a more nuanced response would be more effective. If I make some off the cuff remark that someone takes the wrong way, and they then level all sorts of wild accusations at me, my response is not going to be "oh, my mistake", it's going to be something a bit more aggressive, and I'm a pretty reasonable guy. If I'd been approached in a more polite manner, I'd be much more likely to respond in kind, and I believe most people are pretty similar in that regard.



Good for you. Unfortunately, that's not usually what I see down there, more like open trolling of "MRAs" and personal attacks on people because someone doesn't like their opinion or was offended by a rant.



You implied that I wanted to see more sexism against women, which I most definitely do not and have not said anything to the effect of. That is in fact a strawman, misstating my position and then knocking down the false construct.
The idea you seem to be having trouble with is that my notion of what constitutes sexism is different than yours, and that you can't objectively claim that your classification is any more true than mine. Unlike you, I don't have a dog in this particular fight.

Also, the treatment of "MRAs" down there isn't exactly a shining beacon of civility, now is it?



Again with the strawman, as I never said that sexism is appropriate. I think your (and many other peoples') conception of "sexism" is overly broad and uncritically applied, but that the unambiguous stuff in most certainly not appropriate, and I have stated ad nauseum that it should be reported.



I was asked why I thought L&D had gotten so nasty, and I answered honestly. That you didn't like my answer is kinda beside the point.

Further, my opinion is just that, my opinion, in this case based on what I've seen when I've gone into L&D over a multi year period. I'm under no obligation to register disdain for "sexist" language, the only language I personally disdain is the misleading and manipulative sort, and as I've stated, I think many of the claims of sexism are overblown or reaching. Again, my opinion.

Also, the way in which people are interacted with does affect the way that they respond; if it's clear that certain language pisses you off and you make someone mad at you, what do you think they're going to counter attack with? You did just show them exactly what to use, after all.



I don't know or particularly care how much time you have on your hands or you choose to spend it, the fact remains that you've gone out of your way to draw the worst implications from what I've said and read meaning far beyond what was actually written into my words. I can draw my own conclusions from that.



When you falsely attribute a desire to see more sexism in the forum to me among other insinuations, that goes beyond a disagreement and becomes an attack. And I reiterate, you do no have the last word on what constitutes sexism, no matter how many times you and your ilk make the claim.



Is this actually a thread about feminism? I was talking about the L&D forum, feminism is merely tangentially related; if I wanted to discuss the subject on it's own I would do so in PPR, which is the appropriate forum. While I agree with many of the goals of feminism, I also have serious reservations about many of the methods employed, as we're seeing here, and certainly have disagreements with the philosophy as well. I particularly have a problem with the tendency of so many feminists to alienate potential allies by demanding absolute purity of ideology and making mountains out of petty grievances, not a good way to spread your message in a positive fashion.



Do you think that not letting guys *talk* about how terrible they think women are changes how they *feel* about women? Which do you think is more important, what they say or what they think? More importantly, do you think that the current approach is in any way working to change how people think? Or do you think it's reinforcing these thought patterns, as rejection is followed by persecution? In other words, do you want to be right, or do you want to get what you claim to want?