This does a good job of showing the difficulties autistic people face when socializing. I feel the distinction between it’s not what they say or do but how they express themselves that puts neurotypicals ill at ease is important because it shows the scope of the problem. My son recently started a school for autistic children, and he has made so many friends there. Since so much of the world is neurotypical I think we need to focus on ensuring that autistic children have ways to socialize with other autistic children and developing this safe space with people who are like them.
I’ve always felt this and wondered if its true, its interesting to see it is
Yup, the irony is neurotypicals are the ones telling us to change for them no matter our discomfort, but they don’t budge to change for us. They blame us for failing to live up to their expectations, yet never ask us what we expect of them. Even if they did, they’ll just be all “lol too bad” at us anyway.
I just saw a bunch of conservatives expressing how much they don’t care that a migrant woman got impaled by a pole while crossing the border like what the fuck is wrong with you people? How can you possibly celebrate that? That’s so fucked up.
like how is that even funny? That’s just cruel.
Because conservative tumblr is constantly in a rave to see who can be the edgiest fuck on this hellsite
We need a name for this thing. Like… “turning empathy off on purpose” used to work but people are weird about that word.
I’d say “willful cruelty” but that… it’s accurate, but I think there’s also something else going on. Like, it’s a process. Not many people wake up and decide “today I’m going to laugh at a child being brutalized by my own government.”
But there’s a slow process that begins at “I’m going to be tough and unaffected” and, when encouraged by social environments and powerful leaders, metastasizes into this.
It’s dehumanization as a… mental process, basically.
Once you sell the idea that dehumanizing others is cool, it expands by itself.
How about “Training yourself to find atrocities delightful.”
It’s a defense mechanism people use when they feel like others are exploiting their sense of horror to make them believe false things.
When the things others were trying to make them believe were true after all, it looks like this, and then sometimes there are genocides.
(Also most of the conservatives I know would find this just as horrifying as I do. This is right-wing extremism.)
I feel like I’m not understanding this bit: “people use when they feel like others are exploiting their sense of horror to make them believe false things.” So… people are becoming extremists as a defense mechanism because… they think other people are lying to them?
I get the sense I misparsed… something.
(And yes, I agree. This thing that’s arisen isn’t conservatism. It’s, like… right-wing cancer. All it knows how to do is grow, and as it does it gets more and more absurd and more and more violent.
The same thing can and does arise on the left sometimes too.)
It makes perfect sense to me. Well, sort of.
You read about this poor woman. Then you read a bunch of posts saying,
“This proves we need to abolish ICE!”
“This is why we need open borders!”
And, well, you don’t want open borders. Open borders and free immigration would allow all kinds of dangerous criminals to enter the country and hurt innocent people while depressing the economy.
But if you were to understand this as being as monstrous as it is, you would be strengthening the case for the even worse horrors that would come of opening the borders.
So you train yourself to see it as good, because that’s less psychologically painful and less damaging to your cause then seeing it as a necessary evil or an abomination.
“If my cause was committing abominations, then I couldn’t in good conscience support it. Therefore, my cause must not be committing abominations.”
I have a different take on this. A substantial chunk of the right is “post-policy”; their primary objective is “owning the libs.” The fact that these reactions are upsetting to you is the point. They do not, in fact, sincerely like the idea of people being impaled and would likely be horrified by it if they witnessed it, even if the people in question were brown.
I can kind of see that, but that basically means these people have either 1) actively decided to ignore that owning the libs means approving policies that make this stuff more common or 2) passively decided to ignore that owning the libs means approving policies that make this stuff more common
As a white woman, I promise to never purchase any of these “money making” costumes. Never have, never will. I am sorry for the dehumanization and ignoring of Native Americans. I see you, I hear you, and I respect you.
What the rest of us need to do is to STOP BUYING these costumes, so they are no longer “money makers”. If the corporations don’t listen to anyone else, they will listen to whatever brings them the most money.
This is worse. Looking at these you can tell they have no significant monetary value. They were confiscated as a fear tactic. Nothing more.
This picture breaks my heart everytime it appears in my dash. It’s a fear tactic, alright but—
The first one in the left corner: It’s a first communion rosary, and it’s not cheap.
The black one in the first line: That’s a widow rosary and it’s old.
The white one in the second line: is a commemoration rosary. It has a miniature picture in the round part. I haven’t seen that since the 70′s.
In the third line, multicolor one: It’s an Anima mundi, I have only seen those in the hands of Rosary ministery’s old ladies. The oldest ones are from the 80′s after Juan Pablo II came to Mexico for the first time. It’s one of the old ones, I know because the crucifixes are different.
The third one on the fourth line: Red and gold. The style is old, the metal is dark, that’s a 50′s rosary, probably a quinceañera one (or it’s maybe older, from the 40′s when the brides carried red roses with their offerings).
The fifth one on the fourth line: It’s a quinceañera rosary with Ignatius’s tear. The style is old and in my part of Mexico is orphan girls who used it. At least it was when I was young.
The third one of the fifth line: the blue one with the anchor. That one I have only seen in Veracruz and it doesn’t look new.
The fifth one on the fifth line: That’s a 90′s wedding rosary. Black and white patterns were popular on that date.
The fourth one on the last line: That’s a first communion rosary from the 30′s. It’s delicate and most probably silver.
The rest wrench my heart too, the humble everyday rosaries with wooden beads and knots. Those are cheap and bear the wear and tear of their user handling. But those I described are much more.
Those are mother’s rosaries.
Those are not just rosaries. Those are mementos, that’s the proof of their families stories. They are taking from them the only portable things they can carry to feel the connection to their families.
Here are arguments I’ve seen in support of denying medical care (transplants) to what they consider low-functioning autistics. These are symptoms/ parameters being described:
1. Requires 24 HR care:
So do young children and many elderly people, particularly those with alzheimer’s. A paraplegic will require assistance bathing and feeding themselves. All of these people can still have a good quality of life and they have value as people. Are you saying they too should be denied life-saving medical care?
2. Soils themselves:
So do people with incontinence caused by age or neurological conditions. This is a symptom that can be managed and these people can still have a good quality of life and they have value as people. Are you saying they too should be denied life-saving medical care?
3. Nonverbal:
Many nonverbal autistics can communicate using other methods. Nonverbal autistics are self-aware and able to process information. They may be unable to speak some or all of the time, but so is someone with mutism. These people can still have a good quality of life and they have value as people. Are you saying they too should be denied life-saving medical care?
4. Unintelligent:
Aside from the fact that many autistics have an average to high IQ, and the fact that being nonverbal and experiencing other symptoms is NOT a sign of low intelligence… basing someone’s value on their intelligence is ableist. Most people with downs syndrome have a lower IQ and lead full lives. These people can still have a good quality of life and they have value as people. Are you saying they too should be denied life-saving medical care?
5. Meltdowns/ Screaming/ Self Injury:
Allistics (non-autistics) can also experience mental breakdowns and self-injurous behavior, even if these symptoms are triggered by different reasons. Allistics can also scream when they are upset. These behaviors do not make an autistic “unmanageable” as a patient. People with other psychiatric conditions can experience meltdowns and self-injury sometimes. These people can still have a good quality of life and they have value as people. Are you saying they too should be denied life-saving medical care?
You see… When you target one group with your ableism and try to pretend it’s limited to just these “severe” cases, you’re not talking about ALL autistics or ALL disabled people…
Yes, you are. Ableism and eugenics spreads.
If you don’t support one group of disabled people, you don’t support any of us. And I for one am standing up to say I equally value the lives of all disabled people.
It affects all of us. In every group. In every level of severity or functioning or whatever misinformed labels you try to use.
So when you say that a given group of people shouldn’t be eligible for life-saving medical care because they’ll be a waste of treatment:
YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU VALUE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES LESS.
Some symptoms may not be as palatable to you, but you don’t get to draw a line between who deserves to live and who doesn’t.
“
Some symptoms may not be as palatable to you, but you don’t get to draw a line between who deserves to live and who doesn’t.
“
That line is gonna keep shifting until it includes you if you isn’t one of the rich, white, able, men (in the US – other countries has their own criteria for who is worthy).
Adult, consenting and responsible sex workers deserve and should have safe spaces to advertise and work. A lot of them are in dangerous and abusive situations. They need safety, they need support. They are workers. They are human beings.
These types of sex workers are NOT the same as unconsenting adults caught in sex trafficking, are NOT the same as women or children being coerced into illegal sex work, are NOT synonymous with letting violent and abusive pimps/johns do whatever they want.
These are ABUSE. These are VIOLENCE and disregard to humanity. And there are many variables that may result in these situations AND NOT HAVING A SAFE SPACE TO WORK AND ADVERTISE LEGAL, CONSENTING AND RESPONSIBLE SEX WORK IS ONE OF THEM.
Just like I said about consenting adult and responsible sex workers, children deserve and SHOULD have safe spaces to just exist and develop their own minds and bodies, with the support of adults they can trust with their safety and well-being. And no, that is not to support child sex trafficking. It is to STOP that.
Child sex trafficking happens because adult humans are rotten beings who will abuse their own species for personal gain. We should strive to live in a society with educated adults that understand that children and minors cannot consent to any sexual act. And we should be even harder with the punishment for these crimes. Science and psychology and philosophy prove time and time again, and yet adults don’t make the effort to grasp the gravity of sexual crimes against children.
So, no, my good self absorbed human being: supporting safe spaces for responsible, consenting adults’ sex work is not downplaying any other problematic situations caused by illegal sex work or human sex trafficking. If anything, it would be one of the (several) first steps to solving these problems.
A group of 10 teenage girls come into the restaurant.
“What time do you guys close?”
I say, “We close at 10:00pm”
She replies, “table for ten please”
A little frustrated (because I’m not a fucking hostess/server) I seat them and inform them that a server will be with them shortly.
I have to go to the back and retrieve a server who just got her tips from the day and is packing up to go home.
“_____, we have a table of ten for you..”
She started to cry because she had been there since we OPENED that morning and hadn’t seen her babies that day.
Obviously she’s angry too, and it shows.
But she’s still attentive to the young ladies.
They don’t get up from the table until almost 11:00 and come to the front to pay.
“Our server was a bitch”
“Our server was mean”
“Our server didn’t like us”
“Your server just wanted to go home an hour ago,” I say.
“It’s her job, she’s getting paid, so what?”
I let them know that she’s worked hard today and wanted to be able to see her kids before her husband tucks them in bed.
They pay, leave no tip for her, and leave the building.
The moral of the story is that it’s not “cute” or “cool” to go to restaurants late at night right before they close.
Workers want to go home.
Workers want to see their families.
Workers want to get sleep so they can do it all over again tomorrow.
It doesn’t matter if you’re rude or polite.
When we say that we close at 10:00pm, we would really like to ACTUALLY close at 10:00pm. And even if you leave RIGHT AT closing, that server still has to clean up after you.
Make sure the table is clean, make sure the floor is clean, make sure the dishes are clean and put away, make sure they have their tips, and get a manager to walk them to their car.
We don’t care about your $3 tip.
We want to go home.
reminder that servers/workers are people too and they have lives and the majority of them have families. dont forget your humanity
I work in fast food and I can confirm this is the most tedious and frustrating thing.
I’ve always hated the, “it’s your job…etc” shitty retort. Yeah, I’m sure no matter how much you make at your cushy 9-5 (call center job) as soon at its 4:59pm you’re ready to go and would be annoyed if someone kept talking or you kept getting calls after you’re supposed to leave/clock out.
But also what kind of a shitty business policy forces people to accept customers when there is not enough time to serve them before closing?
This should not happen. The people should be told “sorry we close in five minutes we can’t serve you.”
I mean when I go into a food place that closes in under an hour I ask if I can still get something to eat and sometimes they say sure, but only this and this because anything else takes too long, and sometimes they say no, sorry, the kitchen is closed.
Which is how it should be.
Forcing your employees to work past agreed upon hours is abusive.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.