Guest guest Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 I wouild love to sign this letter but have no idea if all of the stuff is true. I am inclined to believe it but that is not enough. I urge those who live in Canada and have more access to the background to read and sign it if warranted. Thanks in any event for sharing it. Jerry Newport _________________________________________________________________ Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access. Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 > > I wouild love to sign this letter but have no idea if all of > the stuff is true. I am inclined to believe it but that is not enough. I > urge those who live in Canada and have more access to the background to read > and sign it if warranted. Thanks in any event for sharing it. The stuff about the Blais family is, in any event, well-documented elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 I sounds pretty revolting- and pretty " normal " . These guys sound like they are worse than CAN! This prejudice and hatred against autistics reminds me of the hatred towards black people in the 1700s and women in the 1600s. It seems to me many NTs want us dead just as much as Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews. It's only a small stretch to make that analogy, when you consider it was virtually legalized for a mother to kill her autistic son. This is scary shit, and one of the big reasons I avoid a formal diagnosis and don't tell people about my AS- I will end up dead or unemployable, homeless, since I have NO support of any kind to protect me from this hatred if I reveal myself. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 Jeanette wrote: > I sounds pretty revolting- and pretty " normal " . These guys sound > like they are worse than CAN! It sounds like they are made up of the same kind of people exactly. I have written on the topic on my page. The CAN types want to keep us marginalized and irrelevant, so they don't have to examine their motives and find out why we oppose them. One of the NT parents on AutAdvo said that s/he was not sure that the opinions of autistic adults, of resentment over the desire that NTs have to " cure " us, were valid. S/he said that these opinions may just be a symptom, and thus not worthy of attention. You can bet that I did my best to, um, enlighten this person, but even if I succeeded (kind of doubtful), there are a million more where s/he came from. I run into this with some frequency. If you can define someone as a disease, then you can see their desire to exist as a symptom of that disease-- and you've neatly found an ethical loophole which will allow you to do all kinds of stuff to people that don't want to have those things done to them... because in their minds, our desire not to be " cured " is only one more sign that we desperately need them to cure us. > This prejudice and hatred against autistics reminds me of the hatred > towards black people in the 1700s and women in the 1600s. I don't think it is that bad. There are people now that hate blacks, and would be happy to lynch them if they could do so without going to prison... but certainly not like in the 1700s, when they were widely enslaved and killed at the whim of whites (in the US). It's not that bad for autistics now... it is not legal to enslave us or kill us, or own us. It's more like how it was for blacks at some point between 1950 and present. I am not sure where it would be on that scale. While some people are ignorant and backward, a lot of them are not. In my dealings with Aventis, I prevailed, and am entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else. It sucks that I had to fight for it, but I did prevail... in the 1950s, blacks probably would not have even been allowed in the front door, let alone given equal protection under their rules. It's not as bad as that now. > It seems to me many NTs want us dead just as much as Hitler wanted to > kill all the Jews. Don't single out the Jews. Hitler killed a lot more people than Jews. Hitler was full-on into eugenics; the eugenics movement stated that the disabled, mentally ill, the poor, criminals, people from certain racial groups, were all genetically inferior, and as such, did not deserve to pass on their genetic material. There was some discussion about how these inferior genes would be removed from the gene pool. In America, where the movement started, the talk was mostly of sterilization, but there were some more radical factions that supported the slaughter of people with disabilities. Hitler only took that idea and did it in a big way. He would have killed everyone on this list if he had the chance, Jewish or not. > It's only a small stretch to make that analogy, > when you consider it was virtually legalized for a mother to kill her > autistic son. I don't know that they want us dead, but they would prefer that we stop bothering them with our existence. > This is scary shit, and one of the big reasons I avoid a formal > diagnosis and don't tell people about my AS- I will end up dead or > unemployable, homeless, since I have NO support of any kind to > protect me from this hatred if I reveal myself. A lot of us have managed to survive with the diagnosis... it's only been a few years for me, but some people have been " out of the closet " for many years, and have not died or become homeless because of the revelation. There certainly are negatives to disclosure, but it's not as catastrophic as you seem to think. And think of this-- the prejudice is never going to go away if we keep hiding and pretending to be NT. That just reinforces the idea that what we are is something shameful, something that should be hidden. In order to change the social acceptability of treating autistics poorly, we need to be visible... we need to get to the point where just being ourselves does not create a spectacle. We need an autistic version of " We're here, we're queer-- get used to it. " The hatred isn't about the label you get when you are diagnosed; it's about being different. I had no label when I was abused in school, and most of the current adult autistics that were tortured in mental hospitals had the wrong diagnosis at that time. Putting an official name to what you are only serves to replace the name that your tormetors have anyway... the names people called what I was, in school, were a lot worse than " aspie " or " autistic. " They were, in fact, much more in line with the eugenic term " worthless eater. " I have found the label to be empowering more than the opposite. Had I not been diagnosed or decided to be open about my diagnosis, I would not have been able to explain to the Aventis people why they were wrong to tell me to stop rocking. If I had tried to play the role of an NT that likes to rock, it would not have worked. People know I am asocial, that I avoid eye contact, that I have a demeanor (body language) that looks suspicious to them. Some people may discriminate based on a label; there have been many examples of that right here on this list. However, in other cases, a label can be a tool to let people know why you are different, that it's not just you being a jackass... which is what they think if they don't have a more reasonable explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 >The hatred isn't about the label you get when you are diagnosed; it's >about being different. Yes, but once a label is put on it that gives everyone an excuse to be even nastier than ever. Most NTs won't give anyone lee way as far as behavior is concerned just because it is a symptom of being autistic or whatever. They would rather treat people badly, and make fun of them, so no amount of explanation is going to help. It will only hurt those who are trying to explain themselves. It's not like it's a one time thing we have to explain away. It's everything we do- and the overwhelming majority of NTs would just rather abuse us no matter what, and use a label as a further excuse to abuse us than to help us out or understand us at all. >it is not legal to enslave us or kill us, Then explain to me how a woman can kill her own autistic son, totally get off, no punishment and instead is thought of an " example " and a " role model " to parents of autistic children! >I don't know that they want us dead, but they would prefer that we stop >bothering them with our existence. CAN and all these other " autistic " organizations have one agenda underlying everything they do- exterminate all autistics and remove them from the face of the earth at all costs. That sounds to me like the DO want us all dead. >There certainly are negatives to disclosure, but it's not as catastrophic >as you seem to think. Come on, . YOU may be happy with what you got disclosing, but I wouldn't be happy with what you got or what anyone else got disclosing, for that matter. Also, it is blatantly obvious that my life would be over if I disclosed myself. My mother would use it against me to have me institutionalized in a foreign country (hers) so she could take my savings, all my things, and genuinely " possess " me, my father would go along with it because he is gutless, and everyone else would love the idea because they abhor me and would just love to see me miserable or dead. I have NO allies who would stand up for me to protect my rights. I can't even get someone to help me when I'm sick, or go to an event I want to go to, or anything at all. Who the fuck is going to care if I get carted away to the crazy house in a foreign country so my mom can finish me off and enjoy doing it since she is a sadistic narcissistic bitch? I can barely fake enough NT to get by SOME days, and once I get my brain and sleep together, I may be able to fake it enough to get by on most days. I used to do it fairly well sometimes, just passing others, but I was shamed into it and didn't know what I was doing or how much it cost. Now that I know those things, and I understand what is going on, I think faking it will be a lot easier in the future. I won't be shamed into it- I'll be doing it to get what I want out of NTs when I need it, with clear ideas of what it entails, how much energy it takes, and what is going on. Since I am AS, I don't rock or do any of those things- I do stim but I can control it (I have to anyway now in public). So I'm just going to fake it to blend in and protect myself as much as possible. The world is a hostile place and it's only going to get worse. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 > it is not legal to enslave us or kill us, or > own us. ... > It's more like how it was for blacks at some point between 1950 > and present. I am not sure where it would be on that scale. While some > people are ignorant and backward, a lot of them are not. In my dealings > with Aventis, I prevailed, and am entitled to the same rights and > privileges as anyone else. It sucks that I had to fight for it, but I > did prevail... in the 1950s, blacks probably would not have even been > allowed in the front door, let alone given equal protection under their > rules. > It's not as bad as that now. Well... It's actually very mixed and much more complicated than " not as bad as that " or " worse than that " or " as bad as that " . Autistic people certainly *are* subject to guardianship/conservatorship (which is not technically the same as ownership, but which subjects our entire lives, including some amount of power over life and death decisions, to another person's will for us), and to sheltered workshops (which are arguably a form of slavery, although not the same format black people in America were subjected to). We are also subject to involuntary, sometimes permanent segregation that can extend to not even being *able* to come in contact with outsiders. While murder of us is *technically* illegal, *all* disabled people are subject to loosened regulation in that matter under the fuzzy grey area of " mercy killing " , in which someone can basically say " But I didn't want my kid growing up and being... like this... forever... " and suddenly get away with things, sometimes to a greater extent than an *accidental* killing or *attempted* or even *planned in the future* killing of a non-disabled person (although accidental killings of autistics in the name of " therapy " don't necessarily result in *anything* for the people doing it, even when the courts know about them). The issues are different from group to group, so it's impossible to make a straight comparison, " better to worse " . Especially with a group as heterogenous in certain ways as autistics are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Jeanette wrote: > > The hatred isn't about the label you get when you are diagnosed; > > it's about being different. > > Yes, but once a label is put on it that gives everyone an excuse to > be even nastier than ever. Have you not been paying attention? They don't need an excuse. > Most NTs won't give anyone lee way as far as behavior is concerned > just because it is a symptom of being autistic or whatever. They > would rather treat people badly, and make fun of them, so no amount > of explanation is going to help. It will only hurt those who are > trying to explain themselves. Wild-ass guesses based on nothing but your paranoid world-view. Until you have lived this, or at least researched it, you have no idea how it would be. There are a whole lot of us that have not kept it hidden, and " it can only hurt " just is not accurate. > It's not like it's a one time thing we > have to explain away. It's everything we do- and the overwhelming > majority of NTs would just rather abuse us no matter what, and use a > label as a further excuse to abuse us than to help us out or > understand us at all. Right, so just hide all the time and hope that they'll see the light by osmosis. Look... most people are not concerned about you at all. They're not sitting there hating you because you are different. They're concerned with their own lives. They can gang up on you and get ugly sometimes, but they are not out to get you. It just is not so. > > it is not legal to enslave us or kill us, > > Then explain to me how a woman can kill her own autistic son, totally > get off, no punishment and instead is thought of an " example " and a > " role model " to parents of autistic children! It's not legal. Show me the section of law that says that it is legal to kill autistics. If you can't find one, it's not legal. > > I don't know that they want us dead, but they would prefer that we > > stop bothering them with our existence. > > CAN and all these other " autistic " organizations have one agenda > underlying everything they do- exterminate all autistics and remove > them from the face of the earth at all costs. That sounds to me like > the DO want us all dead. I have never heard anyone suggest killing adult autistics. Your penchant for hyperbole is amazing. > > There certainly are negatives to disclosure, but it's not as > > catastrophic >as you seem to think. > > Come on, . YOU may be happy with what you got disclosing, but I > wouldn't be happy with what you got or what anyone else got > disclosing, for that matter. Fine then... be happy with your lot in life... be happy that autistics are treated as third-class citizens, and don't bother me anymore with your complaints. If you're not going to be part of the solution, stop complaining about the problem. I am me, and I am glad to be me. I am not going to hide what I am. What I got from disclosure is my self-esteem back... I got the sense that I belong, and that I am fine as I am, and that I am just as good as anyone else. If you don't want that, then I pity you. > Also, it is blatantly obvious that my life would be over if I > disclosed myself. It is blatantly obvious only that you are quite paranoid and prone to catastrophic thinking. > My mother would use it against me to have me > institutionalized in a foreign country (hers) so she could take my > savings, all my things, and genuinely " possess " me, Ok, sure. Let me clue you in on a few things. First, AS is not a reason to institutionalize anyone. The people with AS that have been institutionalized have been diagnosed with, generally, a schizophreniform mental illness. And the state mental health system in the US has been so defunded in the last decade that you would have to be pretty messed up to warrant being locked up-- and the average stay is around seven days now, according to the book Of Two Minds (cannot recall the author), which is a pretty accurate and academic picture of psychiatric care in the US today. Also, we don't extradite mental patients. No one can make you go to a foreign country unless they kidnap you and somehow manage to drag you onto a plane without you letting any of the security people know that you're being kidnapped. The cops are not going to take a call from your mother and go arrest you and ship you off to another country. You would be better off worrying about getting hit by lightning. Third, you are an adult, and going to an institution does not mean that you lose your rights to property. In short, you're being ridiculously irrational here. > my father would > go along with it because he is gutless, and everyone else would love > the idea because they abhor me and would just love to see me > miserable or dead. I have NO allies who would stand up for me to > protect my rights. You wouldn't need anyone to stand up for you. The threat you imagine is not real. > I can't even get someone to help me when I'm sick, > or go to an event I want to go to, or anything at all. Who the fuck > is going to care if I get carted away to the crazy house in a foreign > country so my mom can finish me off and enjoy doing it since she is a > sadistic narcissistic bitch? Ho hum. You know, I am beginning to wonder if you really have AS. I am thinking (and this is not meant as an insult) that you may be something more akin to a paranoid schizophrenic. Schizophrenics share a lot of traits with AS; the flat affect, the avoidance of people, even the stimming... and they have their own kind of perseverations too. The autistics I know that have been in mental hospitals have told me that the schizophrenics gravitate toward them, as they have a lot in common. That is why so many autistics have been diagnosed as schizophrenia. The constant thinking you evince, that everyone is out to get you, and the resultant catastrophic thought... these are not typical autistic traits. These are traits of a certain type of psychosis (paranoia). It's not amusing to debate with you anymore... it's getting kind of sad. Of course, you're not going to accept that I may be right; from your perspective, I am sure that your paranoia seems rational. I have to tell you... you are not seeing the world rationally. > Since I am AS, I don't rock or do any of those things- I do stim but > I can control it (I have to anyway now in public). So I'm just going > to fake it to blend in and protect myself as much as possible. The > world is a hostile place and it's only going to get worse. Bah. It's only going to get better. People can and will be enlightened. They have become so about other races, about women, about gays... it can happen for autistics too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 > You know, I am beginning to wonder if you really have AS. I am thinking > (and this is not meant as an insult) that you may be something more akin > to a paranoid schizophrenic. Schizophrenics share a lot of traits with > AS; the flat affect, the avoidance of people, even the stimming... and > they have their own kind of perseverations too. The autistics I know > that have been in mental hospitals have told me that the schizophrenics > gravitate toward them, as they have a lot in common. That is why so > many autistics have been diagnosed as schizophrenia. The constant > thinking you evince, that everyone is out to get you, and the resultant > catastrophic thought... these are not typical autistic traits. These > are traits of a certain type of psychosis (paranoia). It's not amusing > to debate with you anymore... it's getting kind of sad. Of course, > you're not going to accept that I may be right; from your perspective, I > am sure that your paranoia seems rational. I have to tell you... you > are not seeing the world rationally. The " out to get you " thing can have its roots in autism too, actually, even if it's not an autistic trait in itself. 1. I'm only using ToM as a convenient shorthand here. But people with poor ToM quite often gravitate toward two extremes -- overly trusting and overly *un*trusting. Or even oscillating between the two. That's fairly common and I've seen a lot of autistic people like that. (And that goes for difficulty in gauging *anything* -- I am very uncautious about depth perception to the point of injuring myself badly a few times, while my brother is too scared to go down a gentle slope.) 2. Prolonged extremely negative experiences *tend to* make people untrusting, and a lot of autistic people have prolonged negative experiences. Either or those two combined could make someone not trust the world, even to the point of appearing " paranoid " . As for " schizophrenic " people (which is a really heterogenous group of people, to which large clumps of autism belonged at one point, and I think some of the things lumped under it today are as unrelated to each other as autism is to them) gravitating toward one, I've found that at times, but I've also found very manic people gravitating toward me both inside and outside of those places. And the one autistic friend I've talked to about it said that while she was *diagnosed* with schizophrenia, all the other people with that diagnosis told her it didn't fit her, while the shrinks were oblivious. For whatever it's worth, if I *didn't* have an autism diagnosis, I'd probably be fighting a diagnosis of catatonic schizophrenia at this point. (Which would accurately describe the movement problems that have increased, in terms of sheer diagnostic criteria, and which doesn't require hallucinations, strange beliefs, or anything, but just certain kinds of strange movements for certain periods of time. Not that it *explains* them mind you, but that's the category it got lumped under decades ago so that's where it remains; it's just undiagnosable in an autistic unless they start hallucinating.) So would a fair amount of autistic people. I suspect that *some* autistic people who get diagnosed with " paranoid " anything (and there are several ways that could get diagnosed), it's really an offshoot of the two things above that are really more a tangential-autism-issue than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Jeanette wrote: >It seems to me many NTs want us dead just as much as Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews. It's only a small stretch to make that analogy, when you consider it was virtually legalized for a mother to kill her autistic son. > Dr. Asperger had a constant struggle to keep the Nazis from dragging his patients off to the death camps. He could only prevent them from doing so by making the most of whatever savantish abilities they had, and pointing out that they might be killing the next Einstein. (In the end it was for naught, because the *allies* bombed the place and killed all his patients). Ride the Music AndyTiedye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 >Have you not been paying attention? They don't need an excuse. Yes I HAVE been paying attention. You are not listening to me. NO, they don't need an excuse to abuse people. But a label only raises the level of abuse we receive, and also justifies it to strengthen the thinking behind it, when you think it seems to help. It won't help me. >Wild-ass guesses based on nothing but your paranoid world-view. Until >you have lived this. I HAVE lived this. In trying to explain my behavior in ways that do not reveal my AS, things have only gotten worse. Before I even knew about AS, I'd try to explain my behavior in other more innocuous ways, and all I got was " you are just making excuses for yourself " and more abuse. And my view is realistic, cynical, not paranoid. >There are a whole lot of us that have not kept it hidden, and > " it can only hurt " just is not accurate. OK- I would think the more autistic you are on the spectrum it becomes worth it, and does help more than it hurts. But for those on the spectrum who can barely fake NT, and who can work and stuff, it DOES hurt more than it helps, for the most part. >Right, so just hide all the time and hope that they'll see the light by >osmosis. , they AREN'T going to " see the light " . Not in your lifetime or mine. People like you who disclose generally have no choice but to disclose because you are very much unable to fake NT and need to disclose. I can just barely make it but not really. People like you can disclose and not lose much, people like me who disclose lose a lot. You can keep trying to get them to " see the light " , but for me to try and do that is useless. >Look... most people are not concerned about you at all. They're not >sitting there hating you because you are different. And I've told you many times that people aren't " out to get me " they are out for themselves, and dislike people who are different. When they SEE someone who is different in their area, THEN they start in on that person. They usually don't go out of their way to get someone who is different, but they do if they see someone conveniently in their area. For them it's not much. For me it means everywhere I go I am subjected to that attitude, not because they are out to get " me " but because they DO hate people who are different- they just don't think about it all the time or take it home with them. >It's not legal. Show me the section of law that says that it is legal >to kill autistics. If you can't find one, it's not legal. It's like said- it's not " officially legal " but if you read that open letter, you will see that a mother of an autistic son killed him and not only received no punishment, but was called a " role model " and even got a job working for the Autism organization. What does that say? >I have never heard anyone suggest killing adult autistics. Then why would they call this woman a " role model " ? Doesn't that suggest its a good idea to kill an autistic child? That is not hyperbole. >be happy that autistics are treated as third-class citizens, I never said I was happy about that, . I'm not, and I'll do what I can, short of disclosing myself, to help out. >don't bother me anymore with your complaints. If you're not going to be >part of the solution, stop complaining about the problem. On this list anything goes, except personal attacks, and you have misinterpreted everything I say, focused only on the negative, ignored anything positive I've said because you don't like my view point, since it is 180 degrees opposite of yours. I've explained it a few times and you have completely ignored what I said, taking only what you want out of it. >What I got from disclosure is my self-esteem back... I got the sense that >I belong, and that I am fine as I am, and that I am just as good as >anyone else. If you don't want that, then I pity you. What I meant was- I wouldn't want to have to try and get income from the government, which I would have to do, as it would not be enough for me. You state that what you get is enough for you. I would want a lot more than that. And I got my self esteem back WITHOUT disclosing. But that is just me. I wasn't trying to put you down, just stating the facts for how *I* feel about it. In some states I heard on the Aspie hangout someone say that persons with AS have to take certain meds, be tracked by the state, and what says is also correct- and it DOES apply to persons with AS. >You know, I am beginning to wonder if you really have AS. I am thinking >(and this is not meant as an insult) that you may be something more akin >to a paranoid schizophrenic. sarcasm* Gee, Dr. Klein, when did you get that license to practice psychiatry? *sarcasm First off, it is an insult, as far as I am concerned. It's just about the worst thing you can label a person. And I won't tolerate that kind of bullshit. I'm not here to get more shit from people. I find it very, very interesting that you swear Steve is on the spectrum when he is WAY more paranoid than I am, and totally irrational, even non-sensical. People were afraid of him- but NO- HE'S on the spectrum, and I'm not. You don't agree with my view point, and it is so foreign to you that I must be fucking nuts in your mind. Not only is it not your place to sit here and determine what I am, it is wrong to label me such a heinous thing just because we don't agree. I have always thought it is not OK and very bad form to question someone's diagnosis, self or otherwise without them specifically asking for it, especially on the list in the open like this. It's highly disrespectful and insulting. I've already had my self diagnosis confirmed with some people here on this list, like it or not. I've even checked with others to see if my posts seem " nutty " to them, and they are not. But Steves sure were. It seems that the abuse I receive in life is meaningless to you- Steve's claims of abuse are real. THIS is biased thinking. I'm not sure why you discount what I say and validate what he says, but I think I have an idea. I've told you, I have been less wary before, much less. And the only thing that happened to me is I got hurt over and over and over again. THAT'S why I'm so wary now. You call it " paranoid " . You don't know what I've been through, and really have no right to label me as having the worst mental illness a person could have. You really haven't even met me. >The constant thinking you evince, that everyone is out to get you, and >the resultant catastrophic thought... these are not typical autistic >traits. And I've told you, but you've ignored it, people are NOT out to get ME. They are out for themselves, and I have to keep an eye open to that. I am more vulnerable to attacks not because of ME, but because of my AS. I miss ques and have a look on my face that attracts abuse. Anyone with my AS in the vicinity of people who don't like those who are different will get the same results I get. >Of course, you're not going to accept that I may be right; from your >perspective, I am sure that your paranoia seems rational. I have to tell >you... you are not seeing the world rationally. Gee, I know you THINK you are always right, ! I am a REALIST. I have a very cynical view of things, and apparently you don't see cynicism as rational. Well, that's your problem. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Thank you ! That's EXACTLY what has happened to me. I fail ToM tests, and since I was SO confused about social issues, I couldn't understand why in the hell people were being so shitty to me. My *whole life* even at 5 years old, I couldn't understand what I did wrong to get people to dislike me. I would and still do enter a group, thinking I've got a clean slate, then suddenly they start excluding me, making fun of me, etc. When I try to reach out and be " a part of " , it gets worse. They start doing things to me- and I don't understand it. Once I realize what's happening, I get mad. I shouldn't give people a chance because I can't read them totally correctly and I don't know what I'm doing at that level. So now I stay back and suspend belief. I may have made friends (acquaintance friendship) with someone in my rescue group. She ALSO has been screwed over a lot. I need to be careful- but I don't like being alone so much. I like to share with people. They just have to be safe and accepting, which is very hard to find in general, and almost impossible for someone like ME to find at all. I actually feel comfortable enough to MAYBE ask her if she wants to go see a movie. I made a mistake once with her and I apologized. I forgot to leave caned of cat food out by my door when she was going to swing by my house and pick it up. So I brought it to an adoption event that she attended, along with a catnip plant to make up for what I did. She thanked me and has been kind to me ever since. She has passed some tests- she genuinely forgives, and she doesn't care that I'm a little weird. She sees that I love my cats and that I have a good heart, which is important to me. But I'm not going to just go in and think we'll be best friends. I'll just have to see what happens. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 > >I have never heard anyone suggest killing adult autistics. << Then why would they call this woman a " role model " ? Doesn't that suggest its a good idea to kill an autistic child? That is not hyperbole.>> I have seen autism groups in which it is claimed that autism should be classed as a terminal illness because it might cause your parents to kill you. And I *wish* I was joking. << sarcasm* Gee, Dr. Klein, when did you get that license to practice psychiatry? *sarcasm >> Most psychiatrists aren't any better at it, actually. << I have always thought it is not OK and very bad form to question someone's diagnosis, self or otherwise without them specifically asking for it, especially on the list in the open like this. It's highly disrespectful and insulting. >> I've found it to be a bad idea too, for the most part. My policy has been to accept people (I can only remember one instance where I didn't, and that was someone who had lied about many other things to gain access to places he shouldn't have been) at their word that they're autistic, and that they may also be annoying, or people I don't particularly like, or people I don't particularly agree with, or people with various other problems. What *I* find objectionable is how much so many autistic people lament the stereotypes about autism and are so *damned* stereotyped about other 'conditions'. So many autistic people are quick to label someone with schizophrenia or a personality disorder or whatever -- usually someone they dislike or disagree with -- and don't really question the validity of the ideas they're spewing onto other people. And that also extends to the way in which some people distance themselves from these diagnoses as if they're the plague. I understand *why* it's done -- my mislabel of paranoid schizophrenia (at times) and undifferentiated schizophrenia (at other times) was used against me in horrible ways -- but I have a problem with the fact that people who can't escape the diagnosis as easily as I do might be hurt if I said, " I'm not like THEM, so you can't do this to me. " Especially after trying to visit someone whose life is being threatened in the name of that diagnosis. I understand it as a *very* temporary life-saving measure, like the kind I would use in front of a doctor. In general life, I've got a bit of a problem with it. << I've told you, I have been less wary before, much less. And the only thing that happened to me is I got hurt over and over and over again. THAT'S why I'm so wary now. You call it " paranoid " . You don't know what I've been through, and really have no right to label me as having the worst mental illness a person could have. You really haven't even met me. >> BTW, in purely shrinkish terms (that's a disclaimer for " some of this is psychiatric BS " ), paranoid schizophrenia has the *best* prognosis of any of the things that get clustered under that label. << I am a REALIST. I have a very cynical view of things, and apparently you don't see cynicism as rational. Well, that's your problem. >> I can be pretty cynical, but I seem to clash in some ways with the views of other cynics. Which makes me cynical about cynicism or something, I guess. But at any rate, I think what you're saying about the ability to pass has a valid point. I don't think it's right to advocate that *everyone* pass, or that passing is " better " , but the threat to the lives of people who do pass and suddenly disclose is real, especially with things like job loss and the like. And I'm also somewhat of a pragmatist (I know people who think I'm an idealist will laugh at me here) in that I think that doing things that keep you alive can be more important at times than doing things for an ideal, because I don't think (literal) martyrdom is all that useful. Reality is complicated and there are very few fixed outward principles one can hold to 100% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 alfamanda wrote: > The " out to get you " thing can have its roots in autism too, > actually, even if it's not an autistic trait in itself. .... > 2. Prolonged extremely negative experiences *tend to* make people > untrusting, and a lot of autistic people have prolonged negative > experiences. > > Either or those two combined could make someone not trust the world, > even to the point of appearing " paranoid " . Yes, and I certainly am not trusting of the world. In that online personality test, I showed " high " in paranoia. A lot of us that have been abused are that way. It's not the same as what I am seeing in Jeanette. In autistics that are trained to be paranoid, there is a rationality evident, underlying the " paranoia. " In Jane's example in this thread, you can see that she is being rational in her distrust. The same is true of Colin and yes, even Steve. Jeanette insisting that formal diagnosis is " totally obviously " or something like that going to end her life or get her homeless... there is no underlying rationality. That's just what seems more like psychotic thought. > As for " schizophrenic " people (which is a really heterogenous group > of people, to which large clumps of autism belonged at one point, and > I think some of the things lumped under it today are as unrelated to > each other as autism is to them) gravitating toward one, I've found > that at times, but I've also found very manic people gravitating > toward me both inside and outside of those places. And the one > autistic friend I've talked to about it said that while she was > *diagnosed* with schizophrenia, all the other people with that > diagnosis told her it didn't fit her, while the shrinks were > oblivious. People that live it understandably have a perspective that shrinks don't. > I suspect that *some* > autistic people who get diagnosed with " paranoid " anything (and there > are several ways that could get diagnosed), it's really an offshoot > of the two things above that are really more a > tangential-autism-issue than anything else. Probaably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Jeanette wrote: > > Have you not been paying attention? They don't need an excuse. > > Yes I HAVE been paying attention. You are not listening to me. > > NO, they don't need an excuse to abuse people. But a label only > raises the level of abuse we receive, and also justifies it to > strengthen the thinking behind it, when you think it seems to help. > It won't help me. Once again, how do you know this? Until you have lived it, you are making wild guesses. > I HAVE lived this. In trying to explain my behavior in ways that do > not reveal my AS, things have only gotten worse. Then you have not lived it. My point is that you cannot explain your behavior in a way that will appease the NTs without giving it a label. You are proving my point. > Before I even knew > about AS, I'd try to explain my behavior in other more innocuous > ways, and all I got was " you are just making excuses for yourself " > and more abuse. > > And my view is realistic, cynical, not paranoid. Thinking that formal dx would end up with you dead or dragged off to another country to be in a mental institution is not even close to realistic. > OK- I would think the more autistic you are on the spectrum it > becomes worth it, and does help more than it hurts. But for those on > the spectrum who can barely fake NT, and who can work and stuff, it > DOES hurt more than it helps, for the most part. How would you know that? I can barely fake NT... but as GPton remarked, you only think you're fooling them with your NT act. They know that you are different. They can call you brain damaged, geek, dork, loser, retard, bitch, shithead, or any number of things they will come up with to explain your behavior, or you can give them something else. > > Right, so just hide all the time and hope that they'll see the > > light by osmosis. > > , they AREN'T going to " see the light " . Not in your lifetime or > mine. It's a good thing that Dr. Luther King, Jr. did not think that... not to mention Gloria Steinem, and the gays (sorry, I can't think of a gay leader to name). > People like you who disclose generally have no choice but to > disclose because you are very much unable to fake NT and need to > disclose. I can just barely make it but not really. People like you > can disclose and not lose much, people like me who disclose lose a > lot. You can keep trying to get them to " see the light " , but for me > to try and do that is useless. I can fake it better than you may think. > > It's not legal. Show me the section of law that says that it is > > legal to kill autistics. If you can't find one, it's not legal. > > It's like said- it's not " officially legal " but if you read > that open letter, you will see that a mother of an autistic son > killed him and not only received no punishment, but was called a > " role model " and even got a job working for the Autism organization. > What does that say? It says that we had better do something to improve our standing in society. > > I have never heard anyone suggest killing adult autistics. > > Then why would they call this woman a " role model " ? Doesn't that > suggest its a good idea to kill an autistic child? That is not > hyperbole. Some people still think Hitler is a role model, even today. We can't assume that all NTs agree with that. > > don't bother me anymore with your complaints. If you're not going > > to be >part of the solution, stop complaining about the problem. > > On this list anything goes, except personal attacks, and you have > misinterpreted everything I say, focused only on the negative, > ignored anything positive I've said because you don't like my view > point, since it is 180 degrees opposite of yours. No, because your supports don't make any sense. > > What I got from disclosure is my self-esteem back... I got the > > sense that >I belong, and that I am fine as I am, and that I am > > just as good as >anyone else. If you don't want that, then I pity > > you. > > What I meant was- I wouldn't want to have to try and get income from > the government, which I would have to do, as it would not be enough > for me. You state that what you get is enough for you. I was working 35 hours a week when I was officially diagnosed, and I still live in society now that I live at taxpayer's expense. In addition, we have a veritable plethora of autistics on here who are diagnosed, open about it, and who work. Jerry Newport, for one. You can't get much more out of the autistic closet than he, but he has been working with a diagnosis for over a decade. Or Srephen Shore, who has been diagnosed longer than that. Or maybe one of the non-famous ones on this list. How about Merlin (GPon)? > I would want a lot more than that. And I got my self esteem back > WITHOUT disclosing. Until you are ready to be you full time, without trying to hide it, you're not doing something that is good for your self-esteem. Living a lie and hiding yourself is not a way to live. I got my self-esteem back before I knew of autism and AS; I know what you mean by that. My depression went into remission in 1997, and I was not formally diagnosed until 2000. I got my self-esteem back in 1997, but I did not realize that I had not gotten it all back until I began to live as me, damn the torpedoes, all the time. > In some states I heard on the Aspie hangout someone say that persons > with AS have to take certain meds, be tracked by the state, and what > says is also correct- and it DOES apply to persons with AS. THere is no such rule. That stuff happens, but it is not representative of the whole AS community. > sarcasm* Gee, Dr. Klein, when did you get that license to practice > psychiatry? *sarcasm When did you get yours, Dr. Jeanette? You diagnosed yourself with AS, right? > First off, it is an insult, as far as I am concerned. It's just about > the worst thing you can label a person. That is very intolerant of schizophrenics. They have a lot in common with autistics... the stigma is there (no kidding--look at your reaction... once again, you're not being very liberal and accepting) > And I won't tolerate that > kind of bullshit. I'm not here to get more shit from people. Does that mean you are leaving the list? You don't have to do that. > I find it very, very interesting that you swear Steve is on the > spectrum when he is WAY more paranoid than I am, and totally > irrational, even non-sensical. People were afraid of him- but NO- > HE'S on the spectrum, and I'm not. I see autistic thought in Steve. I know what means in terms of autistics coming off as paranoid. Steve is a good example of that. I don't see that in you. > You don't agree with my view point, and it is so foreign to you that > I must be fucking nuts in your mind. No, in YOUR mind. I never said that schizophrenia is fucking nuts. > Not only is it not your place > to sit here and determine what I am, it is wrong to label me such a > heinous thing just because we don't agree. It is my place to state my opinion, and I will do so whenever the mood strikes me... and you, of course, are free to state yours. And no, I am not labeling you with something " heinous " because we disagree. Jane and I disagree probably as much as you and I do (on issues of politics), maybe more, but there is no doubt in my mind that she is autistic. > I have always thought it is not OK and very bad form to question > someone's diagnosis, self or otherwise without them specifically > asking for it, especially on the list in the open like this. It's > highly disrespectful and insulting. Question your diagnosis? That's my point-- you don't HAVE a diagnosis. You have a guess. I am simply suggesting guesses that better fit what I am seeing. > I've already had my self diagnosis confirmed with some people here on > this list, like it or not. It's a tricky differential diagnosis, for sure. I've thought people were AS before, only to learn that they were quite delusional. One woman I dated years ago seemed like she had AS, until she started telling me that she had been abducted by aliens, that she had seen Jesus Christ in the flesh, for real, and that when she said certain phrases, pennies would fall from the sky... among others. > I've even checked with others to see if my posts seem " nutty " to > them, and they are not. But Steves sure were. Steve's thoughts were way out of proportion to the stimulus, but they were based in reality. Yours are not. > It seems that the abuse I receive in life is meaningless to you- > Steve's claims of abuse are real. THIS is biased thinking. I'm not > sure why you discount what I say and validate what he says, but I > think I have an idea. Oh, of course you do, it's because you're female, and it's sexism. Did I guess right? If so, it's too easy-- everything is an -ism to you. > I've told you, I have been less wary before, much less. And the only > thing that happened to me is I got hurt over and over and over again. > THAT'S why I'm so wary now. You call it " paranoid " . You don't know > what I've been through, and really have no right to label me as > having the worst mental illness a person could have. You really > haven't even met me. I don't know that it is the worst mental illness someone could have. It is certainly one of the most common. > I am a REALIST. I have a very cynical view of things, and apparently > you don't see cynicism as rational. Well, that's your problem. I am a cynic. You are not a realist... thinking that a diagnosis will certainly end up with you dead is not realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 >Jeanette insisting that formal diagnosis is " totally obviously " or >something like that going to end her life or get her homeless... there is >no underlying rationality. That's just what seems more like psychotic >thought. Actually there IS rational thought, but since you just don't like me and are now trying to backpedal and justify your comments and insults to me, you are ignoring everything I say. If I'm labeled with " AS " , then virtually no one will employ me, since I'm not employed, and no one wants to employ persons with disabilities, legal or not. If I was with an employer, they could do what most employers do, either fire me anyway or get me fired by giving me more than I can handle and doing the usual things to " get people to fail " so they can then fire them. Then they can say " we didn't fire her because of her AS, we fired her because of x " . That way they wouldn't have to give me any accommodations. Since you've never been in the corporate world, you have no idea what I'm talking about, and you really can't sit here and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Being unemployed, I'd have no resources. And given how hard it is to get money from the government, and since I've worked before, chances are good I wouldn't get any compensation. My mother is vicious, and will likely kick me out of the house when she gets back and if I'm unemployed, and my dad would go along with that since he would love to get rid of the " load " . None of my relatives will let me move in with them because I " should be able to work " with AS or not. Certainly none of my " friends " would help me out. THAT's how I could end up homeless. It's obvious to me because I know how my family is, how employers operate, and what happens when you try to get accommodations. I tried to get accommodations for my Sleep Apnea for god's sake, and they told me they would fire me at my last job. You just can't stand me, that's all. It really shows your bias and true colors when you treat me this way. >In Jane's example in this thread, you can see that she is being rational >in her distrust. The same is true of Colin and yes, even Steve. Steve didn't had any rational thinking under his paranoia! He accused me, you and Clay of planning and hoping to " ruin his wedding anniversary " when no one even knew it was his anniversary at all. That is only one example of Steve's nonsensical thinking. But, since it's Steve, I guess you're somehow going to say that is rational. Steve and rational don't belong in the same sentence, and you know it. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 alfamanda wrote: > << I have always thought it is not OK and very bad form to question > someone's diagnosis, self or otherwise without them specifically > asking for it, especially on the list in the open like this. It's > highly disrespectful and insulting. >> > > I've found it to be a bad idea too, for the most part. My policy has > been to accept people (I can only remember one instance where I > didn't, and that was someone who had lied about many other things to > gain access to places he shouldn't have been) at their word that > they're autistic, and that they may also be annoying, or people I > don't particularly like, or people I don't particularly agree with, > or people with various other problems. And that describes Steve. He was annoying, but I could see the autistic type of thought, underneath all of the self-delusion and excuses. For what it's worth, I would never act as moderator based on my doubts about someone's condition. When I ask if people are on the spectrum before I let someone in, I take their word for it, and nothing short of them saying they are NT outside of the list (as you and Jeanette well know) is going to make me kick someone out. And further, I only stated that Jeanette may be something more like schizophrenic (I certainly understand that a schizophreniform mental illness is not the same as schizophrenia proper). I never stated it as definitive. I simply cannot know that she is or is not. I suggested it as a possibility. While Jeanette took it as a huge insult, I did not intend it so. As I see it, it's no more shameful to be schizophrenic than to be autistic, and I have a big sympathetic spot for schizophrenics. They have to deal with a lot of the same issues that we do. I was simply suggesting a possible dx that may fit the syndrome better, and I never intended it as a means of discrediting her views. I don't care what a person's diagnosis is, or if they have one; I evaluate a person's statements based on their rationality. Being NT, AS, autistic, schizophrenic, bipolar, etc., does not influence my view of a person's statements. The statements simply are rational or they are not. And being irrational is not the same as me disagreeing. Jane's thoughts on politics are rational, even though I disagree as strongly with her views as I do with Jeanette's. And I offer my apology to Jane for repeatedly dragging her name into this as an example. > What *I* find objectionable is how much so many autistic people > lament the stereotypes about autism and are so *damned* stereotyped > about other 'conditions'. Thank you for stating that. Jeanette certainly is this way. I would not be insulted if someone thought I was schizophrenic... I would be annoyed, but I would NOT take it as " fucking nuts " like Jeanette did. I have been misdiagnosed as having a schizophreniform mental illness. I was tentatively dx as schizo-affective, until I fired off a long letter about my early history and autistic traits, after which that shrink changed the dx to AS (to his credit). It was not an insult to be dx as schizo-affective; it was just incorrect. Now, people that have been incarcerated and poisoned in the name of chasing away schizophrenia certainly would have a stronger reaction to being misdiagnosed than I, and for good reason... but that is not the same as thinking that schizophrenic makes you nuts. > So many autistic people are quick to label > someone with schizophrenia or a personality disorder or whatever -- > usually someone they dislike or disagree with -- and don't really > question the validity of the ideas they're spewing onto other people. I hope that is not meant to describe me. I have disagreed with a great many ideas on this list, but I am not quick to label someone with something other than autism. I have no Pollyanna view that I will like all autistics, and that anyone that rubs me the wrong way is not autistic. There are several autistic adults that attend the Phoenix support group meetings that really annoy the hell out of me, and I am quite certain that their ASD diagnoses are correct. A lot of autistics are annoying, no doubt. And some of the members of that group have _extreme_ left-wing views that I strongly dispute, but I am certain that they are autistic as well. I mentioned the possibility of schizophreniform mental illness here because I have seen a pattern of thought that is unduly catastrophic, histrionic, and lacking of the basic rationality that is typical of autistic people-- even those like Steve, whose statements (on the surface) seem more irrational than Jeanette's by far. > And that also extends to the way in which some people distance > themselves from these diagnoses as if they're the plague. It is unfortunate, because to a large degree, we're in the same boat. If society accepted the rights of the mentally ill, a lot of the problems autistics have would go away. While we see a difference between mental illness and autism, the NT society really does not-- and so it is the same prejudice against schizophrenics that plagues us. It disturbs me to see people who are ostensibly on the spectrum evincing these same hateful prejudices toward mental illness as NTs have toward us. I have been (or am, given that the current view is that the depression remits, but is not cured) mentally ill, in the form of my depression; I don't like the stigma about mental illness at all. > << I've told you, I have been less wary before, much less. And the > only thing that happened to me is I got hurt over and over and over > again. THAT'S why I'm so wary now. You call it " paranoid " . You don't > know what I've been through, and really have no right to label me as > having the worst mental illness a person could have. You really > haven't even met me. >> > > BTW, in purely shrinkish terms (that's a disclaimer for " some of this > is psychiatric BS " ), paranoid schizophrenia has the *best* prognosis > of any of the things that get clustered under that label. That is good to know. I was unaware of that. > << I am a REALIST. I have a very cynical view of things, and > apparently you don't see cynicism as rational. Well, that's your > problem. >> > > I can be pretty cynical, but I seem to clash in some ways with the > views of other cynics. Which makes me cynical about cynicism or > something, I guess. Me too. My cynicism seems to be like yours, in that neither of us is so cynical that we have quit trying to do what little we can to make the world better for our kind. Cynical optimists? > But at any rate, I think what you're saying about the ability to pass > has a valid point. I don't think it's right to advocate that > *everyone* pass, or that passing is " better " , but the threat to the > lives of people who do pass and suddenly disclose is real, especially > with things like job loss and the like. And I agree that the consequences can be negative. One member of this list explained how her significant other left her after she was diagnosed. Being weird was okay, but having " a disability " was too much. That does exist, in the workplace as well as in the home, and in some cases, disclosure can be negative. But that is not to say that getting a formal dx would result in Jeanette being dead or homeless, which she said would " obviously " be so. Some people may not want a dx because they don't need one, since they have no intention of getting an accomodation or government services; some may not want one because they are wary of that diagnosis someday being used against them (as in a child custody dispute, for example), and those are rational reasons. Not wanting a dx because it will result in you definitely being dead or homeless, or that someone will order you to be institutionalized in another country... that is not rational. And if this was the only area of irrational thought, I would not have made the schizophrenia suggestion... but it has become obvious that it is a pattern of thought that can be seen in every post she has made. And again, this is not an insult, just an observation. > And I'm also somewhat of a > pragmatist (I know people who think I'm an idealist will laugh at me > here) You can be both. > in that I think that doing things that keep you alive can be > more important at times than doing things for an ideal, because I > don't think (literal) martyrdom is all that useful. Reality is > complicated and there are very few fixed outward principles one can > hold to 100% of the time. True. I used my AS dx (had not gotten the HFA dx yet at this point) to get out of a nasty criminal traffic ticket I was wrongfully charged with (two clicks below a felony). I used the Pima County mental health diversion program, where if I agree to see a shrink for six months (which I was anyway), the charges are dropped and there is no penalty. I could have gone to trial, and possibly had a lot of points on my license, which would have priced my auto insurace so high that I could not afford it... not to mention a fine, and I decided not to chance it. My attorney knew of my dx, and she told me that my body language and flat affect (which comes and goes; certainly it would be there in the stress of being in court) would be a serious liability in court, and that it was best not to go to trial. So I used my dx to get out of it, which certainly did nothing to further the advocacy cause. I did it because it was the pragmatic thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 >Once again, how do you know this? Until you have lived it, you are >making wild guesses. By making observations in the workplace and other places. >Then you have not lived it. My point is that you cannot explain your >behavior in a way that will appease the NTs without giving it a label. YES I HAVE, and here you go again totally discounting my experience as if it is meaningless because you can't stand me. I have seen people who have asked for " accommodations " for disabilities for things other than get abused and made fun of all the time, far worse than before. A slightly retarded person who asked for accommodations was the brunt of jokes, made fun of behind their back, and considered a liability, even though he was cheerful, helpful, etc. People with PROSTHETICS who can't walk normally are also made fun of, abused, discriminated against, no matter what. People who said they did " X " because of some disability, invariably were abused and made fun of more and excluded because of their " visible " disability or condition. I have seen it, so don't tell me I haven't just because my findings don't agree with yours. >They can call you brain damaged, geek,dork, loser, retard, bitch, >shithead, or any number of things they will come up with to explain your >behavior, or you can give them something else. Sure! I can give them YET ANOTHER name to call me that is actually certified! Hell, , why NOT give people that hate me more " ammunition " to " shoot " at me? >I can fake it better than you may think. You are the one who stated that it wasn't possible to do that stuff, or something like that. >We can't assume that all NTs agree with that. I didn't say " all " I said " many " . >No, because your supports don't make any sense. They do make sense. You are just ignoring them, even when others agree with me. >In addition, we have a veritable plethora of autistics on here who are >diagnosed, open about it, and who work. I don't know if I'd say " plethora " , and those people are VERY lucky. And if someone discloses, are they up for promotions and what not then? In the places I've worked, that would in no way be true. >When did you get yours, Dr. Jeanette? You diagnosed yourself with AS, >right? And it was peer confirmed, too. I've looked at the DSM, and at other " diagnosis " I may have, but none of them fit like the AS does. AS explains it all. It's not a " guess " . It is something I've thought about for a while, and I am getting peer reviews for it- not from you, though. >Does that mean you are leaving the list? You don't have to do that. LOL! YOU WISH. I'm not going to leave - but anytime you think you can attack me, I'm going to stand up for myself whether you like it or not. > First off, it is an insult, as far as I am concerned. It's just about > the worst thing you can label a person. >That is very intolerant of schizophrenics. They have a lot in common >with autistics... the stigma is there (no kidding--look at your >reaction... once again, you're not being very liberal and accepting) You MEANT it as an insult- you aren't trying to be helpful at all, and now are calling me intolerant for not agreeing with your ideas of who and what you think I am! >I see autistic thought in Steve. I know what means in terms of >autistics coming off as paranoid. Steve is a good example of that. I >don't see that in you. Blah, Blah, Blah. You favor Steve, and dislike me, that's all it is. It is pretty clear that Steve is way out there, and to say he has autistic thought and I don't is just your own personal bias. He was totally irrational, that is pretty clear. >Steve's thoughts were way out of proportion to the stimulus, but they >were based in reality. Yours are not. LOL!! Steve's thoughts based in reality? Give me a break! >That's my point-- you don't HAVE a diagnosis. Most people here are self-diagnosed, and I thought it was bad form to sit here and question them when they have much more information about themselves than any other person does, especially in public. >One woman I dated years ago seemed like she had AS, until she started >telling me that she had been abducted by aliens, that she had seen Jesus >Christ in the flesh, for real, and that when she said certain phrases, >pennies would fall from the sky... among others. See, just goes to show you that you are WRONG some of the time. >I am a cynic. No you are not! You look to me more like a hopeless optimist and trusting of many things, which is NOT cynical. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 >But that is not to say that getting a formal dx would result in Jeanette >being dead or homeless,which she said would " obviously " be so. And IF someone DID disclose, and they DID become homeless or end up institutionalized, how would you know about it? Afterall, they wouldn't be here to talk about it, would they? Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 > So many autistic people are quick to label > someone with schizophrenia or a personality disorder or whatever -- > usually someone they dislike or disagree with -- and don't really > question the validity of the ideas they're spewing onto other people. >I hope that is not meant to describe me. I think it is, actually. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Jeanette wrote: > Actually there IS rational thought, but since you just don't like me > and are now trying to backpedal and justify your comments and insults > to me, you are ignoring everything I say. Actually, I do like you, Jeanette. I think you are a neat person. I like that you are not afraid to speak your mind. I like that you are passionate about what you say, even if I disagree with it. It is your bias against schizophrenics that adds the " curse " to my statements about you possibly having that condition. YOU said " fucking nuts, " not I. > If I'm labeled with " AS " , then virtually no one will employ me, since > I'm not employed, and no one wants to employ persons with > disabilities, legal or not. You don't have to reveal it if you don't want to. There are a lot of people here that are employed, and had an AS diagnosis at the time that they became employed. Why don't you try asking one of them here? You can reveal it if you want, or not reveal it if you don't want. > If I was with an employer, they could do > what most employers do, either fire me anyway or get me fired by > giving me more than I can handle and doing the usual things to " get > people to fail " so they can then fire them. Then they can say " we > didn't fire her because of her AS, we fired her because of x " . Yes, that is always a possibility. > That > way they wouldn't have to give me any accommodations. Since you've > never been in the corporate world, you have no idea what I'm talking > about, and you really can't sit here and tell me I don't know what > I'm talking about. Sure I can. First of all, I did work for a company called Controls CORPORATION as a data entry guy and computer technician. You assumed I have never been in the corporate world, and you were incorrect about that. Second, the list and the rest of the autism community is brimming over with people that have AS diagnoses and still have jobs, and have gotten jobs with that diagnosis. I bet there are at least 50 people like that on this list. You're sitting here telling me that it will be impossible for you to get a job with a DX, and there are a ton of people that have done it. Who is right-- the person that has never tried to get a job with an AS dx, or the ones that have done it? > Being unemployed, I'd have no resources. And given how hard it is to > get money from the government, and since I've worked before, chances > are good I wouldn't get any compensation. Ok. Chances are good that you would not get anything at first, but if you persist, you'll prevail. People that have no disability are able to get SSI if they keep trying; some people have done that with each of their numerous kids (there was a story on 60 Minutes or some similar show about that). And, of course, it simply is not true that having an AS dx means that you will never get a job. It is the AS itself, not the label, that most gets in the way of getting a job. People with AS tend not to perform well on interviews; it is too social and interactive, and too stressful. Label or not, it is something that is going to be hard for spectrum people. I have never gotten a job where I had to go through that procedure. Others on this list have, and they can probably give you some assistance on how to get through it if you need. It's not the AS dx that is the problem. Don't tell them about it if you don't want them to know. > My mother is vicious, and will likely kick me out of the house when > she gets back and if I'm unemployed, and my dad would go along with > that since he would love to get rid of the " load " . A lot of parents kick their kids out when they are 18 regardless of whether they have a job. Whether or not they are vicious is not germane to this topic... but when you are an adult living in the parents' house, it is always a possibility that you could be kicked out. My female friend (the one living here) finally could not carry on the NT act any more, and became depressed enough to be unable to get a job, after 15 years of working and earning relatively decent money. She was good at putting on her NT face and getting through interviews; she had done it 15 times in 15 years successfully (which is why she was never fired; she moved to a new job every time people began to realize that she was not able to do what they asked), so having to do interviews was no longer an impediment to her. She was very good indeed at hiding herself and appearing NT. The pressure of hiding who she really was finally caught up with her a few years ago, and when she lost her job and found herself unable to get another one, despite a hellacious amount of effort on her part, she lost her apartment and became homeless. She didn't " hit the street " for good, though, for she had some friends who took her in. She was wearing out her welcome there when I offered her the opportunity to live here and let me advocate for her through the Social Security process, which is still ongoing. This is very much like what you describe, with one exception: it was not the diagnosis that put the nails in her coffin. It was the autism/AS itself, not the label, that caused the difficulty. It was also not the stigma that she had been locked in a mental hospital for a single 2 year admission; they did not know about that. Her strong work history for a decade and a half meant more to them than that anyway. It was that the AS/autism itself (she is probably HFA, given that she was diagnosed off-the-books as having autistic tendencies when she was 2 or 3 years old, but she has now an AS dx) that made her unable to do what they wanted (she picked a really bad field for an autistic... sales), and it was the repeated failures in that and her always having to hide who she really was that led to her becoming severely depressed. It was the severe depression that led to her not being able to get through a job interview without bursting into tears, and it was the hiding the AS/autism, and the difficulty of the undiagnosed AS/autism itself, that caused the depression. It was NOT the AS label; she did not have one. And with 15 years of experience in the work world, a keen understanding of how things really work with regard to getting jobs, and every intention of returning to the work world and getting off disability after she gets the depression under control, my friend did not hesistate to get an official diagnosis. From the perspective of my friend, getting a label can hardly make things any worse than they are. She has lived your scenario without even having a dx. If she does not want to tell her prospective employer about her AS diagnosis, she won't. And they can't ask her if she has a disability, per the ADA; they can only ask her if she will be needing any accomodation. If she chooses to use her dx to get an accomodation, if she thinks it will make things better for her, she will have that option, because she has that dx. And if she chooses to go stealth, she can simply not tell them about the AS diagnosis. > None of my relatives will let me move in with them because I " should > be able to work " with AS or not. Certainly none of my " friends " > would help me out. Unfortunate. If I had the room, I might offer you what I offered my friend, but it is a little tight in this 1-bedroom apartment as it is. > THAT's how I could end up homeless. It's obvious to me because I > know how my family is, how employers operate, and what happens when > you try to get accommodations. I tried to get accommodations for my > Sleep Apnea for god's sake, and they told me they would fire me at my > last job. But that did not happen until you revealed your sleep apnea-- they did not just " know " you had the diagnosis and discriminate against you on that basis. > You just can't stand me, that's all. If that makes it easier to accept that I disagree with you, feel free to think that. It isn't true, but I don't expect you to believe that. > It really shows your bias and > true colors when you treat me this way. No, it shows yours-- you say you are upset about the way people that are different are treated, and yet you have the same hatred of schizophrenics that the NTs you dislike have against autistics. Tolerance of people that are different is not just for autistics. > Steve didn't had any rational thinking under his paranoia! He > accused me, you and Clay of planning and hoping to " ruin his wedding > anniversary " when no one even knew it was his anniversary at all. Yes, I know. But even in his vitriolic rant against , you could see that he had some basis for thinking what he did. He had no sense of proportion; that is not exactly the same thing I am talking about in you. He is a lot like one of the members of the Phoenix support group was a year ago. He is thinking rationally, down there somewhere, but his emotions are right at the surface, and he blows everything out of proportion because of that emotional response. Emotion does that to people, ASD or NT. Steve's problem is that he is in emotion mode all the time... but there is a rationality under the surface. I don't see that as being the case with you. I do not see you as being grossly overemotional as Steve is. Your statements appear to be from what you see as a rational point of view; certainly they are expressed more rationally than Steve's statements were. Steve's thoughts were rational, but his emotions blew them into a huge mess that did not make sense. In your case, it seems that there are a lot of paranoid thoughts, irrational thoughts, which are the underpinning for your expressions, and those expressions are not so distorted by emotion as Steve's-- they're magnifications of the underlying thought process. > That is only one example of Steve's nonsensical thinking. But, since > it's Steve, I guess you're somehow going to say that is rational. No, Steve was not rational overall; at the surface, you are more rational than he is, but the processes that result in what you write and what he writes seem different to me. > Steve and rational don't belong in the same sentence, and you know > it. How about " Jeanette said that Steve is not at all rational " for a sentence? Jeanette, I don't despise you. I like you, and that is why I said it is sad how you keep posting these paranoid kind of messages. It would not be sad if I did not care. You do not care about Steve, and I think you said what he wrote was sad-- and you found it funny. If I hated you, I would find your irrationality funny. I don't. I am illustrating it to you on the hope that you may begin to see what I am seeing. I am simply suggesting what seems like a reasonable possibility to me-- nothing more and nothing less. I am not going to wrap my statements in candy to make them easier for anyone to swallow; I am blunt in my expression of my thoughts, and I make no apologies for being blunt, nor do I require apologies when others are blunt. I do not, though, insult people that have not insulted me first. However, that does not mean I will not write things that others may take as insulting. Let's be perfectly clear: most of your offense to me saying you may have something schizophreniform is based in your bias against schizophrenia and schizophrenics. I mean no more offense by that than I do when I suggest to people that they may have AS, or when I suggest anything else that I see as a logical possibility. I have something in common with all people that have been treated as third-class citizens because of what they are-- and that includes the mentally ill. I sort of see them as being distant autistic cousins. What they have is unrelated to autism, but the discrimination they face is the same discrimination we face... we're not normal, so we're nutcases. As such, I do not use psychiatric labels as insults. I have, at times, called people " nuts, " but to me, that label has little connection to " schizophrenia " or anything that is a psychiatric term like that. I use " nut " as a mild perjorative, but I do not use psychiatric terms as perjoratives at all. I sympathize with the mentally ill to a great degree; I would not use mental illness labels as insults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 >First of all, I did work for a company called >Controls CORPORATION as a data entry guy and computer technician. You >assumed I have never been in the corporate world, and you were incorrect >about that. Remember one time I asked you if you had ever worked in the corporate world and you said " no " ? >From the perspective of my friend, getting a label can hardly make >things any worse than they are. For HER, yes. >and yet you have the same hatred of schizophrenics that the NTs you >dislike have against autistics. You have made an assumption and spread it all over the place to make yourself look better. You took two words I said and used them over and over. I just used those words for emphasis, and YOU yourself have used the word " nut " before, too- you called ME a NUT. You are not trying to be my friend and I KNOW you don't like me, no matter what you type on the screen to make yourself look good. I don't hate schizophrenics, you made that all up on your own. I feel sorry for them, as they have a really rotten time ahead of them. No one is treated worse by the mental health profession than they are. There is no cure, nothing that works, really, and they are stigmatized for life. Not that there wouldn't be a cure, its just that no one cares about the mentally ill or how they are treated, and no one is doing any real research to help them out. It is a horrible thing to have. THAT'S why I don't like the label. Not only does it not fit, but since there is no cure, you are basically saying I don't belong here, and that I have really no way of getting better- hopeless. You are labeling me to get rid of me and wash me away, so you won't have to " deal " with me anymore. And based on the tone of your posts, it's pretty clear you have something personal against me, and are not trying to be my friend at all. In this last post you are backpedaling and trying to look kinder and gentler, but its not working on me. >But even in his vitriolic rant against , you could see that he had >some basis for thinking what he did. What basis??? That kicked him off her list (because he was acting inappropriately) and " disagreed with her " so therefore, she wants to kick EVERYONE off the lists who disagrees with her based on that?? When many, many persons on her list clearly disagree with her and they stay just fine. That has NO rational thought or anything like that- that IS paranoia. And he kept bringing it up ad infinitum that how dare she kick him off because she disagreed with him, when no one else was kicked off the list. He was obsessed about that stupidity over and over and over. And that's rational? Now I know why you insist that I'm irrational! >it seems that there are a lot of paranoid thoughts, irrational thoughts, >which are the underpinning for your expressions, and those expressions >are not so distorted by emotion as Steve's-- they're magnifications of >the underlying thought process.. Blah, blah, blah. Anyone who says Steve has rational ideas behind his thoughts needs to double check himself. I'm not going to say it again so you can ignore it all- I've told you the basis of my thought process, and that is not good enough for you, because you just want to keep arguing with me or whatever. >I do not see you as being grossly overemotional as Steve is. Didn't you say I was " histrionic " ? >No, Steve was not rational overall; Then why is it that I'm not autistic and he is, if you think he is " not rational " ?! One minute he's rational to you and the next he's not. Make up your mind. >Jeanette, I don't despise you. Oh, yes you do. At first I thought it was just a little game we were playing, it was fun, then you come up with this crap. Now I know it was not a game at all. >It would not be sad if I did not care. Oh, so now you are insulting me with pity by making it look like you care, when you don't. Actions speak louder than words, and so does your attitude. >You do not care about Steve, and I think you said what he wrote was sad-- and you found it >funny. It was both. At first, I was sad a little, but as he just kept going on and on and on and made less and less sense, I just finally laughed. I would oscillate from feeling a little sorry for him to thinking he was a jerk- back and forth. I told you people that I wasn't laughing at HIM, I was laughing at his posts, because they made no sense. He was trying to immerse himself in denial about his situation, and his attempts at that were so pathetic, I thought it was funny. In the end, I don't hate him, but I don't think he needs someone to feel " sad " for him, either. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between finer details of things- you don't trust what I say when I talk about myself. For example, if I'm laughing at Steve's silly posts, then I must be also laughing at him. Not the case. Also, when I use the word " nuts " you assume that means I hate schizophrenics, which is ridiculous. It wasn't the best choice of words, but you can't assume I hate the mentally ill based on two words I said. If I feel a certain way about something for a specific reason, then I must feel the same way about a similar situation, and for the same reason. Not so. I think that's why you are having such a hard time with me. Your patterns of assumptions are different than mine- that doesn't make mine less rational. Since I suck at wording things and debates, I can't think of the exact word for things. You know I'm forgetful and bad with wording, and you use it against me in debates. That doesn't mean you are right, or that you even know what you are talking about. Do you really know what the definition of schizophrenia is? What paranoid schizophrenia is? Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Jeanette, I've been wondering - how did the situation about the 'mouse for food' work out? Were there any long term implications or did it pass unremarkedly? sandi (Taryn's photos at http://community.webshots.com/album/86715447nibgNT older photos can still be accessed by clicking on one of 'songshirah's albums' on the left of the screen. Re: Re: Open Letter.... > Thank you ! That's EXACTLY what has happened to me. > > I fail ToM tests, and since I was SO confused about social issues, I couldn't understand why in the hell people were being so shitty to me. My *whole life* even at 5 years old, I couldn't understand what I did wrong to get people to dislike me. I would and still do enter a group, thinking I've got a clean slate, then suddenly they start excluding me, making fun of me, etc. When I try to reach out and be " a part of " , it gets worse. They start doing things to me- and I don't understand it. Once I realize what's happening, I get mad. > > I shouldn't give people a chance because I can't read them totally correctly and I don't know what I'm doing at that level. So now I stay back and suspend belief. I may have made friends (acquaintance friendship) with someone in my rescue group. She ALSO has been screwed over a lot. I need to be careful- but I don't like being alone so much. I like to share with people. They just have to be safe and accepting, which is very hard to find in general, and almost impossible for someone like ME to find at all. > > I actually feel comfortable enough to MAYBE ask her if she wants to go see a movie. > > I made a mistake once with her and I apologized. I forgot to leave caned of cat food out by my door when she was going to swing by my house and pick it up. > > So I brought it to an adoption event that she attended, along with a catnip plant to make up for what I did. > > She thanked me and has been kind to me ever since. She has passed some tests- she genuinely forgives, and she doesn't care that I'm a little weird. She sees that I love my cats and that I have a good heart, which is important to me. > > But I'm not going to just go in and think we'll be best friends. I'll just have to see what happens. > > Jeanette > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Actually, that woman is still being nasty to me. She does the cage reservations, and on occasion she will pretend she never got my email so I have to scramble to find a cage. I found out that many persons don't like her, and she is alienating people. But for whatever reason, the head of the organization likes her, so she can do whatever she wants. But many, many persons really are sick of her crap, and want to get HER kicked out. It's a political coop. Some people found out about the mice and they really don't like me now, but since people feed mice to snakes, legally they can't do anything to me. Others were OK with it, as a vet told me to do it and it HAS saved my Persian kitty. The leader of the group is a hard-nosed person, and I was told she could care less what I feed my cats. So I've calmed down a bit, but I still have to be careful around this woman. Now my cats are eating rats and birds (rarely), too. They love it. Jeanette Re: Re: Open Letter.... > Thank you ! That's EXACTLY what has happened to me. > > I fail ToM tests, and since I was SO confused about social issues, I couldn't understand why in the hell people were being so shitty to me. My *whole life* even at 5 years old, I couldn't understand what I did wrong to get people to dislike me. I would and still do enter a group, thinking I've got a clean slate, then suddenly they start excluding me, making fun of me, etc. When I try to reach out and be " a part of " , it gets worse. They start doing things to me- and I don't understand it. Once I realize what's happening, I get mad. > > I shouldn't give people a chance because I can't read them totally correctly and I don't know what I'm doing at that level. So now I stay back and suspend belief. I may have made friends (acquaintance friendship) with someone in my rescue group. She ALSO has been screwed over a lot. I need to be careful- but I don't like being alone so much. I like to share with people. They just have to be safe and accepting, which is very hard to find in general, and almost impossible for someone like ME to find at all. > > I actually feel comfortable enough to MAYBE ask her if she wants to go see a movie. > > I made a mistake once with her and I apologized. I forgot to leave caned of cat food out by my door when she was going to swing by my house and pick it up. > > So I brought it to an adoption event that she attended, along with a catnip plant to make up for what I did. > > She thanked me and has been kind to me ever since. She has passed some tests- she genuinely forgives, and she doesn't care that I'm a little weird. She sees that I love my cats and that I have a good heart, which is important to me. > > But I'm not going to just go in and think we'll be best friends. I'll just have to see what happens. > > Jeanette > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Jeanette wrote: > > First of all, I did work for a company called Controls > > CORPORATION as a data entry guy and computer technician. You > > assumed I have never been in the corporate world, and you were > > incorrect about that. > > Remember one time I asked you if you had ever worked in the corporate > world and you said " no " ? No, I don't. > > and yet you have the same hatred of schizophrenics that the NTs you > > >dislike have against autistics. > > You have made an assumption and spread it all over the place to make > yourself look better. No. If you did not hate them, you would not have reacted so vitriolically when I suggested that possibility. This is what 's post was about, in part. > You took two words I said and used them over and over. I just used > those words for emphasis, and YOU yourself have used the word " nut " > before, too- you called ME a NUT. You are a nut. > You are not trying to be my friend and I KNOW you don't like me, no > matter what you type on the screen to make yourself look good. Yeah, everyone's got it in for you. I hate you, everyone else hates you because you're different, and they are sitting there waiting for you to get a dx so they can call you one more thing... or else they hate you because you're female, and are just waiting to find the opportunity to keep you down. You're paranoid, Jeanette. > THAT'S why I don't like the label. Not only does it not fit, but > since there is no cure, you are basically saying I don't belong here, > and that I have really no way of getting better- hopeless. Stop reading things into what I wrote. You do that sometimes... like when I stated that unions were bad for the economy, and you wrote " So it's okay to abuse workers? " or something like that, which is not something I wrote. You read a lot of things in that just are not there. That is not an autistic trait-- it is one that I have encountered countless times when I debate NTs. That is why I don't get the same impression debating you that I get debating people I know are on the spectrum. That is why I thought that perhaps your correct diagnosis was something else. > You are > labeling me to get rid of me and wash me away, so you won't have to > " deal " with me anymore. I am? How would that work? > And based on the tone of your posts, it's pretty clear you have > something personal against me, Don't think you can judge the tone of my posts. You'll miss every time if you do that. That is not an autistic trait. > and are not trying to be my friend at > all. I have no interest in being your friend. I said that I liked you, not that I wanted to be your friend. You read between the lines to get that, again. > In this last post you are backpedaling and trying to look > kinder and gentler, but its not working on me. I am trying to explain to you what I mean, but you have such a vested interest in maintaining your set of beliefs that you won't get it, no matter how hard I try. > > But even in his vitriolic rant against , you could see that > > he had >some basis for thinking what he did. > > What basis??? That kicked him off her list (because he was > acting inappropriately) and " disagreed with her " so therefore, she > wants to kick EVERYONE off the lists who disagrees with her based on > that?? When many, many persons on her list clearly disagree with her > and they stay just fine. That has NO rational thought or anything > like that- that IS paranoia. I'm not going to go any farther than I have on this, because I do not want to cause any more distress to . She commented that she went from stressed to suicidally depressed because of Steve's post, and while I cannot confirm that it was this one, it probably was, and I am not going to go into that. > And he kept bringing it up ad infinitum that how dare she kick him > off because she disagreed with him, when no one else was kicked off > the list. He was obsessed about that stupidity over and over and > over. And that's rational? No, that was not rational. Look, we can go in circles like this forever; there's no point. > > it seems that there are a lot of paranoid thoughts, irrational > > thoughts, >which are the underpinning for your expressions, and > > those expressions >are not so distorted by emotion as Steve's-- > > they're magnifications of >the underlying thought process.. > > Blah, blah, blah. Anyone who says Steve has rational ideas behind > his thoughts needs to double check himself. Or perhaps I am more perceptive than you are. > I'm not going to say it again so you can ignore it all- I've told you > the basis of my thought process, and that is not good enough for you, > because you just want to keep arguing with me or whatever. > > > I do not see you as being grossly overemotional as Steve is. > > Didn't you say I was " histrionic " ? You are, but it's not based in gross overemotionality. > > Jeanette, I don't despise you. > > Oh, yes you do. Oh, will you come off it? You're not important enough for me to bother despising. It takes a lot more effort to despise someone than to be indifferent or to like them. You think what you want. > At first I thought it was just a little game we were > playing, it was fun, then you come up with this crap. Now I know it > was not a game at all. It was a debate, plain and simple. I have debated with Jerry, with Jane, and with Jypsy, and I like all of those people too. I can debate with anyone and not hate them but you. Please. > > It would not be sad if I did not care. > > Oh, so now you are insulting me with pity by making it look like you > care, when you don't. Actions speak louder than words, and so does > your attitude. You are too paranoid to even bother with on this. Actions speak louder than words... exactly what actions have I taken? My messages to you are WORDS. It has been nothing but words. > In the end, I don't hate him, but I don't think he needs someone to > feel " sad " for him, either. It is sad, because people that are not in a great deal of pain don't act that way. > You don't seem to be able to differentiate between finer details of > things- you don't trust what I say when I talk about myself. For > example, if I'm laughing at Steve's silly posts, then I must be also > laughing at him. Not the case. I don't see a difference. > Also, when I use the word " nuts " you assume that means I hate > schizophrenics, which is ridiculous. It wasn't the best choice of > words, but you can't assume I hate the mentally ill based on two > words I said. I would never call someone that was schizophrenic " fucking nuts, " and you equated schizophrenia and " fucking nuts. " That's pretty hateful. > I think that's why you are having such a hard time with me. Your > patterns of assumptions are different than mine- that doesn't make > mine less rational. Since I suck at wording things and debates, I > can't think of the exact word for things. You know I'm forgetful and > bad with wording, and you use it against me in debates. No, I don't know that you're forgetful or bad with wording. I interpret the statements you make; nothing more, nothing less. > Do you really know what the definition of schizophrenia is? What > paranoid schizophrenia is? Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 > Stop reading things into what I wrote. You do that sometimes... like > when I stated that unions were bad for the economy, and you wrote " So > it's okay to abuse workers? " or something like that, which is not > something I wrote. You read a lot of things in that just are not > there. That is not an autistic trait-- it is one that I have > encountered countless times when I debate NTs. That is why I don't get > the same impression debating you that I get debating people I know are > on the spectrum. That is why I thought that perhaps your correct > diagnosis was something else. <sigh> Autistic people read things into each other's words all the time. That is why every month or two (or less in some places) you get *some* autistic person accusing *some other* autistic person of being " too NT " because they took something in a different way than the author meant it. I once read something differently than it was meant and got told that the person who wrote it spends way too much time around NTs already and didn't need this " reading between the lines " crap from me. The funny thing being, when I read Jeanette's posts, I can generally track the reasoning behind assumptions *you* call " paranoid " , well enough that when she finally explains the reasoning, it's usually the one I was guessing at (aside: hmm.. does this give me too much ToM to be autistic?). Your calling them paranoid is another form of " reading between the lines " , basically filling in the gaps between what's said with what you think is there (and you seem to think " paranoia " is there, whereas I see sound but pessimistic reasoning). So I think it's really pointless to take *that* tack in a debate about whether someone's NT or not. As I've said before, anyone who's capable of understanding *in whatever form* (be it by sheer phrase-memorization or by applying rudimentary metaphor management or something) the phrase " reading between the lines " , is more capable of reading between the lines than I was when I thought it referred to invisible ink. 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.