False Dichotomy

Post Reply New Topic

TLPG, before I get into making any points, I first would like to say that I'm really getting cross. And annoyed. And a little freaked-right-the-f**k-out. You've been stalking my posts. Whenever I post in a topic, you're arriving to post right after me, or posting in response to me, or coming out of the blue into a topic you aren't even in to respond to what I have to say.

Creepy. Freaky. More than just a coincidence, considering the threads I enter, which are then entered by you. It's really weird, and I want you to leave me alone.

Anyways, to the topic at hand; It's only impossible to hold a middle ground when others won't let you. When they demand you take a side. When they will make you into their enemy for not being their ally. When they decide that you're on the other side, and declare them fair game. When they send legal threats and people to harass you. When one of these representatives of their side calls on you to take your own life.

That's the false dichotomy in all it's brutal and shameful glory. That's the for us or against us mentality, and that's coming from someone who's been on the receiving end. No side is right if what they do is wrong. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions I've seen from those who denied me a middle ground, who denied me the right to not choose either side, are like drums. No one is right in doing wrong.

zen_mistress, I accept the rules and follow them. It takes effort on my part, but the effort I put in is like a worker being proud of doing a good job. Those who are unable to follow the rules deserve to have accomadations made. But I cannot see complete ignorance of all social etiquette, and for it to be acceptable. I can understand those who can't process the rules, or have problems with them, and where they're coming from. I agree. But when it comes to the attitude of the NT-bashers, or supremacists, they want to be above the rules because they don't respect why there are rules.

Remnant, we are accountable for our actions, and if we deny that we are, then we are denying that we deserve to be equal. If we deny that, yet break the rules because we feel they're worthless, then we're thinking that we're superior, above the rules. If we can't follow the rules, and ask for understanding, that's fine, and advances equality.

The part where you paint NTs as evil, or promote being better than them. Making an issue of the fact that Autism is considered abnormal, and is known as a neurobiological disorder. It's not nearly so bad as racism.

The school system is hardly a good example. There's been problems for years with it, ever since the late 70s, I believe. My time in elementary school and middle school was hell. Many others on WP have the same stories, of school being a nightmare, of classroom cruelty and bullies. You're not the only one, and bullies learn hard lessons when they grow up and end up in dead end jobs, or don't even make it to maturity. They're often the ones who, by their own errors of judgement, snuff themselves by accident. And those that don't can learn. I'm friends with someone who had once beaten me up. They learned a hard lesson, and a few years later, we became friends. We're still friends, and we reccomend books to each other, and hang out. He felt ashamed of what he had done, but it's now in the past, and we've moved on. Reality is what we make of it. To you, NTs are either cowards or bullies. To me, NTs aren't definable in any capacity. Everyone is so different, unique.

People disagree with me? It largely depends on what we're discussing. Don't really know? I've got scars and memories, and I've got a mind and morals. I know that meeting hate with hate only creates more, and drives a conflict forward. I don't delude myself by thinking soceity is a utopia, that life is a dream. I know cold hard reality, and I know what it's like to be about to die. I know what it's like to laugh in the face of it. You obviously have no idea if all you want to do is mock NTs and effect change by complaining on a forum.

You know the world from a computer, or from a television. That is your reality. Your observed reality is about hatred, about being a victim, about becoming the bully to the bullies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuoTuL1we_c

Sure, responding with a song seems foolish, but messages are messages. Are you going to do what it is that you hate? Are you willing to become that which you despise? And why, for revenge? Hatred? Pride, anger, belief?
Begetting hate with hate is not an answer.

Anbuend; It sure was for the anti-cure guys who decided I was pro-cure. Besides, those who are pro-cure aren't as likely to promote being superior to NTs like the anti-cure people I've met. Now, not all anti-cure people are like that, but that there are these kinds of scum in the anti-cure movement is why I didn't want to pick the anti-cure side. Of course, I didn't want to pick either side, but it was anti-cure people who made me into a pro-cure. Called me a traitor, a suck up, a fraud, that I really didn't have AS. I'm not at all sorry that I snapped. Anger is a perfectly reasonable response to such sheer bitterness and callousness.

It's the older ones that get me worried, truth be told, and especially the ones who transfer their beliefs to others, the young or the new. The ones who should know better than to mock LFAs, or attack parents, or to insult NTs and openly show disgust for NTs and the way they are.

It's not my choice to be on a side. I'm pro-cure because they're anti-cure, like that. I also doubt that a cure is the death that Jim Sinclair wrote of, and I think that to deny a cure for those who want one would be as equal as forcing a cure on someone who didn't want one. Both sides feel they're right, and that the other is wrong. Both sides are wrong, in that they're refusing to believe the other could be right. And people get confused about me wanting to choose the middle?

Yes, that is true. But those people also committed personal wrongs against me, in the name of their beliefs. I can't just discard that the way they interpreted anti-cure belief allowed them to abuse those who didn't agree. On my own blog, nonetheless, and then onto their own personal site, and they made a war of it. I understand the diversity of beliefs, but if those who are against a cure are in part supported by these kinds of people, then it negatively affects everyone who supports it. I was abused by someone who was against a cure, and it does shade my views. Especially since these actions were done because I did not take the anti-cure side.

What set me to being pro-cure was that a cure is in development. If we accept a cure as being an inevitability, and focus on retaining the right of choice to deny treatment, then we will be better off. The right to choose is still valid, and still a choice to make. It is a legal right. Any cure which is harmful to a person's health or self is not going to be used, under the restrictions set by the WHO. I don't feel I need a cure, and would choose to not be cured. But I still feel that if someone does want a cure, they should have the right to choose "yes" to what we have the right to choose "no" to.

I don't expect that, nor do I believe that should happen, that someone distances themselves from their beliefs over others who share those beliefs, yet are doing wrong.

Abortion, that's a difficult thing to take any side on. I myself feel that killing doctors who perform abortions is vile, and that the right to choose is important for personal rights. So mainly, I support contraceptives.

The problem is when the person with the failing is pushing their dogmatic belief, when it's the cause that they support that's being tarnished by their actions.

True. Very true. I don't consider someone who doesn't know how to interact socially like an NT to be lazy, or lesser. They can't help it, and it'd be a jerk move to blame them for it. But when someone wants to be above the rules, not within them, that is when I think there's a problem. I accept that certain people need that slack, and should get it. I know I can follow the rules fairly well. But I don't consider those who discard the rules altogether and feel entitled to the rewards, without the work. Respect, acceptance, and others rewards.

I know I can get along alright in soceity. I know that others can't, and I accept that. But for the few who feel that all the social niceties, everything that makes up the rules, are worthless and that they are above such things... They're the ones I take issue with, especially those who mock NTs for their social lives and socializing.

DeaconBlues, I didn't choose out of making my own choice. My choice was neither side. But an anti-cure person would not rest until I was either side. They had a "war" with me, and declared me pro-cure. The way they treated me, I chose to accept being pro-cure for the certain parts which appealed to me. I'm as pro-cure as yeast is pro-bread; not the whole loaf, but an ingredient. I'm not drastically pro-cure, but slightly leaning. Since a cure is being made, it's only a matter of time, so we ought to be ready with freedom of choice. That's what has to be prepared, so that when the cure does come, those that don't want one don't have to be cured, and those that do want one, can be cured.

TLPG, inaccurate. Verily so.

How many NTs are there? Over six billion. The population of earth is 6.5 billion, so we'll just call it somewhere in the neighborhood of six billion. Now, the majority aren't bashing us. Not even a hundredth. Maybe a fraction. You can't seriously postulate that most NTs bash us.

You probably just met a few bad cookies who aren't representative of the population as a majority.
I myself am acquainted with a great deal of NTs. None of them that know I have AS treat me inferiorly, and none of those that don't know I have AS treat me differently. And I've yet to find someone who bashes autistics where I live. I love Canada.

Sora, long post, but good. It's people like you who make me glad I joined WP. I enjoyed reading your post, it was a breath of fresh air, and really made me think. Thanks.

*Gosh, this post is soooooo looooong... Sorry for that.*

But many aspies have one track minds and it is hard to be oneself while trying to remember the rules all the time. NTs are at an advantage because they are able to process many types of communication data at once and therefore have more degrees of freedom than us when they follow social rules. I find when I follow NT rules I have no room for anything else.

Besides, I dont like too many rules.

I suppose practice might help, I guess... I don't really know for sure.

You don't have any intention of being rude though, or of causing offense. And that's why I understand about not being able to follow the rules. The rules can accomodate, like Anbuend said. Some people have trouble with the rules, and thus deserve being aided like someone who is blind, or someone with cerebral palsy.

And that's part of the problem, Anbuend. They should be seeking out that information once they are confronted with it, and further they should be seeking to educate others. The more knowledge there is (correct knowledge that is) the less mistakes are made and that leads to a higher level of tolerance.

I just believe there is value in the autistic personality and that development can be based on our values which differ from NT values. If we learn to value the fact that we offer a different form of communication to society, and learn how to rub NTs up the right way, while retaining our honest and open communication styles, I think it is a good thing.

I dont want to pretend to have an NT personality, and I dont think they want me to either. I think they value my honesty as long as I dont go too far with it, and they are glad that people can be different.

One of the things that prevents us from following NT social rules is that many of the social laws are based on knowledge of Hierachy, which we tend to dont think in terms of.

Last edited by zen_mistress on 19 Feb 2008, 7:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

This is paranoia at it's worst. Am I on EVERY thread you've posted on - and did I post AFTER you, or was I already on the thread? In fact - I think in the early stages you just might have been stalking MY posts, but did you hear me get all upset? No - I just ignored it.

If you make a comment that I feel requires a response, I'll do it. And that applies to everyone on this forum equally.



It is when it's the only answer the other side will understand.

I think it's a good thing as well. I just don't think it's good to do certain things. I'm sure what you're talking about doesn't fit into that category, though.

It's good, true, and I am more than happy to say that. But the NT way isn't bad either, though. I don't really see any problems with the way we talk, and the way NTs talk. I guess they'd say it's being blunt, or to the point, but those aren't really bad traits. Well, blunt is a little, but it's straightforward.

NT's see a problem when we talk, unless they are tolerant then it would be OK. I've had my fair share of intolerant savages, and they way outnumber the good ones. It says a lot - and not only that we are talking a huge number of places and a lot of years (42).

Paranoia? I think that if you compare the results of searches on our posts, you'd find a clear pattern. You've been posting after nearly every post I made tonight.

No it doesn't, since you're looking for me. You're not looking for over sixteen thousand other posters. You've been finding me specifically.

It is never an answer. It's the Black Panthers answer, and they didn't earn equality, they just cause more hatred, more violence, more fighting.

I guess I won't visit Australia for vacations, then. Canada is a lot nicer, it would seem. Far fewer, as you put it, intolerant savages. People are a lot more accepting. It would seem you're strongly prejudiced against NTs. Such a shame, they're nice people if you get to know them.

I know that is really awful stuff, because people have done those things to me, as well as several actual death threats, contacts to people who are possibly going to hire me, invasions of privacy, plagiarism of entire articles, harassment of my family, threatening to try to have my services that I depend on for survival removed, and willfully distorting and misrepresenting what my views are and who I am. No matter what the views of anyone who has done that to you, you have my total sympathy for that experience, because it is nervewracking.

However, what the experience convinces me of, is that the people who do that are real jerks. I've gotten it mostly from people who believe in a cure, and occasionally from people who don't or who are neutral on the idea. But the thing is, it doesn't tell me a thing about whether they are right or wrong on their other beliefs about autism. It just tells me they have shoddy ethics when it comes to how they express those views.

One thing it has not done is force me into changing my positions about autism (or any other topic they happen to be bugging me about), or about my contacts and sometimes friendships with people with a wide range of beliefs about autism. That would be allowing them to control my mind, and I refuse to do that. They are trying to "refuse to allow" me the positions I have taken, and I have received death threats and exhortations to kill myself ever since I first started posting even pretty mild versions of the positions I have taken. It has not caused me to either harden my stance nor change it: Only evidence can do that, and evidence of more than just the fact that some people are real jerks (understatement) and heavily lacking in the ethics department.

I have to get off the computer now, but before I go I want to address one thing: The thing about superiority. While it's true that people who believe in a cure seem less likely to believe autistic people are superior, they often seem just as likely as anyone else to believe non-autistic people are superior. I don't view seeing autistic people as superior as worse than seeing non-autistic people as superior. Both of them in fact look like remarkably similar positions to me, which is why I don't see people really as "anti-cure" as a homogenous group, but rather I see some people who are anti-cure for what I consider a variety of legitimate reasons, and other people who are anti-cure because of some superiority trip they're on (although the second group can eventually grow out of those beliefs). Similar to how some people want a cure because they hate autistic people or think we're inferior by nature, and others believe (rightly or wrongly) that if they were cured they would have less trouble in certain areas.

So, yeah, I just can't even fathom the idea of the fact that people who take a particular position being awful to people, making the position itself lose its legitimacy. Some people will always enforce their ideas with violence, whether it's a death threat or a fistfight. It says nothing about their ideas though, and doesn't affect my ideas in either direction.

I believe that a given position does lose its legitimacy when the people who support it get violent. It is true that a summary of that position might look like a good position, but you dig deeper and you see where the violence comes from.

It depends on whether the position itself endorses hate and violence or not.

Usually, the violence comes from a misinterpretation of whatever the position is, through the lens of zealous fanaticism, and the influence of fanatics on other people. The problem is that the violence and fanaticism turns people off to the viewpoint, but the fact that people are turned off on a social level does not make the viewpoints themselves (minus fanaticism) the cause of the fanaticism.

For instance, there are real arguments for animal rights. A lot of animals are treated very badly just because they're animals. And that is horrible. But there are groups that are so fanatical that they will do things like adopt cats and then kill them in the name of "animal rights". And they also attack and threaten people with violence over these things.

And that turns people off, on a social level, to the view they're trying to get across. It taints it with the fanaticism of the people who are taking it in a far different way than actually has meaning. But if you just discount everything related to animal rights because some people who claim to be animal rights activists are cruel and violent to both humans and other animals, then you are going to miss the fact that we need to improve farms so that chickens aren't kept in tiny cages their entire lives and that sort of thing.

Same with people who are pro-life. That's a very diverse set of people who have a diverse set of reasons for their beliefs. And whether they are right or wrong, it would be a horrible injustice to most of them, to treat them all as if they are the ones who kill abortion doctors, and totally discount all their arguments because those people exist.

In the autism topic, let's just say that autism was caused by vaccines. I don't believe it is, and the scientific evidence was against it, but let's say it was. Would it be okay to discount the idea that it was, only because there is a small but vocal faction of parents who do things like threaten to kill scientists and even scientist's spouses and children, just for promoting vaccines? I don't think it would. The position has to be evaluated on actual evidence, preferably scientific evidence since it's a scientific rather than purely ethical question... and not by the fact that some social groupings of people who hold the position have been whipped up into a frenzy of fanaticism and evil behavior.

So generally the problem is people, usually in groups rather than alone, who get into this weird fanatical mindset where anything goes as long as it advances 'the cause'. They become True Believers and they become unaware of any normal standard of ethics. So they don't care who they harm, in some cases they don't care who they kill, as long as their beliefs are followed. And that True Believer group-phenomenon is the problem -- not the many ideas and causes in the world that people in the grip of that phenomenon use as justification for their horrible behavior. You might find warped versions of their causes that seem to justify it, but it's justification, it's not the cause of it. Any belief, including extremely good and true beliefs, can be warped into something violent and evil if people who are leaning in that direction anyway get their hands on it. And the actual ideas that it is drawn from should not be automatically considered the cause of the fanaticism.

(I am, as I've said before, forever trying to curb the fanaticism and tendencies in the direction of cruelty that I see among people who on the surface seem to agree with me. I would hope that anyone, involved in any cause, would do what I am doing and take a stand against it. I am very fond of the thing that was said to Neville Longbottom in Harry Potter, which is something like that it takes courage to stand up to your enemies, but it takes even more to stand up to your friends. I do stand up to my friends -- both literal personal friends, and political-ally sorts of metaphoric 'friends' -- when I think they're heading in an ugly direction. I hope that others in other groups of people, including ones that disagree with me, would take the same stance and do the same thing.)

I don't know if I'm weird or what -- but I don't associate my pro-life friends with people who want to bomb abortion clinics, and I don't understand why I should, or why I should think that their ideas about abortion are problematic just because some other people use them as an excuse for violence. If their ideas are problematic, it is not because of the violence of others who purport to hold them.

Last edited by anbuend on 19 Feb 2008, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This rubbish should be apologised for PDQ. There is no clear pattern, except that I am responding to commentary being made in general. It is simply coincidence that you just happen to be at the other end at present. If you can't accept that as fact then you seriously need help.



The Black Panthers were responding to the Klu Klux Klan - and therefore they were fighting against racism, not for equality.



And you will find out the folly of your attitude as time goes by. By the time you are my age, you will see that I was (and am) right. Do come by here then. You will by that time have seen what I have seen (at this point you haven't) and you will realise that deep down most NT's are either scared of us, or regard us as inferior.

TLPG, I know a whole lot of people who are probably older than you are who don't agree with you on that point, so I don't think age is the issue here.

I also want to make a further comment on my last post, was going to edit but since I see now TLPG has posted, I'll post it in this post.

Which is that maybe part of the problem, is people picking political ideas the way they'd pick social groupings normally. They become attached to an idea because it's their "team", and then they act like it's a "team" that has to "win" even if they're totally wrong. And then they grow to dislike or distrust anyone who has a different idea from them, because that's a different social grouping.

And that can probably create both a lot of the awful fanatical behavior, as well as the tendency to take bad behavior from people on one "team" as pressure to join another "team".

Personally I think I'd lose most of my friends if I thought that way, because we have a lot of disagreements on issues that are important to us.

Well it's more to do with what the individual has actually experienced if you want to look at it that way - but that wasn't my point. I was speaking more generally when it comes to age and the relevant experience.



I don't mind disagreements myself. One can learn a lot from arguing, and the best disagreements result in stronger friendships. I know because that's happened to me. Even in disagreement you can find true friendship. Of course it can work the other way as well. The key to it all is understanding. I go back again to the Black Panther movement - and indeed this also applies to the KKK. They were so head up against each other (and I think rightly so) that they wouldn't listen to moderates who wanted them to cool and change their method of attack. Both side saw this as interference because any moderation - in their eyes - would be seen as weakening their rightful position against the other extremist. I hope I'm making myself clear on that.

The best response to such a scenario is to work behind the scenes to take away the root of the argument on both sides. I see this as the solution to the War on Terrorism as well. But to do that, one has to understand what is actually going on. That's the problem - people think they know, but they don't because they aren't there. Result - stalemate. That's when to move on and let them stew and do their own thing - and distance yourself if you just happen to be on that side of the fence (ie you're black but you distance yourself from the Black Panthers, and conversely white....you get the idea).

The ultimate solution in the US may be just around the corner - a black President.

For me personally, it is for this reason that I'd rather go at things alone. But having said that I do it for a reason, and I am certainly not one to hog the results so to speak. That is certainly the case with my activities within the political sphere here in Australia - despite certain assertions on the Net to the contrary.

Anbuend, thanks. Those were some solid points, on a firm and positive basis. I wish everyone who was anti-cure was as polite as you.

I couldn't agree with you more, Remnant.

Anbuend, I think I'll pass on writing something as eloquent as that and just go with agreeing on what you had to say.

TLPG, I was watching the board, and you responded after my posts. You were watching the board, and waiting for my posts. After I would make a post, you'd start to write a response, and by the time I wrote something else and checked back on the board, you'd responded. Whenever I post my opinion, you show up. And then you insult me, tell everyone that my opinion is ridiculous, and that I'm a failure, and am going to be a failure.

Fighting against racism with racism, fire with fire. And what did they get for it? They were deemed the same in history as the KKK were, violent racists. They promoted black power, and promoted it the same way that the KKK promoted white power. And neither was right. Two wrongs don't make a right, is an old saying. Being racist because of racists is deplorable, and no one can actually justify that it's okay. Racism is racism no matter how you cut it.

You're stark raving mad. You're "right," and everyone else is "wrong." You claim a monopoly on Truth, and anyone who doesn't believe you is a liar, and that makes them fair game to you.

Fear us or hate us, by responding in kind, we only make it a continuous cycle. Folly is a mistake made twice.

I am happy with the way I live. Is that so offensive to you? Is it worth chasing me, worth insulting me over, worth the poison that drips from your fingers to the keyboard? If it is, then we are obviously never going to see eye to eye, and your hate is well wasted upon a cause you cannot win.

It's my life to live; not yours.