Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Is anyone else sick of the anti-NT bias?

Page 3 of 9 [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ephemerella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,335

11 Dec 2008, 11:42 am

marshall wrote:
lionesss wrote:
marshall wrote:
I like what ephemerella said. I also think that a lot of the fighting over this particular topic is the result of people assigning a single motive to the behavior of a group when there is no single motive.

Also, some people seem to disparage any use of the term NT and this presents a problem. How can we even discuss something if the language used to describe it is prohibited?


Well someone around here enjoys stirring up the pot


Is this directed at me?


No, this is an "ad-hominem attack", something NTs do when they have no point. It's a social strategy that they resort to, to win or derail a discussion or debate that they can't win. So when you make a point and they come back with a personal dig, either explicit or implied, it means they have no point and are trying to change the subject.

Wikipedia: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

It's a common NT strategy to dominate or derail a debate they can't win, to either turn it into a toxic interpersonal encounter or use social skills to dominate the other person and shut down the discussion that way.



lionesss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,305
Location: not anywhere near you

11 Dec 2008, 11:48 am

ephemerella wrote:
lionesss wrote:
violet_yoshi wrote:
I just would like to able to use NT in a post, without automatically being attacked for not saying some NTs, or you're being biased and saying all NTs are like this. Well everyday people talk about people who are are on the Autism Spectrum as if they're all the same.


Wow someone around here just doesn't want to give up. :roll: Oh and FYI, not ALL people say that those who are under the spectrum are the same. Not all "NT"'s are closed minded and some are actually very nice. But funny enough there are a few of those who are under the spectrum who are just as close minded as many "NT"'s are *hint *hint*


It's not nice to pick on someone's semantic pragmatic disorder. It's not hard to figure out what she means and why she would like to be able to use generalized terms as she does. If it's all about not liking how the semantic pragmatic disorder affects discussing NT behavior and traits, that's not something that can be fixed by criticism.


I am sorry I had no idea. But all I know is that she got nasty with me before for NO reason. And I am NEVER the type to make fun of ANYONE!


_________________
Come chat about the mystical side and everyday part of life on http://esotericden.proboards.com -The Esoteric Den!! !


Kaleido
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,615

11 Dec 2008, 11:57 am

I also dislike the NT bashing because it makes it difficult to use terms like NT and aspie without it being totally misunderstood and they really are very useful terms when used responsibly.



Naturella
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 186

11 Dec 2008, 12:06 pm

I think that the whole point for Apies to get better socially is to start liking NT (=other people). To try to accept them and understand them. It is good to know that you belong to a different sort(=group) to know that there are others like you who have the same difficulties. But still the whole point is to improve your attitude to others and stop expecting from them too much. They are all just people after all. Just like you. With their own weaknesses.



mitharatowen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,675
Location: Arizona

11 Dec 2008, 12:16 pm

I don't agree with any type of prejudice (although, hypocritically of course, I do have my own). Unfortunately, that is the way of the world and we all have our own little hangups. There will never be any kind of true unbias in this world. So the best thing to do is let people have their own opinions (biased though it may be) and move on if you do not agree.



Kaleido
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,615

11 Dec 2008, 12:21 pm

ephemerella wrote:
capriwim wrote:
violet_yoshi wrote:
Ambivalence wrote:
I see so when someone talks about NTs in a negative way that's an attack. Yet everyday NTs talk about Autistic Spectrum people as if they're nothing more than burdens, that's not an attack?


The NTs I know in my life are not like this. I imagine the majority of NTs don't even think about autistic spectrum disorders. Surely the fact that there are a few ignorant NTs out there doesn't taint the entire lot of them.


No, but they discuss our traits as if they were disabilities.

They aren't disabilities, just different. Being unable to disconnect your attention from something that you love and that fascinates you, can be viewed as an impairment, or it can be viewed as something that is not necessarily bad. How many NTs sit around trying to meditate, to achieve the state of fusion with a thing that we can?

But all the language used to describe AS traits are negative. "Obsessive, narrow fixations" and so on.

They don't explicitly say that we are burdens or bad, but the words used to talk about our traits does pretty much that.

The NT attention focus is easy to move around, yet it is shallow wherever it goes. Our attention focus is hard to move around, and it is deep in our areas of interest. They are two different attention styles.

But if we don't use positive, happy, adoring language to discuss NT traits, we are bashing them. So we can't say that NT's attention is shallow and boring. We have to say that they are normal and that we have "obsessive, narrow fixations".

We have to use positive, admiring language to discuss NT traits, and negative language to discuss ours.

In actuality the shallowness of NTs and the deep fascinations of AS are both nothing more than cognitive traits or behaviors, just two opposite ways of focusing on a subject. The NTs can focus on anything they want at any time they want, but only shallowly. AS can't control their focus ("ADHD") but have these deep, expert fascinations ("Obsessions"). When you call one way of being "normal" and use the language of deviation to describe the other, that language is loaded with value judgments.

What is offending people is not that anyone goes around saying NTs are bad, because I don't think people here have been saying that. I think what offends NTs here -- what they find surprising and uncomfortable -- is when some AS turn that around and use language that depicts their traits as normal and NT traits as pathological.

To continue the above example, that means some AS act as if having "special interests" is normal and fun, and refer to NT (and their attention and focus) as being "shallow and boring", and "like talking to 11 year olds" (e.g. from the thread about how people dump on AS people for knowing things in too much detail). That is what some people are referring to as "NT bashing", some AS using language that treats AS traits as normal and that describes NT traits in ways that step out of the "they're okay-I'm not okay" frame of reference.

Rule: you are always supposed to use negative, clinical language to discuss AS traits and positive, admiring language to refer to NT traits.


I can't help but think this is true for many.

It doesn't matter how much we try to fit in sometimes, people see we are a bit different and prefer familiarity and sameness, much as we do, only other peoples sameness seems to be more to do with people and ours seems to be more to do with routines and things.



ephemerella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,335

11 Dec 2008, 12:22 pm

lionesss wrote:
ephemerella wrote:
lionesss wrote:
violet_yoshi wrote:
I just would like to able to use NT in a post, without automatically being attacked for not saying some NTs, or you're being biased and saying all NTs are like this. Well everyday people talk about people who are are on the Autism Spectrum as if they're all the same.


Wow someone around here just doesn't want to give up. :roll: Oh and FYI, not ALL people say that those who are under the spectrum are the same. Not all "NT"'s are closed minded and some are actually very nice. But funny enough there are a few of those who are under the spectrum who are just as close minded as many "NT"'s are *hint *hint*


It's not nice to pick on someone's semantic pragmatic disorder. It's not hard to figure out what she means and why she would like to be able to use generalized terms as she does. If it's all about not liking how the semantic pragmatic disorder affects discussing NT behavior and traits, that's not something that can be fixed by criticism.


I am sorry I had no idea. But all I know is that she got nasty with me before for NO reason. And I am NEVER the type to make fun of ANYONE!


I'm sorry if she (or I) appear to be getting nasty for no reason. But these threads criticizing how AS people discuss things can't really be separated from the fact that we have semantic pragmatic disorder. Certainly, the people who diverge into attacking the semantics of how we frame our references are really asking too much, IMO.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 Dec 2008, 12:31 pm

ephemerella:

I think the problems that keep coming up have more to do with language than reality. People don’t always realize that language is a tool that is designed to divide and categorize things. It’s human nature for people place values on things through the use of words and then treat the value they have assigned via a word as if it were an objective fact. In reality the categories we have created through words may or may not have a real objective basis.

You can look at a word like “disability” in the strictly objective sense when applied to AS and see that all it means is that is something in our nature that makes it more difficult for us to function in society. Most of us wouldn’t contest this. But unfortunately there’s an additional “layer” of subjective value placed on top of the word “disability” that implies “inferior” or “defective”. It would be nice if there was a word that strictly adhered to the former meaning without any connotation of the latter.

Unfortunately language is messy and words pick up negative overtones over time simply from the context of their use. The same thing comes in to play with the use of “NT”. It would be nice if there was a way to make language more objective and avoid these kinds of pitfalls but meanings of words are not really decided by any objective definition but rather by their collective use.



Last edited by marshall on 11 Dec 2008, 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KingdomOfRats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,833
Location: f'ton,manchester UK

11 Dec 2008, 12:33 pm

Quote:
It's not nice to pick on someone's semantic pragmatic disorder.

ephemerella,
lionesss is a very nice,caring member,and has to be one of the least likeliest WPers to ever use someones weaknesses for fun.


original topic.
do not like seeing anti NTism,it isnt fair to NTs as a group,and all are affected by it.
why should autists,or any other non NTs expect acceptance,understanding and awareness of their condition to get better,if cannot do the same for NTs.

the same happens on another forum am use [a mixed disability one],some of the physically disabled users treat able bodied people as scum,and they say AB people do not know anything about disability,about disablism,being treated badly for their difficulties etc when a very large part of that community is AB and disabled,they treat anyone with a blue badge who looks or is AB [but genuinely needs it just as much as them,if not more] as scroungers and 'taking away all the disabled parking spaces from those who need them',as well as stating ABs [whether disabled or not] are there to make life as difficult for disabled people as possible,it is that vs thing again.
its not just NT vs not NT,it happens between all opposite groups,because they're opposites and dont experience life exactly the same as each other,that being the reason used by some to treat the opposite as a different species.


_________________
>severely autistic.
>>the residential autist; http://theresidentialautist.blogspot.co.uk
blogging from the view of an ex institutionalised autism/ID activist now in community care.
>>>help to keep bullying off our community,report it!


mitharatowen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,675
Location: Arizona

11 Dec 2008, 12:33 pm

marshall wrote:
Unfortunately language is messy and words pick up negative overtones over time simply from the context of their use. The same thing comes in to play with the use of “NT”. It would be nice if there was a way to make language more objective and avoid these kinds of pitfalls but meanings of words are not really decided by any objective definition but rather by their collective use.


I think if people said "some people" instead of "NT's" in their post - the issue would be avoided.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 Dec 2008, 12:35 pm

mitharatowen wrote:
marshall wrote:
Unfortunately language is messy and words pick up negative overtones over time simply from the context of their use. The same thing comes in to play with the use of “NT”. It would be nice if there was a way to make language more objective and avoid these kinds of pitfalls but meanings of words are not really decided by any objective definition but rather by their collective use.


I think if people said "some people" instead of "NT's" in their post - the issue would be avoided.


Not really. "Some people" is not as descriptively precise.



kittenmeow
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 295

11 Dec 2008, 12:47 pm

I am. I don't condone bullying either but I also know of NT's who don't.



lionesss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,305
Location: not anywhere near you

11 Dec 2008, 12:50 pm

KingdomOfRats wrote:
Quote:
It's not nice to pick on someone's semantic pragmatic disorder.

ephemerella,
lionesss is a very nice,caring member,and has to be one of the least likeliest WPers to ever use someones weaknesses for fun.



Thanks sweetie. I NEVER make fun of ANYONE, but I get nasty with those who I have felt judged me in anyway despite of whatever they may have. There is no excuse to judge anyone for anything that they do or believe in. Thanks again KoR.


_________________
Come chat about the mystical side and everyday part of life on http://esotericden.proboards.com -The Esoteric Den!! !


ephemerella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,335

11 Dec 2008, 12:53 pm

marshall wrote:
mitharatowen wrote:
marshall wrote:
Unfortunately language is messy and words pick up negative overtones over time simply from the context of their use. The same thing comes in to play with the use of “NT”. It would be nice if there was a way to make language more objective and avoid these kinds of pitfalls but meanings of words are not really decided by any objective definition but rather by their collective use.


I think if people said "some people" instead of "NT's" in their post - the issue would be avoided.


Not really. "Some people" is not as descriptively precise.


I agree with both of you as quoted, and with marshall in the more detail (and very well expressed) post above.

It does seem to come down to semantics and semiotics. How we construct the meanings and how the semantics of what we say imply (accurately or not) implicit value judgments.

And KingdomOfRats in difficulties of having a mixed forum.

I really do think that "neurodiversity" implies that we construct different worlds of meaning from the same discussion thread. It can be kind of funny, a forum of neurodiverse people with communications disorder. I go back and look at some threads and I had no idea what others were thinking at the time I make some comments. The semantics seems to play a role when I jump to conclusions, too.

It is difficult to try to be persuasive and also accurately track what other people are trying to say, at the same time.

Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion about Lioness.

:huh:



lionesss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,305
Location: not anywhere near you

11 Dec 2008, 12:57 pm

ephemerella wrote:

Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion about Lioness.



No problem, again I was dealing with a personal matter with the other member, and nothing else. I am dropping the subject now, and I am sorry I even said anything about it in the first place.


_________________
Come chat about the mystical side and everyday part of life on http://esotericden.proboards.com -The Esoteric Den!! !


mitharatowen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,675
Location: Arizona

11 Dec 2008, 1:04 pm

marshall wrote:
mitharatowen wrote:
marshall wrote:
Unfortunately language is messy and words pick up negative overtones over time simply from the context of their use. The same thing comes in to play with the use of “NT”. It would be nice if there was a way to make language more objective and avoid these kinds of pitfalls but meanings of words are not really decided by any objective definition but rather by their collective use.


I think if people said "some people" instead of "NT's" in their post - the issue would be avoided.


Not really. "Some people" is not as descriptively precise.


Well the problem is that people often use the term "NT's" when the behavior in question is not exclusive to NT's. 'Some people' is therefore more correct. I believe this thread is in reference to people who post things like "Why do NT's always do this particular negative behavior" if they said "Why do some people do this?" it would not be offensive to any particular group and they can still get their answer as to the motivation that causes the behavior. In certain circumstances, yes, "NT's" is the proper term. In this one, I believe it is not.