Ah whatever.  I'm done arguing, now it's just silly.

my thoughts

Zachrates - put his idea forward as "another thought"

There is a third option - the option put forward by Zachrates - you can decide you don't really care what another person thinks about you. This is choice I often take - people can think what they like - some people don't have the power to influence my life. I can be happy in my own right - regardless of other peoples opinion.

somehow - I think both of you would agree with these the appropriateness of these options.

Maybe you both like to debate - in which case fair enough.

scuse incorrect wording.

Yes and no.

On a forum, for instance, I can just log off if everyone turns against me, or if no one seems to like me. So in this case, there is an option.

But I can't log off real life, and neither can anyone else. The underlying axiom here is that a real option should be bearable for the person. In many situations, continuing to go through harassment isn't bearable.

I see Zachrates has given up. Whether it is because he has nothing to offer or because it's "getting silly", he's failed to refute my last post. And it contains this important realization: in many, many situations, others' opinion of you or "people like you" determines how the situation turns out for you. And so long as you ignore their opinions on it, you're giving them the sole responsibility to chose. Zachrates would have it that caring what other people think is tantamount to giving them all power over you, but that's not so. So long as you don't get crippled by overthinking and oversacrificing in the name of conformity, you're empowering yourself. If gays hadn't cared what other people thought about homosexuality, the gay rights movement would have gone nowhere, and bigoted people would still set the norms and decide the official opinions about gay people. Same with women--if women's rights movements hadn't given a *** what preconceptions men had about women, women would still be unable to vote or work or be seen as full humans.

By being apathetic, you're also making a choice that has consequences, and often these consequences are the opposite of what Zachrates claims: instead of giving yourself over to other people's opinions, you're deciding you've had it with other people deciding over you.

And that's some advice anyone working to raise awareness of autism ought to take, instead of Zachrates's route, which will only perpetuate myths and misunderstandings.

Yes - in many situations going through harrassment isn't bearable - but in some situations deciding to accept there is nothing you can do to make someone like you - an option is to decide that the other persons opinion doesn't matter. Maybe not an easy option - but sometimes a beneficial one in that it can allow a feeling of peace.

In some situations there is nothing you can do to change someones mind - and caring too much what other people think of you - can allow their thoughts to have too much power over your state of mind.

Gays fought for justice and equality in society- as did women - their demand for equal civil rights drove their fight. I still come up against male chauvanists - I just think they are idiots. People with small minds. There are all sorts heirarchies in society - there will always be idiots.

Sometimes backing away from a fight and allowing other people to think whatever they want  is the only way to gain peace of mind and live with a bit of peace and self respect.

Sometimes it is right to fight - other times it is best to ignore people with prejudice. Sometimes it is okay to do your best to conform to fit with the norm.

Oh, I absolutely agree, Lucie.

If only I had worded my opinion like Lucie.  It's what I've been trying to say all along, and state how I personally deal with it.

Sorry I forgot to add this, damn no edit ><.

I just want to clarify some things.

Firstly, not once did I say to be oblivious, apathetic, or simply ignore all problems.  What I was implying is that you shouldn't let other's opinions have power over you.  Don't let other's opinions bring you down is essentially what I was saying.  I must have done a poor job explaining that, and I apologize.

Secondly, the reason I stopped arguing is because of the ongoing hypocrisy in your (And I'd concede to mine, as well) arguments.  You accuse me of assumption over and over again, by assuming you understand my point of view, which you clearly don't, expressed by your ongoing claims that I said you should be oblivious, and apathetic to all problems you have.  I'd also like to mention I have mentioned a few times that you should stand up for your rights, but apparently you decided to ignore it.  I'm not sure how Apathetic and standing up for your rights coincide but apparently on your world, they do.

Thirdly, on the topic of conformity, I never meant to explain that it's wrong to conform, nor that you're an uber conformist.  What I'm saying, or tried to say, is that it's fundamentally a *** thing in this world that we must hide who we really are to fit in, and that I strive not to allow that to have any affect on me, and just be myself.  I feel much better just saying "*** it" to anyone who doesn't like me, and doing whatever I want according to who I am.

Basically, I feel that other's opinions don't matter, because, you can always make yourself not care about the consequences.  I hope I'm explaining this right, since I seem to have a problem not getting my opinion out perfectly in words.  We can disagree on this thought, no problem, it's just pointless to continue arguing over a difference that can not be proven right or wrong.  It's just a difference in belief.  

Sorry for being a bit "Rough".  But it irritates me when people accuse me of something they do themselves.  This debate became stupid the moment we stopped arguing about the points, and started arguing about how each other was arguing.  That is why this is silly.  The bottom line is, I misused a word, you apparently took it way to personally, and then the debate became a personal argument.

P.S. I loved your explanation on why you called me an idiot.  Basically in a nut shell you said "I called him an idiot, because he's an idiot".  Way to be tolerant of other people's opinions.  

I'm not going to contribute to the argument again, but to explain my point of view, when obviously if I kept telling you "thats not what I said or meant" you didn't understand it (Whether it was my fault of yours).  Weren't you the one who explained to me that you shouldn't talk about stuff you don't know about?  Take your own advice please.

I love it when you say you're done arguing because it's become silly, and then procede to prolong the silliness.

Tolerance is so misunderstood. It's not tolerance to be dishonest when critiquing bullshit. And you repeatedly made your point -- you don't care what other people think of you. So what does it matter?

I've responded to everything you say in one form or another in my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself further.

Well, from my point of view - and no one has to care-
I think both Simen and Zachrates have made some good points. Lucie too.
Maybe we can get  back on track now, though it was an interesting debate in some ways and a couple of things jumped out at me:

Zachrates: feeling like saying "f**k it"  Simen: "No man is an island".
I like to keep things simple so this sums it up for me really.

I'm not arguing - it was a statement.

Yeah, critiquing, OK lol.

cri·tique  
1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.
4. to review or analyze critically.

Man, how could I confuse it with this:

Insult
–verb (used with object)
1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront.
2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean.
3. Archaic. to attack; assault.
–verb (used without object)
4. Archaic. to behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually fol. by on, upon, or over).
–noun
5. an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.

I'm not bothered you think I'm an idiot.  I'm responding because, I have more to say.  But hey, since you don't even know the difference in definition of a simple word, I'm just going to assume you know practically nothing, and skew all logic to fit your needs.  Your opinion doesn't matter to me, however it gives me great pleasure to offer proof of you're faulty, insolent, and childish logic.

I won't dignify that post with a reply. I'm not so insecure that I need to refute every ridiculous insult that comes my way.

Say, does anyone have anything more to say about the original topic?

This makes a lot of sense to me. It looks as if Zachrates' goal is personal expression and that is a perfectly acceptable aim to have in life.

I certainly don't believe in blind conformity ie. for the sake of it. I don't think that is what Simen is suggesting, but I doubt I could conform as much in life as he seems to be doing. It is not just a matter of not choosing to but being fundamentally unable to completely fit into the "norm".

Well, not really. I'm far from being normative. I'm a bit weird.

I just take issue with the idea that most people could, or should never conform.