I don't think a quiet room should be either autie only or NT only.  It should just be "quiet only".  If you're being quiet and non-disruptive in it, then why should it matter whether you are autie or NT?  Some NTs need quiet time, too.

We've all been so well-trained by the right-wing corporate media, always on the look out for how people who already have all the advantages can grab a few more away from the people with damn few advantages..

Everybody would like a nice quiet place to hang out in. At large gatherings, that is a rare commodity and  it should be reserved for those who legitimately need the space..

I wasn't talking about "hanging out".  Autistics do not have a monopoly on needing quiet space.  It should be open to ANYONE who "legitimately" NEEDS it, which is by no means related to neurotype.

Somehow I am not surprised.  The "institutions are great" mindset does seem to often go hand in hand with ultra-right wing fundamentalism.

The question was about Autie events. If the quiet spaces are handed out to just anyone who says "I have a legitimate need for quiet" there would be no way of verifying those "needs" and the limited space would be taken up by people who are merely self indulgent.

People rationalize to get what they want, like people who think it's okay to park in hanndicapped spaces because "I'm only going to be here a few minutes" or "I have to carry heavy packages" -- and the result is there are no spaces for the legitimately handicapped. It's like a rich person saying "I have just as much right to food stamps as the poor."

No one has a god-given right to their own 24-7 personal convenience, but there are legitimate needs that should be prioritized and accommodated to a reasonable extent.

http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/History_of_ANI.html

Yes, of course they are, hadn't you noticed? And the Indigo Chilren are the best of all.

I had a feeling we wouldn't get along, after just reading the article. Now I am more certain than ever...

Word.

Agreed.  My first thought was, 'why would a parent subject a child to a situation that would make them have a meltdown, and then force them to stay there in the midst of it?'

It's one thing to want acceptance, but I have problems with the idea of preferential treatment.  I have two NT children and one with Autism.  I don't care which one of them was acting up in public (and trust me, the NT children could throw the occasional tantrum with the best of them), we left. I think parents who don't consider the circumstances (e.g., church, lecture, movie, wedding, funeral, etc...), and expect everyone else to tolerate disruptive behavior, are both selfish and disrespectful.  

Even if a child with Autism has little self control, that also applies to the crying infant I didn't want to listen to when I saw the Dark Knight.  I don't really care what the malfunction is -- there are some places it isn't appropriate.  Furthermore, anytime I've had a meltdown, the last thing I wanted was to be on public display.  Trying to embarrass a child into normal behavior isn't going to cure them, nor is forcing exposure going to automatically (if at all) desensitize them, and make them compliant citizens.

It can't be helped if a child or adult goes into a meltdown in a public place, but forcing them to stay there, and others to endure it with them, isn't really fair to *anyone*.

Yes, this is in fact the message I got from the article.  As it is yet another pile of garbage completely ignoring or unaware of the fact that meltdowns never "just happen."  The opposition to this was portrayed as merely dragging around your autistic family member/dependent as if they were baggage or some irritating pet (because when are we anything else?  Apparently some of us can't even sit through church! </sarcasm>.  

The implication of political correctness stifling opinions should've been a dead give-away.

I'll save the real fireworks for the passing motorcycles and unexpected hugs.

That.  I'm preparing myself to attend a large convention where I'll be in strategic hug dodging mode.  I wish NT events had those cool badges to alert people that you dont want to interact with them.

I call it smash and grab shopping. Get in, smash a trolley into other trolleys since they never go in a straight line and grab everything you need while on the run and dive to the least full checkout as fast as possible. How anyone can enjoy supermarket grocery shopping is beyond me. YUK. Even my NT wife hates it.

Callista Wrote:

I'll save the real fireworks for the passing motorcycles and unexpected hugs.

That.  I'm preparing myself to attend a large convention where I'll be in strategic hug dodging mode.  I wish NT events had those cool badges to alert people that you dont want to interact with them.

I'd have some mixed feelings about something like that. I'm not a person to give unsolicited hugs but would feel as if somebody with one of those badges was a bit standoffish.

It's not that I wouldn't repect such a badge but it would be as if the other person didn't even want to try and get to know anybody else which means it's not much point coming to such an event in the first place.

I don't want to start trouble but was told by a friend about an autism conference in Brisbane a few years ago where some of the people had those badges and I felt very uneasy about it.

I don't think most people expect kids to be completely silent but if the kids are screaming, they need to be removed from the situation to give them a chance to calm down. It's not fair for others who are wanting to relax to have to be subjected to very bad behaviour.

This has come up when I look at restaurant reviews and such.  People will say that a place was "ruined" by people with children.  Nope, it is ruined by inconsiderate people.  Inconsiderate people who breed.  

I agree that saying children with Autism should be banned from public places is wrong.  All I was pointing out is that there are some places that it isn’t appropriate to be disruptive, regardless of the issue, age, whatever.  

I am not saying not to take the children/adults either.  All I am saying is that I think some parents are taking advantage of the situation, and they are making other parents look bad as a result.  This is when people start hating minority groups – when they start asking for “special” treatment, rather than the same treatment.  If a parent is purposely torturing their child to force socialization on them, or they are expecting public meltdowns (and I mean ones that stay all the way through the meltdown to the bitter end) to be considered acceptable in all situations, or they just want recognition for being some kind of martyr because they have a special needs child, I think that is just as sick as those who want them banned.  

Yeah, hold the guy who wrote the article accountable, but hold the parents who feel the need to make it an issue just as responsible.  It’s parents who don’t even try to diffuse the situation who make the rest look bad, and they give guys like him a platform.

I am also not even remotely suggesting that children stay locked in the house, to avoid experience life.  I personally don’t care if children scream through the store, park, Disney World, or the New York Stock Exchange.  In fact, I applaud parents who allow their children to tantrum rather than buy them everything they want to keep them quiet.  (And no, I am not referring to giving a child a drink away from the maddening crowd.  I am talking about parents will buy their kids toys and candy at every store, every shopping trip.  And to be totally honest, I really don’t care even if they do that!  I’m not the one who has to live with them when they are older . . .)

I agree with this, and this is what I have found when I take my children out, as well.  I expect children to be normally fussy, or excited when they are in a restaurant, but it's the ones who are allowed to get totally out of control that irritate me.  Well, not so much the kids, but the parents of the kids, because they are the ones who are setting the standard for what is acceptable behavior.

As Walden mentioned, I have more of a problem with the adults in restaurants, than I ever do children.  We went out to a nice restaurant for my daughter's birthday, and there was another woman with a birthday at the table next to us.  Someone gave her a ringtone for her birthday, and she felt the need to keep playing it at full volume, over, and over, and over.  I didn't mind all the talking and laughing, and I didn't mind the ringtone being played the first couple of times, but by the 17th time we asked to be moved.  We couldn't even have a conversation amongst ourselves.  I expect some disruption in public places, but outright rudeness isn't necessary.

I would be fascinated to read some examples of minorities asking for "special" treatment and how that initiated hatred toward them.

Okay, maybe I need to clarify . . . some minority groups are hated because they are given preferential treatment, even if they didn’t ask for it . . . and yes, some just outright expect it.  There is no way, Max, I can even begin to get into this subject adequately, and just touching upon it is going to make me sound racist, which isn’t the case.  There are people of *all* races (or whatever) that will attempt to abuse a set system if they can get away with it.

As you were pointing out in another thread, there are those who dislike certain stereotypes within their own group, and in some cases those are the ones who abuse the situation.  One example of a problem is the American Indians who live in my state.  (My best friend of 20 years is American Indian, and she has a black son, so to imply that I am racist couldn’t be more wrong.)  Even my best friend is sick of them using the excuse that their ancestors had their land stolen from them, and were forced on to live on the reservation, so this gives them the right to harbor alleged murders and child molesters, and allow crimes on their own land to go unpunished, because the federal government should have no say in what they do on the land they were given.

I am as white and as English as they come, and I have absolutely no problem saying that I am personally disgusted and appalled by the actions of the early settlers with regard to the indigenous people, and those they kidnapped from other countries and enslaved.  I am disgusted by abuses of any kind.  That said, I also don’t agree with using things as an excuse to act a certain way, or be extended preferential treatment.

Why are only men expected to sign up for selective service?  If I move to Mexico I expect to need to know Spanish to get around, and I expect that my children will need to speak Spanish to be enrolled in their schools, so why do I need to accept America should be a bilingual country?  And, why should “Spanish” be the chosen language just because we have a higher Hispanic population than other ethnic groups?

I don’t think it’s necessary to discontinue several of the products I use to make room for a can of Nesquick that is entirely in Spanish.  I can understand the special products that we don’t normally carry in our country, but the freekin’ bunny looks the same in both languages!! They can buy the American version of Nesquick.  If this makes me racist, so be it.

And I am sure you will say I am stereotyping you, but if you were wondering in the back of your mind if I was referring to the rights of gay people to marry, that wasn’t what I was talking about.  To me that is a group expecting to be treated the same, and rightfully so.

I would like all children to be given the "Special treatment" that I "ask" for my aspie son.

definition of special treatment:  Being held in esteem as a worthwhile individual.  Being respected for his/her ideas. Noone is allowed to bully a child at school (children or adults, physically or mentally). Each child should be taught to their ability.

If a "regular" kid is being noisy and disruptive in the hallways or in the lunch room (or in a restaurant) the reaction should be the same as if the child was autistic (asked to stop) In my opinion the standard of behavior is higher for diagnosed kids.....

I sowecifically am thinking of the "regular kids shouting and laugjing and banging the tables on a daily constant basis - bumping others in the hallways.. If my aspie son was as loud as others or he if he bumped into people on accident (where others do it on purpose) he would probably be removed from school.

Many small kids at restaurants - bang silverwear etc., why is it only a big deal if the kid is autistic?

Ah. But you see, that is not everyone's purpose or goal in being at a convention, to talk to people or hug them.

I am in complete agreement with this statement, but if it were the norm then it wouldn't be special.  

To be honest, I don't think this is typically the case.  I think there are a couple of prejudice idiots out there trying to create a hate situation that isn't going anywhere.  Most people see these morons for what they are, and we have enough people who revere the despicable St. McCarthy the Centerfold Martyr turned Autism "expert" who serves to steer the attention away from the handful of anti-Autism proponents.

Now, this is incredibly classist.  What?  Did you send him to a high-priced manners school or something?  
[aside]You should hear my 85-year-old Mom rant about the country club culture she lives in that fosters "manners school."  She thinks its an abdication of parental responsibility.[/aside]

You don't have to have money to have true class.  Graciousness is an issue of character, not income.  Poor people are totally capable of conducting selves with decorum and teaching kids the same.

Amen Sistah!

Yeah, this thread has taken a nasty turn -- classism, racism, xenophobia....

Can we get an anti-Semite and a misogynist and maybe a cross to burn?

Favorite quote from O'Brother Where Art Thou that you just brought to mind:

Homer Stokes: This band of miscreants, this very evening, interfered with a lynch mob in the performance of its duty. 

That's hysterical! Hmmm... Band of Miscreants would be a good name for a renegade pack of internet liberals...

Oooh, that is goooood!  I may be changing my signature.

Hello, I'll clarify.  I feel that my family and I are blessed and lucky.  We have the means, (a roof over our head, we can afford food yes, sometimes even at nice restaurants) but I mean, a big, close family, strong core family values and the character to conduct oursleves how we see fit, not based on how others act.  We spend a lot of time around food, around the dinner table (mostly home, but also out) with good food, family, and conversation.  This is a positive, I feel lucky.

Also, it happens to be the case that our aspie son would be unable to tolerate much less enjoy a meal at some of the louder and (fact: less expensive restaurants, particularly when he was younger.  He wouldn't eat the food anyway as he is very particular.  I did not mean to make it sound like I was talking about money. Our kids just naturally behave politely (like kids not as mini adults) because they enjoy having a nice meal - no manners classes involved LOL!  We did have to be more careful with what and how we exposed our aspie son to restaurants as he is sensitive to smells and sounds etc., so yes we tried to be smart and we had the means to manage.

The rest of my earlier post was speaking about class a bit (another poster spoke of "inconsiderate people breeding" which reminded me of the term well-bred. (a rant and off topic) I happen to think that there are only two classes, (in the US) the top 1% and then the rest.  Also off topic, that society in the US is not conducting themselvs in general with good manners.... Mainstream has plenty of money but is modeling after TV.  Money has nothing to do with real class. Character does.  I agree with what you are saying energeia 100%.

I am more interested in the fact that there is a double standard for behaviors allowed based on ones minority status - making a big deal out of an autistic kid here or there that may be too loud, with parents that are trying, compared to oblivious parents who feel it is a right to be as loud as they want.

Yes, great point Callista. This is the kind of fantastic and seemingly common sense information that some of the great parenting books as well as autism books convey.  Wouldn't it be nice if all parents could be patient towards ALL children and wouldn't it be wonderful if ALL kids could be allowed to experience things at their own speed.

Life is awfully fast-paced and to me that seems unnatural to force all people to evolve so quickly from what was expected just a generation ago...

I agree that it is particularly true that my aspie son has never learned anything (positive) while overloaded.

That sounds like going to school for me - the crowds, the noises, etc. The school counselors seemed to think that this method would work for bullying as well (hint hint: it doesn't, unless getting used to it means becoming pessimistic and suicidal).

Also there would always be some horrible scent in the car, that would turn out to be perfume or lotion or air freshener or something. However, in that case my mom would try to keep scents that bother me away from the car, but a lot of it she'd forget, so I had to deal with it for years and years, so nowadays while I still cough and it's unpleasant, I can manage without throwing a fit.

I could also tell at the end of the day when she picked me up from school, if someone who smokes had been in the car. It smelled strong enough to me that I thought she had smoked, even though she hasn't smoked in years, and then I asked if someone else had smoked in the car, and then I asked if anyone at all had been in the car who isn't in our family, and she said their name, and I asked if they smoke - and lo and behold, the person was a smoker! So while it didn't bother me too much, I noticed it right away as soon as I opened the door.

That assertion would probably be very difficult to back up. The difference between someone comfortably in the middle class and someone on the brink of poverty, or well immersed in it, have very different experiences.

Actually, I'm pretty sure most people would read this statement & assume that you're racist - so you're probably better off explaining yourself.

Unless, of course, you actually are racist - then you're better off just avoiding the topic altogether in the future.

This has always p!ssed me off, and you're right, counselors and administrators use this bullsh!t excuse all the time. It is just their excuse for (at best) not having the guts to do something about the bullying or (at worst) masking their support of the bullies and their belief that all the weirdos deserve all the sh!t they have to eat.

The counselors and administrators hate it when I confront them directly on this: "So you're saying these kids need bullying? You think maybe there's a real danger that they're not getting all the bullying they need? Are you worried that some of the kids here are getting insufficient bullying? Not getting their daily minimum requirement of harrassment and victimization? Because I see a lot of kids at this school who never get bullied at all. Are we totally cheating them, educationally? Because some kids seem to be getting all the bullying and all the great benefits that go with it. Should we maybe set up a program where we could select some really big mean students and assign them to bully the chronically under-bullied? Because otherwise, those kids are missing out on the valuable experience of school being a living hell, day after day."

Most of the time, they get the point, but one assistant principal got angry and said, "I feel like you're bullying me right now." I said, 'Well, that's good, isn't it? You need that, right? Just like the kids need it. Shouldn't you thank me?"

                          

Again, you're absolutely right.

There is nothing more obnoxious, condescending, and utterly false than someone in the top 10% talking to someone in the bottom 10% and saying "I'm not in the top 1%, so I'm just like you!" *pats the poor wretched creature on the head, then wipes her hand on her designer velour ® pantsuit*

It's like white people who say, "I, too, am a victim of racism because once I was in a Chinese restaurant and we were the only white people there! Oh, THE  H O R R O R !!" *sob, weep*

Another one that makes me throw up a little in my mouth is 'We are blessed."

It's such a smug attitude. All it means is, "God, in his gracious wisdom, realized that I deserve much, much, much more than people like you whom god, in his gracious wisdom, has given so little. Isn't God a swell guy? Let's take a moment and thank him for giving me so much and you so little." *folds hands in prayer and snickers*



It's especially nauseating because if there was anything Christ was clear about, it was his opinion of rich people. And hypocrites.

Max, I am going to have to agree with you here completely.  This is so frustrating.  When I got the needed paperwork from the school counselor this summer for Little Korrigan to be assessed by an outside doctor, the counselor said, "She is just really sensitive."  I said, "Isn't that nice.  Most kids have very little.  I am thrilled that she is so sensitive and caring.  In fact, those are usually the two first qualities that people mention about her when they are talking about her strengths."  I am not sure she was expecting that.

Isn't that standard.  Stay at home Mom with 3 kids, 2 in private school, could be 3 if they did not want to take advantage of public school programs for the Aspie kid, with a big house and pool in New Jersey talking about class differences.  LOL.  

They already do think I am racist, and I have a feeling since I managed to annihilate my position so adeptly the first time, a second time of trying to clarify my position is only going to add more fuel to the fire.  I am not racist, but everyone's mind is already made up.  As I said, my best friend is Indian, and she has a black son.  One of my only other friends here that I've had for years is Hispanic.  Neither of these women are desperate for friendship, so if I were racist not only would they know, but they wouldn't speak to me.  

Since it is much easier to judge me, than actually get to know me, I doubt anyone will ever really know where I stand.  Best wishes to everyone regardless.  

First of all, I would like to testify that my best friend for the last 15 years, Karl, who was also my best man at my wedding is black and, unsurprisingly, so are both his kids, so I am undoubtedly right about everything I am going to say.

(Oh, and Karl thinks your post was incredibly racist.)


A blogger out there somewhere said this

Heretic, there is nothing at all unusual about a person having a low opinion of a particular group, yet still having a friend or two from that group. My second best friend is a Fundamentalist, and anyone here can tell you my opinion of Fundamentalism.

There is a profound cognitive dissonance when one has prejudices against a group and a friendship from someone in that group.

There are basically two ways to resolve that uncomfortable dissonance:

1. Overcome your racist beliefs, (Ooo! Hard, hard work!)or

2. Grant your friend an "exception" -- "Peggy is not like those Fundamentalists, so it's okay to like Peggy while despising fundamentalism."

Predictably enough, most people choose Option 2. It's so easy!

Another thing I would point out is that there is no shortage of minority members who have extremely negative attitudes toward their own group. Obviously, it's not uncommon for a black person who hates black people to seek out a white person who shares those views. This also has the benefit for the black person of associating them with the "superior" race and having a person of that "superior" group reassure them, "Oh, you're not like the rst of your people."

So it becomes a mutually rewarding dyad :

The white person who hates blacks gets support for their racist views and a "get out of jail free card" on the charge of being a racist. She gets to hear from a black person, "No, you're nor racist, you're right about those damn n*****s."

The black person who hates being black gets to be "an honorary white person." She gets to hear from the white person "You're not like the rest of those people -- you know what they're like and you have risen above them."

Racism is an equal opportunity employer -- you don't have to be white. White racists embrace black people who hate themselves.

Heretic, when you hold up your Indian and Latina friends and say "They agree with my racist views," that doesn't surprise me in the least. After all, they -- like you -- grew up in a world that says "white is better" in a million ways. Sadly, they internalized and never unlearned that prejudice against their own people. So they settle for crumbs from the table of Whiteness.

There are gays who have that sort of relationship with homophobes and homophobic organizations. There are Aspies who sneer at LFA's and say "I am indistinguishable from the NT's who hate you, and they are my friends."


===

You do a good job, Heretic, of splicing crazy-racist comments together with rational-sounding disclaimers. That's a common tactic, too. In trainings and workshops I've done on racism, I call those people "racist-butts" because they always say, "Now, I'm not racist, but..." And you know that whatever comes after that "but" is going to be off-the-hook racist. Always.

Those disclaimers -- from "I'm not racist, but..." and "Some of my best friends are..." to a dozen others you utilized in your posts, every one of those little verbal side-steps is just putting lipstick on a pig. It can't make something pretty out of an ugly, unmistakably racist ideology.

It's ironic, Heretic, that you closed with "...it is much easier to judge me, than actually get to know me..."

That's probably how any number of Latinos and blacks would feel reading your posts.

They already do think I am racist, and I have a feeling since I managed to annihilate my position so adeptly the first time, a second time of trying to clarify my position is only going to add more fuel to the fire.  I am not racist, but everyone's mind is already made up.  As I said, my best friend is Indian, and she has a black son.  One of my only other friends here that I've had for years is Hispanic.  Neither of these women are desperate for friendship, so if I were racist not only would they know, but they wouldn't speak to me.  

Since it is much easier to judge me, than actually get to know me, I doubt anyone will ever really know where I stand.  Best wishes to everyone regardless.  

The reason your post sounded racist was because you specifically claimed that minority groups make lots of unrealistic demands. Unless you're talking about something specific, this is a fairly racist statement - this is why I suggested you talk about the specific issue, as a global statement about minorities will always appear racist. Unless, of course, you actually do have a universal belief that minority groups are unreasonable (i.e. a racist belief), in which case, it would have been better not to bring it up at all.

The fact that you may have friends from these groups does not make the statement any less racist - there's all sorts of reasons these friends may agree with or overlook racist sentiments.

At this point, attempting to justify your original post is going to fail - your original post was unreasonable and offensive. The only two options available are to state specifically what you were talking about, or to back away from the thread.

That assertion would probably be very difficult to back up. The difference between someone comfortably in the middle class and someone on the brink of poverty, or well immersed in it, have very different experiences.
[/quote]

Yes, the whole 1% thing, I agree, is merely a silly and useless opinion,  I am not asserting it.  That was more like a throw away line, just how I was thinking (sadly) at that moment.  The divide between the rich and the rest has been widening and I don't know what the end result will be... most moments I am more optimistic... I am thinking now about perspective and how people in the different scenarios you mention might not care(and a bit about mobility...) but all besides the point ... but since you mentioned it earthmonkey I figure I'd reply.  It seems to me while I think about it, that the subject of class and minority status have some parallels with autism rights, as a group that faces both subtle and overt discrimiation.

I have been a bit (more) cynical about the prospects of regular americans (people - whatever socio-economic status they have) and how comfortable they really are of late.  (The last 7 years plus have not gone well for the US,except if you are in the top 1%) (forget money- the infrastructure of government is not working -schools, health care, roads, environment etc., etc., )

I agree it is not a fair comparison however, reality is often just perspective.  The perspective of what one is immersed in and the complications and trappings of being stuck in the middle (lack of health insurance, bankruptcy, foreclosures, collections agencies from maxed out credit cards, defaults on car loans etc., (people facing this are in all income brackets except the highest...) shouldn't really compare with the truly unfortunate.  Those who never feel the stability of a owning a home (different from many who choose not to) are discriminated against and get lower quality of health care, less educational options etc.,  (in the US) but lately everyone seems to have troubles. Many don't seem to have the time or energy to think about the fact that there is always some one with worse troubles. With all the sadness in the world these days - that is not much solace. It seems to me that too many are stuck on a hamster wheel....

Here is a short excerpt of an article about the US and wealth distribution.  The disparity between the rich and the rest (the top 1%) is back to the days of the robber barons right before the depression and stock market crash, these economic times are eerily similar and worse even...


"Early in the twentieth century, the share of total national income drawn by the top 1 percent of U.S. earners hovered around 18 percent. That share hit an all-time high in 1928—when top earners took home 21.1 percent of all income, including capital gains—then dropped steadily through the next three decades. Amid the post-World War II boom in higher education, and overall economic growth, the American middle class swelled and prospered, and the top 1 percent of earners took home less than 10 percent of all income through the 1960s and 1970s. Since then, the topmost 1 percent have seen their share rise again: it shot past 15 percent in 1996 and crested at 20.3 percent in 2006, the most recent year for which numbers are available."

Anyway, sorry to tangent - I hadn't thought that class was really an issue in the US for a few decades but there has been more talk lately about the widening divide. Pressure on the middle seems to be brining out the worst qualities in people.

Joel's blog can be found here:  http://thiswayoflife.org/blog/

Thanks for sharing... my favorite line was : " (in fact, people confuse “safe” with “familiar” - "

Oh, yeah. I have "inappropriate" written all across my school records. Inappropriate gestures, inappropriate posture, inappropriate socialization (hey, I have friends - so WTF do they care?), inappropriate rigidity (which is actually just pressuring school staff to comply with federal law), etc. etc. I have unusual gestures, posture, socialization, and standards of rigidity - but to haphazardly apply the word "inappropriate" is, well, "inappropriate".

My favorite was “Well, they do scare me, and I have a right to not be scared.” Actually, no, you don’t have a right to not be scared.  Seriously, what's so special about them that only they don't have to feel fear?

I loved that one, too. A writer once said, similarly, "You surrender your right not to be offended when you walk out your front door."

Both statements are perfect pictures of extreme privilege-overdose. People who say "The world and everyone in it must be arranged with my comfort in mind" obviously see themselves as the singular center of the universe and the rest of us mere devises to assure their perfect psycho-socio-cultutal homeostasis.

Never mind that that perfect arrangement may create fear, offense, pain, death and alienation for others. Those "others" don't matter. That's what you deserve for being an "other."

I thought a lot about this vis-a-vis gay marriage. Everyone knows there's not a single valid reason against it -- except that it "offends" They Who Must Not Be Offended -- and that over-rides fundamental cicil rights.

I can see why somebody at an autism might have a badge saying "please don't hug me" but saying "don't talk to me" is going right over the top as far as I'm concerned. I would be a bit insulted.

Callista Wrote:

I'll save the real fireworks for the passing motorcycles and unexpected hugs.

That.  I'm preparing myself to attend a large convention where I'll be in strategic hug dodging mode.  I wish NT events had those cool badges to alert people that you dont want to interact with them.

Silky, I'm NT and wish I could have one of those

silky Wrote:

Callista Wrote:

I'll save the real fireworks for the passing motorcycles and unexpected hugs.

That.  I'm preparing myself to attend a large convention where I'll be in strategic hug dodging mode.  I wish NT events had those cool badges to alert people that you dont want to interact with them.

Silky, I'm NT and wish I could have one of those

*Raises hand and asks for one, too.*

Having people talk to me can be quite stressful, and I will at these times visibly react, often repeatedly rubbing my ears or slapping myself. I think a badge indicating that I'm not in a position to talk or be talked to, would have less potential for confusion as to why I don't want to talk, than me running the other direction or reacting this way. Sometimes it's just way too stressful to interact with people.

michele522 Wrote:

silky Wrote:

Callista Wrote:

I'll save the real fireworks for the passing motorcycles and unexpected hugs.

That.  I'm preparing myself to attend a large convention where I'll be in strategic hug dodging mode.  I wish NT events had those cool badges to alert people that you dont want to interact with them.

Silky, I'm NT and wish I could have one of those

*Raises hand and asks for one, too.*

That's actually a pretty common thing I think, for technologies and accommodations originally designed/intended for disabled people, also extending to benefit other people too (such as curb cuts and ramps also helping people with strollers in hand).

I agree

unfortuantely In the case of Adam Race it was probably for the better he wasn't at the church as he apparently struck a few people and was also having meltdowns

I think I also heard that his parents bound him to the chair?

anyways

I kind of do the same

alot of people have thought I'm the sibling not the autistic one!

The point of posting here, is on topic. No one looked at them funny.  They were just another group there.  (There is often busloads of kids that visit that beach with their camps etc.,) No one I saw ( I was on line almost 30 minutes) was in the least bit uncomfortable.  There were many tables to choose from and the tables next to the group were occupied.  Just something I noticed.

I am glad that you continue to be able to read people's minds.  Or did you talk to everyone there to see how comfortable they were?  

You should not assume that because no one was screaming about how uncomfortable they were that they were not in fact uncomfortable.  Really, you have no idea.  

Wait, wait. When I read the article, what I saw was that he tended to wet his pants, spit, make noise, and get out of his seat, and that he almost ran into an old woman once. I saw nothing of violence or meltdowns. Reference, please?

This can be true-provided one can 'read' someone's body language accurately.

Sometimes body language doesn't match with 'thinking' though-especially if someone wants to hide what they are truly feeling/thinking and don't want to say anything or to show others that they think something may be considered 'inappropriate' to them..That's always most confusing.

Different venues have differing expectations for behaviour-one is 'allowed' to be a bit louder at the beach, for instance,- louder than in a church, I think.
Some churches 'allow' less noise than others, etc..

Of course, body language may be a bit more obvious if it's a clothing-optional beach..
 

Of course, body language may be a bit more obvious if it's a clothing-optional beach..  

Lol! Yes!

My aspie son was snickering (I had to speak with him to stop) because a kid's bathing suit on line was down too far and he could see - lol - too much crack....

I was watching closely for reactions of the crowd, because of my own three kids were not on line with me. They were across the open air room and I had an extra kid, not mine, with us. My aspie son started getting a little hyped up from the echoes and the crowd and was just plain happy.  He ran back and forth from where I was on line to the video machines (claw prize machine) with his mario and luigi plush charecters in hand a handful of times - having fun. He was doing just fine though. As an adult/mother I make sure the kids in my care aren't bothering anyone or bumping into people carrying food etc., I was also watching the extra child, a friend of my other son and I was checking to see how he would react to the group too.  Nice kid.

People were all so happy and relaxed - the beach does that for people.  There are often large groups at this beach 9as a mentioned in the earlier post) and it seems that the people were quite happy to see kids being kids, having fun etc., The people were very 'live and let live'. It was a nice bunch of people.

As I was there a long time and the accoustics were bothering my sensitive ears I knew why my son was stimming, a bit.  I specifically looked at the group of autistic kids to see how it was affecting them- otherwise, I wouldn't have taken notice of them in any detail. I also was watching the counsellors, I liked what I saw. Reminding myself to look up the group.

Hey, what you saw was what you saw.  I just would not make the assumption that you knew how people were feeling, especially to the extreme of:

You cannot assume that they were not uncomfortable.  You were uncomfortable with the noise.  

Were you showing it in a way that someone who has never met you would know?

I was simply pointing out that we cannot assume that because we look at something from the outside, with people we have never met, that we can gauge accurately how they are feeling.  We can guess, we can estimate, but we cannot really know.  

This is something I have really learned as the wife of an Aspie.  After a long time of assuming that he was upset about something just by the expression on his face, which is a relatively normal way to read someone's feelings, I learned that he does not often have a very expressive expression.  I also cannot read his feelings by his body language, as it is often misleading, if you were to compare it to a lot of NT people in the world.  

I think that it is really dangerous to assume anything about how someone is feeling by their outward expressions, and that we should be really careful of this as Aspies/Auties/Friends and Family of Both.    

Yeah, when I'm at school, a lot of times the special ed teachers would completely misread my body language, whereas I could read theirs (though I'm a bit better with reading the body language of most autistic people I've met), and yet I had to sit there and listen about how I can't read body language. Hey, I know I'm giving atypical body language, and I don't fault them for having difficulty reading me, but they are SO presumptive that they know exactly how to read me.

Heck, I am not so presumptive as this when reading other autistic people, even though I get it right FAR more often than most NTs I've seen. Really, from this perspective, watching (most) NTs interacting with autistic people, when the NT person presumes to read the autistic person correctly, then it is the NT who is utterly clueless. However, there are non-autistic people I've met who can read me pretty well (not sure how many of these would qualify as NT though - many of my friends are quite neurodivergent, though not all, and also some NT teachers have exhibited understanding of my body language).

And that is why your miraculous powers of Mass Mind-reading are particularly dubious. By your own words you're not remotely an objective observer. You "observe" with a proudly announced bias toward finding what you want to find.

It is certainly within your rights to look for goodness and kindness and to light a candle and to frolic with unicorns across the rainbow to CandyLand. But I don't expect to see it written up in any major sociological journals.

I think it depends on the person, how much you are putting out, how much you are picking up, and on the situation.  I would think it is harder in a big loud crowd, or a stressful situation, than when you are relaxed and mellow.

I know my husband, specifically, thinks he is doing something in particular (smiling, in this case) and later I ask him why he was so glum, and he says, no, I was smiling the whole time.  I say, no you were not.  He says, oh, I thought I was.  Since we have learned more about things that are common to many Aspies (in this case, a lack of facial expression - NOT ALL ASPIES, but I hear it a lot) I totally "get" him more, and if I am confused, I ask.  I should have been doing this in the first place, but my incredible niavete was making the assumption that everyone showed their feelings outwardly with their facial expression and their body language.  He also has quite a "hard outer shell" of body language, and I think that tends to be a protective thing to keep "friendly strangers" out of his hair.

My husband is often mistaken on body language and expressions of others that are strangers.  However, he has a keen insight on people that we have spent any time with, and is amazing at telling what people are really thinking, like I said, if he knows them.  

I have learned a lot in the last few months about not assuming that I can tell what people are thinking and how they are feeling by how they look or carry themselves.  It can be very misleading.

You did not say that.  But you did say the below.  The point that was being made was that you do not know how anyone else was feeling, so you should not assume otherwise.

Now don't you get snippy with me, Little Missy with only 1,626 posts. I observed your post and I instantly knew all about you. You're not the only one around here with superhuman powers.

And I didn't say you had observational bias. You did. I'm just giving you the correct name for it.

Stop messing with me, my post/s on how it seemed that noone was at all bothered by the group of autistic kids does not need your commentary and  is not hurting anyone.  Find something else to nit-pick.  You promised Could be cousin and Evil zakkie that you would not speak to me directly or talk about me, or respond to my posts.  You have broken that promise repeatedly in the last weeks.  I have ignored repeated insults and mischarecterizations.  I also don't need you to point out any typos.

Hi ethel.  I have not posted any responses in more than a month, perhaps even two months.  I think that as my name and post were directly mentioned, my response was not snark.
I am not one who fights with anyone.  I am and have been nothing but polite.

Yeah, one thing I have noticed is that my body language tends to be MUCH subtler than most people's. I was once in the middle of an interaction, then I turned at the mirror to check on what my expression looked like, and you could see it was a slight smile if looking REAALY close, but most people didn't pick up on it; it was too slight, and for most people would probably qualify as neutral or negative.

Much like, when I was young and feeling ill, I was often disbelieved because I didn't "look" like I was in discomfort or anything, and I'd get sent back to class. In a few years, I started to exaggerate my expressions to make them noticeable, but because I have difficulty moderating these things, my expressions looked FAKE to them, and the yard duties would tell the kids to ignore me when I fell and got hurt and couldn't get up.

That's something that anyone dealing with autistic people (especially kids) should keep in mind: their EXAGGERATED expression, could be their ways of trying to get noticed, when nobody noticed their subtle expressions, rather than a bid for baseless attention. I mean, if I had only a minor emotional or physical problem, my inclination was not to cry. However, nobody would notice me when I did subtler things, so I had to exaggerate just so somebody would see. THEN I got labeled as oversensitive, when before I exaggerated it was like I was totally invisible, and nobody would act as if I was even there. This has been going on at least since I was six.

That is similar for my husband as well.  He has now made more exaggerated gestures for many things, but he says he does it because it distracts from his more awkward gestures that people notice.  He said he would much rather be noticed because of an intentional gesture which he knows he made rather than an unintentional one that he did not know he made at all.  

atypical, I think you are taking this to a much different place than it was intended.  

My point was that the Autistic and Aspie community have had repeated issues with people assuming that you could tell what they were thinking and how they were feeling by their facial expression and body language.  When I read that you were making an assumption about how people were feeling, it brought to mind that this is a common misconception, and one that we really need to fight as a community.

None of us can read the minds of others and how they are feeling.  Many of the people of this community (my family included) have had repeated issues in life because of being misread by people who assumed that they could tell exactly what they were feeling by their facial expressions and body language.  I feel that it is important that we do not make that mistake, as I think it is a disservice to everyone.  

I am sorry that you took it so personally.

It is possible, but just as she saw it, and none of us are objective.  We all see things how we want to.  As she said in one of her posts, she chooses to see the best in everyone.  She saw it from her vantage point, which was one where she chose to see it a certain way.  

That is why eye-witnesses of a crime never tell the same story.  None of us can observe all of the subtle things about how people are acting, how they feel.  We all see things differently and should not judge how other people are feeling.  

To be honest, I sometimes have that effect on the townfolk...

A great statement indeed. There was a case made in the 1950s called Brown v. Board of Education. A lawyer said "separate facilities are inherently unequal." I also admire your courage in telling people that you are autistic. Personally, I'm in the closet about it with people that I know in school. This is because they perpetuate crap about autistics being "diseased." Sometimes, I go to bed crying because of what they say to me. I hope that God will give me the same courage that he has given you.