Bummer ...

Post Reply New Topic

This doesn't qualify for The Haven, so feel free to comment (within the rules, of course).

A discussion on another website centered on the assassination of President Kennedy. Most posters discussed the topic in terms of a great tragedy, and how the assassination personally affected them. My only post in that thread ended with these words:

Almost immediately, I was attacked:



This, I think, is what us "aspies" have to put up with: Our assessment of events in an objective sense is perceived as something that is both wrong and immoral.

What do you think?

yeah, I have zero emotional attachment to JFK. It means as much to me as the assassination of Lincoln. It's just piece of history.
Anyway "who killed JFK" 50 years later means very little, what's done is done. Though I do find it curious that both presidents did try to issue currency directly from the treasury, something the central banks we're very displeased with. And American history is plagued with the central banks going to extreme measures to impose their influence on Washington DC.

I've fallen foul of that many times during my life accidentally triggering explosions of varying sizes from the people who found my response inappropriate or cold. I've learned to avoid talking about emotive subjects with people because my (lack of) emotional response may not be what is expected.

Actually I think this does belong in the Haven.
I agree. People assess an objective comment as somehow revealing my inner state of morals, my character, and then criticize or at least label me according to their subjective reaction.

Fnord, how do you deal with it? I find it confusing and stressful.

How do I deal with it?

Lately, I've resorted to abandoning such threads completely once the fireworks start, and avoiding altogether those threads started by people who have flamed me for advancing my own opinions (which differ from theirs). This tactic also applies to the real world - if I hear certain people starting certain controversial topics, I will stay out of it and avoid those people for a while. Explaining my opinions only makes it worse, and offering an apology only makes me look like an idiot.

Unfortunately, I don't often know how much emotion is attached to the controversy until I contribute my opinion. By then, withdrawing from the conversation or thread may look like "trolling" to those involved.

Discerning what is controversial and what is not is often difficult for me.

Sometimes I wonder if they themselves mistake empathy for their own emotions that automatically feel for the other person (other members in the thread), even when it doesn't make sense to defend it. Then criticising you for not feeling the same way. When it is them that retaliate and not empathise with you. I guess they are simply sensitive to criticism.

^ both in what I hear or read, and as a consequence what I say or write.

I'm thinking that I'll PM a link to this thread to the people on that other website ... opinions?

I find it bizarre that you are still supposed to have some kind of emotional feeling for the assassination of JFK. Obviously it was a sad thing to happen, but after fifty years, and the amount that those film clips have been replayed, I don't see how anyone can still be actually upset about it. In my opinion there is a difference between knowing something was a tragedy, and still acting up about it fifty years later.

Obviously if you were personally involved (like you knew him, or were there) it would be a bit different. It's not as if you said you were happy about it, just that it seemed distant. I find there is a similar thing about the death of Princess Diana. Yes it was sad, yes I understand that people go into shock when these tragic deaths happen, but I don't understand how people can still be 'mourning' many years later if they didn't actually know the person involved. But then I sometimes get accused of being too cold and unemotional.

Personally I wouldn't be writing to the people on the other forum, but if you think maybe it will help them understand a little more where you are coming from, and enlighten them, then go for it. To me it seems they have more sympathy for someone they never met who died fifty years ago, than a real person they are interacting with on a forum today.

Well, if you think that'd clear it up. It depends on the abilities of the people involved I suppose.

I didn't think your post lacked empathy at all. It was just a neutral/benign statement about your thoughts on the event.

Then again, I'm an aspie, so what do I know about empathy?

+1. I personally found all the Kennedy coverage annoying, but it just seems to be one of those topics wrapped that blanket of "being patriotic". It was an important and tragic moment in history, but one of many.

This is a website made up of people with Asperger's.

We tend to lack empathy, or as much as Neurotypicals demonstrate.

We also tend to respond and communicate logically and factually, rather than emotionally.

How can someone reading and responding to posts on this website be surprised or critical by Fnord's point of view regarding events of half a century ago?


Sylkat

I think your comments were pertinent. The other person was not being empathic, they were being hysteric. The feeling junkies are just after a hit. The same thing happened when Lady Diana died. Everyone was crying. People dying is a sad thing, but I didn't know her, and neither did they. People die all the time, all around them and they couldn't care less. Sometimes they even encourage their death, or criticise the deceased. They're just entertaining themselves.

Empathy is accepting ones own perceptions as valid. Intuition is accepting ones own perceptions as valid. Bias is accepting ones own perceptions as valid. But you use the word empathy to assert your perception as true. Intuition to assert your perception as correct. And bias when someone else does it and you don't agree with them. There is such a thing as empathy, but it's not all the excuses people use it for. Use it for what you want, not for what it is is the general rule.

I would agree to just stop talking to them. The more you play, the more they will play. If you're not after that experience just do something else. Many of the open forums I've seen tend to end up a core group of elite members who dominate over the rest. The same thing that happens everywhere else. The reason I came to this forum wasn't for validation or identity. It was because I figured the people here were more like me and I could avoid that crap.

I live in the DFW megaplex and believe you me the jfk coverage has been nonstop here for a couple weeks. Admittedly its graduating down now but geez, enough already. I recognize that an innocent (as innocent as anyone rising to that level of political power can be) man lost his life, that his wife was put through that horrific event, etc, its a sad thing. Uncool. Beyond the scope of that recognition I have no emotional energy invested one way or the other. I do have some annoyance at the situation in that there was no magic bullet and the american people will most likely never know the truth. Not that it matters one iota either way, I'm just the type that hates knowing only a small piece of something. If my interest is piqued ill ask 1000 questions.

Otherwise, what could I say to those people?

I mean, I want to tell them what it's like to be an aspie, but I don't want it to come off as just another essay on "Pity The Poor Aspie" -- know what I mean?

Apparently, some of those folk consider themselves to be empathetic and compassionate (in the "artiste" sort of way), yet whenever such folk are confronted with a real aspie, they seem to become as cold and harsh as they say we are; so presenting the "typical" aspie POV must be done carefully.

Suggestions?