Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 > has pointed out elsewhere that interpreting language is > inevitable. There's again the problem that for autistics like me, even if > we can write extremely well otherwise, we can't read beyond the literal > meaning of words. And again the problem that there is often more than one literal meaning of a word. I have seen autistics argue vociferously over the literal meaning of a single word, because both were real dictionary definitions but each was convinced that (because they were autistic, and therefore their interpretation was " literal " ) their particular exact interpretation was the more literal one and therefore the more right one. Since there are more than one literal meaning of words, that is a big part of what I mean when I say interpretation is inevitable. -- The only thing with common horse sense is the common horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Antryg Windrose danced around singing: >I don't think it's as subtle and between the lines as that. I have >trouble with reading subtext but the derogatory way you have plenty of >times spoken about parents seemed pretty obvious to me. Perhaps you have less of a problem reading subtext than I do. I'm *awful* at reading subtext or interpreting meaning. If someone makes a joke at me like " I'm gonna kill you! " then I react to that as the literal comment that they will in fact kill me. Parrish has had to get into the habit of adding smiley faces after certain comments during our chats because he'll say something that is supposed to be obviously a non-literal (like " oh, yeah, I was horribly upset " ) and I'll completely fail to realize he doesn't mean it as a literal. As we've been discussing tonight, don't forget that we do all have varying levels of " severity " in every trait. I would be very surprised if you had my level of language difficulty -- if you can read subtext between lines enough to mention things " sound like " rather than " said exactly " then you're a step ahead of where I am usually at. > I guess one way >to start lessening the negative responses could be to avoid insulting >name calling (such as Sproglet which to most mothers would come across >as a highly insulting term for their beloved children) and maybe to >avoid value judgements such as (paraphrased) " you might want to devote >your life to breeding but I have better things to do with my time " . The thing is, though, I didn't use the word Sproglet tonight that I am aware of, nor did I make the " you might want to devote your life to breeding " nor anything else close to it this evening. So I still have no clue what exact statements you are talking about. >Well, I would say that the childfree discussions have included not so >subtle or unspoken insults and value judgements about mothers and children. I'm not talking " subtle " -- I'm saying outright versus unspoken. Anything I do not say in literal words can not safely be attributed to how I think or feel, that's really all there is to it. As I said, I can't do much of anything if other people *assume* I am making a " value judgment " based on words I did not literally write. >Literal language to express personal likes, dislikes, aversions and >viewpoints is very different to using offensive names and terminology to >describe something that is obviously very special to other people on a >list and also saying blatantly that you have better things to do. Okay, so where did I do that? I did *not* say that I have better things to do than breed. I said, LITERALLY that I have better things to do than engage in more crapulent discussions. I did not intend nor imply that I had better things to do than breed. If you are coming to that conclusion, it is (as I said) a case of reading in between the lines when, thanks to the way my brain processes language, there's nothing between them to read. >I would say one important element is that " I " >statements like expressing how you feel and what you like or don't like >are more likely to be taken well than " you " statements about what is >good or bad or nasty or nice or valuable or otherwise about somebody >else's choices and life. Now I really have no idea what you are referring to. I have not made " you " statements in this, aside from when I told you tonight that you said literally on AS Circle that you were hanging out with NTs. >It is really easy to offend people with views and not so hard to avoid >offending them in most cases just by expressing views as personal views >and not as a statement about other people in their presence. I did not make statements about people in their presence, I did state personal views. In fact I wrote some lengthly pieces (if you're referring to AS-Proud) explaining in sensory detail what it is like for me to be around children. > I know we >are all guilty of making pointed and judgemental remarks when expressing >views. I certainly am myself. Again, what are you talking about here? I'm not saying I never make pointed or judgmental remarks, but I AM saying, right here, that I have no idea what literal comments I made that fit any of what you are going on about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 DeGraf wrote: > Antryg Windrose danced around singing: > >>I don't think it's as subtle and between the lines as that. I have >>trouble with reading subtext but the derogatory way you have plenty of >>times spoken about parents seemed pretty obvious to me. > > > Perhaps you have less of a problem reading subtext than I do. I'm *awful* > at reading subtext or interpreting meaning. If someone makes a joke at me > like " I'm gonna kill you! " then I react to that as the literal comment that > they will in fact kill me. Parrish has had to get into the habit of adding > smiley faces after certain comments during our chats because he'll say > something that is supposed to be obviously a non-literal (like " oh, yeah, I > was horribly upset " ) and I'll completely fail to realize he doesn't mean it > as a literal. I have a friend on icq who drives me spare by constant " joshing " and laughs when I don't realise or when I get angry with him. He is very close to not being a friend anymore because of it. If someone said " oh yeah I was horribly upset " without any indication that they were joking I would take it literally too. > As we've been discussing tonight, don't forget that we do all have varying > levels of " severity " in every trait. I would be very surprised if you had > my level of language difficulty -- if you can read subtext between lines > enough to mention things " sound like " rather than " said exactly " then > you're a step ahead of where I am usually at. I probably am. I have spent long years observing people and learning how they communicate since I left my abusive sheltered home at 13.5 years old and ran away to live with an overly socially adept parent. Then boarding school which drove me to mental hospitals and in those places I had a lot of time on my hands to observe and learn about human interaction and also classes and group therapy settings geared at effective communication (as in assertiveness crap). If I had stayed living in a very isolated environment I doubt I would be as adept as I am. >> I guess one way >>to start lessening the negative responses could be to avoid insulting >>name calling (such as Sproglet which to most mothers would come across >>as a highly insulting term for their beloved children) and maybe to >>avoid value judgements such as (paraphrased) " you might want to devote >>your life to breeding but I have better things to do with my time " . > > > The thing is, though, I didn't use the word Sproglet tonight that I am > aware of, nor did I make the " you might want to devote your life to > breeding " nor anything else close to it this evening. So I still have no > clue what exact statements you are talking about. I'm talking about a lot of conversations in the past that have gotten people (I'm thinking particularly Nanne because most people are nameless faceless words and while I will respond to the words I rarely remember who said them unless it is a friend of mine) upset and where the -is-a-child-hater attitude most likely stems from. >>Well, I would say that the childfree discussions have included not so >>subtle or unspoken insults and value judgements about mothers and children. > > > I'm not talking " subtle " -- I'm saying outright versus unspoken. Anything > I do not say in literal words can not safely be attributed to how I think > or feel, that's really all there is to it. As I said, I can't do much of > anything if other people *assume* I am making a " value judgment " based on > words I did not literally write. Well, for future reference, " I have much better things to do with my life than waste it on making more sproglets in this already overpopulated world " (not quoting you but just trying to use an example sentence that would get people all riled up) could be said as " I can think of things I would much rather do than raise children " which is a way of saying almost exactly the same sentiment but without referring to your own choices as better than someone else's and without sounding demeaning to other peoples' choices or children. I would have to sift through too much email to find actual examples and rephrase them or explain where the negative meanings were taken from. Reading a lot of email overloads me and that is the main reason I don't usually step into list discussions when I have something to say. Because I know that I will not be able to follow most of them up reliably. >>Literal language to express personal likes, dislikes, aversions and >>viewpoints is very different to using offensive names and terminology to >>describe something that is obviously very special to other people on a >>list and also saying blatantly that you have better things to do. > > > Okay, so where did I do that? I did *not* say that I have better things to > do than breed. I said, LITERALLY that I have better things to do than > engage in more crapulent discussions. I did not intend nor imply that I > had better things to do than breed. If you are coming to that conclusion, > it is (as I said) a case of reading in between the lines when, thanks to > the way my brain processes language, there's nothing between them to read. I'm relying on my brain's interpretations of your writings because I have not kept detailed track of all the childfree discussions and I am not even on AS proud or other lists where these might occur. I guess it comes from the way things are phrased like I tried to show by example above. I haven't seen any rude childhating type stuff in this thread and I certainly don't have time to go and sift through previous emails in the number that I would have to. I think you are right in the sense that this type of stuff is due to you not realising how your words might come across to some others. >>I would say one important element is that " I " >>statements like expressing how you feel and what you like or don't like >>are more likely to be taken well than " you " statements about what is >>good or bad or nasty or nice or valuable or otherwise about somebody >>else's choices and life. > > > Now I really have no idea what you are referring to. I have not made " you " > statements in this, aside from when I told you tonight that you said > literally on AS Circle that you were hanging out with NTs. I wasn't referring to this thread. >>It is really easy to offend people with views and not so hard to avoid >>offending them in most cases just by expressing views as personal views >>and not as a statement about other people in their presence. > > > I did not make statements about people in their presence, I did state > personal views. In fact I wrote some lengthly pieces (if you're referring > to AS-Proud) explaining in sensory detail what it is like for me to be > around children. In what I say about terminology offending, I'm taking it from what is apparently common childfree terminology. >> I know we >>are all guilty of making pointed and judgemental remarks when expressing >>views. I certainly am myself. > > > Again, what are you talking about here? I'm not saying I never make > pointed or judgmental remarks, but I AM saying, right here, that I have no > idea what literal comments I made that fit any of what you are going on about. I'm talking about the history of the childfree discussions and why they get some peoples' backs up. I am sure part of it lies on the receptive end of it too. I can't go back and reference particular emails to explain myself better than this because it is too overloading. I think after half a day of intensive emailing I probably am near the end of where I can make much sense or put things in a non-confrontational way also. CZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Antryg Windrose wrote: > I'm talking about the history of the childfree discussions and why they > get some peoples' backs up. I am sure part of it lies on the receptive > end of it too. I can't go back and reference particular emails to > explain myself better than this because it is too overloading. I think > after half a day of intensive emailing I probably am near the end of > where I can make much sense or put things in a non-confrontational way also. I am going to hazard a guess here. It seems to me that the childfree movement is designed to be combative; the language used on such sites, newsgroups, and lists is probably meant to be " in your face " for several possible reasons. First, to get out the anger that childfree people feel at their perceived " raw deal; " second, to try to stir up controversy and discussion about things that people normally take for granted, and third, to get the message through to people that may not respond to something more gently put. In short, the terms used, or the kinds of terms used, may have been designed to be offensive. If you take autistic people and inject them into that subculture, they may see the statements and like the way they are worded, appreciate the logicality of the statements without catching on how inflammatory those statements are (and were meant to be) to NTs. So then the autistics bring that debate into other areas, and use the same kinds of terms and descriptors to which they are accustomed when discussing childfree issues. Outside of the childfree enclave, though, people react to the statements in a way that puzzles the autistic, but would be no surprise to the NTs within the childfree movement. Alternately, the autistic may suspect or know that the statements are taken as insulting by NTs, but think that they are accurate logically, and decide that any insult taken is the fault of the interpreter, for not parsing the words as they are written. This is pure conjecture, but it seems to fit, both here (the first explanation) and in the similar discussion on AutAdvo (the second explanation... on that list, the NTs (Ok, only two of them, but it has gone on longer here without anyone being called an " asshole " on list) unfortunately and predictably resorted to namecalling within a post or two). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Antryg Windrose danced around singing: >I have a friend on icq who drives me spare by constant " joshing " and >laughs when I don't realise or when I get angry with him. He is very >close to not being a friend anymore because of it. If someone said " oh >yeah I was horribly upset " without any indication that they were joking >I would take it literally too. > > >...If I had stayed >living in a very isolated environment I doubt I would be as adept as I am. You're probably right... I've lived in a highly isolated environment aside from when I was stuck in schools. It might be part of why I also have pretty severe TOM issues considering my age, that I'm only working past now that I have been in consistent communication with somebody for almost a year. For instance, it was in March that for the first time in my life I saw someone crying and genuinely understood, beyond an academic-type translation, that the person was in pain. Until that point I understood it on a rote level, but couldn't really process what it meant, so I always felt more confused than anything else when people showed strong feelings. Yesterday I finally figured out, beyond that rote level, that the reason people do nice things for others is because they have an impulse to give those they care about pleasure, and are aware that it makes the recipient happy. Until that startling moment, I knew that nice things were done to cause pleasure in others, but the fact that people were having actual urges driving them to act that way just wasn't a possibility that ever occurred to me. I knew that *I* had wishes to do nice things, but somehow the fact that I have that kind of interest doesn't translate into an awareness that anyone else does. This is stuff I should not have to be figuring out at age 26. I'm happy that I'm finally learning, but it's a bit depressing to think of exactly how much in life I *still* don't understand. >I'm talking about a lot of conversations in the past that have gotten >people (I'm thinking particularly Nanne because most people are nameless >faceless words and while I will respond to the words I rarely remember >who said them unless it is a friend of mine) upset and where the >-is-a-child-hater attitude most likely stems from. Right, but being me, I need literal examples, otherwise there's just this nebulous " said the wrong thing " concept floating around... I can't fix what I do wrong if I can't figure out precisely which phrases were incorrect. pointed out that some of the phrases are also part of the childfree rhetoric -- the problem is, aside from the world " childfree " (which is precisely how I feel, I refuse to be " childless " as I'm not lacking anything in my life) I was totally unaware that I was using *any* words in that original post (or in 99% of the following ones) that referenced the CF community. I haven't even visited that community in months, and haven't really been active there in well over a year. >Well, for future reference, " I have much better things to do with my >life than waste it on making more sproglets in this already >overpopulated world " (not quoting you but just trying to use an example >sentence that would get people all riled up) could be said as " I can >think of things I would much rather do than raise children " which is a >way of saying almost exactly the same sentiment but without referring to >your own choices as better than someone else's and without sounding >demeaning to other peoples' choices or children. That much I understand, because I can parse out that sproglets is derogatory (hence my not using the word), and referring to having them as wasting time would be an insult. That's why I didn't say that, because that is the kind of thing I *can* logically analyze in advance as upsetting to others. I'm mostly confused because with rare exceptions of when I totally lost my temper at seeing all childfree people called " child-haters " and " evil " I didn't use the kind of examples you're giving. > I would have to sift >through too much email to find actual examples and rephrase them or >explain where the negative meanings were taken from. Reading a lot of >email overloads me and that is the main reason I don't usually step into >list discussions when I have something to say. Because I know that I >will not be able to follow most of them up reliably. That's what happened with me... I tried my best because I'm the moderator on that list, but after a while I just overloaded and had to leave the house to get my bearings again. Eventually, when the nasty comments kept coming even though I had stopped participating, I decided to just stick the perseverating person on Moderated. She posted once after that, continuing the argument by challenging me to approve her post, but at that point I just wanted the argument to stop, so I deleted it rather than let things continue. >I'm relying on my brain's interpretations of your writings because I >have not kept detailed track of all the childfree discussions and I am >not even on AS proud or other lists where these might occur. Okay... 99% of the fight was on the other list, in fact, and I rather thought you weren't there. If you're going by interpretation, that would explain the misunderstanding, as I go by literal strings (to steal a computer term). > I guess it >comes from the way things are phrased like I tried to show by example >above. I haven't seen any rude childhating type stuff in this thread and >I certainly don't have time to go and sift through previous emails in >the number that I would have to. I think you are right in the sense that >this type of stuff is due to you not realising how your words might come >across to some others. Yes... This thread is precisely how I wrote throughout the discussion on AS-Proud. I actually ended up having not only a few childfree adults, but *parents* backing me. (Including the other person that ended up in an interesting but friendly discussion with some of us because he/she felt that those that don't love children are " evil. " Admittedly that person provided an exemption for autistics with sensory problems -- we're not evil because we don't get the chance to know kids enough to adore them -- but having the endorsement of someone like that seemed important.) > I can't go back and reference particular emails to >explain myself better than this because it is too overloading. I think >after half a day of intensive emailing I probably am near the end of >where I can make much sense or put things in a non-confrontational way also. I don't blame you, that's totally understandable. I thank you for trying to help me sort things out. :^) I'm rather confused in general at this point myself -- aside from my usual state of confusion at discussions like this, I'm also on 3 vicodin, 30mg prednisone, and 300mg Neurontin. Plus I'm still having problems breathing and a lot of head pain. My brain is *not* in top condition right now. Hmm, 4am. I had better *try* to sleep... DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 > I don't blame you, that's totally understandable. I thank you for trying > to help me sort things out. :^) I'm rather confused in general at this > point myself -- aside from my usual state of confusion at discussions like > this, I'm also on 3 vicodin, 30mg prednisone, and 300mg Neurontin. Plus > I'm still having problems breathing and a lot of head pain. My brain is > *not* in top condition right now. Vicodin isn't the best idea if you are having breathing problems. Opiates are respiratory depressants so they will most likely worsen the problem if anything. I am continually amazed at how many Americans online seem to be on very strong opiate painkillers when here it is extremely hard to get anything stronger than 500mg paracetamol with 16mg (or whatever small amount it is) codeine phosphate (Panadeine Forte). Opiates are not recommended treatment for migraines also. When I told my final year med student brother that my gp offers me codeine for migraines my brother reacted with horror and said that is not the way to treat them. Have you thought about trying sumatriptan (Imitrex) or related drugs? They aren't for everybody but they do make an astounding difference in a lot of people (myself included). CZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 --- DeGraf wrote: I'm mostly confused because with rare exceptions of when I totally lost my temper at seeing all childfree people called " child-haters " and " evil " I didn't use the kind of examples you're giving. ---------For the record, I was not the one to classify people who didn't love children as 'evil'. In fact I responded to that person's post stating that that went way too far, and was absurd. That's what happened with me... I tried my best because I'm the moderator on that list, but after a while I just overloaded and had to leave the house to get my bearings again. Eventually, when the nasty comments kept coming even though I had stopped participating, I decided to just stick the perseverating person on Moderated. She posted once after that, continuing the argument by challenging me to approve her post, but at that point I just wanted the argument to stop, so I deleted it rather than let things continue. ------------I asked legitimate questions, which you refused to answer, and merely asked if you were going to post it. Apparently the person who called non-lovers of children as 'evil' was not considered to be as off the mark as my request for consideration that not 'all' children be stereotyped as 'all' people can be. Which shows you have more interest in censoring people you dislike. Yes... This thread is precisely how I wrote throughout the discussion on AS-Proud. I actually ended up having not only a few childfree adults, but *parents* backing me. (Including the other person that ended up in an interesting but friendly discussion with some of us because he/she felt that those that don't love children are " evil. " Admittedly that person provided an exemption for autistics with sensory problems -- we're not evil because we don't get the chance to know kids enough to adore them -- but having the endorsement of someone like that seemed important.) ----------I did not see this as a " contest " as to who could gather the most people to 'their side'. I was merely trying to make myself understood. Had you attempted to understand me as you attempted with the person who called non-children loving people 'evil', the same conversation could have evolved, but you were not, so I could only view it then as your having something personal against *me*, which does not seem fair of a moderators' 'job'. N ===== " Let's go get drunk on light again---it has the power to console. " -- Seurat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 *** I am sure you are right, but there is one huge problem. I don't have more than an extremely rudimentary ability to read " between the lines " which means that in output, I have no clue how people are going to interpret my words. I can't read over a paragraph that I write and say " ah, yes, I am implying that I hate children here " or " here is an area where my saying I hate noise will translate out to my hating all beings under age 18 " ... If I could do that, obviously I would not be wandering around " sounding like " I hate things when I do not. *** Well , I must be lower function than a lot of people around because I have never seen you say ANYTHING to suggest to me that you " hated " children. I have seen you say things that suggest: You have sensory issues around children. You are uncomfortable around children. You do not like associating with children. You do not want children. But NEVER ONCE that you " hated " children. My overall impression is that, as long as they aren't in your space, you are pretty indifferent to children... Gaye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 > >...If I had stayed > >living in a very isolated environment I doubt I would be as adept as I am. > You're probably right... I've lived in a highly isolated environment aside > from when I was stuck in schools. It might be part of why I also have > pretty severe TOM issues considering my age, that I'm only working past now > that I have been in consistent communication with somebody for almost a > year. For instance, it was in March that for the first time in my life I > saw someone crying and genuinely understood, beyond an academic-type > translation, that the person was in pain. Until that point I understood it > on a rote level, but couldn't really process what it meant, so I always > felt more confused than anything else when people showed strong feelings. That sounds a lot like what happened to me when I moved out, only I was 19 at the time. > >Well, for future reference, " I have much better things to do with my > >life than waste it on making more sproglets in this already > >overpopulated world " (not quoting you but just trying to use an example > >sentence that would get people all riled up) could be said as " I can > >think of things I would much rather do than raise children " which is a > >way of saying almost exactly the same sentiment but without referring to > >your own choices as better than someone else's and without sounding > >demeaning to other peoples' choices or children. > That much I understand, because I can parse out that sproglets is > derogatory (hence my not using the word), and referring to having them as > wasting time would be an insult. I didn't know that sproglets was derogatory, but I did know that some other things you haven't seen as derogatory could be taken as derogatory. (This is what I mean by *different* abilities to read between the lines as opposed to *absent* ones.) -- " One can search the brain with a microscope and not find the mind, and can search the stars with a telescope and not find God. " -J. Gustav White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Cerulean danced around singing: >------------I asked legitimate questions, which you >refused to answer, and merely asked if you were going >to post it. Actually, iirc that last post of yours just contained the reply that you had come to the inaccurate conclusions that you did by how I " had written or expressed " myself, then something at the very end wondering if I had the courage (or a very similar word) to post it. > Apparently the person who called >non-lovers of children as 'evil' was not considered to >be as off the mark as my request for consideration >that not 'all' children be stereotyped as 'all' people >can be. Which shows you have more interest in >censoring people you dislike. No, that's a set of incorrect conclusions *you* are coming to based on reading between the lines when nothing's there. First, you're assuming I dislike you, which is wrong. Second, you're assuming that I moderated you for your request, which is not only wrong but contradicts what I have expressly stated as my reason. Third is that my moderating of you had anything to do with what other members posted, which it did not -- I consider everyone's posts on an individual basis. (FYI the reason GTLee was not moderated is because he/she was engaging in active pedantic discussion of a specific term, and I noticed that through discussing its meaning and definition interesting progress was being made.) >----------I did not see this as a " contest " as to who >could gather the most people to 'their side'. Neither did I -- I have no idea why anyone would. I was just pointing out that on AS-Proud the fact that other people were actively saying that your interpretation was inaccurate supports my claim that I meant no harm with my posts. >I was merely trying to make myself understood. Then you need to not actively refer to other groups as " --- haters " and make assumptions about what they mean when they don't actively say it. I reacted to your literal language, nothing else. I think that most people did understand you, it's just that they disagreed. It's entirely possible to understand someone and still think they're incorrect. > Had you >attempted to understand me as you attempted with the >person who called non-children loving people 'evil', >the same conversation could have evolved, but you were >not, Again, you're assuming things about me that are incorrect. I think that I did understand you, I merely didn't agree with your stance. We couldn't have had that kind of evolutionary discussion in this matter because there was no central theme to come to agreement on -- we couldn't be pedantic about a specific term as GTLee/Parrish were doing, because you were objecting to a whole group and its beliefs, rather than discussing one word. > so I could only view it then as your having >something personal against *me*, I have nothing personal against you. Again, you are coming to conclusions based on things I did not say. If I had a personal grudge against you or anyone else, I would say it openly. > which does not seem >fair of a moderators' 'job'. The moderator's job is to approve subscriptions & pending messages, and in cases where serious arguments break out, enforce the rules and bring the ones that aren't improving to a halt so other members can return to enjoying the list. That is what I did. I do not play favorites in either direction on the lists. DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 Gaye D danced around singing: >But NEVER ONCE that you " hated " children. My overall impression is that, as >long as they aren't in your space, you are pretty indifferent to children... Actually, bizarre as this sounds, as long as they're not in my space I feel very protective of autistic children in particular. That is why I am on so many autism lists, where the focus of my posts is upon helping parents improve the lives of autistic spectrum children/teens. It is also why I am on the rare disability lists, because my experience handling my physical anomalies for the last 26 years can help younger VATER patients or aid their parents in making informed/correct/humane decisions. I feel that without the input of adults like myself, , Jane, , etc the autistic kids are far more likely to be mistreated because their parents (like ours) otherwise lack guidance from those who have " been there. " I post like crazy to those boards when I have ideas for how to improve anything in the lives of those kids. I also have volunteered repeatedly in schools as a teacher or tutor for kids of all ages that were failing English or other communicative languages since I was in high school myself. The focus of my studies as an undergrad and as a future grad student are all upon how to use popular literature and unconventional (non-confrontational) teaching methods to help students of all ages that are disabled, depressed, or struggling academically. I'm hoping to work with kids placed on home study on a one-to-one basis with the local school district as one of my first jobs. The other first job I am trying to get is as an aide to my best friend as he teaches incoming university freshmen this summer, and a third one I'm aiming for in the near future is to work as a tutor for struggling junior high students. My dream has been to bring the classroom " online " for students that can't attend public school, and totally tailor it to their strengths/weaknesses much like the system in the Netherlands, only using one-on-one instruction via chatting, email, and other methods rather than face-to-face contact. So I would say that I not only do not hate children, I'm actively an advocate for their needs and humane, respectful treatment that will lead them to reach their peak potential. :^) Which is what makes me really laugh about the " child hater " comments, they're amazingly inaccurate! DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy " You shouldn't let people play on your feelings... In this world you get taken to the cleaners for having a soft heart. " -- Wynne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 danced around singing: >I didn't know that sproglets was derogatory, but I did know that some >other things you haven't seen as derogatory could be taken as >derogatory. (This is what I mean by *different* abilities to read >between the lines as opposed to *absent* ones.) Ah, okay. I don't consider sproglets/sprogs to be derogatory *myself* and I do not use them with nasty thoughts in mind (usually) but I know that many parents freak out at the term " sprogs " so I have it mentally listed as " people react badly to this term. " What I am confused by is reactions to the term " breeder " by all parents, when in reality it only is nasty towards *bad* parents. I don't use the term " breeder " to refer to all parents, nor do most childfree people... It refers to someone (according to the official alt.support.childfree FAQ) that reproduces without putting any thought into the matter (like an animal) and afterwards either abuses or neglects the kid as it grows up, resulting in violently " bratty " behavior that is severely disrespectful of others. " Breeders " are the sort that watch calmly (or even say mechanically " isn't that cute! " ) while their kid destroys public property or the property of others, beats other children up, gets beat up, or generally makes a serious nuisance of itself. Given that definition, it confuses me that Parent Non Breeders would get upset over the use of derogatory language to describe seriously bad parents. I use really bad language to describe the arseholes that raise and breed non-showing animals, dumping them out on the street or having them euthanized without any thought to the feelings of the cat -- that is the best parallel I can come up with within " my " world. DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 *** So I would say that I not only do not hate children, I'm actively an advocate for their needs and humane, respectful treatment that will lead them to reach their peak potential. :^) Which is what makes me really laugh about the " child hater " comments, they're amazingly inaccurate! *** Hi , I have to say that I did notice your interest in devising teaching strategies and advocacy recently...and of course that requires a lot of determined (because it doesn't come easily!) empathy with autistic children... Gaye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 --- DeGraf wrote: > Actually, iirc that last post of yours just > contained the reply that you > had come to the inaccurate conclusions that you did > by how I " had written > or expressed " myself, then something at the very end > wondering if I had the > courage (or a very similar word) to post it. ---This paragraph does not make sense to me... > > > Apparently the person who called > >non-lovers of children as 'evil' was not considered > to > >be as off the mark as my request for consideration > >that not 'all' children be stereotyped as 'all' > people > >can be. Which shows you have more interest in > >censoring people you dislike. > > No, that's a set of incorrect conclusions *you* are > coming to based on > reading between the lines when nothing's there. --------It has nothing to do with 'reading between the lines', in which your continued attempt to refer to me as nt has become irritating. The 'evil' comment was not as bad as arguing against stereotypes, anyone would make similar conclusions. > First, you're assuming I > dislike you, which is wrong. Second, you're > assuming that I moderated you > for your request, which is not only wrong but > contradicts what I have > expressly stated as my reason. Third is that my > moderating of you had > anything to do with what other members posted, which > it did not -- I > consider everyone's posts on an individual basis. > (FYI the reason GTLee > was not moderated is because he/she was engaging in > active pedantic > discussion of a specific term, and I noticed that > through discussing its > meaning and definition interesting progress was > being made.) -------'Flaming' is defined as name-calling, and I'd say calling someone 'evil' is flaming, which you didn't bother to point out or address. > > > >----------I did not see this as a " contest " as to > who > >could gather the most people to 'their side'. > > Neither did I -- I have no idea why anyone would. I > was just pointing out > that on AS-Proud the fact that other people were > actively saying that your > interpretation was inaccurate supports my claim that > I meant no harm with > my posts. ----And the few who knew what I was saying were, what? > > >I was merely trying to make myself understood. > > Then you need to not actively refer to other groups > as " --- haters " and > make assumptions about what they mean when they > don't actively say it. ----------Please go re-read both CZ and 's posts on this; they make it much clearer than I apparently did. I > reacted to your literal language, nothing else. I > think that most people > did understand you, it's just that they disagreed. > It's entirely possible > to understand someone and still think they're > incorrect. ---------What is incorrect about stating stereotypes of children are unfair? 1. I never stated people *should have* children. 2. I stated that noise intolerance goes across the board, for me, ranging from children to adults. 3. I stated that the group-think *talk* of those childfree lists reads as pretty derogatory. 4. You stated that because I had had a child, my life was 'average', which is laughable b/c there has been *nothing* average about my life; if that is not also lumping me into a stereotype I don't know what is. You must see your own participation in my defensiveness, certainly. > > > Had you > >attempted to understand me as you attempted with > the > >person who called non-children loving people > 'evil', > >the same conversation could have evolved, but you > were > >not, > > Again, you're assuming things about me that are > incorrect. I think that I > did understand you, I merely didn't agree with your > stance. We couldn't > have had that kind of evolutionary discussion in > this matter because there > was no central theme to come to agreement on -- we > couldn't be pedantic > about a specific term as GTLee/Parrish were doing, > because you were > objecting to a whole group and its beliefs, rather > than discussing one word. -------- I have never objected to childfree individuals anywhere, at anytime, and I pointed that out. CZ is my best friend online and is childfree. I have more RL friends that are childfree than with with children. What I objected to was the 'groupthink talk' and politics of it, which, in an earlier post you just admitted to CZ *could* come off as sounding harsh and offensive. If you have no attitude toward me personally, and asking in all honesty here, then why are you able to admit that to someone else, and not to me? > > > so I could only view it then as your having > >something personal against *me*, > > I have nothing personal against you. Again, you are > coming to conclusions > based on things I did not say. If I had a personal > grudge against you or > anyone else, I would say it openly. --------See the last sentence of my above paragraph . > > > which does not seem > >fair of a moderators' 'job'. > > The moderator's job is to approve subscriptions & > pending messages, and in > cases where serious arguments break out, enforce the > rules and bring the > ones that aren't improving to a halt so other > members can return to > enjoying the list. That is what I did. I do not > play favorites in either > direction on the lists. > ---------State what you like, but your actions speak otherwise. N, a bit fed up and ready to leave all AS lists ===== " Let's go get drunk on light again---it has the power to console. " -- Seurat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 > danced around singing: > >I didn't know that sproglets was derogatory, but I did know that some > >other things you haven't seen as derogatory could be taken as > >derogatory. (This is what I mean by *different* abilities to read > >between the lines as opposed to *absent* ones.) > Ah, okay. I don't consider sproglets/sprogs to be derogatory *myself* and > I do not use them with nasty thoughts in mind (usually) but I know that > many parents freak out at the term " sprogs " so I have it mentally listed as > " people react badly to this term. " Yes. I suspect many people have " breeder " mentally listed that way as well. > What I am confused by is reactions to the term " breeder " by all parents, > when in reality it only is nasty towards *bad* parents. I don't use the > term " breeder " to refer to all parents, nor do most childfree people... It > refers to someone (according to the official alt.support.childfree FAQ) > that reproduces without putting any thought into the matter (like an > animal) and afterwards either abuses or neglects the kid as it grows up, > resulting in violently " bratty " behavior that is severely disrespectful of > others. " Breeders " are the sort that watch calmly (or even say > mechanically " isn't that cute! " ) while their kid destroys public property > or the property of others, beats other children up, gets beat up, or > generally makes a serious nuisance of itself. My first guess as to why it would be seen as derogatory is that if it is used in a negative context ( " breeders don't watch their kids properly, " or something along those lines), many parents will *not* know the official definition of the word, and interpret it as meaning " someone who has bred " , meaning *them*. And then protest, " Hey! I watch my kids properly! " > Given that definition, it confuses me that Parent Non Breeders would get > upset over the use of derogatory language to describe seriously bad > parents. I use really bad language to describe the arseholes that raise > and breed non-showing animals, dumping them out on the street or having > them euthanized without any thought to the feelings of the cat -- that is > the best parallel I can come up with within " my " world. I still don't understand the term " 'my' world " , speaking of language interpretation problems. (This may not apply to the above sentence, but since I don't know how the term is supposed to be used, I don't know one way or the other.) I originally interpreted references to " worlds " as being about planets. When I learned that was not always the case, I figured that it was a nebulous term borrowed by autistics from the NT colloquial descriptions of someone being " off in their own world, " which is a term I also don't have a good definition for. I'm sure I have *used* the terminology of " worlds " as part of complex echolalic constructions, but I still don't understand what it means beyond planets and some other hazy idea I can't figure out. I was discussing it with another autistic person recently (in reference to Alison Hale (author of _My World Is Not Your World_) and Donna (who continually refers to " my world " and " the world " , and whose experiences frequently make sense to me but whose use of language and/or frameworks to interpret same experiences ranges from eluding me to bothering me)). Neither of us could figure out a satisfactory definition or explanation beyond the one I've already given. Do you know of any way of explaining what it means? Or is it just a co-opted colloquial metaphor with little meaning on its own? -- " Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. " -Doug Larson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 > > No, that's a set of incorrect conclusions *you* are > > coming to based on > > reading between the lines when nothing's there. > --------It has nothing to do with 'reading between the > lines', in which your continued attempt to refer to me > as nt has become irritating. Referring to someone as " reading between the lines " is *not* the same as referring to someone as NT. Anyone who can *use* the phrase " reading between the lines " and uses it to convey their thoughts (rather than as noncommunicative conversation-faking echolalia), is capable of understanding -- through whatever cognitive means -- that it's not a reference to invisible ink. Which is what I used to think it meant. Thus, many many autistics are capable of reading between the lines to some degree. > -------'Flaming' is defined as name-calling, and I'd > say calling someone 'evil' is flaming, which you > didn't bother to point out or address. Flaming is defined as a lot of things. > > I > > reacted to your literal language, nothing else. I > > think that most people > > did understand you, it's just that they disagreed. > > It's entirely possible > > to understand someone and still think they're > > incorrect. > ---------What is incorrect about stating stereotypes > of children are unfair? I think you referred to childfree people as childhaters, which is a stereotype if I ever heard one. -- " Disability inspiration is a form of propaganda that glosses over oppression while simultaneously reassuring normals about the superiority of their ways. " - B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2003 Report Share Posted May 24, 2003 DeGraf wrote: > I was a bit baffled by ' use of " my world " versus " the world " > myself, and I have wondered where she got it from. I figured that since > she had mentioned being more of a classic autistic as a small child, she > might be distinguishing between the place her mind goes when she shuts off > her senses to explore her mental environment (her " world " ) as opposed to > the physical " world " environment that other people always live in. I'm > just guessing, though! I could relate in many ways to what she was talking about. I'm not nearly as severe as she was, and there's much more in common between my inner world and the outer world than there was for her. But ... I have my interests and my imagination, books, music, the TV, places to go hiking, etc. That's 'my world'; much of it is, however, sensory and not just inside myself. As for 'the world', I interpreted that as what other people say and do. Much of the time I just don't care about most other people and relating to them. I need to be alone, doing my things. Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2003 Report Share Posted May 24, 2003 > > I was a bit baffled by ' use of " my world " versus " the world " > > myself, and I have wondered where she got it from. I figured that since > > she had mentioned being more of a classic autistic as a small child, she > > might be distinguishing between the place her mind goes when she shuts off > > her senses to explore her mental environment (her " world " ) as opposed to > > the physical " world " environment that other people always live in. I'm > > just guessing, though! > I could relate in many ways to what she was talking about. So could I, but I couldn't relate to some of her idiosyncratic (and very forced-echolalic-looking at times) terms for things. > I'm not > nearly as severe as she was, and there's much more in common between my > inner world and the outer world than there was for her. But ... I have > my interests and my imagination, books, music, the TV, places to go > hiking, etc. That's 'my world'; much of it is, however, sensory and not > just inside myself. As for 'the world', I interpreted that as what > other people say and do. Much of the time I just don't care about most > other people and relating to them. I need to be alone, doing my things. Hmm. So " the world " = social norms and " my world " = everything else? -- " I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that have succeeded but not replaced one another. " -Irving Townsend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.