not everyone is offended by these behaviors. what’s more insulting is lumping all autistic people together, and lumping all non-autistic people together assuming that they all feel the same way. it’s THAT sort of behavior that makes people turn on the other.
It’s super easy actually! You just qualify your statements. For example:
I don’t like how some people…
I’ve noticed that a lot of people…
There’s quite a few people that…
The majority of people seem to…
This language avoid assumptions about how everyone else feels and leaves the reader an out to say to themselves, “I’m not in that group and they acknowledge that I am an exception.” It avoids the trap of over generalization and doesn’t put the reader on the defensive. Language like “all people” and “allistic people” (meaning all non-autistic people) only work to alienate. Ironically it demonstrates the same behavior they appear to be complaining about…
Ok sure, but another way would be to realize that when me or someone else says “autistic people”, we mean “my experience with autistic people”.
Since obviously I haven’t met all autistic people in the world, and obviously I don’t speak for all. I have an opinion based in my experience. In fact, everything I write is based on my personal experience.
When you write something to me here on Lemmy, I read it as “your opinion about x” without you have to tell me that in every single post. It’s a bit smarter to think about posts that way I believe.
Maybe don’t generalize a group of people without careful thought and appropriate caveats then? Seems pretty easy to me. You even admit that you are writing from personal experience, and don’t have perfect information, so why not include precise language to reflect that? Seems pretty simple and way more inclusive.
Like I said previously, using precise language simply avoids putting readers that are a part of whatever group on the automatic defensive. Why not just take the extra couple of a seconds to avoid that miscommunication? If you don’t care to do that, then that’s fine, but over generalization is going to automatically alienate some readers that you perhaps didn’t mean to offend.
Yeah I don’t want to offend anyone but at the same time, I don’t want to go through the steps you mentioned in every single post where I express an opinion.
So I think I will have to be OK with some people being offended by me not specifically explaining that I don’t speak for everyone.
Maybe we should take a step back. Your original statement was that it’s hard to have these conversations without generalization. I tried to explain simple ways to avoid the trap of over generalization. Your response appears to be, “I don’t care to put forth the tiny amount of effort to avoid miscommunication.”
So is it actually quite easy and you don’t care? Why say it was hard to begin with then? I’m just kind of confused at this point.
Yeah well when “respect” means “micro managing myself to glorify someone else because they demand it”, then yeah. I’m disrespectful as fuck. Anyone who demands I show my belly so they can feel like they’re in charge can kindly go fuck themselves. They’re not in charge. Nobody gets that special pampering from me.
Eh, these kind of people are always throwing tantrum no matter agreed or refused playing their dominance games, i personally try to avoid such people, filter out negativity and only keep positivity, also i relate strongly to your comment
Kinda burying the lede here. They are all different forms of “questioning their authority”
I dont agree it’s about authority at all. This entire list is about showing disrespect for someone and expecting them to be OK with it.
To allistic people, everything on this list is insulting behavior that will offend them (except not wanting to eat certain foods).
This behavior will work fine with autistic people though. But you can’t expect it to work with allistic people.
Different brains equals different expectations of what is acceptable social behavior. That’s it.
not everyone is offended by these behaviors. what’s more insulting is lumping all autistic people together, and lumping all non-autistic people together assuming that they all feel the same way. it’s THAT sort of behavior that makes people turn on the other.
I know what you mean but it’s hard to talk about these things without generalizing, since we can’t ask everyone on the planet how they feel.
It’s super easy actually! You just qualify your statements. For example:
I don’t like how some people…
I’ve noticed that a lot of people…
There’s quite a few people that…
The majority of people seem to…
This language avoid assumptions about how everyone else feels and leaves the reader an out to say to themselves, “I’m not in that group and they acknowledge that I am an exception.” It avoids the trap of over generalization and doesn’t put the reader on the defensive. Language like “all people” and “allistic people” (meaning all non-autistic people) only work to alienate. Ironically it demonstrates the same behavior they appear to be complaining about…
Ok sure, but another way would be to realize that when me or someone else says “autistic people”, we mean “my experience with autistic people”.
Since obviously I haven’t met all autistic people in the world, and obviously I don’t speak for all. I have an opinion based in my experience. In fact, everything I write is based on my personal experience.
When you write something to me here on Lemmy, I read it as “your opinion about x” without you have to tell me that in every single post. It’s a bit smarter to think about posts that way I believe.
Maybe don’t generalize a group of people without careful thought and appropriate caveats then? Seems pretty easy to me. You even admit that you are writing from personal experience, and don’t have perfect information, so why not include precise language to reflect that? Seems pretty simple and way more inclusive.
Like I said previously, using precise language simply avoids putting readers that are a part of whatever group on the automatic defensive. Why not just take the extra couple of a seconds to avoid that miscommunication? If you don’t care to do that, then that’s fine, but over generalization is going to automatically alienate some readers that you perhaps didn’t mean to offend.
Yeah I don’t want to offend anyone but at the same time, I don’t want to go through the steps you mentioned in every single post where I express an opinion.
So I think I will have to be OK with some people being offended by me not specifically explaining that I don’t speak for everyone.
Maybe we should take a step back. Your original statement was that it’s hard to have these conversations without generalization. I tried to explain simple ways to avoid the trap of over generalization. Your response appears to be, “I don’t care to put forth the tiny amount of effort to avoid miscommunication.”
So is it actually quite easy and you don’t care? Why say it was hard to begin with then? I’m just kind of confused at this point.
deleted by creator
That is literally everyone. Everyone’s brain runs on assumptions. Every model is wrong, but some are useful.
Yeah well when “respect” means “micro managing myself to glorify someone else because they demand it”, then yeah. I’m disrespectful as fuck. Anyone who demands I show my belly so they can feel like they’re in charge can kindly go fuck themselves. They’re not in charge. Nobody gets that special pampering from me.
people get right indignant when encountering someone else’s food choices.
i hear the difference between an allergy and an intolerance as if that changes the amount of suffering endured.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I just told you it’s not about dominance or authority, but sure, you probably think it is, since your response is immature and ridiculous.
deleted by creator
He’s trying to play one of those dominance or authority games.
Eh, these kind of people are always throwing tantrum no matter agreed or refused playing their dominance games, i personally try to avoid such people, filter out negativity and only keep positivity, also i relate strongly to your comment