Have you felt alienated/discounted by the autistic men here?

Post Reply New Topic

It's the old "battle of the sexes."

Billie Jean King had an excellent idea to resolve this: Play tennis with Bobby Riggs.

I’m not going to discuss anything about her, for the reason I’ve already told her.



I’m not sure who are those who can’t “just express their frustration”. I’m more familiar with being ruthlessly attacked and seeing others get the same response as soon as you acknowledge you can’t get sex or relationships; wanting them seems to make you an absolutely horrible person and to be inherently an aggression to women.

On the other hand, I don’t think the problems women may have with relationships are “not to be taken seriously”, but I’m pretty sure it’s a fact that being completely unable to get anyone of the opposite sex interested in you in the first place is astronomically more common among men than among women. This also means you don’t get a chance to learn to handle relationships, and, as you get older, your lack of that experience disqualifies you even more for them, making it more and more likely that you’ll never get one. It’s been observed a lot of times on these very forums how a woman complaining about her lack of success in this regard gets a boyfriend in a matter of months or less, while men who had never had any kind of meaningful relationship with women five or ten years ago have still the same amount of experience today and the same prospects of ever getting any—namely zero. What the former consider failure would be an amazing success to the latter.



So, if they have no interest in simple friendship, you’re, in fact, telling them their choice is wrong, because you say they should be interested in it. It’s quite common for women, who often are in relationships themselves and may, for some reason or other I don’t really understand, want also to have male friends, to tell men they should devote their time and resources to hanging out with female friends instead of seeking romantic relationships of their own, and there seems to be always the implication that doing otherwise makes you a contemptible person. It doesn’t strike me as very fair.

I’m not going to let them smear me as the worst misogynist in the world for a comment which has essentially nothing to do with their picture at this point, without at least trying to defend myself.



I don’t even understand your question. Where in my post did I talk about my feelings? Those words describe the feelings I’ve slowly learned to expect from women in those situations. It doesn’t take much guessing when they themselves describe that way their sexual experiences with unworthy male partners.

I have nothing to discuss with you. I’d appreciate it if you left me alone.

Well, now you’re not even bothering to address my points at all; you’re just randomly ascribing me whatever assumptions and evil intents you like so you can condemn me for them. If you’re ever willing to discuss this issue rationally, which seems most unlikely, please let me know. Otherwise, I’ve wasted enough time with it already.

Please stop making assumptions about my feelings and motivations. When I want others to know them, I just state them. I wasn’t even angry when I made the comment that seems to have caused all the grief. I have trouble with the idea that expressing a view, especially trying to support it rationally, can be “insensitive”. At best, it makes those who want to silence it for disagreeing with their own no less insensitive, and, in this case, the “insensitivity” comes from a greatly distorted version of what I said; apparently, they punish me by distorting it more and more, as they probably know their voice is the only one that will be heard in the end. Sometimes, trying to debate rationally is a losing strategy.



No, I was communicating facts.



Which I never said, by the way.



I wish we could get along without having to walk on eggshells.

Spiderpig, I hope you won't see this as hostility on my part, because it really isn't.

In your case, I think a lot is lost in translation, between intention and your actual words. Do you really not understand that when you repeatedly state that you never approach or talk to women and that you would be suspicious and think something very unflattering if one would show any interest in you, it's just absurd to claim that you "cannot get a relationship or sex"? The information you give yourself is very confusing and people often react with hostility to such things.

Given the state of the thread, I will only add this much: the way this situation is handled now is disastrous and along with the suggestion of censoring hostile reactions to "involuntary" misogynist posts only feeds everybody's resentment and frustration - perfectly illustrated in this thread where both sides seem to consider the current situation unfair and skewed against them. If Alex wants indeed to turn a blind eye to sexist posts, he should either alter the TOS so people would know what they're getting into or create a specific sub-forum for such rants. Speaking of wanting to have your cake and eat it...

Does anyone else find it a bit unfair that someone else has come into the thread that I created, posted an entire page of responses, but at the same time told me I'm not allowed to answer them, in my own thread, because he doesn't want to talk to me? The only solution he's leaving me is to have the thread locked, but then the women here are left not being able to discuss the experiences we've been discussing in this thread before he got here because it's against the rules to discuss the topics in locked threads. That would be very effectively shutting us up. So what am I supposed to do, if I can't answer him and I can't get the thread locked (because I would very much like to continue the discussion I was having with the women in this thread)? What is the right course of action? I created this thread in Women's Discussion for a reason.

Answer what you like he can't stop you. Answer the ideas.

Rarely is a good idea to lock things, he has no authority to prevent you from answering, It is his responsibility to ignore you if he is not answering you.

I am not going to comment if the terms of service have been violated, or if posts in this thread are offensive. I am not Alex, a mod, or a woman, or another user who just has thier own unique set of triggers.

I can say this having been here since 2013. The person who creates a thread has no say in how it evolves. 95+ percent of threads end up going off topic. Why that is probably has something to do with autism or executive functioning common in autism I guess. Same thing happened in the support groups I attended. This made me very frustrated when I got here and still does occasionally.

There are major issue with how some SJW interpret freedom or failure to consider the impact their ideas put into practice on these freedoms. This is worthy of criticism and a fair target.

I was not critical of this until I really is wasn't a fringe movement as I had thought.

As far as I'm concerned, it is about ideas not putting people down needlessly.

Sometime it is personal, sometimes people take it personally, becuase they are attached to these idea so take it as slight.

Otherwise this is a marketplace of ideas.

Personally I think people refusing to speak to each other, is all a bit silly. It is a personal choice that needs to be acted on not said. If you needs to said then they are making some other point besides not talking to someone. I had only one person say that on this forum a long time ago and the continued to send me PMs long after they said it.

I'm about as far away from an unreasonable socially conservative person as you can get. I trt to treat everyone fairly an reasonably. It is lack of reasonableness that get my goat, and some SJWs are legitimate target for that reason.

On the other hand some people on the opposite side are also capable of dumb arguments.

She was asking if she able to respond to a user's points. Of course she can. I don't think that is even in question.

The fact that this would even be considered a barrier, makes me think that basic social concept are not being understood.

On WP we post due to ToS. However it does make me think the way people interpret how rights and privileges in the wider world can be misinformed, and the principles behind these rights can be lost.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 06 Jan 2016, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The irony of this thread is rich though.

"I feel my concerns are discounted."
"Yeah, but at least people are interested enough in you to abuse you."

^I know no one has actually said these words, but when taken to the extreme of this example, it is kinda funny. The argument proves the point.

For instance Wilberforce interpreted her "criticising me" as different from "criticising my ideas". When these are not incompatible statements, and it commonly interpreted as interchangeable. I was saying that it was totally legitimate she was crititising me, and a good thing to. She was worried that me saying that she was "criticising me" was me implying she was violating the rules or something I was bothered about, which not what I meant at all. She was keen to point out she does only critistisied my ideas.

If someone crititising your ideas, they are critical of you that goes without saying, becuase you hold those ideas.

It did not occur to me where English is a first language that such confusion would happen.

This kind of confusion in language shouldn't matter but does. The well known statement is: "attack the ideas not the person", which is easy to understand.

Attacking a person is less subjective than some arbitrary distinction between "criticising me" and "criticising my ideas". It would be "problematic" to use an SJW term if we can't criticise somebody for ideas they hold.

Attacking the person is where ideas are irrelevant, it is just verbatim.

SJW have gone after people and their career not always with good reason, simply becuase people challenge their ideas. They look for anything to incriminate them. Phil Mason is a good example of this. He said things they didn't like including completely misinterpreting hypothetical theory of ethics point he made, then tried get him fired.

This means these people don't understand how critical thinking works. Just that certain idea are taboo and must be off limit or you are an evil Nazi.

My Cr0.02 ...

This thread is a classic example of one group stating assumptions, beliefs, falsehoods, and opinions, while another group presents contradictory facts and is forced to mount a defense against personal attacks from the other group.

The person who owns this thread is Alex. He also owns this website and sets the rules for acceptable behavior.

The mods are here to enforce those rules, and not to act as baby-sitters at an on-line day-care center.

Personally, this thread has been entertaining, as I can sit back and learn how people interact in ways that have previously been called "Negative and Contentious" without any moderatorial intervention occurring.

I'm out of lemonade. Be right back!