Militant, much?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with you on this NT-bashing story. There are a lot of posts recently on NT-bashing, and I was already wondering what they were meaning with it, 'cause I've never really seen it on WP. There are sometimes negative things being said about them, though it is hardly ever real bashing, and even if it occurs, it is not really worth posting for, it is not an actual problem on WP in my opinion.

Who are these militants?

I was bashed a lot BY NT's. So was my friend.'

Insisting that one is more intelligent, rational, kind, etc seems an almost textbook definition of ''I am superior'' to me.

I mean, based on it, here's what a great deal of Aspies think of NT's:

-They are dumber.
-They are less rational.
-They are evil or morally ambiguous

If you don't see it, then I can only conclude you view ''AS Supremecy'' different to me. I'm just tired of seeing all this demonizing. You cannot generalise several billions of people. It's narrow-minded bigotry.

And likewise, it's tiring seeing declaractions of supremecy and rationality over NT's. If you want to see examples of this, they are not hard to find. This thread itself is absolutely rife with them.

But what do I know? After all, since I disagree with you I must be a troll.

If I could find these militants, oh what fun that would be.

What was it one person said in another thread... roving bands of AS out looking for NTs to beat up? Superior AS egomaniacal as*holes oppressing the NTs?

I can almost pee myself laughing at that one.

AS #1: "Hey, what did you do last night?"
AS #2: "Oh we went out and beat the crap out of a bunch of NT who thought they could move into our neighborhood."
AS #3: "I hooked up with some NT ho, and then dumped her. Inferior scum."
All together: "Mwuahh ha ha ha!"

Where is some AS MANIFESTO! I can pore over and have fantasies about how I am like God and AS will dominate the universe?

Well, why doesn't someone create a thread that is a tutorial with real (not imagined, or exaggerated or vague) comments that are offensive patterns of bias or AS-supremacists, and then discuss those concrete, literal examples and why they are bad?

And how they are inherently wrong, or worse than all the self-loving trash-talk that goes on all the time in NT-world, from football locker rooms (talking up your own team), churches (talking up the worship and beliefs of the particular congregation), and just about any other corporate boardroom, political group, ethnic group or other sub-group out there. I mean, Italians have their street festivals in Little Italy. Would we be AS supremacists to have a chat dwelling on ways in which AS might be talented and superior?

Do we have to talk about ourselves and our traits using the language of pathology and deviation, to make sure no one thinks we feel proud of the I.Q. and the sensitivity and the creativity? That AS might be a good thing to have? Not to be ashamed of it?

AS doesn't grant those traits, though. It has nothing to do with AS. Why would one group the two things together? NTs are EQUALLY likely to have those traits. Your post kinda sounds like you think people should be proud of the I.Q. and sensitivity and creativity that comes with AS... but that's silly. Be happy with your strengths, yes, but don't make them out to be traits that are superior to NTs because they are not. They are merely coincidental.

See, just discussing them in a way that associates any talent with AS focus and statistically proven rate of certain intellectual characteristics, makes people read an indictment against NTs into anything...

So the answer is yes, we do have to talk about AS traits using the language of pathology and deviation. To make sure whenever we talk about I.Q. and other talents, that we include statements that they have nothing to do with AS and certainly have nothing to do with NTs not having those traits.

I.e. when we talk about our traits, if we don't do so in a way that uses semantics of pathology and deviation, we have to include the disclaimer:



Example of a comment accompanied by a disclaimer:



Do you really think it makes sense for us to be constantly thinking about NTs, how they feel about AS talents and traits, and how their feelings might be hurt or offended if we talk about ourselves in ways that are not how damaged or pathological AS is? Do we really always have to frame everything within the context of NT feelings about us, even to the extent of qualifying every statement to ensure that any NT who might be listening in would feel comfortable with what we say about ourselves?

Sorry, but it seems you're completely misreading me. You seem very quick to be defensive and misconstrue anything as an attack on AS. You're acting like you're being oppressed!

All I am saying is that boasting and bragging is not a becoming trait, and moreso to do so about traits that are not really very unique at all. No one, AS or not, should take pride in feeling that they are more talented or superior than another person. Why do you insist on comparatives? Is it not enough to just say "I am intelligent" and take pride in that, rather than saying "I am more intelligent than (insert group here)"?

I have no idea where you got the idea that I was saying AS people need to refer to themselves in any negative way. I am simply saying that we should not treat ourselves as superior, either, and that bringing AS into talent-related discussion is silly because AS people and NT people have an equal mix of various talents and strengths.

Militant?

Hardly. It's the exact same thing as those stories you sometimes hear about rape victims hating the race, the class, or the organization the rapist belongs too after the attack. Only in neurological terms. I wouldn't take it to heart, they probably won't enact on much of what they say if it's really extreme- it's the internet. Take everything with a grain of salt. I think it's just a bit of a culture shock because there hasn't really been a time in history where the 'ill' tended to hate the 'normal' as much as now. Don't worry so much! and hang in there!

That is true. Everybody does "trash talk", like in football locker rooms before games, talking up their team and talking down the other, even fishermen glorify their catches and exaggerate the size of their fish (and "the big one that got away").

Hard for it to not get out of hand or insulting at times. I do see that here. References to self that become insensitive. I do it.

So how to discuss positive traits of AS without making others (AS who don't have them) feel that the talk is directed at them, in a neurodiverse environment.

Perhaps there should be a thread on sensitivity when talking about traits and others? Part of a social skills review?

Edited to add:

If this is about "insensitivity" and naive egotism, I can understand that. That is a big issue. I have to make a conscious decision to either (1) not speak or (2) embrace my insensitivity. After some time, I develop sensitivity when I understand the subject area (in this case social behavior discussions) enough to understand what comprises "sensitive" and what does not. But if I choose to not speak, out of fear of being insensitive, I never get to that point. I.e. I remain forever inarticulate in that subject area. So the path to developing "articulate" in a particular subject area involves some time developing a sense of limitations and appropriateness, especially interpersonal. Am I the only one with this problem?

Is it possible to short cut the verbal development process in any subject area so we can leap over the "insensitive" stage and into the articulate and sensitive?

I think that in any special interest area, there is a time when the AS person is at first naive, inarticulate and makes silly mistakes. So an AS that launches themselves at studying black holes at the age of 16, might in the first 6 months sound like a misguided, naive, arrogant idiot to a real physicist he might talk to, and make naive, un-selfaware missteps in his references. But by the end of one year, that AS might start sounding awfully sophisticated with some novel or unusual perspectives that a researcher might recognize as subtle thinking.

Is there any difference for AS who are developing skills of talking about human behavior, their traits and social experiences?

Any way to short cut that naive, insensitive stage?

I would like to be more sensitive, but don't know how until I develop larger associations that start tying individual discourse together. I.e. reference framing.

I think that maybe some of this issue of "NT bashing" and militant egotism is about semantic-pragmatic disorder and also naive insensitivity?