Re: confrontational?

[Guest guest]

i did not reply earlier, because i am considering what is going wrong

in this whole interaction. first i totally regret posting about what

i do regarding my way of advocacy. it was a crap thing to do. i

think that many people are advocates by surviving, because that is

what they need to do, and that is all consuming. i dont see it as a

competition. i know very well, that a person who may not even be

noticed by many people is likely to be making far more of an effort

than i. i talk to and care about someone like this. i would never

want to denigrate that person's life or achievement.

i read back over the posts, and what i see is misunderstandings of

language and intent, many on my part. this is how it is for me, and

it really pisses me off that i do it with everyone, when i always

hoped communicating with autistic people would be easier. it is with

people who get to know me, but not with strangers. an example is the

difference in the way amanda and i interpret " quiet " . to me, quietly

doing things is incredibly powerful. it is about just getting on

doing it and not leaving room for debate. it is strong and

assertive. to amanda, quiet is silent. i got such a shock to read

that. i am not silent. speaking out gets me into strife all the

time. in this series of posts, i was abandonning quiet, and i feel a

bit sick about that. in distress, i have been doing exactly the

things i do not think are useful.

> >Maybe i am wrong, but i get the feeling that jane was thinking

that i

> >am all mouth and criticism and do not do advocacy work.

>

> I do not pass judgement on people on the basis of

> whether they do advocacy work or the kind of

> advocacy work they do (or don't). It never occurred

> to me that what you do (or don't do) had any bearing

> on the discussion at hand.

>

> Of course, experience can be very educational (including

> experience gained while doing advocacy work). But that

> doesn't mean only those who do advocacy work (or

> particular kinds of advocacy work) can have a useful

> role in discussng such matters. Closing one's ears (or

> mind) to other people's ideas because they are not doing

> advocacy work (or the " right kind " of advocacy work)

> seems self-defeating to me.

>

> It is interesting to hear about what everybody is doing,

> and it can be heartening to find that there are various

> kinds of advocacy going on all over. What I don't like

> and do not participate in is creating a hierarchy of

> who is " good " and/or " better " than others because of

> what they do. Life is too complicated for that kind of

> hierarchical thinking to be fair or accurate.

>

> Jane

[Guest guest]

> i read back over the posts, and what i see is misunderstandings of

> language and intent, many on my part. this is how it is for me, and

> it really pisses me off that i do it with everyone, when i always

> hoped communicating with autistic people would be easier. it is

> with people who get to know me, but not with strangers. an example

> is the difference in the way amanda and i interpret " quiet " . to me,

> quietly doing things is incredibly powerful. it is about just

> getting on doing it and not leaving room for debate. it is strong

> and assertive. to amanda, quiet is silent. i got such a shock to

> read that.

No, I thought you meant a combination of those things. I thought you

meant the powerfully quiet thing (which I admire) but I thought you

also meant it was wrong or lesser to speak out directly rather than

doing the various " real-life " things you talked about (many of which

I'm not capable of, although I did have to do the " just surviving "

thing for quite awhile). I don't think any particular *form* of

advocacy is necessarily lesser or that advocacy is a contest (I do

sometimes compare *aims*, though, like what are we advocating *for*,

but that's regardless of form).

[Guest guest]

gprobs wrote:

>i did not reply earlier, because i am considering what is going wrong

>in this whole interaction. first i totally regret posting about what

>i do regarding my way of advocacy. it was a crap thing to do.

But understandable under the circumstances. Several other

people got into that kind of posting recently.

>i read back over the posts, and what i see is misunderstandings of

>language and intent, many on my part. this is how it is for me, and

>it really pisses me off that i do it with everyone, when i always

>hoped communicating with autistic people would be easier. it is with

>people who get to know me, but not with strangers. an example is the

>difference in the way amanda and i interpret " quiet " . to me, quietly

>doing things is incredibly powerful. it is about just getting on

>doing it and not leaving room for debate. it is strong and

>assertive.

I like that kind of quiet. Maybe it's my Quaker background.

Quiet is powerful for Quakers, and they also believe that

one can be doing something powerful when sitting in silence

as well as when quietly going about one's (inevitably) small

part of changing the world.

I feel sure appreciates that kind of quiet -- the

powerful kind. So, as you say, the confusion must be with

the communication.

Communicating is easier for me (usually) with knowns than with

strangers because the knowns have some basis for suspending

(negative) judgement if they hear/see me saying something that

doesn't fit with their overall view of me. That suspension of

judgement on their part, if they tell me about it so I know

what's going on, allows me to clarify what I meant to say. It

would be a good idea for us to try to practice that kind of

communication here, I think.

[in the paragraph above, I initially spelled " strangers " as

" straingers. " That " alternate spelling " strikes me as

appropriate for many situations. Straingers are those people

I don't know but around whom I feel strain.]

Jane

[Guest guest]

>

> > i read back over the posts, and what i see is misunderstandings

of

> > language and intent, many on my part. this is how it is for me,

and

> > it really pisses me off that i do it with everyone, when i always

> > hoped communicating with autistic people would be easier. it is

> > with people who get to know me, but not with strangers. an

example

> > is the difference in the way amanda and i interpret " quiet " . to

me,

> > quietly doing things is incredibly powerful. it is about just

> > getting on doing it and not leaving room for debate. it is strong

> > and assertive. to amanda, quiet is silent. i got such a shock

to

> > read that.

>

> No, I thought you meant a combination of those things. I thought

you

> meant the powerfully quiet thing (which I admire) but I thought you

> also meant it was wrong or lesser to speak out directly rather than

> doing the various " real-life " things you talked about (many of

which

> I'm not capable of, although I did have to do the " just surviving "

> thing for quite awhile). I don't think any particular *form* of

> advocacy is necessarily lesser or that advocacy is a contest (I do

> sometimes compare *aims*, though, like what are we advocating

*for*,

> but that's regardless of form).

appreciate response and understand your perspective a little better.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >i did not reply earlier, because i am considering what is going

wrong

> >in this whole interaction. first i totally regret posting about

what

> >i do regarding my way of advocacy. it was a crap thing to do.

>

> But understandable under the circumstances. Several other

> people got into that kind of posting recently.

>

> >i read back over the posts, and what i see is misunderstandings of

> >language and intent, many on my part. this is how it is for me,

and

> >it really pisses me off that i do it with everyone, when i always

> >hoped communicating with autistic people would be easier. it is

with

> >people who get to know me, but not with strangers. an example is

the

> >difference in the way amanda and i interpret " quiet " . to me,

quietly

> >doing things is incredibly powerful. it is about just getting on

> >doing it and not leaving room for debate. it is strong and

> >assertive.

>

> I like that kind of quiet. Maybe it's my Quaker background.

> Quiet is powerful for Quakers, and they also believe that

> one can be doing something powerful when sitting in silence

> as well as when quietly going about one's (inevitably) small

> part of changing the world.

>

> I feel sure appreciates that kind of quiet -- the

> powerful kind. So, as you say, the confusion must be with

> the communication.

>

> Communicating is easier for me (usually) with knowns than with

> strangers because the knowns have some basis for suspending

> (negative) judgement if they hear/see me saying something that

> doesn't fit with their overall view of me. That suspension of

> judgement on their part, if they tell me about it so I know

> what's going on, allows me to clarify what I meant to say. It

> would be a good idea for us to try to practice that kind of

> communication here, I think.

>

> [in the paragraph above, I initially spelled " strangers " as

> " straingers. " That " alternate spelling " strikes me as

> appropriate for many situations. Straingers are those people

> I don't know but around whom I feel strain.]

>

> Jane

definitely easier with people who know me. they do ask for

clarification because they know i am not a deliberately harmful

person.