Neurotypicals' inconsistent logic with social rules?

Post Reply New Topic

I was on another forum recently where a poster made a joke that the only way to get a woman to heaven was to have her shop for something, such as good and evil in the Bible story. The guy added was that's about all his wife does. I responded, "So she's empty-headed and materialistic?" A bunch of people then snapped at me for being "out of line" and I was consensus infracted by the moderating team for "flaming/goading."

While I could understand perhaps a warning about tact, I was simply following his logic -- he was making a crude stereotype, and I said the same thing about his wife that he was saying, except he covered his insult with humor. But the moderating team and all the posters there stood by their decision, and that was that.

I see this a lot from neurotypicals, and I find the logic very inconsistent -- they bend ways around their own crude remarks often by using humor, but when we autistics say the same thing more bluntly, people go bananas.

Anyone else have a hard time with this sort of thing?

I don't think this is an NT thing; I've seen it here, too.

I guess a learned cultural behavior, then.

I went back to the thread, and it looks like they removed the posts, including his original and then my initial response. But they didn't remove all the responses to it, and the thread looks kind of nuts now with people debating a side issue about social appropriateness with no context.

I agree, not NT. I had my head bitten off for trying to commiserate with someone for having a very unhappy marriage because they would only make bitter, negative comments about it.

Allegedly, people need to vent, but what is one supposed to think when someone really has nothing good to say, no matter how small, about a situation or person ?!

I think that whole I-don't-understand-sarcasm is really that I understand it perfectly but don't understand why saying it backwards (e.g. then we'd have a new policy) is acceptable while saying it forwards (e.g. we need a new policy) is not.