If you are autistic, you will be called out and cancelled.

Post Reply New Topic

This is an article I wrote about autism, far left-wing "social justice", social danger, and love.
Please read, like and share if you think others should read it.

https://medium.com/@daynazanmcguireyild ... 75a2b6414b

If you express bigoted opinions publicly, you'll likely be called out for it, but it's got nothing to do with having autism and everything to do with the opinions one has chosen to publicly express. Personally, I try to avoid using autism as an excuse for being an a**hole and even more so, try to avoid whining about how unfair it is for me to be called out for being an a**hole when I've been an a**hole because of those sorts of excuses.

Also, there's probably a better term to use than amtssprache since it doesn't appear to be being used to mean the term it typically translates as, official language.

So I read it, and saw that it reads like any other "I, Aspie" screed.

Sure, it covers a lot of valid points.  Certainly, it describes what we face on a daily basis (from Aspies/Auties, and not just from NTs).  But, there seems to be no call to action or method by which We Shall Overcome.

I'm not trying to criticize; it's just that for 17 minutes and 11 seconds of reading, I expected more.

Hello my lovely criticos. Thanks for reading.
@funeral It's interesting that you suppose that if someone is getting called out and cancelled they are guilty.
Its like when chickens in the chicken yard peck at the chicken who has an injury. Mob justice.
You seem to have some good intact social instincts.


@Fnord. I feel that the article speaks to a sector of autistic experience I've not heard *anyone* speak to..and I've looked a great deal. Do you know of other places this conversation is happening?
Also, where would you take the article, if you were going to give it *something more*?

An essay of that length needs more than personal observations and opinions; it needs established research to validate its claims.  Can you cite any scientifically-determined conclusions to support your claims?

I've just fallen for bigots complaining about being criticized in the past. Complaining that the criticism is unfair is a common tactic when one can't actually respond directly to the criticism. It isn't that every single person who gets called out is 'automatically guilty' it's that often the evidence substantiates the accusation, and I wouldn't kneejerk automatically in the other direction either and instead try to evaluate as much evidence as possible as well as watch the individual's reaction to the criticism. If someone wants to insist oh well you just don't know them but the person in question has a long history of comments with similar sentiments being made in public that's a BS defence, it doesn't matter if one personally knows the other, the opinions are well-documented, they're known.

How should society respond, should people who express bigotry instead be treated like how injured humans are treated in decent societies? You know, remove them and treat the problem as well as try to determine what causes it? I feel like there would be far more backlash over forcibly re-educating folks who hold these opinions vs. just merely letting people condemn and disassociate from people who express such attitudes.

Ideally, people closer to the 'injured' person would make an effort to convince them to seek help, but I don't believe society as a whole bears that burden. If one expresses opinions that should be condemned, how is it a problem that some people will actively express condemnation? That's the preferred response, compared to nobody saying anything to avoid expressing a controversial opinion. Uh-no, we'll offend the snowflake bigots, can't go speaking the truth.

Also, there's probably a better term to use than amtssprache since it doesn't appear to be being used to mean the term it typically translates as, official language.[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYR9qGVtBXQ

Anyone have a better term for this? Marshall Rosenberg found this was the best word he knew for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYR9qGVtBXQ

Anyone have a better term for this? Marshall Rosenberg found this was the best word he knew for it.[/quote]

Would 'approved nomenclature' or 'preferred wording' better communicate the idea?

I like it. That's applicable right left and centre.

Bold of you to presume to publicly speak for autistic people at such length given that you aren't even diagnosed.

To be honest it’s very long and I did skim read much of it, from what I read it mostly concentrates on quasi social problems & doesn’t touch upon the very real disabilities many of us have such as dyspraxia and problems with memory or speech for example.

I only skim read it too, it seemed chock full of unpalettable home truths for the NT reader. It's one way of eliciting more care / making others more wary of autistics / pissing people off.

I gave up when it veered into autism supremacy, denied that they were doing that by saying “it’s just my opinion!”, and then started waffling about what “nature wants”.

Nature doesn’t want anything.

There are benefits to neurodiversity, but humanity is not neurotypical. The failing of humanity are failings of the whole, not failings of the neurotypical.

I like the rough idea that autistic people feel differently to NT people but it’s basically impossible to verify and unverifiable claims are potentially dangerous - what if someone argued the type of pain that autistics feel is sufficiently different to value it less?

The idea that autistic people are inherently unable to lie is rubbish, as is the idea we are too trusting. There are autistic people who that describes, but I don’t think they’re the majority. Most of us have little trouble lying.

Not sure why people here are giving you such a hard time for relating your own personal experience. Mine until the middle of high school was similar.

I think the problem you're running into with ,,Amtsprache" is that you're using the word in its context from the social justice movement. The others are seeing it from the Aspie 'word means what it says it means'. Your experience in the social justice movement may be an unknown to them.

This might be why the rest of what you wrote is not being well-received by some. The social justice language is marking you as 'other' with them. I see your writing as speaking to me because my politics and experience are similar. The social justice language says 'my tribe' to me, as well.

Aspies have some social conditioning, although it differs from NTs'. I, for one, will not call you out or 'cancel' you. Well done.

The unique challenge for anyone autistic writing about autism is to step outside their bubble, their own inner world and see the spectrum as a whole from top to bottom.

To examine how others feel, how the spectrum impacts their lives.

Unless they do all they’ll produce is another 10 a penny article relying on the usual tired stereotypes and pre judgements that even NTs are guilty of.

I've had the experience where NTs make negative moral judgments about me because I don't know how to articulate myself in a way that conveys proper understanding of the situation or sometimes because I don't fall into groupthink (and don't know how to keep quiet about it, which the smart NTs do.) Also, I've definitely had NTs misinterpret my nonverbal cues at odd times and come up with erroneous conclusions. Sometimes people doing this has had disastrous results, so I agree with some of the issues presented here.

That being said, OP needs to realize that being white frequently means saying insensitive things or things that reveal prejudice, frequently without the white person knowing it. So to insist that one has no racial prejudice as a white person can be exasperating for a lot of people. Being Autistic interacts with this because we're even less socially aware and able to consider the implications of what we say or do. I would hope obviously that there is a desire to educate people who don't seem to want to seem prejudiced but simply have these moments out of ignorance. (And ability for people who are misinterpreted to explain themselves. Some far-leftist credos like, "It doesn't matter what you meant, it matters how it made me feel" only works if there really was a presence of microaggressions, and not simple misunderstandings/misinterpretations.) OP seems to be saying "sike! I'm not prejudiced, you're the one who's oppressing me, NT!" That's not going to accomplish much. I get internalizing negative moral judgments can make someone on the spectrum depressed. I've experienced this.

But as a white heterosexual cisgender woman, I also realize that in certain instances I may have been displaying unconscious prejudice, which is why (slightly more open and back-and-forth than what the left espouses rn) dialogue is important.

Also... Did OP really have to say "school shooters are often Autistic"?? I've felt angry and resentful at my peers before, but I've never had the urge to react with violence against them because I realize that they are also people, trying to be good and moral in a world where being 100% benign to everyone is near impossible.