The Golden Commandments of I SHALLS for your ASD child

Post Reply New Topic

I can't speak for Nades but from my part of discussion with him, he's wary of entitled attitude that some disabled people can develop.
Personally, I believe there needs to be a balance between self-care and respect for others - and this is universal, NTs, NDs, other disabled, other atypical, all need to maintain this balance. The crux is that atypical (for any reason) people can have this point of healthy balance in different places than typical people. But if we can build lifts and ramps so mobility impaired people can have possibly normal lives, I'm all for dropping this silly requirement of eye contact for autistics.
I think this is hypocritical on the side of US culture. But culture is always able to evolve if enough people contribute to it. That's the idea of various advocacy groups.

I do talk to myself, especially when I'm working. I don't care if others find it weird, it helps me focus.
My husband finds it disruptive because he always thinks I'm talking to him, so we need to work in separate rooms - but this can be done. Otherwise, I don't see any need to conform to social norms when I don't harm anyone but it helps me function better.

Here is my counter argument for Nades.

1. Even if I conformed perfectly and had a positive attitude and had all the right skills and experience. One is guaranteed nothing for employment, friendship, acceptance, love, etc.

2. It is hypocritical as you said to tell someone to be themselves while at the same time telling them to conform to all of these social standards. It seems to be a whole bunch of mixed messages.

3. No individual or minority has any vote or representation as to what these social standards/norms are anywhere in the world. Who gets to determine what these norms are? And, what if a person feels certain social norms are morally questionable?

4. Not everyone has the ability to conform.

5. Certain minority groups are given certain certain exemptions while other minority groups are not. If certain groups can be given certain exemptions then why shouldn't those who don't have these exemptions be given these exemptions?

6. Entitled: Let's talk about this. a. If certain groups are entitled to exemptions like blind people being exempted from eye contact then why can't we be exempted? b. The phrase from John F. Kennedy which he said "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." If our country owes us nothing then shouldn't the whole you're entitled to nothing be true across the whole board? Why do we owe our country anything including saying the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem? Why do we owe others at all including a child owing a parent respect? What exactly do I owe any employer I work for and why do I owe them if they don't owe me? Why do we owe others anything if we're not owed anything by others?

Nades has a belief system that has glaring inconsistencies such as what I've pointed out.

7. And, tries to do a dodge by focusing on whether I'm angry or not. My anger does not determine whether what I said is True or False.

Let's talk about the idea of being entitled further.

https://www.worldlifestyle.com/this-kid ... bway-1-dsk

In a nutshell, this young man refused to move his legs when others asked him to do so. Everyone around him seems to think he should have because of common courtesy. It would've been nice if he would've moved his legs and been courteous but did he owe anyone common courtesy and did he owe anyone that space he took up with his legs.

Everyone around him believed he owed common courtesy but I have to ask why? Why did he owe anyone anything?

Is this young man owed anything? Others would say no. So, why does he owe others a damned thing?

In fact, the guy who sat on his legs in my opinion committed assault because the guy believed he was owed respect, courtesy and a seat. Was this guy owed anything by this young man. According to others around him yes. And, that's another instance of hypocrisy.

Because there's plenty of people sharing very limited space. If you have to share something limited, you develop (written or not) rules of sharing or else the shared thing quickly becomes unusable.
Space in public transport is one of such things. Everyone lucky to sit is entitled to exactly one seat. This guy enlarged his space at an obvious expense of space for others. If such behavior was considered okay, public transport could not serve its purpose of transporting large numbers of people simultanously.

He got his share of the common space (i.e. ability to get in in the first place) from everyone and he owes others their shares of the common space.

I prefer to sit alone on a bus, so I will normally put my bag in the seat next to me, but if it starts getting crowded I will put my back pack down at my feet in case someone needs the seat next to me. I just don't like those akwardd weirdos who come on the bus and will sit right next to you when there is littereally every other seat open. It's like hey,, not to be rude but I am just trying to take a ride home and there are 50 other seats could you maybe not sit right where I am...

When there are plenty of other seats, the rules are loosened.
When late in the night someone sleeps using three seats in an almost empty metro car, it's an entirely different situation that if he did it on rush hours.
How much you can use of a shared good (i.e. car space) depends on how much others there are. Most people probably don't realize why it's that way because it's just how things always are so they do it that way But it does have a fully valid reason: so public transport can serve its purpose smoothly.

Nobody owes anybody anything.

But common courtesy is….well…courteous. We should practice it more often.

I notice on the bus or train, people tend to move when seats open up. Is this some hidden rule or do people just like their personal space? I tend to not move unless I'm standing and then I will sit when a seat opens up.

agreed

Noble sentiments, to be sure; but irrelevant to those who cannot see past their own troubles and deficiencies.

In a nutshell this list expects certain groups to do

https://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/businessman-with-big-tongue-licking-huge-boot-vector-26891835

without question while other groups get a free pass and not considering the person's mental and physical well being!


Now, what Fnord and other personal responsibility advocates do not tell you is you can follow this list completely and absolutely, you can be a polly anna and be optimistic about everything, you can have all of the skills and drive but at the end of the day nothing is guaranteed to you. No matter what you're told employers can fire you or lay you off at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

In fact, it is so true that the world owes you nothing that employers don't even owe you their rules or any kind of advice at all.

Employers are there first and foremost to make money. That is their first goal unless it is the government. Everything else is secondary to this first thing for employers. Employers don't just hire by your skills alone. They hire by your personality first and foremost. In other words, "do they like you?"

If they don't it doesn't matter what skill you have or how optimistic you are unless you have a skill so rare that they can't afford to lose you.

In fact, a number of employers use all sorts of screening processes including online personality psychological type tests that can automatically screen a person out who don't fit the employer's mold.

Fnord, makes it seem as though that those who don't have a job or can't get one that it is their fault but it is not totally their fault. Your personality counts way more then your skills whether you're autistic or not contrary to what Fnord and others say.

I don't have the personality to fit their mold and never will. This isn't a negative attitude but a realistic appraisal of what employers are looking for in a person and who I am as a person. I looked at the strengths and weaknesses of myself and looked at the opportunities and threats and realized there were more threats then opportunities for a person of my personality with my strengths and weaknesses.

My SO and I did a SWOT analysis of myself and that is why we explored other options including working in China.

I have said as much in other threads.I have said as much in other threads.I have also said this much in other threads.While this may be true in the entertainment and hospitality sectors, it is not true in most STEM fields, else scientists, technicians, engineers, and mathematicians would dominate the homeless population -- which, by the way, seems dominated by junkies, ex-convicts, and dishonorably-discharged veterans.This much, I agree with. Your average dropout expecting to be hired directly into a supervisory position is likely to be laughed at. But, an aspie with an MSEE who has learned to control his anxieties and quirks can easily land a job in an engineering firm and retire therefrom in about 25 years.



Again, posted before. When you have hundreds of applicants, each one with a glowing resume, the task becomes one of elimination. Anything legal that an overworked HR rep can do to find three good candidates from a stack of hundreds will be done.Again, personality counts more in the entertainment and hospitality sectors. in STEM fields, it is about equal, more or less.And there it is, in a nutshell. You work in China because your personality is more suited for an oppressive, dictatorial regime than for the U. S. of A.

Good luck, and have a nice day!

Like I said my goal is to be able to be true to myself without having to care what anyone thinks including employers, forge my path and be able to live how I wish to live as long as I commit no fraud or force against others.

I am not a revolutionary

I'm not a god.

I'm not a master.

I'm not MLKJr.

I am not Ghandi.

I am not a lord, a guru nor am I wise. I am definitely not a savior. If anyone is a Christian then ask Jesus to be your savior.

Fighting for justice isn't my thing so I'm no social justice warrior.

I don't want to be any of these things.

I am but me who simply wants to live life on my terms and not anyone else's terms.

China is but a means to an end to achieve what I desire for my life. If it means I have to sacrifice some things including some freedom to get what I want and I must go through the inferno to get to paradise like Dante then so be it. If I must go to round 4 of Cocytus in the Inferno and take Brutus's place then so be it.

And, if it don't work then whatever, I'll do something else.

^It doesn't matter to me how you achieve success. There are many methods to achieving success; it doesn't have to be done along a narrow path. I certainly took a peripheral path to my relative success; I didn't necessarily "play by the rules."

I would like to add to what you said. Not only does it matter how you achieve success but I define what it means for myself as well.

And, there are times you create the paths yourself and there are times paths may be presented to you. Like in the Matrix, I was shown the door. It was up to me whether I walked through it or not and I chose to walk through it.

I am actually trying to live some of the principles of How I found freedom in an Unfree World by Harry Browne.

https://www.mannwest.com/wp-content/upl ... -World.pdf

And, if Fnord tries to criticize me on Copy Right Infringement.

1. I believe the author gave written permission long ago somewhere.

2. Even if 1 is false I personally didn't violate the copyright act. The person(s) who put this on the website I linked to violated it. And, if simply linking to a website is violating a copy right act then we're all guilty of violating a copy right act in one way or another.

3. If it was a true violation then this book would've been taken down long ago. It's still up after all these years.

So, no copy right infringement has been violated.

Truth is, everyone has their life to live and their journey to make. I choose to live mine on my terms. Not someone else's including Richard Branson or Fnord's terms.

I want to live for my dream, not their dream.

If it doesn't work then whelp it doesn't work and I bare the resposibility.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 02 Nov 2022, 9:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Going back to the OP all of these seem to be requirements and responsibilities but what are the ASDs child's rights exactly?

What do others owe this ASD child exactly?

Sounds like a codependant relationship if the ASD child is expected to do all of these things for others and follow all of their rules (which guarantees nothing anyway) yet is entitled to nothing in return. Why is this?

Same thing with employers. We owe employers everything including the very blood from our veins but what do they owe us in return for our prostration to them?

Are we even owed our paycheck? Supposedly under the law they do but do they really? What does the average person have vs the resources the employer has including the big corporations who can afford teams of lawyers they can set loose upon you if you sue for anything?

What is really expected by employees and ASD children and those who are lower on the pole is to be someone's dog.

Some people get off on having dogs lick their feet and hands even here on WP.