Did I cross a line?

Post Reply New Topic

First of all, I am doctor-diagnosed Asperger's, not that it makes a difference if DSM V passes.

I was having a conversation on another forum where people were arguing over semantic definitions regarding a company's marketing strategy.

I said:

"This whole discussion is like someone double booked an Asperger's support group with a marketing trade show."

Someone took offense at that and I'm not sure I get why. A big part of Asperger's is taking things literally. Marketers use figurative language. It's not generalizations. I get how generalizations about people are bad, like if I said African Americans are atheletes or something.

People with Asperger's taking things literally isn't a generalization though. If there were no issues with that, someone probably wouldn't have Asperger's.

I don't see AS as a disability unless its co-morbid issues make it one. It's simply neurodiversity in action. To me, the comment was like saying that people with large heads need big hats.

Does anyone else understand what I said that was offensive? I'm trying to understand but, to me, if someone was offended, that would be a very NT response and it would have to be rooted in some idea that AS, by itself, is a disability. I have trouble processing this idea or what offense would have been taken.

The person indicated that I was a bad person for saying that. I'm not sure why.

I'm an AS person who is fascinated by marketing, among other things, and especially fascinated by language. But grasping nuances IS something that has taken years for me to learn to emulate.

They may have no clue what Asperger's is and have the wrong idea about what you were saying? Like, some people tend to think Asperger's = Big Jerk.
Or maybe you somehow managed to say it at the wrong time in the discussion. Or they thought you weren't taking things seriously?

I don't see anything wrong with your comment really.

I think NTs should explain it, because I don't get it either.

Did the person get upset because they have AS and thought you were making fun of them? Did they get upset because they're NT and think Asperger's = ret*d, so they thought you were putting them down? Did they get upset because they're NT but have an AS kid and it's something they have a hard time coping with?

I don't think you crossed the line, but I'd need more details as to WHY the poster felt upset.

But generally speaking, NTs go on emotion more than logic. If they don't understand something, rather than work it out, they assume the worst, get aggressive/defensive, like "shoot first, ask questions later."

If I were you, I would have responded to the upset poster with a clarification.

i think you're over worrying and generalising. CBT

the person may have an aspie relation they're embarrassed about etc etc

you dont know

move on

From the discussion, I sure don't see why xenor002 reacted like that.

I frequently argue with people about this very thing. I hate it when people use words in ways that are contrary to the real meanings of those words.

crazy to wind yourself up about such a small thing

it would be nice if everyone used words the right way, but it's not the end of the world if they don't (REBT)

This may have been perceived as insulting for a couple of potential reasons:

1.) Comparisons like this can demean a conversation at hand, and, needless to say, most people don't enjoy being told that their arguments are silly. (I'm sure it would be different if you had a close, personal relationship with the person(s) involved, but if this took place over an online forum, then I'd guess that this wasn't the case.)

2.) The person who was offended may have felt that you were slamming people on the autistic spectrum (heck, maybe he/she is on the autistic spectrum him/herself).

Did this person specify WHY he/she felt your post was insulting, or was it just left at that?

I don't see it as being at all minor. If words can mean whatever you want them to mean, then it is impossible to even communicate rationally.

That person may have been offended because they may have thought you were insulting the condition or were ignorant about it trivializing the condition or making fun of it. Just like how people here got offended over the word "digital autism" someone shared what they saw at work. Or how people with OCD will get offended when people say things like "I am so OCD about my home." or how someone posted here how autism is being taken out of context and mentioned what comments people post about AS and autism to other youtube users accusing them of being autistic over things they say or expressing their love over something like ponies.

But I think people take things so personally. One time I said people get autistic during Black Friday because they lose their social skills.
I was referring to how impatient autistic people get and I have read it's an aspie thing and also the fact they have poor social skills so I made a joke about it and the a word got edited into "stupid" because the admin thought I would offend autistic people on the forum. I was offended and said back to him "I am not allowed to make fun of my own condition?" and I never heard back from him. Grrr. Plus people there know I have AS so why would they be offended over my autism joke?

You were offended by the fact that he was offended, when no offense was meant on your part.

Big DING! Story of my life. Most of the things people get offended by don't offend me personally. I take offense to the fact that they take offense when none was intended on my part.

I suspect the offense was taken that maybe they thought you were poking fun at a disability.

Quoted:

"I don't see AS as a disability unless its co-morbid issues make it one."

They do not believe AS is a disability on its own.

When I read that - it made more sense why people took offense to their comment. Co morbid or not - people on the spectrum are at a disadvantage in many ways. Call it disability. Call it whatever. It is NOT a level playing field when I have to resort to written word to communicate my thoughts clearly.

If you weren't involved in this argument, you should have stayed out of it and left your comments to yourself. Then the stress over the results wouldn't be affecting you now. Life lessons can hurt. Let this be one and move on.

I understand this and was like this for many years but I eventually came to the conclusion that NT marketing and art types use words in the wrong way creatively and there are rules governing that. Explicitly making a promise is wrong and frequently illegal. Whereas calling a club membership "V.I.P." or calling your car a "Pegasus" is meant to create an association that is not taken seriously.

So when games or toy companies or artistic firms create programs for "Angels," "Veterans," "V.I.P.s," etc., they aren't being serious and don't intend for you to take them seriously. When I was 12, this would have upset me but I am especially defensive now when I see other people upset by these terms.

In this case, it was an online game that provides "Veteran" status upon the anniversary of your initial payment as long as you are an active customer... and they recently began conferring "Veteran" status on new players who pay a large lump sum. My feeling was that it made no difference since it was always about payment. Previously, one could pay and simply receive benefits on the anniversary of original payment. Now, you receive credit for time payed in advance, basically.

In my mind, neither is an indicator of actual "Veteran" status. There is no adversity or work required either way. It's a fancy title, like getting a Ph.D from a diploma mill. For me, the entire term is technically false but something I accept as a bit of NT fudging. No one was ever really supposed to regard these players as actual veterans in any sense because no work was ever required.

A few players began arguing that they felt respected for their "veteran" status and felt cheated that other people who spent money in advance could attain that status. I suggested that the whole argument was like people in an Asperger's group double booked with a marketing conference.

I will admit that as time goes by, I find that my Aspie "heightened sense of fairness" has changed. I used to be very frustrated with and opposed to NT misuses of definitions and acceptance of unfairness. However, I find I am defensive of NTs anymore, particularly after years spend studying the arts and public speaking.

I was teaching young children at a volunteer program this past year and I was asked to explain the difference between fiction and lying. (I'm often surprised how dealing with children forces reflection on basic issues.) And I said to them that fiction is good because it makes people think about true things but never pretends to be true when it isn't. People know that it's not true and so no one is being lied to.

I think marketing, advertising, and a lot of art work like this. It's only deceptive if it's meant to be taken seriously. I'd never buy a degree from a diploma mill but I have printed out Ph.Ds and ordaination credentials from what amount to gag sites. Likewise, when marketers use terms like V.I.P. or "Veteran" or "Smart" or "Sexy" or "Distinguished," I don't take them seriously and get frustrated when other people DO. In my mind, that actor/advertiser/marketer is playing a role... and they don't expect to be taken seriously. And it can be harmful to them if people DO take them seriously.

If I say, "I will sell you my car for $1," then I should be prepared to do that. If I say, "For just $10,000, you can have my lime green chariot of the freeways, a contraption sure to take you to new places with style and elegance," then I am playing a character of sorts and am not doing anything wrong if I'm willing to accept $10,000 for my car. I shouldn't have to go out and get a chariot and paint it green and make it street legal for freeways.

Yeah you crossed a line. You went from the not funny side of the line, to the funny. Congrats.

It's funny, but in our super politically correct society, it could have been taken inappropriately, especially if they did not know you were an aspie yourself.