Aspergers Bringing Out The Worst In People

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's more disrespectful to tell me what words I can and cannot use with absolutely no logical explanation for it. I can say, "It's a portrait of two people having sex" and not offend someone as if I said, "It's a portrait of two people f-ing." The best example to portray the stupidity of calling a word bad is the radio edits out the following , "and I'll skeet skeet mother f-er" with "and I'll skeet skeet skeet skeet skeet skeet." FYI, skeeting means to ejaculate, to come. I just don't understand why I can't say certain words, but it's okay to use their synonyms. It's stupid. It's more disrespectful to judge me based on the language i use than for me to use language in the first place. It's disrespectful to judge people at all IMO. But tell me why cuss words are bad? Do I break my mother's back when I use the word? Am I insinuating damnation like judging people does?

So basically, I disagree with a lot of people about what is respectful to me vs to what is respectful to them. So I compromise.

But my point isn't to judge me because I will say the f-word in front of grown ups, but that people base a lot of their morals off society, norms, and law... and all those things are based upon tradition and belief as opposed to logic and instinct. So you can't tell me that someone is wrong for only feeling shame because they got caught because to me that's the same as just saying the f-word is bad because everyone else says so.




It's actually a common misconception to see extroverts as social people and introverts as loners. Introverts can be very social people, and extroverts can be loners. I can't link you to anything on that because I got my information from people who specialize in the Myers Briggs testing.



Well, the school's mascot isn't a fish. It's a devil. Red, horns, tail, fork. I was not aware that there are high schools with teams called "angels," or that they were allowed to do that. As much as I am a fan of angels, I don't see angels and devils existing without religion.

Maybe they are allowing more prayer in the schools now, but when I was a kid, there were times we were told to refrain from "prayer" for that reason. Also, I've never seen a school in the US study the BIble as literature until college. I wish there was a place for that because I was always interested in the Bible as a piece of history and literature as opposed to someone's definition of faith. That's what I want my children to learn as well as what they are told in church. Doesn't matter because I will be the one teaching my children a lot of things they need to learn that the school neglects (like budgeting, shopping within a budget, self defense, rape prevention, cooking, cleaning, taking care of babies, etc.).

Either way, I guess I can't say I totally disagree with the separation of church and state because what you tell me it is will be different than what the next guy will tell me what it is, so I'm starting to think it's not a universal term anymore but changes at people's convenience. So, I'm going to play it safe and say, I don't think any school should tell kids how to worship, nor should they tell kids that they cannot worship on school grounds.




I did not ever say they wanted this to be a Christian country. I did say that I think it's unfair to someone like Noah Webster to use his methods without giving any thought to his opinions. I also did state that they found this country under God. Whether I was wrong or not about specific dates doesn't disprove my point. God played a major role in the history of this country. You can't study this country's history without running into God, Christianity, Christian morals, manifest destiny, puritans, burning of witches at the stake, etc.

Other than that, I was also saying (what you just agreed with), that many laws were inspired by Christian belief or better said, Christian morals. That was my original point, and you obviously agree with it.




I wasn't talking about being a martyr. I was talking about a test of faith and a test of morality. It's easier to be moral when you have nothing to lose than when you have everything to lose. How do you know if the person who was punished for their kindness didn't do it for a different type of reward, like let's say, heaven? I never said you should reward morality, but I'm saying to see a man's true character, give him riches and power and you'll see what type of man he truly is. Even if you did reward morality with riches and power,the person will more likely lose morality even when rewarded for it than if they are punished.

Hmm.. I didn't actually know that definition of skeet.. I'm thinking maybe that should be censored as well.
I'll grant you that there are other words as derogatory in meaning and intent as the f-word. But to say "having sex" is more technical and factual, and less vulgar. It's disrespectful to use a word with vulgar connotations when there is another word available that is just as descriptive without having those other layers of meaning.


Well, what if someone tells you that the f-word makes them uncomfortable? Are they not perfectly within their rights to ask you to respect them by not unnecessarally using terminology that they find offensive?



I'll have to read up a bit more on the traits, I suppose, but I've never before heard anyone say that extroversion means that someone's values come purely from outside them. If you've got no information on it, I can't really even begin to consider a statement that unnamed specialists, whose credentials I don't know, said something at some point.


A cartoonish devil isn't exactly typical of Satan. Nobody looking at a red devil with horns and a pitchfork is going to be converted to Satanism, no belief in anything is being pushed on anybody by having a team called the "Red Devils" any more than the Blue Angels are religious. The mascot is some kid in one of those huge, hot, heavy costumes, it's not Satan. The term "devils" can be used in popular culture to mean pretty much anything mischievous, just like the term angel can be used to refer to anything good; it doesn't have to have religious meaning.



That has since been turned over in court, I guess, because separation of Church and State means that the government can't regulate religion.


And since they don't, it's irrelevant.


You made a comment about the foundation of this country, and you based it on the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance. To talk about how something was founded means talking about the beginning. If something is founded, and then something else is added almost 200 years later, that something that was added cannot possibly be considered to be part of how it was founded. I'm not talking about specific dates, I'm talking about centuries, I'm talking about the majority of the time that this country has been a country. If it was added a few years later, yes, I'd be talking about specific dates. The fact that the "under God" bit was added in 1954 is not about details, it's about the entire premise of your argument that America was founded on a religious basis.


You talked about "the gov't wanting to turn it's back on God."


That could go either way, depending on the person, and the need. Somebody who is struggling to survive frequently doesn't have room for morals. This gets into things like stealing to feed one's family, which I just can't really comment on, I'm not exactly sure how that falls morally, or to what extent.

So here's the $64K question... could an NT imagine it? is it a theory of mind issue, or is it a mind like that too foriegn for anybody with a conscience to really understand?


Isn't that sorta the opposite of what you said before? Loving yourself even though you don't like yourself so that you can then improve? Like how you can love your parents even if you don't like them..


That may depend on the intensity of the self-hatred.


But then anybody who doesn't want the innocent person to be punished for the crime while the actual perpetrator gets away, is then villainized as not caring about the victim.

I don't think they can, alot of NTs seemed to be baffled by the idea of a person without a conscience as well.



I don't really know, maybe it is, that would be the love/hate connection wouldn't it?



Loving someone but not liking them is a strange concept to me, I can love a person but not like certain things about them or what they do without hating them. But maybe you're correct, could you explain the concept in-depth?



True but the variables of free-will (consciense effort) and desire are there as well and the intensity of those variables.



Sometimes the just are villianized and we just have to deal with it, take Batman or Spiderman for example, they're villianized from time to time by the press in their respective comics despite being heroes. I believe you mentioned before about doing the right thing despite reward or punishment.

It's usually a family thing. You love your parents or your children (sometimes siblings, I think it depends on the siblings..) You care about them, you want what's best for them, you'd have a grudge against anybody who hurt them.. but you may not be able to stand them, may clash with them, may only be on speaking terms with them when you're living in different states. Emotionally, they're your family, and you love them. When it comes to interacting with them, if you see too much of them, you're ready to kill yourself or them or both.

Brings back the question about how much of theory of mind is actually figuring someone else out, and how much of it is people simply assuming that other people are like them. What is it that people without consciences actually think about people who do have them? I guess they don't think much about it at all, they just don't care. But in that case, don't they have even less theory of mind? But usually they're able to manipulate other people's minds, so there must be some understanding.


Lol.. I don't know..


Right.. but part of the desire is canceled out by the belief that it's just not possible. If someone believes that they're just bad, and can't do anything about it, then how can they put together the strength to put that much effort into something that's impossible?


That's true.. But why do other decent people believe it? When someone who seems like a bad person advocates injustice, it makes sense. There are plenty of good people who end up effectively working against justice too, though.
Makes you wonder more about Judas, too, I guess. The why, what he knew, what he thought..

If someone were to ask me to not use the word around them, I generally don't. However, once they disrespect me in any manner, all respect I ever had for them is gone and I will intentionally use the f-word just because they don't like it. Usually, I try to put a spin on it, like if I can I'd rather blast a rap song that says the word a lot. I'm just like that though. Like my old landlady that I didn't particularly like even though we sort of got along, she made a big deal about people who have a sink full of dishes. She claims there is no excuse for it, especially if you have a dishwasher. I sometimes let the dishes go until the kids are in bed because they always like to climb on the dishwasher, and she didn't that was any "excuse" to wait. So, on the next inspection, I had a sink full of Clean Dishes that I left intentionally for her.

The f-word is only considered vulgar because the majority says so. I don't believe social norms makes things right. I see how some people do though. All I'm saying is that if I have to respect someone's belief that the f-word is vulgar because other people told them so, then I have to respect people who feel shame as a result of other people. To say someone is a psychopath and lacks a conscience because they don't feel shame until they get caught is like saying someone is a psychopath who lacks a conscience for allowing society to rule their morals (such as considering the f-word vulgar).




First off, I never said that all extroverts will place their values from what's outside them. I said that people fall on a scale of both introversion and extroversion, and I can see how someone who is more extroverted could easily be more influenced by the outside when coming to their values. So you may never heard anyone before say that, and you still haven't heard anyone say that.

The way I understand it... Introverts gather strength from themselves whereas extroverts gather strength from others. You can like being alone and be an extrovert, and you can be a social butterfly and be introvert. The I is about discovering the inner self whereas the E is about discovering the world around them. Keep in mind it's a scale. We all have all these aspects. We are all both introverted and extroverted to an extent, and we just seem to have a preference for one side over the other...some more extreme than others.

Second, if you want to claim what I say is false, then the burden of proof is on you to prove to me otherwise. Don't make me sit here and research crap that I had already researched years ago just to give my statement more credibility. Yes it would help if I knew a website or book from the top of my head, but if I don't and you still want to question what I say, then look it up, but don't just devalue my source because you don't feel like looking it up.

Third, you are an unnamed person whose credentials I don't know, and I consider your statements.

Last, if I must...






http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... extroverts

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-pers ... ersion.asp









You can say that's not what it means, but bottom line is that angels and devils are based on religious icons.

.

That's what I said to begin with and you still felt the need to argue about it. It was really never relevant to begin with. I'm just Aspie and throw in what's on my mind on occassion.



I don't know why you are stuck on this one date. I already told you I was not aware of that and I'm sorry that I don't know history like that. I wasn't basing my comment on that one fact, but using it as an example to support it (and a poor example at that obviously). I'm the one talking centuries here. Let me recap... The Bible is the best selling book of ALL TIME (meaning since the beginning of time, not in the last year or so). The Catholic Religion ran the world for a very long time, and the Pope still plays an important role in political matters. It really is one of those things that speak for itself. If you know anything about religion (and I can see you do), then it's a no brainer to see how much of society's laws and morality was inspired by Christian Standards. I was bringing up the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg. Is Christianity a product of our instinctive conscience, or is our conscience a product of Christianity?




Now they do. Not historically. I already said previously, " While the gov't now tries to turn it's back to God, the laws are still the same" meaning in the sense of don't kill, don't steal, cheating is grounds for divorce, etc. all of which are based on Christian morals.



Well, in my experience having a very diverse group of friends ranging from very poor to very wealthy, and I mean friends and not "aquaintences," I see more morality on the streets of poverty than I do on the golden roads of wealth. Yes it could go either way depending on the person or need, but I'm not trying to predict what a person would do based on their wealth, but tell you that a true test of a man's character is to give him wealth and power and see what he does with that. You can still test a man's faith by taking everything away from him, but the true test would be to give him everything. I think Job had a lot to begin with, so God was just doing the opposite to see what would happen to his faith. Now I realize that better. I just made the same misinterpretation other people make on the story. Anyway, maybe it's not about taking everything away. Maybe the test of true faith is in severe change...flipping the world, rocking the boat. Give a poor man power and see what he does. Take away a rich man's power and see what he does. If you want to say poor people might steal to feed their family, well that might be wrong, but what's worse is when the rich man steals from that poor family to add a dime to his million dollar estate.

I've heard of this concept before, I think I understand now.



Maybe it's irrationally assuming that one is correct no matter what evidence is against one or who disagree's? Personally I think assuming one is correct especially about a person or situation without uncertainty is fairly foolish due to the foggy nature of individual minds.



I think they might have a understanding of basic psychology and "tools" they can use to gain psychological leverage or to keep a person hooked. Everyone is different but alot of people rely on charm and confidence to "disern" whether a person is "bad" or "good", and this is a really innacurrate way of doing things, as you said "It's not what you say but how you say it", a charming confident sociopath can say messed up things to a person and they will ignore it because they are "charming" and "confident". A sociopath could use charm and confidence to hook a person while they look for a means of psychological leverage to manipulate them.



Yes but that determines on the strength of their desire and will as well, if they have a strong self-loathing and a weak-will and a medium-desire, they will probably fail like you said.



Not everyone's willing to go through all the facts and evidence and put things together reasonably, some just want their "fast food fast" or "instant gratification", so to speak, they're too emotionally charged, letting their emotions cloud their mind.



Unfortunately you are correct.



I know of what Judas did through summaries, but I've never read about him in-depth so I can't really give an opinion on why he might've done what he did.

If you think it's "getting stuck on dates" to tell you that you can't know our founding fathers' intentions based on something that came about more than a century after their deaths', there's really nothing more I can say, is there?

Again, I apologized for using the wrong date. You corrected me, now let's move on.

Again, my statement was not based solely on that data, and finding that small error doesn't disprove the point I was originally trying to make.

The sh***y truth about humans on the whole is that they need a cat to kick to validate themselves. Most of them are small and insignificant in the scheme of things, but will attack anyone they deem as inferior to themselves just because (they think) they can. If you stand out as being socially isolated while the rest are in groups they will phuck with you and the others will follow suit because "that's the way it is".

If there's one thing I've learned about life is that "nice" people really aren't that nice at all. Its all just a poxy game.

OP, I know excactly what you mean. I seem to bring out the worst in people, or at the very least some people, without doing anything. Just a couple of years ago, I had 4 incidents in about 6 months where first a group of youth (mid teens) followed me making weird movements, then a young guy tried to approach me and my dog, then became threatening and finally insulting, and 2 incidents with 2 groups of 2 guys harrassing me. (Not the same 2 guys.) The last 3 were early 20’s or late teens.

Kids and tweens often stare or make very rude remarks, which is humiliating, What’s way worse is that adults accompanying them say nothing. If I had said anything like that at any age, I’d been given a solid talking to! It seems I’m always met with 2 sets of standards, one for me and one for everyone else. Over time that has led to an enormous bitterness and rage, and I easily snap. My mother claims she doesn’t get me at all since I “react with such exaggerated response”. But to her it’s one stare, or one rude remark, to me it’s SSDD, going on 3 decades now.
Teens can scare the living daylights out of me. I don’t know how far they’ll go.

My elementary school class was pretty bad. I wasn’t the only victim there. At least 3 girls were bullied, one had curly hair, pronounced r differently than us and she’d had lice at one point. I have no idea why they were after the other girl. Others were harrassed in class, too. I have never again seen such bad environment as in that class. They were like vultures, always on the look out.
They weren’t always after me though. They usually allowed me to play with them, and sometimes we had fun. And then, for no reason I could see, it was back to picking on me instead. I could never predict what they’d do.
I was told that ‘but if you just change a little...’; my response has always been and will always be: I am who I am and I’m entitled to be myself. There’s nothing wrong with being me, I’m not harrassing anyone. They just need to leave me alone!

What kind of bullying did/do you guys find worse? I'd have to go for physical or sexual. I fear those.
The sexual harrassment is both humiliating and petrifying and makes me wonder just how far they’ll go.
The physical bullying (hitting, throwing rocks – or in my case more often books – at you, kicking et c) is also petrifying, and made me wonder how far they’d go. I was afraid of being really injured, breaking something or even worse. Luckily this part ended for me when I came to junior high.

The verbal bullying lost any ability it ever had to hurt me quite early. But it’s very humiliating, which turns to anger for their lack of respect.

In my childhood I often heard that bullies were to be pitied, they had a rough life, they were abused or lacked confidence. I always thought that it was baloney. The kids who bully are perfectly normal in these respects. Some years ago, I saw a survey (2002, I think) that showed what I’ve always known. These kids are like all other kids, they’re not abused, they’re not insecure.


Adults will usually not be directly rude, but they will ignore kids being obnoxious or listen to them. look at me and then look away. Adults will often be weird around me. Sometimes my mother and I will meet someone and I will say something. I never know what’s so weird about what I’m saying but sometimes they will get a weird look and a smile that’s not quite a smile and they will look at my mother for confirmation. WTF? I’m thinking that if they have an issue with what I said, address me for crying out loud!

That struck a chord with me.. Even how it was in school and stuff. If I tried to talk to teachers or counselors about it, they'd always be asking what was being said, and didn't get that it wasn't so much what was said as the fact that it was constant. My name was a curse word to the other kids, and it was almost everybody. What they said may have seemed like it wasn't "that bad" when I complained about it, but it happened constantly. Everybody knew me.
It didn't help that my definition of "friend" was "person who considers me human" or "person who feels bad for me" so if they asked if I had any friends, I'd say yes, they'd tell me I was so lucky to have like 4 friends, and things must not be very bad.. of course nobody bothered to realize that those weren't actually friends, but rather the only people in the school who considered me human.

People can be comlete and f****** a*******, no matter who they're dealing with. Bullies will find and pick on anyone they think they can handle, and people who are "different" are the easiest ones to target. I would never, ever allow my child to be rude to anyone, or just stand idly by and not intervene if I see my child behaving badly towards a fellow human being. Parents that allow such behaviour shock me. I am afraid that bullying will always exist to some extent.

As for people who are not bullies, but who stare or smile a funny sort of smile when they encounter people who are different: Most people become nonplussed when they meet with unexpected responses or experiences. They do not mean to be rude, but they just can't hide their surprise.
I'm sorry that you were bullied so badly, Skilpadde. You have my deepest sympathy.

I was never bullied much because I was Gold Medalist in swimming and diving for my school (I am gay, and it was a boys-only school, I love physical activity, and those were the only sports where I was alone and didn't have to be on those horrible teams where all you talk about is chicks), so being good in sports always strangely makes you immune to being bullied, but my best friend Pierre-Edouard, who was so funny and kind, but terrible at sports and looked geeky and very skinny, you know, "different", was often the target of the class bully and his bully buddy, who were both huge, dumb guys who kept pretending they were drummers for a heavy metal rock band.
I know this will sound terrible to a lot of you, but I can't help it, I always had to get even with him when he hurt my friend.
One time, just before class, in the school yard, the bully stuck his big fat chewing gums all in Pierre-Edouard's hair AND stepped on his glasses, breaking them in three pieces.
It was horrible, my friend was crying and the principal wanted to know who did it. Pierre-Edouard was too terrified to say who it was and sheepishly said he accidentally did it himself. We had to cut his hair off in big chunks, and piece his glasses back together with scotch tape, it was terrible, he was crying so hard and sniffling, it was so humiliating for him.
He came back to class all red and puffy in the face, with crazy hair and scotch taped glasses and everyone was laughing so hard at him and he couldn't stop crying, and classmates were throwing things at him like paper pellets and pieces of erasers or paper airplanes that said "LOSER" or "SISSY" when the teacher wasn't looking.
I could tell he was in so much pain.
During recess, I snuck back in the classroom and I pissed in the bully's brand new school bag, which contained books, notebooks, his homework, some money in a side pocket which I saturated, a sweater, and his lunch which was a ham and cheese sandwich.
It was a long piss.
The bully was FURIOUS. I've rarely witnessed such anger in a teenager. In a stroke of luck, his bully friend had apparently told him he'd "piss on your mama", whatever that means, a few days before when they had an argument, so he was totally convinced it was him. Ha!
They started fist fighting right then and there, it was a sight to behold!
They were both sent to detention.
I looked at Pierre-Edouard and winked. He got it.

Maggiedoll, I know excactly what you mean, the continuation of it all is the worst part. We are never able to leave it quite behind before the next sting hits us.

Jaydee, thank you for your kind words!
As for what you wrote about people who are not bullies, I think that makes sense. They have probably been confused.
I just don't know how I so often manage to set it off.

Michel, that is such a great story! I'm so glad you did that lol!! ! You're poor friend though, I feel so bad for him I was bullied in school too, it seemed 7th grade was the absolute worst, I can barely stand to even think about it. I'm glad you got back at that big jerk nobody that was so incredibly evil to your friend!