I make people angry but don't know how

Post Reply New Topic

It is an issue more on the Internet I suppose than real life, but it does occasionally happen in real life too. For example I comment on a topic somewhere and then people get angry and make things out of what I said that are not there/I didn't mean to say those things at all. It is like I say something and they read something completely different and make me into a person I am not.
I am usually very frigntened/confused by their reactions because it seems to come out of nowhere and escalates very quickly. It is also obvious they think I should apologise, and I did sometimes, thinking at least they would stop being angry but it usually didn't work. And to be honest, I feel that they should apologise for being angry with me for made up reasons.
Anyone has similar expriences when interacting with NT people online?

I’ve read down below YouTube videos and newspaper articles, and having seen the way folks go at each other decided not to join in.
Why they do it puzzles me: for the moment I’m toying with the idea that a lot of them still haven’t fully understood that it’s a public place and they’re talking to real people.

No, if I anger someone I usually understand why.

There can be many reasons for communication. Some use it to share information, learn, or to describe reality. Others might use it deceive or manipulate. Some might use it to convey their feelings. It can be frustrating when one person is attempting to use it for describing logic, truth, and reality and the other person is attempting to use it to convey their feelings.

In face to face communication there are many visual signals that can aid in understanding what someone is trying to communicate. These are absent if undetected by something like an Aspergerarian focus or if using written communication. Further, those who communicate through things like Youtube comments often are not interested in a social discourse, but rather an opportunity to feel vindicated by skewering someone with what they consider a clever riposte.

You may want to select an arena for conversation more suited to kindness and compassion.

You would have to give us examples/anectdotes for us to really understand what your problem is specifically.

But autistics are especially prone to that sorta thing. Walking into mine fields that others see far down the road, and are able to sidestep.

The problem stems lack of theory of mind, and lack of understanding context, and that sorta thing.

Like you may say something that appears to be taking sides on some hot button partisan political issue when you have no opinion on the issue at all, or even have the opposite opinion of what the person thought you were angling to defend, but weren't expressing even that opinion.

Lets say that you're in England and you comment that "its nice that there is less traffic on the roads, must be because fewer motorists are crossing through the chunnel from mainland Europe because its now harder to go through the border crossing", and the person you're talking to says "WHAT" are you defending Brexit? You traitor!".

Or if you commented that "gee its hard to find one of those Polish guys who will fix your roof cheap anymore!" (which to some would seem to imply that miss the free movement of cheap labor from the continent), and the person says "WHAT? Are you against Brexit??? You traitor to the cause!". In both cases the first speaker innocently said something that SEEMED to imply support for one side or the other of the Brexit issue. I am making up a fantasy England. Have no idea if Brits would really react that way, but I am just trying to illustrate via hypotheticals.

NTs (both in conversation and in text) lay a lot between the lines. An autistic person on another website bemoaned the fact that with her "there is no 'between the lines'", but folks mistakenly think that she is laying things between the lines when she isn't. And it gets her in trouble.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 10 Feb 2020, 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes. I have had the same experiences while online and I have abandoned sites for a while to leave people calm down. And I did not understand why they take what I said to mean something far worse then what I said... It is as if they assume I have launched an attack aginst them personally.
One site I was on, I left because I wanted to explain how breaking a law in a minor thing is no different to breaking a law in a major way as it is all breaking the law as far as the law is concerned. I gave an example of how we tend to think we are self righteous and we may break a minor law like breaking the speed limit and excuse ourselves as if it disn't happen, yet we will come down heavy in our oppinions of someone who has broken a different law which to us seems more major. But I didn't get the chance to say this as I started out as saying "What is the difference between someone who breaks the speed limit and a murderer?" (It is possible to be a murderer if... Say.. One happens to have had a row with someone and then with unexpected rage while drivings ones car... Where one may never have considered it but the opportunity came.. Just an example of how things can happen).
Now when I said this, I didn't get the chance to explain further as some had a right go at me and I was puzzled why I was having such a negative response. Before I left I found out one of the members was upset because she had just been caught foe speeding. I didn't know. How could I. I wrote an apology to her and left the site.
But, yes. Often I have found myself in situations where before I have managed to explain myself, people jump to conclusions and really assume things before I have reached the point I was trying to make!

Wow, thank you for the example! Exactly what keeps happening to me.

For example, I joined a facebook group and then there was a situation where a group member online harrassed several other (female) group members so he had to be banned from the group. Later there was a group discussion, and they were talking about what potential psychiatric disorder this guy must have. Now, psychiatry and psychology is one of my interests, so I went on saying that they cannot really diagnose someone with a personality disorder based on one incident, without knowing the person, so on and on. I also said that the conceptualisation of personality disorders is very problematic in psychiatry and gave some reasons why. Now they took it as I was defending the guy (which I totally did not - I even said I agree that he had to be banned from the group), and that I am "blaming the victims". Which is ridiculous, since I myself was harrassed in the past, not online but in real life, and know what a horrible feeling it is and totally understand why someone feels powerless in that situation. I was merely presenting arguments (or so I thought) reagrding the obvious issue of diagnosing a person without personal contact, and thourough knowledge of their behavioural and cognitive patterns.

This is one example, but I suppose the other incidents went along the same lines. What upsets me is that although I was not personally attacking anyone, people tend to get pretty personal instead of just considering what I was saying.

Last edited by 9BillionNamesofGod on 10 Feb 2020, 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^oh yeah, that’s very NT.
When they get like that they’re venting their feelings: the words used are just whatever’s to hand in their memory at that time.
They usually calm down after a bit, but best not to correct them when they’re at it: they take it as an attack on their feelings, and thus on their character (in the moral sense of the word).
Just play along and save facts for another day when everyone’s calmer

That's good advice. Do you think there is a way to foretell when they are likely to get like that? I know that usually anything involving their children or children in general is very sensitive, but because I don't have any and have no interest in having them in the future, this topic is easy to avoid for me. Then, they can get like this about politics/their country, but again, I rarely have interest in these topics. Anything else?

Hmmm...... I wouldn’t say I know all of the potential sensitivities, and they don’t all have the same ones (that would be too easy ), but I’ll try to give a list of other common areas I’m aware of:
• religious belief, or lack thereof
• other people’s driving
• sports teams (men particularly)
• celebrity/royal gossip
• sex and sexuality
• treatment of animals
• money & wages
• music, although that’s a rarer one*
• famous historical figures

There are overlaps between categories (quite a few with politics). Could be represented by a Venn diagram come to think of it.

*I hung out with some metalheads for a year or two: some people get worryingly overwrought & tribal about music.

The ones on the list I might end up in a discussion about are religion and famous historical figures. I am aware that religion is sensitive topic - it is a shame since I love discussing religions from a purely philosophical point of view. I guess I just have to choose my group/partner carefully.
However, I don't understand why and how historical figures could be sensitive topic too...? Is it because often they are connected to current politics?

I think NTs should be taught to be able to discuss something without getting overly emotional about it. It is not like I have problem with emotions in general, in fact, I express a lot of emotions (I am one of those autistics who jump when they are happy), but when I think about something I can be extremely objective, not taking sides/considering all sides. Otherwise what is the point of thinking?

That. And other reasons.

Some figures are either universally well thought of, or are universally ill thought of. So you cant blithely go blabbing about things you like about Hitler, or go about bad mouthing Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln (in the US), unless you're careful how and to whom and why.

Yeah, with the historical figures: there’s been a big wave of re-evaluating and debating historical figures and events that really started in Germany as the first generation after WWII came of age: in response to the obscenity that was nazism.
It’s a very controversial series of interlocking issues.
History told as a heroic, sometimes tragic, narrative is a big part of how many people experience themselves in the world... again it’s the character thing, but this time more sense of positive group identity.
And, in Europe where it originates, it is part of the preparation for telling a new post-imperial story that creates a new sense of positive group identity.

And yes: people who are up for an analytic discussion of religious/spiritual belief systems can be hard to come by!

Yup lots of them have very limited thinking and take things superficially and miss intention and context as well as other meanings etc. They are quite frankly not worth respecting enough that their anger should bother you.

I mean the above sincerely.


A surprisingly large amount of NTs not all but many, have little bombs in their minds just ready to go off at the slightest inconsistency with their internal state.
they are often dishonest if only to make sense of why they feel offended instead of the thing we do which is reflect and question and even discard previous ideas when met with evidence to the contrary ...

They should gravitate to benefit of the doubt and humilty as we usually do... rather than immediately assuming the worst of other people.

They rarely consider engaging other points of view and have the audacity to call us lacking in empathy when theory of mind is a genuine neurological issue theirs isnt it is borne of stubborness and tribe mind. They obscure their own logic, with prejudices that their ego refuses to let go of.

They have filters and if something doesnt pass they regard it as tainted instead of creating a new category for it in their minds.

They are generally progressing more and more towards psychopathy imo ...thats where the power lies..and the culture supports it.