There are many bitter and hateful people on this forum

Post Reply New Topic

-"You know what they say. It's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"
-"Try it!"

In all fairness, sure, people should be given a chance. To treat all NT's the same is nonsense. But I'm quite stuck in a view that aspies are bound to slip away from social bonding one way or the other.
It can be all fun and games to begin with. You can perhaps be with a whole group of people, and feel quite comfortable. But sooner or later certain bonds will be created. By willing or sub-coinsciously copying each others hair cuts, clothing, world views or mp3-players, people will become what, in the NT-world, is called friends (allies).

Someone pointed out that aspies are often friends with other aspies. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's a personality trait, and as such not subject to change in the same degree as the factors people often look at when "choosing friends". Perhaps we accept each other on some kind of basic level, and manage to see through the superficial details? Perhaps NT's have so much more people to choose from, so they have the luxury(?) to sort out the creme-de-la-creme?

I don't know, I hardly even try to understand. People fight over stupid BS, hurt each other over the most insignificant issues, and seem to be willing to step on one persons face to be accepted by some other person. It's like they're hooked on some kind of social roleplay-drug, and they need their acceptance-fix no matter what the cost.

I'm ranting, I seem to trigger myself ...

It's easier to be friends with those who you can talk to and actually share with.

In therapy, forgiveness is not for the sake of the tresspasser but for the well-being of the forgiver, so that they can let go of that anger and it won't continue to eat them alive.

________________________

On another note, the term "neurotypical" is completely and statistically illogical. There is no such thing as a neurotypical. The complete Average Man is a statistical construct that doesn't exist, because every person on earth deviates from the norm in some way.

I challenge anyone to define a set of characteristics of a Neurotypical, and I bet you will find these fit only a portion of the human population.

In terms of NT - It was a word coined by some in the autism community to refer to those who are not on the spectrum, correct? So in that sense there CAN be neurotypical people if it only means those not on the spectrum. Although the term NT has been expanded by some to include a variety of people who have been labeled with various conditions. And I also think that there is a "normal" out there because there is a yardstick by which many of us have been measured. To say it does not exist in some way - or that there is really no normal - sounds nice but just doesn't work out all that often. I think it would be great if society would forget this concept about labeling people but so far they are still handing out labels.

Neurotypical is used in a way I find illogical. Nonautistic makes more sense, although it leaves out those who are closer to the Autistic end of the Autistic bell curve.

There may be a general profile one can draw up to define "average", but just as each individual Aspie deviates from the Asperger's criteria, neurotypical is a generalization and that's about it.

As it is being used, it implies all people who are not diagnosably autistic are somehow lesser beings because people in our lives who have mistreated us have somehow come to represent all of humanity outside the Spectrum. But it also implies therefore that I should like all people along the Spectrum, and I can promise you I have met people online and IRL who have an ASD who are as painful to me as fingers on a chalkboard.

Generalizations and labels serve a function. But they can be taken too far. Summing up "neurotypical" as though it is the sum of a person's personality is unfair if you treat them accordingly. Making up one's mind before ever having known an individual is as wrong as those bullies who made some of our school lives hell.

If I were to take neurotypicals at face value, I would not now be friends with a girl in one of my classes, who is about as super-model, superficial in appearance as one can get and I was well-prepared (yes, I continue to make these judgment mistakes) to write her off. But not until I actually started informally tutoring her in Statistics did I find she's actually incredibly nice and while she's no rocket scientist, she is a worthwhile human being to know and has been very kind to me in return.

I'm married to an NT - and although my daughter has a label of mild MR (given to her when she was very young) I consider her to be NT too because of the way she handles herself in social situations. So I do not view all NT's the same way. On the other hand I can see the differences sometimes that make you hesitant to really let your guard down. When push comes to shove you are still weird or a freak. I find that my son who has HFA and I have a better ability to relate to each other's way of thinking- although that doesn't mean that all those on the spectrum can get along.

The issue I see with alot of NT's is not so much on an individual level but when they get together in a group. Not necessarily a bad thing - it was actually something that I found very fascinating about my husband was his social skills. That is going off on a tangent however.

Some interesting facts about NTs:

• NTs are responsible for genocides. (An aspie could hardly convince hundreds of thousands of people that another group of people is responsible for all their ills.)Those an
• Those annoying political ads are produced for NTs by NTs.
• The CEOs of the top ten polluting corporations in the world are NT.
• The vast majority of criminals are NT.
• NTs are the reason why NBA basketball players make more money than scientists and writers.
• Conformity is the medium by which NTness (sounds like emptiness, doesn't it? ) infects.
• It was an NT who first used this emotionally manipulative tactic of persuasion (referring to the tactic used in this very list).

My main unease about this topic was the assumption that there was a kind of unwritten law that states that no-one should be allowed to post anything that could be interpreted as offensive or distateful by someone else.
I didn't actually find the example given 'bitter and hateful' personally, - it was just the poster's opinion. I really don't understand this habit of assigning of emotion to what someone says.

This isn't a gardening forum where we gather round to discuss prize dahlias, but a forum where people with AS discuss their lives and experiences, some of which are naturally painful. I would be surprised if there wasn't rage and anger expressed sometimes but I don't understand why the expression of these feelings is seen as a problem.

There are two important things that I've come up with that's been brought up in this topic. The first is the three definitions of NT:

Ranting Usage: Used when someone is complaining, expressing their problems, or just explaining things in a quick manner. Defines anyone not on the Spectrum.
Normal Usage: Used anywhere else. Defines someone who is majorly typical in their neurology, as the name suggests.
Philisophical Usage: By these terms, as Sophist said, NT shouldn't even exist, as no-one is completely NT.

The second is a saying I conceived:

"The gift of thought is given to anyone, it's the expression of it that can get people into trouble."

That's the trouble with the use of the passive voice. If it "is seen as a problem" that statement is literally true even if only one person sees it that way. This can be misinterpreted as "it is a problem" or "the majority of us see it as a problem."

It's been stated before that when someone is just venting once in a while, it's not a problem and everyone can understand it. But, when that person does it on a daily basis it is not healthy for this site or for his/her self. I went through the same crap when I was kid, and I don't want to see other children go through the same thing. Which is why I don't understand why people on this site can be so selfish. Instead of directing their bitterness towards people without autism on this site, they could use that energy to help them understand so they can help their children, spouse, etc.. I'm happy I didn't come to this site when I was an impressionable teenager. I may have thought it's okay to stay angry for decades, and not continue with my life. Those bastards who made my life a living hell when I was a kid don't deserve the effort.

I can't now remember the name of the gentleman, but you may find it interesting that the guy who invented the idea of "eugenics" fit an Aspergers profile very well indeed.

I'll have to try and remember where I read about him and who he was. I'll repost if I recall...

Also though, I would hardly call Hitler "neurotypical". He probably wasn't autistic, but he definitely wasn't typical anything.

Weren't both Hitler and Stalin the children of very abusive alcoholic fathers (or step fathers)?
Not sure about that either though.

i know hitler's father was cruel to him. his father beat him into a 2 or 3 (forgot) day coma one time

Yes and Einstein thought up the theories used to create the atomic bomb. That doesnt mean Einstein liked it (you an read his quotes on the matter to see he found it quite distasteful).

Coming up with a basic idea is not the same as advocating its use

For example in political science class back in college I came up with a test that would determine if a person was individualistic or communistic in nature. As a mental excersize it works well. To actually perform the experiment in real life would be monstrous.

As for NTs.. well if the only interaction a dog has with humans is abusive can you really fault the dog for fearing, distrusting and biting humans?

Place any human being in a situation where they have to revert to their instincts and they become monsters. A mindset that encourages giving in to those instincts should also be considered heinous, right? And yet that is the NT mindset but they are exempt because they cannot see that in themselves and those who can see it are considered wrong?

Of course, that (even if true) would just be because there's more non-autistic people, not because of any inherent virtue in autistic people.