• 0 Posts
  • 141 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 15th, 2024

help-circle



  • Ableism is when you exclude disorders which don’t have to be excluded, that is, which don’t negatively affect one’s capabilities in some particular role.

    Disallowing blind people to drive cars is not ableism, unless there is a solid technology to convey to them all the necessary information with good enough latency.

    So - for roles of judges and other responsibilities to make principled decisions, autistic people are generally better than “normal” people. Because they choose in favor of principle in “conflict of interest” situations usually, which is also why there are no autistic people in politics.

    For roles requiring unbiased thinking, autistic people and people with ADHD are generally better than “normal” people. Due to former’s alienation from society (which is the most notable source of bias) and latter’s ability to grasp wider contexts.

    For roles where pessimism is required, most people with disorders causing alienation are better than “normal” people, other things being equal. Simply because seeing the society break from its blind zones is a useful experience.

    But that doesn’t mean not allowing an autistic person to command a fire squad is ableism.

    Or that an ADHD person probably being a very bad bookkeeper is an ableist thought.

    While assuming that someone is unfit to fulfill a social\decision-making role because they physically stink is ableist. He can have one of plenty non-mental conditions causing that. It’s simply impractical to take showers every hour.

    While saying that him being a narcissist kinda disqualifies him is not ableist. And he definitely is a narcissist with dementia.

    It’s just that both Obama and Harris and Biden behave very similarly to real people with ASPD whom I’ve met. See, ASPD is such a funny thing that people having it don’t behave weirdly. They actually are very sane and glossy in appearances, or at least normal. Except for morals and empathy.









  • Being successful and not talented doesn’t make you talented even if success pays the bills better.

    Doesn’t mean Taylor Swift is not talented in her own way, I don’t get what triggered all you guys. It seems sometimes that the expected variety of thought among English speakers is less than among Russian speakers. Where even in the toxic Russian Web people would ask first, you guys go stampeding.

    Just like, say, Azerbaijan having oil to bribe politicians and wage war doesn’t mean they have history and culture and Armenia doesn’t. They would very much like to buy history and culture, but they can’t.



  • Objectively, she has a net worth that pisses off quite a few liberals because we tend to think having billions of dollars is millions of people living in abject poverty.

    Good that you noticed.

    By all objective measures, this woman is a really damn good singer.

    There’s no such thing as objectively good singer.

    That said, my initial comment didn’t make my opinion any more “objective” than yours - one subjective opinion against another.

    The numbers I cited above, taken from Billboard are very objective numbers based on how often songs are bought and streamed. While it’s very subjective for individual viewers (and I agree, she’s not my cup of tea either!), the objective fact is that Swift speaks to a lot of people, and your personal disdain for her doesn’t change that fact one stinkin’ bit.

    Disdain? Could you stop whiteknighting please?

    It’s a very Salty Rightie thing to do to come in an attack a woman with some serious musical awards and accomplishments and say just because he didn’t like her, she’s no good.

    You have a weird mind.

    Anyone pulling this crap right now really looks defeated, humiliated, and just plain utterly SAD, a sad sack of a bitter and scorned rightie angry that a pretty girl rejected their Emprah and endorsed the other side.

    I don’t live and don’t vote in the USA ; that aside, Trump winning would mean existential risks for part of my family.

    Now, what does it say about you - to pull all this shit out of your imagination without any real reason whatsoever?





  • No, just experience.

    “Normal” people lie and bend morals so naturally that they don’t see it. The discourse in their social bubble is more important than reality for them. They can say and believe absolutely contradictory things, which just have to be accepted as true by their social environment.

    How can there be any research on this? It’s literally normal. It’s how political agitation works.

    About autistic people not doing this - autistic people take discourses even more radically, but that kinda helps, because you have to check yourself for your perceptions to work with the real world at all. Also due to the effort needed to switch between various discourses, which happens naturally for normals, autistic people notice the fact that they switch.

    Normals don’t need that and thus can live all their life in common dreams.

    I think I could find something more scientific to read on these things, but why would I really, it’s obvious.