Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

 

Yeah but with the context of autism being stereotyped/joked about in hostile ways, this doesn't really make sense as just humor because it still just adds on to the stereotyping humor.

 Looks like you're a part of the cancel culture. 

.

Few weeks ago housemate put on the Ellen DeGeneres stand up on Netflix, and I gotta say she's pretty damn funny. You should start with her cause she's white and gay so you'd be less snappy and loosen up.

Make light of dark matters.

.

I'm not going to apologize when there's no need to. I'm more inclined to beat your ass for your own good. You're too soft and that is why you're so whiny. The day you impress me in this regard is when you'll know for yourself how much better off your are instead of crying over small shit. I don't see that day happening anytime soon.   

The world will not change for you. Adapt. When I see you crying over shit like this I WILL, rub it in your face, so the best course of action for you is not to be the provoker of the joker, cause I will make you into the joke relentlessly and when you're unphased by these tiny little things, you'll be more evolved, respectable and more respected. You might even make an anonymous vagina damp just for staying cool. Not today.   

You will either remain conflicted, or you will find peace of mind. Other than that that sudden cause of yours isn't something I'll bend for, especially while bloody no one bashes someone for being autistic. 

"Cancel culture" is just another accusation you've invented to avoid answering a very simple question. I asked whether "Autists belong in prison!" was a joke. Apparently a yes or no answer requires several paragraphs about beating my ass, vaginas, how "soft" I am, and how I need to earn your respect.

I don't believe in "cancel culture," nor did I demand an apology. I said the joke was derogatory and unfunny. Criticizing something you said isn't preventing you from saying it. And if being "unphased" by criticism is such an important virtue to you, presumably you should be capable of tolerating criticism of your jokes.

It's also pretty funny to finish all of that with "no one bashes someone for being autistic." "Autists belong in prison" is derogatory toward autistic people whether you intended it seriously or as a joke. Calling something humor doesn't magically remove its content.

And this whole performance about making me tougher is exactly the projection I was talking about. You're the one who can't tolerate a minor criticism without turning it into an elaborate story about my personality, toughness, sex appeal, "cancel culture," and your desire to beat me up. I'm not particularly conflicted by your joke. I just think it was stupid.

And "I'm more inclined to beat your ass" isn't a lesson in toughness. It's a threat dressed up as paternalistic advice. If you ever actually attacked me, I would defend myself with whatever force was reasonably necessary to stop the attack, which can include lethal force if the circumstances genuinely warrant it. I'm not obligated to let someone assault me because they imagine they're doing it "for my own good."

So the "soft" lecture is particularly incoherent. You're threatening physical violence because I criticized a joke, while simultaneously claiming I'm the one who can't tolerate disagreement.

Dragoonback said: 

"Cancel culture" is just another accusation you've invented to avoid answering a very simple question. I asked whether "Autists belong in prison!" was a joke. Apparently a yes or no answer requires several paragraphs about beating my ass, vaginas, how "soft" I am, and how I need to earn your respect.

I don't believe in "cancel culture," nor did I demand an apology. I said the joke was derogatory and unfunny. Criticizing something you said isn't preventing you from saying it. And if being "unphased" by criticism is such an important virtue to you, presumably you should be capable of tolerating criticism of your jokes.

As suspected you know the answer to your question as the question is all about controlling what I say.

This is obvious cause you're not going after the one who actually claimed everyone here is autistic and belong in prison. 

also pretty funny to finish all of that with "no one bashes someone for being autistic." "Autists belong in prison" is derogatory toward autistic people whether you intended it seriously or as a joke. Calling something humor doesn't magically remove its content.

It's also pretty funny to finish all of that with "no one bashes someone for being autistic." "Autists belong in prison" is derogatory toward autistic people whether you intended it seriously or as a joke. Calling something humor doesn't magically remove its content.

And this whole performance about making me tougher is exactly the projection I was talking about. You're the one who can't tolerate a minor criticism without turning it into an elaborate story about my personality, toughness, sex appeal, "cancel culture," and your desire to beat me up. I'm not particularly conflicted by your joke. I just think it was stupid.

And "I'm more inclined to beat your ass" isn't a lesson in toughness. It's a threat dressed up as paternalistic advice. If you ever actually attacked me, I would defend myself with whatever force was reasonably necessary to stop the attack, which can include lethal force if the circumstances genuinely warrant it. I'm not obligated to let someone assault me because they imagine they're doing it "for my own good."

So the "soft" lecture is particularly incoherent. You're threatening physical violence because I criticized a joke, while simultaneously claiming I'm the one who can't tolerate disagreement.

 It's not possible for me to physically beat your scrawny ass as there's no real means of a physical encounter. That being said it's still valid to suggest I'm more inclined to beating your ass than offering an apology. And of course you'll say you don't want an apology. 

Let's not stray too far from your initial claim, which is me joining some bandwagon against autistic people. 

I can see why what I said to the sock puppet offended you though. It's the bit about Karen's and short people, while YOU display the traits they are known for. You're not here for an apology, you're here to nag about how the conversation is going like you usually do, cause you don't actually have anything meaningful or even good too add, It's the road of foolery.

.

.

.

The one thing about this episode that entertains the most, isn't the complaint or accusation, but how the kid managed to insult Nathan who is the 1 person who occasionally had his back in poor arguments. This is what I meant that time I said "I don't have to do anything to you, it'll be done for me." 

Honestly. No one cares about your whining dude. 

And yes, it so happens I do think many autistic people are complete morons and undefendable. This isn't particularly because other people may think so, it's from personal observation. If this offends you, then you're most likely the type of autist I don't respect.   

Criticizing what you say isn't "controlling what you say." I haven't asked for an apology, demanded that you stop speaking, or tried to impose any consequence on you. You said something publicly and I criticized it. Apparently your idea of being "unphased" doesn't extend to somebody saying your joke was stupid.

And "someone else actually said it" doesn't absolve you of anything. I'm responding to what you chose to say. If somebody else seriously said autistic people belong in prison, then obviously I disagree with them too. That doesn't somehow make repeating it as a derogatory joke immune from criticism.

More importantly, you've now gone from "bloody no one bashes someone for being autistic" to explicitly telling me that you think "many autistic people are complete morons and undefendable," followed by suggesting that disagreement means I'm probably the kind of autistic person you don't respect. You're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating the exact attitude you were claiming didn't exist.

The rest is just the same projection again. "Karen," "scrawny," "kid," "nagging," Nathan, whether anybody cares about me, etc. None of it addresses my argument. You keep portraying a minor criticism as obsessive whining while producing paragraphs of personal insults in response to it.

And saying you can't physically beat me because we probably won't meet doesn't change what you said. "I'd rather beat your ass than apologize" is still a statement expressing a preference for violence over an apology. I don't want your apology anyway. I pointed out the irony of lecturing me about being unable to tolerate criticism while reacting to criticism with personal insults and talk about violence.

So yes, let's return to my initial point: making derogatory generalizations about autistic people while insisting nobody attacks people for being autistic is contradictory. Your latest paragraph made that point considerably clearer for me.

Dragoonback said: 

Criticizing what you say isn't "controlling what you say." I haven't asked for an apology, demanded that you stop speaking, or tried to impose any consequence on you. You said something publicly and I criticized it. Apparently your idea of being "unphased" doesn't extend to somebody saying your joke was stupid.

I never said you managed to control what I said, but you are complaining about my response in terms of simple yes and no's. 

And "someone else actually said it" doesn't absolve you of anything. I'm responding to what you chose to say. If somebody else seriously said autistic people belong in prison, then obviously I disagree with them too. That doesn't somehow make repeating it as a derogatory joke immune from criticism.

No offence, but if someone is mentally impaired toward sarcasm, it's not my job to inform them. 

This is why it's important for people to kinda man up in life. The world won't change for you, unless you change for it. 

More importantly, you've now gone from "bloody no one bashes someone for being autistic" to explicitly telling me that you think "many autistic people are complete morons and undefendable," followed by suggesting that disagreement means I'm probably the kind of autistic person you don't respect. You're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating the exact attitude you were claiming didn't exist.

Yes, and it's true. Some autistic people are morons. And surprise, Autistic people span the entire range of intelligence from above and below. 

My opinion isn't motivated reasoning based on contempt nor is it a generalization.  Technically you're blaming me for the truth no one can change. 

The rest is just the same projection again. "Karen," "scrawny," "kid," "nagging," Nathan, whether anybody cares about me, etc. None of it addresses my argument. You keep portraying a minor criticism as obsessive whining while producing paragraphs of personal insults in response to it.

When I project I come across as boastful and conceited. I'm neither scrawny or a Karen, nor do I look like a boy so it really wouldn't be, as you say, a projection. Such buzzwords.

I'm unbothered by your criticism, hence the likeliness of me doubling down on what'll annoy you when you come to me filing complaints about such a minor thing. Sticks and stones kid. On this note, I'm certainly not the conflicted one here. 

And saying you can't physically beat me because we probably won't meet doesn't change what you said. "I'd rather beat your ass than apologize" is still a statement expressing a preference for violence over an apology. I don't want your apology anyway. I pointed out the irony of lecturing me about being unable to tolerate criticism while reacting to criticism with personal insults and talk about violence.

It's true, i'd totally rather beat your ass than apologize. 

Apologizing would only make me an enabler of the very weakness that has you as a snowflake, This is wisdom. 

So yes, let's return to my initial point: making derogatory generalizations about autistic people while insisting nobody attacks people for being autistic is contradictory. Your latest paragraph made that point considerably clearer for me.

 LOL. You'll be the only one to complain. If it burns let it until your tears dry, and eventually you might find the better version of yourself when you discover the benefits of a less fragile ego. 

Good luck. 

I wasn't "complaining" that you didn't give me a yes or no answer. I was pointing out that you repeatedly avoided a simple question while inventing motives for why I asked it. And now apparently understanding sarcasm requires accepting that the joke isn't derogatory. It doesn't. I understood that it was probably sarcastic. Sarcasm can still contain derogatory humor. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

You're also changing my argument. I never claimed autistic people can't be stupid. Obviously autistic people vary in intelligence like everyone else. "Some autistic people are morons" is therefore a trivial statement, not what I criticized. You specifically singled out autistic people, joked that "autists belong in prison," then said many autistic people are "complete morons and undefendable," and suggested that if an autistic person objects, they're probably the kind you don't respect. That's the derogatory generalization I'm talking about. Calling the unrelated proposition that autistic people vary in intelligence "the truth" doesn't address it.

And projection doesn't mean every insult you throw at me must secretly describe your appearance. I'm talking about behavior. You repeatedly characterize me as obsessed with impressions, fragile, complaining, and unable to tolerate things, while responding to criticism of one joke with paragraphs about my appearance, masculinity, sex appeal, social standing, whether people respect me, whether anyone cares about what I say, and how you'd rather beat me up. That's the projection.

The "man up," "snowflake," "fragile ego" stuff is just another attempt to make my reaction the subject instead of what I criticized. I don't need to be emotionally injured by something to think it's stupid or derogatory. "Sticks and stones" doesn't logically require me to approve of whatever somebody says.

And repeatedly insisting you're "unbothered" while deliberately trying to annoy me isn't evidence that you're unbothered. It just means criticism produces a retaliatory response from you. Doubling down specifically because somebody criticized you is almost the opposite of indifference.

Finally, "I'd rather beat your ass than apologize" doesn't become wisdom because you call it wisdom. I never requested an apology. You're arguing against a demand I didn't make while presenting a preference for violence as some kind of character-building philosophy.

So no, whether I'm the only person here who objects doesn't matter. That's literally an appeal to popularity in a thread about the bandwagon effect. If your defense is ultimately "nobody else complains about it," you've circled directly back to the phenomenon we were originally discussing.