Which political views are more aspie-friendly?

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't read the whole thread but wanted to put my two cents here too. I guess a political view that values individualism enough (like liberalism) but mixed with a social welfare system so people are not left to fend for their themselves completely. Social democratism perhaps?

Oh and about feminism, a feminist society with less importance given to being an"alpha male" who slept with so many girls would benefit autistic men greatly.

For a short while I identified with Libertarians. In my mind every member of society should understand and agree that anarchy is the fairest form of government and a truly enlightened society could survive quite well in this form. At the heart of every pure libertarian is the belief that government should protect private property and your pursuit so long as it doesn't hinder the pursuit of another being. That is all I believe government should do so I subscribed to their plight for a little while.

Apparently that seems impossible and judging that we continue to grow the size of our rule makers and enforcers that there's really not any point in being involved or caring. Society will always circle the drain until there's a massive death event, s**t will fall apart and those left will rebuild.

For me, if one can survive the massive amount of death during a plague or something of the sort, the period following that would be the most comfortable with the fewest number of laws and the largest amount of freedom for those alive.

I don't see how any aspie could resolve the massive hypocrisy of both the R and D parties and support them, but I guess we're all different...

Last edited by Roboto on 09 Aug 2019, 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hmm, let me think for a min-NONE.

I think I was sloppy in the way I put the title to the OP. I didn't mean to ask what form of government is better for aspies. Rather, I meant to ask whether its better for an aspie to live in a red state or in a blue state. In terms of government politics they are the same since they are part of the same country -- but in terms of the views of the public, they are clearly different. So what political views of people around an aspie would benefit an aspie the most?

And this is also different from the question of what views should the aspie hold. It is conceivable that a republican aspie would still be better accepted by the democrat neighbors, or that democrat aspie would be better accepted by republican neighbors. So the question is: people of what political persuasion would be more likely to accept an aspie?

By the way, I don't mean to dissuade you from talking about the other topics though, as all those things are interrelated. I am just making sure not to lose sight of the main topic.

Libertarians and Anarchists. R's and D's all fundamentally believe in authority figures to manage and control people. Aspies will do best with someone who believes in true equality and freedom for all of humanity.

Where's your evidence that feminists in general favor as*holes over nice guys, as distinct from some feminists just being suspicious that "nice guys" are not as nice as they seem? Who is making that claim, and where?

I've heard that there are some women (feminist or not, more likely not) who favor as*holes because they were brought up by as*holes and therefore don't understand or trust non-assholes.


"Social justice warrior" means different things depending on exactly who is using the term, but usually it refers to someone who expresses left-wing views in a very obnoxious way and tries to "no-platform" other views. The latter aspect makes them not quite "liberal," and I would expect that most of the people who get called "social justice warriors" identify as "progressive" or "leftist" but not "liberal."


Not just wanting to be Christian, but wanting the U.S.A. to be officially a "Christian nation," wanting Christian doctrine to be taught in public schools, wanting to keep out non-Christian (e.g. Muslim) immigrants, etc.

Many of these same Christian nationalists also want to keep out Hispanic immigrants, even though the latter are mostly Christian. White evangelicals are least likely to say U.S. should accept refugees, according to a Pew Research Poll. The common theme here is a desire to preserve the homogeneity of white Christian English-speaking American culture.


You're right, it's paradoxical and weird. The whole idea of preserving homogeneity is contrary to any reasonable understanding of Christianity itself, as is refusal to accept refugees. Nevertheless, that's what "social conservatives" generally want to do. See The Right's Retrograde Quest for a Homogeneous America.


No, in a moderately conservative neighborhood, extreme right wingers of the same ethnicity, religion, and economic class as everyone else in the neighborhood wouldn't stick out in any culturally obvious way -- unless they make their extremism very obvious, e.g. by flying a swastika flag, which probably wouldn't be welcome anywhere except in an isolated small town of extreme right wingers.



The establishment was apparently disliked, in part, because a lot of Christian white folks perceived it as being too open to cultural heterogeneity, e.g. too friendly to blacks, immigrants, and Muslims. (The perception regarding immigration was actually inaccurate; immigration from Mexico actually went way down under the Obama administration.)


Yes.


I'm not sure whether or how much this would apply to a white person in India, given that you would stick out as a white person regardless of where you go in India. Also, when I speak of a highly multicultural neighborhood, I mean one with people from more than just two cultures and preferably more than just two "races" (in terms of physical appearance). For example, in my neighborhood we have whites, blacks, Hispanics, and South Asians.


First, it's not generally true that secular kids have no reason to improve.

As for the use of Christianity as a tool to manipulate others, this is more likely to happen in places where Christianity is very popular than in places where Christianity is just one of several religions in the neighborhood. It has always seemed to me that Christians here in New York City are more likely to be sincere than Christians living in places where everyone is socially pressured to be Christian.


Actually I think a lot of red-state politicians and business leaders probably do think that way, and a lot of other people in the Bible Belt probably think something more like, "hey I better be a Christian since I need my family and neighbors to accept me."


No, parents generally don't teach manipulation tactics. Kids (or at least NT kids) usually figure those out on their own.


Kids being raised as Christian is not the problem. What makes people more likely to use Christianity in selfish ways is living in a place where everyone else is Christian and under pressure to be Christian.


Christians who believe autism is "demonic" are likely to belong to the kind of church that sees demons everywhere. And such churches can be found just about everywhere these days, even in NYC, although their beliefs aren't mainstream. Here in my neighborhood, there are a few small storefront churches that hold weekly "deliverance ministry" services (in addition to their weekly regular worship services and Bible study). If a church believes that enough of its members' problems are caused by demons to justify a routine weekly exorcism, then it wouldn't surprise me if they think autism is caused by demons too, unless the pastor happens to be educated about autism.


I should point out that objecting to a specific kind of behavior (e.g. pushiness) isn't the same thing as having a general problem with your ASD. Because many of us have difficulty picking up on subtle hints, we need people to be assertive with us about whatever issues they may have with our behavior.


The point is simply that people who live in a culturally homogeneous neighborhood are likely to have much narrower expectations of proper social behavior than people who live in a culturally heterogeneous neighborhood, and hence more likely to reject or bully people for any deviation from the norm.

If I were to talk about women in general as opposed to just feminists, then the evidence is that its usually shy guys that stay single, while the extroverted as*holes are usually paired up.

As far as how it relates to feminism in particular, the thing is that when nice guys complain about it online and women rebuke them, they oftentimes cite feminist-sounding arguments. And the other evidence is that males online who defend them tend to blame feminism, as well.



So are you saying that liberalism is moderate-left while social justice warrior is far left -- and aspies would get along better with moderate-leftists?

But, if thats your terminology, why were you saying (in one of the sub-quotes of the above-cited quote) that feminists are social justice warriors? I always thought of feminism as moderate left?

In fact that is one of the motivations for my question. On the surface feminism looks reasonable and I support most of its points (except for abortion of course) -- but then, "for some weird reason", they oppose the nice guys -- and I don't see why.



Well, if I look at places like American Renaissance, they don't talk about the disruption of homogeneity but, instead, they talk about race and intelligence. So, from this perspective, having French immigrants would be a positive while having Mexican immigrants would be a negative -- which is totally different perspective than opposing immigration as a whole. But are you saying that places like American Renaissance are exceptions -- whereas the majority of Republicans don't care about intelligence and just want homogeneity?

On a side note, the Mexican immigrants are Catholic while American Republicans are Protestant. I guess my gut tells me that in case of people from Mexico the main issue is their crime rate as opposed to religion, but there are always more than one variable in an equation.



Well, as far as accepting immigrants from Mexico, I can use Christianity in either direction. Take "love thy neighbor" for example. On the one hand it means loving Mexicans, thus letting them come. But on the other hand it also means loving your fellow Americans, which means keeping them safe from crime -- and thus not allowing Mexicans to come.

But with Asperger its different since people with Asperger don't have higher crime rate. And that is why I am puzzled why the only kinds of people that are sympathetic to people with Asperger are the ones that are "also" sympathetic to Mexicans, too.

I guess if you are saying that the "true" reason to oppose Mexican immigrants is homogeneity as opposed to crime rate, then I would see why there would be a connection. But I guess its hard to believe that crime rate isn't at least part of the equation.



So are you saying people wouldn't have long enough attention span to notice the difference in political views? Or are you saying that even if they did notice, they wouldn't care? If your answer is the second one, then how come they wouldn't care about political views if that is part of what constitutes cultural homogeneity?



Its true that democrats disturb homogeneity by letting immigrants in. But, at the same time, Trump disturbs homogeneity in a different way: he proposes policies that nobody proposed before. And to me it seems like Trump disturbs homogeneity "more": we already used to having a immigrants around, but we aren't used to having Trump policies. Now, to me it is a reason I "like" Trump: I like novelty! But since Republicans -- unlike me -- don't like novelty, thats why it puzzles me why "they" like Trump.



Yeah, that again seem to show that what I was thinking of was different from what you are thinking of. I was thinking along the lines of "accepting less intelligent/ more criminal races" -- which would mean that they would get more points for accepting someone black or Mexican than they would for accepting a south asian. But I guess you are talking more about learning about other cultures and that is when the longer the list the better. But if thats the case, then why wouldn't the presence of Whites from other cultures help -- such as first generation European immigrants?



I didn't mean they don't. I just put everything in simplistic terms in order to emphasize the point I was making. I guess what I meant to say was that Christian kids have "one more" reason to improve "besides" all those common-denominator reasons all kids have.



I guess this makes more sense. Is it sort of the same as back in the Soviet Union if you don't like someone you can just say they are "bad communist", but in america where communists are in a small minority this kind of trick won't work?



Well, thats different from using Christianity as a way of manipulating others. When people are citing biblical verses to tell me why I shouldn't worry about the future partner, they aren't trying to get "themselves" fit in as Christians; they are trying to get "me" off their back.

Or are you saying that, after people used Christianity to "fit in", they then "evolved" to view it as a "currency" so to speak -- and then use it for other purposes too?



That makes more sense.



Yeah, she talked a lot about the coming of antichrist and the mark of the beast. She also talked about subliminal messages that you would see in the movies and various other places. She also believed in various conspiracy theories, such as that 911 was inside job, that planes were producing chemtrails on purpose, and so forth.



But if they think large portion of their congregation are demon possessed, then this would no longer be grounds for ostracism, since they aren't ostracizing half of their congregation. Or are you saying that they do?



Actually in her case it seems she did both. Like back at the time we were dating she would often say "I can't deal with your autism" (and yes she kept using the word autism even though I kept pointing out that in my case its Asperger but she kept ignoring it) so I was asking her "what is it about my 'autism' that you can't deal with? You just can't get passed that word? Is that it?" and she would be like "see thats what I am talking about" -- thus insinuating that its my pushiness she disliked. But you see, the reason I was pushy is "because" of her prejudice against my "autism". So its circular. She doesn't like my "autism" because it makes me pushy and I am pushy because she doesn't like my "autism". Now, when she has a little more patience, then she actually tells me that pushiness is what it is; but when she is less patient she would just be saying she doesn't like my "autism" and not tell me why.



Yes I totally agree with you. In fact thats my issue: that people won't tell me something bothers them until they made up their mind to distance away from me. And I am saying "hey, I didn't know it was an issue up until just now so why can't you give me another chance" -- but they won't. Well, I can make a pretty good guess that maybe the issue was bothering them for a long time they just didn't let me know -- and thats why from their perspective I had plenty of chances. But to me, if I am not "told" that something is wrong, its not really a "chance".



So are you saying that the politics of Republican party is more narrow than the politics of Democrat party? I mean, to me this doesn't look like the case: both parties have a bunch of platforms that they won't let go of no matter what.

As with our NT counterparts, we have all different wants and needs, and we all have different visions for the country and the world.

So I can't say which ideologies are "spectrum-friendly".

As for meeting people, I am in the same boat as QFT.

I am a political moderate and a Lutheran, and I am mostly looking for someone who likes animated sitcoms and likes to travel.

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 10 Aug 2019, 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well if a woman simply not being interested that way, triggers him to start ranting and raving about how much of a b***h she is for not wanting to date. Then I kind of feel like that guy should probably deal with some of his issues before continuing to pursue relationships. I mean it is ok to be disappointed and unhappy if a potential relationship doesn't work out...but taking it out on that person isn't really ok. They have a right to accept or not accept romantic advances and should not be harassed regardless of the choice they make.

If a guy is dissapointed about things not working out with a romantic interest, I don't really see much wrong with venting about it on a forum, so long as they aren't just going on a toxic rant about the person who wasn't interested(unless said person did something really bad to them) then I could see it. But simply not going out with someone does not warrent getting called a b*tch liar...wh*re ect because you didn't want to have a romantic relationship with them.

One does not have to respond totally positively, but still best to be civil.

Well, if I send a woman a message on a dating site and she doesn't answer it, I don't call her any names, I just move on. The times when I called them names was when they "did" answer, and said something I found offensive.

For example, there was one girl who asked me if I am capable of love since Sheldon wasn't. Then there was another girl who decided we aren't compatible since, due to my Asperger, I presumably won't want to socialize with her friends -- and thats not true: I know I want to socialize, but she didn't ask me, she just assumed. And then there was another girl who didn't tell me either of those two things and just said she doesn't want to date people with Asperger. Then there was another girl who assumed that since my mom shelters me I would want her to take care of me too -- but thats not true: I hate the fact that my mom shelters me so why would I want a girl to do the exact thing I hate? But she didn't give me a chance to clarify this either. So what am I supposed to feel in those cases?

I would love to be treated as an equal -- and part of being an equal is that others have a right to say no just like I have that right. But you see, I am "not" treated as an equal, as the above examples illustrate. And that is why I feel compelled to defend myself.

On a different note, the fact that calling the girl names is inappropriate doesn't answer the question as to why nice guys get rejected on the first place. You see, the future doesn't cause the past. They "first" get rejected and "then" they call the girl names afterwords. So you can't say they got rejected "because" they called her names: the girl didn't know they were going to call her names a minute later. Now, I realize that the point stands that no matter why they got rejected, they don't have a right to call her names. But, at the same time, the other question can also be asked: why did they get rejected on the first place? So those two things are in parallel, and one doesn't invalidate the other.

Let me give you an example. Suppose Bill Gates became poor so he robbed the bank. Yes, it was wrong of him to rob the bank. But I can still ask the question why did he become poor. In the same way, yes its wrong for nice guys to react to rejection the way they do. But that doesn't stop one from asking the question why do they get rejected to begin with.

And, last but not least: all those examples when I yelled at the girls were happening over the dating sites. I don't yell at the girls face to face. So why don't the girls on campus approach me? How do they know what I do over at the dating sites? And, as far as dating sites go, I presume any given girl doesn't know any of my correspondence with any other girl. So why don't most girls respond to my messages then (and like I said, a simple lack of response doesn't trigger me to yell).

P. S. When I yell at the girls for rejecting me, it has nothing to do with thinking that males are entitled to yell at females. After all, back in 2006, I yelled at the professors at the physics department for refusing to work with me, since the reason behind their refusal was bad reputation that they spread about me. Those professors were mostly males, yet I yelled at them just as much as I yell at the girls on dating site. Or to give you another example, when I read this post viewtopic.php?t=378771 which was written by a female, I was wishing I was in that female's shoes so that I could yell at her potential female friend that distanced away. Since the OP was a female too, that means that my attitude had nothing to do with gender inequality. I simply feel bad when an aspie gets discriminated by an NT, and in those cases I feel like an aspie should yell at NT -- regardless of their respective gender.

The original post is several kinds of absurd.

First: The original poster wants to know how to vote, and how to vote as an aspie .

Neurotypicals dont vote "as nurotypicals", left handed folks dont vote "as left handed people".

Second: the OP expects folks on an autistic site to dictate to him in a single unified voice how to vote.

If you glance at Wrongplanet you will see the diversity of opinions there are here, and will see that autistics are no more politically united than are NTs.

As I already repeated several times in subsequent replies: I am not asking how to vote, I am asking whom I would get along better.

Okay, I misphrased the original title. Here is what original title SHOULD have been: Would aspies be better off living in red states or blue states

Actually you know what? I am going to start a brand new thread with that title, and refer it back to this thread. This way there won't be any confusion.

Okay, here is the link to the thread with a correct title: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=379244
I hope this will help avoid the confusion from this point onward.

Above you seem to be conflating two different dimensions: nice vs. as*holes, and shy vs. extroverted. It's possible to be a nice extrovert, and it's also possible to be a shy as*hole.

Be that as it may, the rules of the heterosexual dating game still have not caught up with the progress of feminism, so men are still expected to be the ones to do all or most of the asking. That being the case, it's really tough for a shy man (whether he's nice or not) to get dates, whereas it's much easier for an extroverted man (whether he's nice or an as*hole) to get dates and to form a relationship.


I'd have to see one of these specific arguments to be able to comment on it.


Or at least they would get along better in locales dominated by moderate-leftists.


I didn't say that all feminists are SJWs, just that feminism attracts SJWs. So some feminists are SJWs but not all are.


I would have to see an example of what you mean in order to comment on this. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with nice guys.


The only sites I've seen that explicitly make a general cultural homogeneity argument are some immigration-restrictionist sites, some white nationalist sites, and some "traditionalist conservative" sites. I seem to recall that VDare, for example, had a lot articles along these lines when I looked at it years ago.

One of the main arguments for general cultural homogeneity is summed up in Rudyard Kipling's poem "The Stranger," which you can find various places online. The idea is that, in a racially and culturally homogeneous society, everyone will have the same body language and the same unspoken social rules, and will thus be better able to decide whom to trust. Note how this argument goes directly against the interests of autistic people, who tend to have different body language from everyone else and have tend to have difficulty with the unspoken social rules of even the culture they were brought up in.

Anyhow, although most Republicans would not explicitly make a cultural homogeneity argument, they tend to live (and/or prefer to live) in culturally homogeneous places
(white, Christian-dominated, few if any first-generation immigrants). And there are plenty of Republicans who, while not making a general cultural homogeneity argument, do advocate specific dimensions of cultural homogeneity, such as Christian nationalism and restricting immigration.


Perhaps most Mexican immigrants are Catholic, but, over the past 50 years or so, there has been a dramatic growth of evangelical Christianity, primarily Pentecostal/charismatic, throughout Latin America.


That probably is a major issue in their minds, but it's a largely unfounded or at least greatly exaggerated fear. See Illegal Immigrants and Crime – Assessing the Evidence on the website of the Cato Institute (an organization that is conservative on many issues but pro-immigration). See also Research Tells Us That Immigration Does Not Lead to Higher Crime Rates, Pacific Standard, Aug 22, 2018.


I'm under the impression (though I'm not sure) that most extreme right wingers typically don't reveal the full extent of their political views to their immediate neighbors. Instead they just fan the flames of whatever racist or otherwise other anti-diversity views their neighbors might happen to express. (And lots of white people do occasionally express racially prejudiced views to each other, despite considering themselves not to be racist.)


Cultural homogeneity does not imply that there can never be a change in policies.

In any case Trump's "new" ideas are far from totally new. They've been around for decades in the "paleoconservative" wing of the American conservative movement. In 2000, Pat Buchanan ran (unsuccessfully) for President on a similar platform. The conservative news websites Breitbart News and Zero Hedge have long championed a paleoconservative stance. Fox News has usually tended to lean more neoconservative, but individual Fox commentators (e.g. Ann Coulter) have long taken paleoconservative stances on particular issues.


Again the immigrant crime stereotype is wrong. See the articles I linked above. And, like most neighborhoods here in NYC these days, my neighborhood is not high-crime.


Not just learning about other cultures, but creating a social atmosphere tolerant of variations in things like speech and body language.


It does help. We do have first-generation European immigrants here too. They are part of the mix.


Thanks for the clarification.


Yes, that's a good analogy.


Yes, they probably do that too. They probably aren't the only Christians who use it as a "currency" when talking to other Christians, but I would expect the more sincere Christians to be more careful about using Christianity that way.


That's not a surprise.


It might be grounds for ostracizing someone who refuses to attend their "deliverance ministry" service.


Aspergers always was classified as an "autism spectrum disorder," and, since the DSM 5 came out in 2013, "Aspergers" was eliminated as a distinct diagnosis. So if this conversation happened after 2013, she was technically correct by calling it "autism."


Yep, that kind of non-specificity can be very annoying.


Agreed.


No, my point is that Republicans tend to live in, and favor, culturally homogeneous white Christian neighborhoods, whereas Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in, and favor, culturally heterogeneous neighborhoods, and the latter are better for autistic people.

From my personal experience, i’d say nice conservatives are the most accepting of people with Aspergers. Liberals pretend to care. They’ll say anything to make themselves look good and to get into power.

Also, most modern-day feminists are terribly spiteful, selfish and aggressive. They don’t care about equality of gender (which we already have), they’re misandrists who want domination.