Why people with ASD / Autism / AS should not be a neo nazi

Post Reply New Topic

Based on considerable experience, I'll need unbiased documentation to support your assertions, rather than taking your word for it.

The closest I could find commenced with an indication that the person(s) who compiled it weren't greatly concerned with verifying facts at the time of the initial publication:

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/nyregion/amy-cooper-false-report-charge.html
Inside the article, it stated:

The fact that she acknowledged she was not assaulted does nothing, however, to discount her honest belief at the time of the call that she was being threatened, nor that she believed that an assault upon her was imminent.

To make the assertion that because she had acknowledged not having been physically assaulted, she did not feel threatened, or believe she would be assaulted at the time of making the call, is falsely representing both what was stated and the situation at the time of it occurring.



Alternatively, it was the most obvious and easiest to estimate (height\weight are not always easy to estimate (I know I am no good at it), likely even less under stress, and "hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, or scars" are not highly informative to someone trying to determine the person involved from a distance) characteristic of the list..."I'm being threatened by a person with green eyes" is unlikely to be of much use to police trying to find the location or perpetrator, after all.



Based on past experience, this comes across as either projecting how you would have reacted in her position, or assumptions designed to support your fantasies about the world and people in it, given you have provided no supporting evidence\facts for your statement.

The invocation of "Argumentum ad populum" (via your "which everyone knows") also indicates the likely falsity in the statement, with the subsequent wording suggesting it has been constructed to appeal to emotion rather than having any reasoned\informed basis.

When people argue against that Amy called the cops on the bird watching man and deny it was a race thing. Plus she had admitted she lied to the police when she made that call. She is lucky she is only getting a slap in the wrist because the man doesn't want her to go to jail and feels she has suffered enough and only wants her to be educated. But yet we still have a member here that is still arguing against it and still denying it was a race thing and claiming there is still no evidence she admitted it. So I ask if she were to make a video of herself admitting it, would that convince her or would she come up with another reason how it's not proof she lied.



Pretending that people are just making it a race issue when it was in face a racial issue and still denying there was no racism and claiming that people are making it out to be a racist thing because of skin color is racism because they are still denying it by pretending there was no racism involved.

And yes, I do think people do truly believe what they are saying and are just naïve and oblivious but they become willful if they refuse to be educated. I do call it a privilege if you are not interested in this topic because it doesn't affect you so why would you want to read about racism and read about our US black history and read about Jim Crow. But however, black people and other minorities don't get to walk away from it because they experience it.

My brother is white but he actually experienced racism in his math class because his teacher assumed he was Native and she had this prejudice view on Native Americans. But he got to experience it and got to learn why minorities tend to have lower grades and stuff and why they don't get into colleges. It's because the teachers don't help them and teach them like they do with their white students so their grades suffer. And because of their suffering grades, it affects them getting into a good college. But his privilege was he only got to deal with this once just for one year and only one class. Now imagine if he had to deal with this on a daily basis and deal with this every single school year? So he still got to walk away from it but it sure gave him a new perspective on life and knows "holy moly, white privilege is real."

Can you substaniate this claim? The closest I have seen has been admission that he did not assault her, not that he did not threaten her, nor that she felt that she was about to be assaulted at the time of the call. The fact she acknowledged not having been assaulted does not prove either of the other possibilities were not true, and trying to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Similarly, as pointed out in reply to your previous post (which, revealingly, you avoided addressing here), "race" is one of the items of higher importance that the NYPD request be supplied when reporting an incident, so the fact that she mentioned it (potentially while vocalizing what actions she was preparing to make, which can help in stressful situations such as she appeared to be in from footage of the incident) does nothing to indicate it had any impact on her decision\reason to call the police.



And yet, with no evidence or facts, you are still making the assumption that it was racially motivated. Do you have any evidence to support a claim that she would not have reported a "white male", were Mr Cooper to have been white? If you cannot prove that, then on what factual basis can you determine that the reason she reported him as "african american" was for racist reasons?

*cough*



Every heckler and troll fancies themselves as some kind of seeker of truth or purveyor of wisdom, as though outsmarting someone is what defines who is right and who is wrong. Classroom debates may be "won" by whoever makes the "better argument", but the real world is what it is, regardless of how clever and critical your reasoning may be. It doesn't matter how many times you scream and shout at your freezer that heat expands and cold contracts, water ice will still expand. Because not everything in life is obvious, and the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. It keeps moving along whether you understand it or not.

Sure, it's a "logical" argument to say that autistic people shouldn't embrace nazi ideals, on the grounds that nazi ideals persecuted autistic people, and would therefore potentially be a conflict of self interest. But people will find their own logic. People rationalize and lie to themselves. The abused and vulnerable are particularly susceptible to this. People always have a reason - doesn't mean it's a good one.

It's really not difficult at all to get people to act against their best interests. All you have to do is make the thing that's good for them look bad and difficult, and then take the thing that's bad for them, and make it look good and easy. Put people in a bad enough situation and they'll take any bait that promises an improvement for them. Even rotting garbage is a feast to someone who's hungry enough.

Unfortunately, there is no statement that can be made, that is of sufficient logic, reason, and truth, that it can force a person to admit it's validity, and prevent them from simply denying it. Assuming they're serious, some people seem to still believe the earth is flat. The collective achievements of the last 1000 years aren't enough to convince them. Even if you sent them into space to see for themselves, they'd just say it was a simulation ride.

As for ideologies, when people notice that what they believe happens to look an awful lot like an ideology with a really negative stigma, they find ways to rationalize how their beliefs are "different", rather than actually question their beliefs. An example. I have a friend who does not understand why people think he's a misogynist. In his mind, he isn't one, cos he "doesn't hate women". And he's right, he doesn't "hate women". But he DOES believe that *most* women are lying, cheating, stealing, manipulative, heartless, soul crushing gold diggers - but by his logic, since he's ok with any women that happen to not be like that, he can't be a misogynist, because he doesn't hate ALL women, he just hates the "lying cheating gold diggers, which is most of them" (according to him). And technically he's "not wrong" either, because 100% of the girls he's dated (all four of them) were in fact exactly like that, so he has "proof", in his mind, as flimsy as that "proof" is.

Racism sneaks in, in a similar way. They don't "hate black people" - just like my friend doesn't "hate women". And just like my friend, they will cherry pick anecdotal instances to validate their beliefs. Everyone always has a reason, and everyone always thinks theirs is a good one. "Black on black crime, prison demographics, I was robbed by a...", and they'll use those as "proof", but only as far as they prove their point. More black people in prison MUST mean that blacks commit more crimes, and can't possibly mean that the system simply targets more black people, because the system can't possibly be designed to have racial bias built in. Cos it's not like anglo civilizations have a thousand-plus year history of superiority and subjugation. Yes yes, others have too, but we've perfected it, refined it to an art, and codified it into society so completely, that even a nation so obsessed with being "great" and "better" and "powerful" doesn't see the connection between how you value people, and how it affects how you treat people. However you want to phrase it, there are always "socially acceptable" reasons we tell ourselves for treating some people as more important, and some people as less important. Pretty sure that's what was meant by the "denial of racism" mentioned earlier. You win one internet for being clever enough to turn it into a kafka trap on paper by misinterpreting it. Slow clap goes here. But what I suspect was meant, was ignoring the hundreds of years of racism that drove america, and acting like once Abe freed the slaves, slavery and racism went away just like that, and no longer exists today.

At this point some would jump on that bandwagon and say "see, you should question your beliefs more, and not just follow things blindly! Sheep!", but more often than not, those same people don't actually do it themselves, so it's meaningless. From there, some would say that "I DID question them, and they're right!", but now you're just lying to yourself. You may be confident, but that's not the same thing. Usually what people actually mean is they reconfirmed their biases to themselves, and continued to use them to prop up their beliefs. Something akin to "no, YOU'RE the biased one!" goes here.

It *is* hard to tell the difference, cos everyone thinks they're right, cos to them, they are. But here's a handy tip. Everyone tends to be resistant to changing their mind. But those who need to maintain a scaffolding of bias are less likely to be willing to discuss their ideologies, because scrutiny undercuts their position. Someone who isn't willing to expose their beliefs, even if they don't change them, usually doesn't want to see something. If questioning them about their beliefs just gets them openly talking about their beliefs, odds are they're more genuine in their belief, and open to change. Now, nobody says you *have* to answer every question someone asks you - that too is a trap, cos people will ask garbage and trap questions. But being willing to discuss your ideas is a strong indicator. And yes, sometimes we don't feel safe discussing some ideas for valid reasons - but if you're confident enough to indicate THAT you believe something, you're not exactly opening up anything new by discussing WHY you believe something - you've already outed yourself, so "safety" is hardly a valid concern at this point - if you were THAT worried, you wouldn't have said even that much.

Somehow this went from a statement about autistics, and reasons why they in particularly should not be drawn to nazi ideals, to debating what is or isn't a nazi, as though that matters when it comes to CHOOSING to BE one - not not simply being labeled one by someone else. Arguing about what is or isn't a nazi waters down the word more than people misusing it - people will always misuse words, but being willing to entertain discussions about it is what give it it's validity. I can call you a marmoset all I want - it's obvious you're not, and needs no rebuttal - but if you're willing to debate it, that shows you're open to the possibility of it being true. See previous statement about refusal to discuss ideas. This too, is easily manipulated by the "clever".

"Impartiality" is seldom ever all that "impartial". Not taking sides is all well and good if both sides are equal, and taking a side would upset that balance - but not taking sides is also to be complicit with inequality, when the sides are not equal. Not taking sides is a luxury afforded to those who are not being negatively affected by the inequality. Things never seem unequal to those who aren't experiencing the negatives of the inequality. Even if you tell yourself "well, I AM impartial, it's just that one side is..." you've still given a reason as to why it's ok to single one side out over another, even though you've projected the reason onto the subject - essentially saying "im impartial, but this one is worse" - In which case what they're really meaning to say is "unbiased" (which they probably aren't), not "impartial".

Saying "prove to me that my version is wrong" is just a fancy way of setting up a "disprove a negative" fallacy, in such a way where it looks like you're simply asking them to prove their claim, but in actuality are asking them to do it specifically in a way that's both impossible (i.e. prove to me right now that you AREN'T a thief), and pushes the burden of evidence back onto the original speaker, and attempts to disprove their claim by expecting them to disprove your claim in response, without you needing to disprove their claim. Basically, "if you can't prove *me* wrong, then *you're* wrong".

It's always funny watching people groan about the importance of "truth" and "proof", but who's entire position adds neither, and relies entirely on "YOU don't have any, therefore I'm right". The burden of proof is always magically someone else's responsibility, never theirs. Also nice use of the fallacy-fallacy, wherein if it even looks like a fallacy, it must be one, and must also be wrong. I've seen this before - you get them so tangled up in disproving your claims, they've switched from advocating their point to attacking targets of your choice, which puts you in a stronger position from a conversational perspective. You've lured them from their defense with decoys. It works well, usually.

This got way longer than I'd planned. It's late. I'm tired.

There you go again telling people they are intellectually dishonest because you don't agree with them.

You do realize how arrogant you sound when you do this? "I'm right, you're wrong so there for you are lying there mate."

And thank you Bric for reminding me why I had stopped responding to your posts and I was foolish again to even bother again when I thought you had changed your ways on here but I was wrong.

Welp, that goes for either political party...

An incident that involves two people of different races, particularly when one person is White and one person is Black, in which there is conflict and an exercise of power* by one person over the other, particularly when the power lies with the White person, IS A RACE ISSUE. It just is. Doesn’t matter what anyone did or who was right or wrong.


* Calling the cops.

It isn't that I don't agree, it's the fact you deliberately reframe a comment in a way that suits your agenda rather than the facts available.
1) At the time of the call, she was threatened "If you do what you want, then I'll do what I want and you might not like it".
2) She anticipated being assaulted.
She called 911 and reported this.

Later, she acknowledged she was not assaulted, however she did not state she was not threatened, nor that she didn't believe she would be assaulted at the time of the call, which were the reason for her calling - not that she had been assaulted at that time.

So, you have taken a statement where she acknowledged something she had not claimed to have occurred had indeed not occurred, and then implied that this meant that she had also acknowledged the events which caused the call also did not occur when that was not the case, hence the claim of intellectual dishonesty.

America's ruling party is attempting to become a fascist government whether you're able to recognize it or not.



Go ahead, make your case if that can honestly be claimed.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, how about that epic leap of assumption that the thing he's gonna do that she won't like MUST be assaulting her, and not literally anything else it could mean besides assaulting her, such as filming her and uploading it to the internet, or giving treats to her unleashed dog, which is what he did, so...

Y'know, cos if a neighbor is making noise and says "I can do whatever I want!", and you reply "well then so can I, and you're not gonna like it!", OF COURSE it means you plan to assault them, and not literally anything else like playing loud polka music or shining bright lights at their windows all night long, or calling the police - petty, but not assault. Or when someone plays a prank, and the other person says "i'm gonna get you for this!", obviously that means they're going to assault them later, right? They couldn't possibly mean prank them back, or anything other than violence.

Reading that far into things and using them as an excuse is essentially "looking for trouble". You don't get to "counter attack" just because you THINK someone MIGHT attack you. Especially if the reason you THINK they MIGHT do something is as a result of biased thinking, rather than anything the person actually did.

Assault is when you threaten or attempt to HARM someone. It is not illegal to do something that someone else doesn't like. Saying "I'm going to do something you're not going to like" is not an implication of harm, other than perhaps feelings. "You're not going to like it" is NOT the same thing as "I'm going to harm you". Dislike is NOT harm. I could say "I'm going to do something that you're not going to like, and you can't stop me", and then fart, or start yodeling loudly, or chew up some food and open my mouth - and while you may not like it, you've not been "assaulted".

Yet somehow it's fair to assume that he MUST have meant "assault". Why is that?

Also, why are we now talking about Karens? I thought we were talking about nazis, and why supporting them might be a conflict of interest for people with autism...?

Something doesn't make sense in your dreary and persistent defence of this Karen. Your point number 2 says she anticipated being assaulted but then you say she later acknowledged she was not assaulted. Therefore she lied and that's why she is fronting up in court to defend her less than ethical conduct in nearly getting an innocent person accosted or worse by the police.

Last edited by cyberdad on 29 Oct 2020, 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Is there evidence which is being ignored that states she didn't feel she was being threatened? Without knowing the tone of voice used (filming conveniently commenced after this was said) it may have been an innocent, friendly comment, but her demeanour in the video does not appear to align with how someone would have reacted had that been the case. At present, the only evidence we have is that of his post where he stated what he said to her (but not how), along with footage of her reaction to this.

In hindsight, you may see no threat was intended to her, but at the time she did not have access to this information and so her reactions and understanding of events can only be interpreted based on the information she had available to her at that moment in time.

She was a director in a major fortune 500 firm with a six figure salary. I'm pretty sure she had the capacity under pressure to measure up her adversary and knew exactly what she was doing.

The way you and robot describe her is she's an unworldly damsel prone to suffering irrational panic attacks.

Trying to simplify events in a way that you may finally understand:
1) Person A believes action X will occur.
2) Person A reports they believe action X is likely to occur.
3) Action X does not occur.
4) Person A confirms action X did not occur.
5) Person A has not stated\indicated\acknowledged that at the time of placing the report they did not believe action X was likely to occur

You are taking 4) in the above and dishonestly asserting that as it is true, then 1) and by extension, 2) have to be false, when there has been no evidence produced to support this assertion. I have simply been indicating the fact that point 4) has no bearing on the validity\accuracy of points 1) or 2) as noted in step 5).

What you appear to be attempting to do here is to twist an acknowledgement of an event not occurring (which was never reported as having occurred) into an admission that there was never a belief that it would, when there in no evidence to support this.

Or to put it another way: You are attempting to show that because an event did not occur, a person who claimed to believe that it would occur prior to the outcome being known was lying (and by extension knew at the time of their statements that it would not occur).

For example, using your "logic", anyone who claimed they "believed that Ms Clinton was going to win the 2016 election" before the results were known was lying (indicating dishonest intent on their part), rather than mistaken in the beliefs (indicating an incorrect, but honest intent).

Again, we're not fans of bored neocons playing devil's advocate for bigots.

You're not defending freedom by making excuses for paranoid idiots falsely reporting crimes.

To use a Fnordism: Evidence, please.



Well, for one thing, the Democrats were paying fines on behalf of the rioters.