[zepto]

Nobody is stepping on anyone’s face and privilege is not a prerequisite for clear thinking.

I really don’t know why you insist on portraying people as cartoon victims, whether we are talking about autistic people or deaf people. There is no justification for assuming that an autistic person or a deaf person is either incapable or uninterested in reasoning about people’s motivations. This is especially true when we are being harmed. Many autistic people have excellent systematizing skills, and as you have yourself taken pains to point out - no deficits when it comes to understanding other people.

Once again you seem to have anointed yourself speaker for large groups of people who you know little about. This time to claim that they cannot think for themselves because their faces are being stepped on.

We here now are just having a discussion. This is also something many deaf and many autistic people can do. Acting as if someone is stepping on your face during a discussion is not going to lead you to any good conclusions.

[danShumway]

> Nobody is stepping on anyone’s face

I mean, this just isn't true though, Bell was hurting people. I don't think these communities are making this stuff up; oppression is real.

I also don't think anyone is saying you personally are stepping on people's faces, what people like me are saying is that discrimination and anti-community policies/actions against disabled communities exist. I'm not sure why that statement is controversial.

Bell was advocating for eugenics. I actually don't think he got up in the morning and thought he was doing something bad, I think he probably thought he was trying to help deaf people. But he was doing something bad, he was contributing to deaf cultural suppression and advocating for eugenics. Separating people's actions from their intentions can be good, but only if we don't allow the intentions to completely override their actions.

And I've read enough accounts of people who have gone through BMT to know that there is actual harm that's happening around these communities, they're not making it up.

> to claim that they cannot think for themselves because their faces are being stepped on.

I think you might possibly be reading some intentions into the author that aren't there. No one is claiming this, it's your own leap of logic. People are pointing out there there are policies (intentional or not) that suppress communities and hurt people. GP isn't saying you're part of those policies, nor are they saying they speak for everyone about what that oppression looks like, the comment you're replying to never uses the words "we" or "us", only "I" and "me".

This seems relatively uncontroversial to me. We can agree that suppressing sign language or performing electroshock therapy on autistic kids is wrong -- regardless of what anyone's intentions are.

[zepto]

> Nobody is stepping on anyone’s face

> I mean, this just isn't true though, Bell was hurting people. I don't think these communities are making this stuff up; oppression is real.

Who said anything about Bell not hurting anyone? I was the one who called him a Eugenicist upthread. Can you point to something I’ve said that suggest that I think Bell didn’t hurt anyone?

> I also don't think anyone is saying you personally are stepping on people's faces,

Why would you even imagine such a thing?

> what people like me are saying is that discrimination and anti-community policies/actions against disabled communities exist.

What do you mean ‘people like you’? What group membership are you claiming? Given that I also agreed that such policies exist, are you saying I am someone like you?

> I'm not sure why that statement is controversial.

Where is the controversy?

> Bell was advocating for eugenics. I actually don't think he got up in the morning and thought he was doing something bad, I think he probably thought he was trying to help deaf people. But he was doing something bad, he was contributing to deaf cultural suppression and advocating for eugenics.

Agreed.

> Separating people's actions from their intentions can be good, but only if we don't allow the intentions to completely override their actions.

Disagreed. If you knowingly attribute intentions to people, that you don’t have evidence for, then you are simply lying for political gain.

You never have to ignore the impact of peoples actions. But whatever the impact is, there is no justification for lying or making false accusations.

As soon as you do this, you lose moral authority and are simply engaging in tribalism.

> And I've read enough accounts of people who have gone through BMT to know that there is actual harm that's happening around these communities, they're not making it up.

Did someone say they were?

> to claim that they cannot think for themselves because their faces are being stepped on.

> I think you might possibly be reading some intentions into the author that aren't there. No one is claiming this, it's your own leap of logic.

No. The author is claiming that people can’t think about other intentions because their faces are being stepped on. This is exactly what they are saying. You don’t seem to have understood their analogy.

It would be true if someone was literally stepping on their faces. That would be a good reason not to be able to reason about why it was happening. It’s also true for someone in the midst of a coercive therapy. Thus far we agree.

However it’s not true for you, or the author, or large numbers of marginalized people, most of the time. We are not literally having our faces stepped on or being confronted by police, so that isn’t a reason we can’t think clearly about people’s intentions.

> People are pointing out there there are policies (intentional or not) that suppress communities and hurt people.

You pointed out the part about suppressing communities. I have agreed that people are being hurt. I’m not sure why you are making this comment.

> GP isn't saying you're part of those policies,

Clearly. They don’t say it anywhere or even imply it. Why would you think this was ambiguous?

> nor are they saying they speak for everyone about what that oppression looks like, the comment you're replying to never uses the words "we" or "us", only "I" and "me". This seems relatively uncontroversial to me.

Yes, he uses the terms “I” and “me”, but the context is that he is placing himself in the metaphorical position of a community member who his having his face stepped on. He is asking us to imagine he is one such person. I.e. a representative.

If you are going to take “I” and “me” literally, then you must also think he was literally having his face stepped on as he was typing that comment. I don’t think so.

> We can agree that suppressing sign language or performing electroshock therapy on autistic kids is wrong -- regardless of what anyone's intentions are

Yes, I agree with that.

We can also agree that misrepresenting or distorting other people’s intentions is wrong regardless of who they are or what their impact is. Doing so creates additional harm including to ourselves and our communites.

Here’s an example that might help clarify why it’s wrong, and just as systematically violent as the things you are listing:

Alex: “We have a spare office that is unused. Would you mind if I used it while it’s available? I would be able to be much more productive if I didn’t have to deal with movement and noise in my field of vision and hearing.”

Jack: “You just want special treatment. Those offices are reserved for when we hire more managers.”

Notice that the oppressive move in this conversation is when Jack imputes a false intention to Alex.

If we want to live in a world where Autistic people’s motivations are not misconstrued or falsely imputed, we need to live in a world where people’s motivations are not misconstrued or falsely imputed.

[danShumway]

> What do you mean ‘people like you’? What group membership are you claiming? Given that I also agreed that such policies exist, are you saying I am someone like you?

I and the author and several other people who have talked to you on this page.

----

At a point where a conversation devolves this far I'm not sure how to respond to it. I am not sure what you are objecting to on a broad scale other than how very specific phrasing in these comments came across to you -- and I'm not going to waste time proving to you what I was trying to say; either you believe me when I try to clarify what my intentions are and try to clarify what the author meant, or you don't believe me. I'm not going to enter a discussion where we recursively debate what subject we're debating. I'm willing to argue about a lot of things, but I'm not willing to get that meta.

I'm also definitely not willing to have an argument about how communities should philosophically respond to harm based on whether or not the people hurting them meant to. Honestly, I don't understand how that conversation is at all relevant to the original objections people raised about the article. If you think the author is lying about their intentions writing this piece, then just say that and move on. If you think the author is lying and they haven't ever experienced discrimination or oppressive systems, then fine, just say that and move on. But if anyone wants to do a deep dive where we annotate every sentence of their comments, then they're just going to have to do that annotation on their own, I'm not really interested.

I don't completely understand how it's possible for someone to be so offended about the danger of reading too much into people's intentions while they simultaneously break apart someone else's comment line-by-line and say that they are "metaphorically" speaking for an entire community and that we should judge that as if they are intending to be that community's representative. Do you really not see the irony in this?

> We can also agree that misrepresenting or distorting other people’s intentions is wrong

On this one point it seems that most of us on this thread have signaled we are in agreement, including the author, and maybe that's a good point for me to step back and go do something else. I do wish everyone on this thread the best, and I hope that people with differing experiences about neurodivergence continue to have more avenues to share their experiences with the world.

[zepto]

>> What do you mean ‘people like you’? What group membership are you claiming? Given that I also agreed that such policies exist, are you saying I am someone like you?

> I and the author and several other people who have talked to you on this page.

Ok, so you are a member of a group of individuals. Do you know each other outside of HN? What defines membership?

> At a point where a conversation devolves this far I'm not sure how to respond to it. I am not sure what you are objecting to on a broad scale other than how very specific phrasing in these comments came across to you

Earlier you seemed to understand that I was objecting to the idea that it was ok to misrepresent peoples intentions.

Claiming that you don’t understand this now seem questionable.

-- and I'm not going to waste time proving to you what I was trying to say; either you believe me when I try to clarify what my intentions are and try to clarify what the author meant, or you don't believe me. I'm not going to enter a discussion where we recursively debate what subject we're debating. I'm willing to argue about a lot of things, but I'm not willing to get that meta. I'm also definitely not willing to have an argument about how communities should philosophically respond to harm based on whether or not the people hurting them meant to.

Ok, so you are an absolutist on this point. That is consistent with your past statements. It is exactly what I thought, and I think you are wrong.

It’s ok for you not to want to have a discussion about it, but my belief is that if you misconstrue people’s intentions and then act on that, you will cause more harm to them and the communities you claim to support.

> If you think the author is lying about their intentions writing this piece, then just say that and move on.

Weird. Where did I imply thst?

> If you think the author is lying and they haven't ever experienced discrimination or oppressive systems, then fine, just say that and move on.

Weird. Where did I imply that?

> But if anyone wants to do a deep dive where we annotate every sentence of their comments, then they're just going to have to do that annotation on their own, I'm not really interested.

I only did that with you because almost none of your comments mapped to anything I had actually said.

> I don't completely understand how it's possible for someone to be so offended about the danger of reading too much into people's intentions

I’m not offended by it. I think it’s harmful. What I am inquiring into is why you so vigorously seem to defend it.

> while they simultaneously break apart someone else's comment line-by-line and say that they are "metaphorically" speaking for an entire community and that we should judge that as if they are intending to be that community's representative.

I didn’t say we should judge them. I said that is what they were doing. You put ‘metaphorically’ in quotes, but I think that you do understand that they were speaking metaphorically. I was responding to your denial with a clarification.

> Do you really not see the irony in this?

There is no irony in it.

> We can also agree that misrepresenting or distorting other people’s intentions is wrong

> On this one point it seems that most of us on this thread have signaled we are in agreement, including the author,

That’s simply false. The author’s metaphor of having his face stepped on was intended to defend the idea that it doesn’t matter what people’s intentions are under those circumstances. You have yourself also defended this position even in the very comment I have replied to, and in several before.

You could have just agreed to this way back in the thread, and this discussion would have stopped there, but given that both of you have argued to the contrary, there is no clarity that you actually agree.

The only reason it has continued is that both you and the author have been arguing that it is ok for the oppressed not to have an accurate understanding of the motivations of people who are hurting them.

If you are saying you have changed your mind as a result of our dialog, then I commend you.

[mbilokonsky]

I was going to engage with this but honestly I'm so tired of you misrepresenting me and projecting your bizarre mishmash of gatekeeping and victimhood onto me that I am going to bow out of further interaction with you.

I will say that you clearly do not understand what I am saying, that you are not interpreting me with the generosity that I'm trying to grant you, and that your reactions are almost entirely against straw men of your own creation. But I don't expect you to be able to hear that, and instead look forward to reading whatever misinterpretation of this comment you choose to latch onto.

Please have a nice day.

[zepto]

Do you want me to believe that you have been trying to grant me generosity? If you are generous, be generous. Otherwise don’t. It seems like you are blaming me for your failure to appear the way you would like to appear. I am not asking for your generosity, only your honesty.

As for me not understanding you. That’s entirely possible. What is also clear is that you don’t understand what I am saying.

Nobody has projected gatekeeping onto you. That is a word you have just introduced. What gate could you possibly be keeping? Do you have some position of power you haven’t disclosed?

I, and many other commenters here are pointing out the ways you are in speaking for others and generalizing about communities you don’t represent. Perhaps we are wrong, but it seems like about half of us are wrong then, and we have a reasonable disagreement.

As for victimhood, yes, your analogy of not being able to reason about people’s motivations when you are having your face stepped on is indeed a portrayal of victimhood and little else.