That'll Teach 'Em?

Post Reply New Topic

Not applying this to anyone in particular, but it's just funny how people can believe the same values, such as the example XFilesGeek just said, and apply it to other people, and they just will never, ever see that they're doing exactly the thing they accuse others of.

Well, I THINK I have a story that demonstrates what Dox is talking about----but, I couldn't SWEAR, to it.....

Years ago, I had a friend that said something to me, that I incorrectly perceived as a put-down. I, then, put HER down, and she called me on it. I told her that I put her down, because she had put ME, down. She apologized, and explained that she didn't intend it that way, at all----and, that the next time, instead of just ASSUMING that what someone said, was a put-down, I should ASK, FIRST. I nodded, told her she was right, and apologized.

The next time I saw her----because I'm fully aware that most people won't admit when they're wrong / someone else is right----I made a point of telling her again, that I was wrong and that I was really glad she had pointed it out to me, because I had learned a lesson. To THIS day, that event remains very poignant in my memory, and I try to always remember to ASK FIRST, if what someone said, was meant the way I took it.

I think it's extremely rare, though, that someone would admit that someone else had taught them a lesson----to the person who TAUGHT the lesson----but, that's exactly why I felt it important to put-on my "big girl pants", and do it!

And what does that teach us autistics, naturally blind to hierarchies and power dynamics? That it doesn’t matter much whether you do the same you accuse your opponent of or not. People already on your side won’t care and won’t acknowledge it; they will support you unconditionally. And people on your opponent’s side may call you out on it, but this doesn’t matter—they’re just showing their allegiance and would use any other justification, rationally sound or not, if you didn’t give them that one in particular. They will support your opponent unconditionally after all.

The rational exchange of ideas is an extremely rare phenomenon, and you won’t find it when people have a vested interest in supporting one side no matter what. Anyone who compromises their allegiance, reason be damned, will be judged as a traitor and a coward and thrown out in wrath.

I think the rational exchange of ideas is quite common. What is not, and what may well be impossible, is the disinterested exchange of ideas.

I also thinks autists can be quick to see power dynamics and heirarchies, as they turn to analysis to work out what is going on in the everyday phenomenom of the gap between what is said and what is meant. I do think we have trouble intuitively navigating and using the dynamics as many NTs do, but I don't think we're doomed to be blind to them.

Dare I ask if you are questioning your own past behavior in this group? And no, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or vindictive. Rather, I'm just wondering if we can expect a kinder, gentler Dox.

I've never seen anything wrong with Dox's behavior----past or present.

I try to hold up a mirror to Trump's cult, mostly to no avail, by simply responding to a "muslms r evl!1" or some variation with a picture of, obviously, their hero making a thumbs-up near a... oh, a muslim, who knew. Highlighting hypocrisy is essential, although a cult of personality is automatically in favour of all positives, but filters out all negatives, it seems.

I can't come up with an example to show, but I've definitely seen people talk of it. Such as a bully who got bullied and stopped bullying. It can work, but only now and then I think.

I think it works best for teaching you you were doing wrong if you didn't think you were, and if you knew it was wrong, but didn't think it was as wrong as it was, and how wrong it actually was is beyond what your conscience will allow you to do. Like the bully example, it's because they didn't realise what it was like to be on the receiving end and they weren't comfortable with inflicting that.

So really, one answer is that in order to convince someone to your POV, you have to be higher up in the social heirarchy. I've noticed *a lot* with the popular members here, is that they big themselves up a bit - brag about themselves. Others naturally follow. Still, not everyone follows...I wonder if it's because some autistics see past that. I think I do.

Same thing when one reads a newspaper, it's an authority. Act like you know what you're talking about, and lots of people are more likely to listen to you. It's a really sucky way to convince people though, just manipulating them rather than convincing them through reason to your ideas. Or is the latter that much less a way of manipulation? Since they're both trying to change a person's mind at the end of the day.

I seriously doubt many people even see bullying as wrong per se. It’s only considered wrong if you cross some lines, like targetting someone too young or too old, or a woman if you’re a man. Otherwise, it’s the target’s responsibility to defend themself, and, if they fail to do so effectively, they have noöne but themself to blame, for not being tougher.

Dox and I have not had the best of relationships in the past, though I would be ecstatic if that were to change.

Perhaps you would need a mediator, and *you* would have to be very open to the "agree to disagree" idea. Starting out with expecting all the change from Dox, i.e. that you think he is in the wrong...isn't normally the way to start building bridges, if that's what you really want.

I never had any problem with Dox disagreeing with me; rather it was about the insults thrown my way - - and yes, I concede, I was more than happy to answer in kind. Looking back at our past conflicts, a great deal of it revolved around a certain member Dox had befriended, but who was largely despised - and with good reason - by most of us on WP. The member in question was an instigator who enjoyed chaos and bullying. This particular member has been AWOL for some time, and I suspect he might have been tossed out by the mods, and with his exit, I hope things can be better between Dox and me.

Sort of. I constantly struggle with myself over what I know intellectually is persuasive or constructive vs what is emotionally satisfying to me, and smacking down someone who's annoying me is very satisfying. In the past, I might have thought that a hard enough smack might have a deterrent effect, as most people want to avoid being publicly humiliated, but I haven't seen much evidence that it actually works that way.
The closest I come to the mirroring technique I mentioned in the OP is trying to bait someone into complaining about something they do themselves, e.g. feminists who pigeonhole men's rights activists but get livid when they're broad brushed, but even then I'm not usually going for the 'see what it feels like?' so much as the exposure of hypocrisy generally. Even that I'm trying to get away from, as I'm not sure it accomplishes what I want it to.

I think this may be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.