Is It Really Cosplay Harassment? Or Just Neuroatypical Behavior?

[the_real_seebs]

You accused me of being neurotypical, of having uncontrollable emotions autistic people don't have, of being genocidal.

Well, you are, by definition, genocidal. Also, your posts strongly imply that you are neurotypical, and if you are indeed autistic, your position is self-contradictory; no one should be listening to you, by your own argument, which asserts that autistic people shouldn't be listened to.

If your claims about autism were correct, and you were autistic, your own arguments would be just as invalid as you claim anyone else's are.

You've also consistently misrepresented what I said, built enough straw men to make a zombie ripoff of the Family of Blood, tried to imitate the usual group exclusion techniques you undoubtedly have faced dozens of times. Only you don't have a group, and since you're autistic, your attempts are at best clumsy.

This is a fascinating set of assertions, but I don't think it's true. I haven't been imitating group exclusion techniques. You've been reading stuff into what I wrote, and lots of it.

You also called me someone who deflects because I'm emotionally invested in winning the argument, something autistic people evidently don't do.

No, I called you someone who deflects because I observed you deflecting. I don't care why you do it.

Most of your problems don't have their roots in your autism, they have their roots in you being an angry child.

You keep asserting that everyone arguing with you is "young" or a "child", and I don't see a basis for this.

However, I am a cautious sort, and have indeed been showing the thread to other people for second opinions in case I'm missing something, and the answer appears to be "no, I'm not, that guy is just really mad about something".

 

[JoJo]

So is the brain off-limits when it comes to things that are broken or can be fixed? Is only the body allowed to be healed, because the body "isn't you"?

Why isn't that a part of who you are? Why aren't you defined by your gluten allergy, and why hasn't your very identity been shaped by not being able to eat gluten? Haven't you made great friends and formed strong bonds in the gluten-free aisle of the supermarket? Hasn't your dietary caution bled over to other areas in your life, causing you to be more mindful of others? Why, removing this from you could change a whole bunch of things about your personality and alter your whole way of thinking!

Yes, I'm doing the same bit to demonstrate that you can make the same case about anything. Who can really say what defines you?

While it's true everything you experience effects you to some degree or another, I can't say having to avoid certain types of food is really comparable to having a completely different mindset from neurotypicals as is the case with autism. I mean, I've experienced both so it's quite obvious from this perspective.

That's an interesting philosophical question you pose about brains, I'm okay in principle with brain alternations that go ahead with the patient's informed consent. The main concern I have about a "cure" for autism is that it would be applied by neurotypical parents to small children, or even in-utero, or through selection abortion, effectively preventing any autistic people from ever getting to choice of whether to stay this way or not.

Can we stop talking like we're going to kill people off?

No-one here is talking about killing people off. We're talking about soft eugenics.

 

[the_real_seebs]

I would consider "soft eugenics" to still be meaningfully "killing people off". Extinction is extinction, it doesn't matter how violently or peacefully individuals die.

 

[JoJo]

I would consider "soft eugenics" to still be meaningfully "killing people off". Extinction is extinction, it doesn't matter how violently or peacefully individuals die.

Well, it's slightly preferable to being literally murdered, I didn't want Houseman to get the wrong idea about what we're talking about. But you're right it has the same effect on the population in the end. Fingers-crossed it never happens!

 

[the_real_seebs]

I'm now pondering. If insanelich really is autistic, then:

1. By his own arguments, he's unaware of his own emotions (so all his claims about whether or not he is emotional are irrelevant; he wouldn't know).
2. He's never learned anything about autism "from autism sufferers", but that means he's rejecting his own experiences as invalid.
3. Except when he wants to try to use them to win an argument, then suddenly his experiences, which he's not discussed previously, count.

But it is plausible-ish, I think, because I've totally met people with that kind of ingrained self-hatred about their autism, usually because their parents or teachers or whoever told them a lot of horrible things. But mostly we get over it once we get into a healthier environment.

What's mostly interesting is just that he appears totally unaware that, if we take his claims about autism seriously, we have to reject his posts entirely, because he's asserted at great length that nothing said by any autistic person can have merit. It's really weird, and I hope he gets that sorted out sooner or later.

 

[Megafire]

I am also an autistic person. I am quite happy being autistic. I can function normally in life, I am perfectly capable of creating and maintaining friendships with a wide variety of people, autistic and non-autistic alike, and most of the people I hang out with seem to enjoy my slightly odd perspective and often find it quite useful when they are making decisions themselves. I have functioned as a sort of impromptu relationship therapist at various points in my life and have been serving as an amateur psychologist in an IRC channel (this mostly consisted of offering suggestions to stabilise the situation and strong recommendations to go see actual professionals).

When someone tells me I am 'defective', or that my life is somehow 'a great tragedy' that needs to be fixed if at all possible, I am afraid I have to consider your view of me to be awfully condescending and, honestly, it sounds like you consider me less than human. Now, this does not necessarily bother me, because you are a person on the internet and your words and ideas are remarkably unlikely to affect my life directly, but it does mean I am not likely to see you as my friend, or, indeed, as someone even remotely on my side when it comes to autistic representation on a legal or societal level.

Unrelated, Seebs, you mentioned how autistics are better at picking up social cues through text and, hot damn, I am really glad to see I am not the only one to come to that conclusion and, in fact, my understanding of social cues through the words used really helped me understand nuances in spoken interactions.

I remember, quite vividly, during my social skills training, I was shown a video of a teacher saying the same thing in different tones of voice to imply different meanings behind the words, and all I could think was 'yes, but if I was feeling that emotion in that situation, I would never use those words to express it'. It was meant to illustrate how tone of voice and facial expressions and body language made up 90% (or some arbitrarily large percentage; I don't remember the exact number) of all social interactions, and all it's done is convince me that the people who try to push that are full of shit and don't actually know how much they tell others simply through the words they use.

 

[the_real_seebs]

One of the big realizations is that a lot of what people pick up from those cues isn't reliable. So I've learned gradually to watch for signs that non-autistics are misreading non-verbal cues, so I can point out that they missed a thing, because this helps reduce drama.

I think the important point here is that autism isn't all one thing. You can't "eliminate autism from the face of the Earth" without eliminating all of the autism, and since a lot of autistics appear to be happy and add value to the world that non-autistics can't offer, it seems like it would be a rather drastic change to make.

I'd feel the same way about eliminating non-autistics, I note. I mean, yeah, on the whole I think that a lot of their traits are pretty harmful, but they are still happy and they can do some things I can't, and variety is good for the world.

People who are old enough to remember what things were like last century might find it instructive to compare a bit with homosexuality. When I was a kid, most of the gay people I knew "hated" being gay, because being gay meant that you could never have a relationship that society would respect or give rights to, it meant a really high chance of your family disowning you, and so on. Now, most of the gay people I know have no interest at all in changing, not because being-gay changed, but because society became more accommodating.

 

[Megafire]

One of the big realizations is that a lot of what people pick up from those cues isn't reliable. So I've learned gradually to watch for signs that non-autistics are misreading non-verbal cues, so I can point out that they missed a thing, because this helps reduce drama.

Oh my god, yes. I tend to hang out with fairly intelligent people, by and large, and they can do a lot of this themselves, but a lot of the time I can see a misunderstanding starting to form. A quick 'I think X actually meant to say [this], right?' fixes that problem remarkably fast.

Anyway, yes, I like being autistic, and I also like hearing the perspectives of non-autistics, especially those who have learned to explain their own perspectives and emotions, and, by and large, I notice they are more assertive than I am, and that's not something I want to see disappear, either.

 

[the_real_seebs]

Yeah. As with a lot of cognitive traits, a diverse population is much more effective than a monoculture.

 

[silver wolf009]

This is a huge change in your position, though, because what you previously said was that it would be good to completely and totally eradicate all autism everywhere.

~snip~

No word about disease in my simple dictionary check.

...

Please stop talking about autism altogether.
Also, your lack of knowledge about dictionary definitions is disappointing. And that doesn't include the fact that you should look at a diagnostic manual and not at a dictionary for a good definition.

Autism is an incorrectly functioning system of the body.

I am aware there's a widespread movement to try to redefine autism as a different shade of normal. There's also a widespread movement blaming vaccinations for autism.

I would advocate for curing autistic people, except there's no cure.

Snip

Snip

Prevention of autistic people being born may happen in the future, I accept that, but I feel it would be a great loss for humanity. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a weakness. I don't want to Godwin this because I know you mean well, but can you understand how uncomfortable talk of "cures" makes us feel? It's not pleasant being a member of a tiny powerless minority group and having members of the overwhelming majority talking openly about how it would be a great achievement if everyone like us was wiped from the face of the Earth.

Sweet Jesus on a sesame seed bun, people! Can we stop and get the distinction between advocating for the elimination of a medical disorder and advocating for the elimination of human beings?

Repeating it won't change the fact that absolutely no one here is saying you should be lined up along a wall in terms of tallest to shortest and shot one by one.

 

[JoJo]

This is a huge change in your position, though, because what you previously said was that it would be good to completely and totally eradicate all autism everywhere.

~snip~

No word about disease in my simple dictionary check.

...

Please stop talking about autism altogether.
Also, your lack of knowledge about dictionary definitions is disappointing. And that doesn't include the fact that you should look at a diagnostic manual and not at a dictionary for a good definition.

Autism is an incorrectly functioning system of the body.

I am aware there's a widespread movement to try to redefine autism as a different shade of normal. There's also a widespread movement blaming vaccinations for autism.

I would advocate for curing autistic people, except there's no cure.

Snip

Snip

Prevention of autistic people being born may happen in the future, I accept that, but I feel it would be a great loss for humanity. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a weakness. I don't want to Godwin this because I know you mean well, but can you understand how uncomfortable talk of "cures" makes us feel? It's not pleasant being a member of a tiny powerless minority group and having members of the overwhelming majority talking openly about how it would be a great achievement if everyone like us was wiped from the face of the Earth.

Sweet Jesus on a sesame seed bun, people! Can we stop and get the distinction between advocating for the elimination of a medical disorder and advocating for the elimination of human beings?

Repeating it won't change the fact that absolutely no one here is saying you should be lined up along a wall in terms of tallest to shortest and shot one by one.

See my response to Houseman, no-one here is claiming that anyone on this site is advocating for actual murder. We're talking about eugenics with the intention of phasing autistic people out of existence.

 

[the_real_seebs]

Sweet Jesus on a sesame seed bun, people! Can we stop and get the distinction between advocating for the elimination of a medical disorder and advocating for the elimination of human beings?

Repeating it won't change the fact that absolutely no one here is saying you should be lined up along a wall in terms of tallest to shortest and shot one by one.

This is a counter that has been previously advanced, and already rebutted. Do you really think that preventing people from being born, or preventing them from having a given trait, changes things much? Yes, no individual person is shot, but extinction is extinction.

You are advocating the removal of a category of persons from the species. That's genocide, pure and simple. Doesn't matter whether you do it through shooting, or involuntary sterilization, or "prenatal screenings", or whatever else; you're still taking action with intent to prevent certain people from existing in the future.

So this isn't a real misunderstanding. No one thought you were advocating shooting people. It's just that we can think ahead to outcomes, and if two different courses of action both have the result "there are no autistic people, anywhere, ever", then I don't think I care much whether one of them is guns and the other is whatever eugenics program you favor, whether it be abortions or involuntary sterilization or whatever else.

And it feels a bit disingenuous to me that you asked about things that autistic people would experience or do that would be of value to them, or of value to society, then ignored it when you got an answer, to focus on a misunderstanding that isn't actually happening. You asked why I think human society is better off for having autistic members, I answered. Jumping back to a non-topic seems like a strange strategy.

 

[insanelich]

But it is plausible-ish, I think, because I've totally met people with that kind of ingrained self-hatred about their autism, usually because their parents or teachers or whoever told them a lot of horrible things. But mostly we get over it once we get into a healthier environment.

Just a note here: I don't hate myself. I hate my disease. I am not my disease.

You're still in the phase of autism where you haven't accepted it.

It's not a superhero power. It's not magic. It's a disease.

It doesn't have these mystical advantages you would so desperately believe it does. Anyone can learn the cognitive tricks growing up as autistic often results in. It's a congenital defect, one we can hopefully soon eliminate.

And claiming otherwise is bargaining. It's there alongside depression, anger and denial.

I accept my autism. It's going to result in a lot of challenges to overcome, which means there's some things I can never really do. Attending a convention is a bad idea, because I'd just get sensory overload.

I didn't learn about autism from autistic people, because autistic people cannot approach their own disability with a neutral attitude and no emotions. The ones that think they do merely don't realize the extent of their alexithymia yet. Not one. Certainly not me.

You're here, you're rambling on so far nobody but other autistic people - motivated by either anger or pity - are caring about the contents of your posts anymore.

And you'll be stuck doing that until you learn how to control your emotions - your actual emotions.

I should know.

 

[the_real_seebs]

Just a note here: I don't hate myself. I hate my disease. I am not my disease.

You're still in the phase of autism where you haven't accepted it.

That's an interesting theory. You are positing a system wherein there are phases of progression; do you have evidence for this? Do you have evidence that yours is the last phase, or at least later than mine?

It's not a superhero power. It's not magic. It's a disease.

It doesn't have these mystical advantages you would so desperately believe it does. Anyone can learn the cognitive tricks growing up as autistic often results in. It's a congenital defect, one we can hopefully soon eliminate.

This claim is inconsistent with the current state of research in the field. There's no particular evidence that these are just "cognitive tricks", or that anyone can necessarily learn them.

And claiming otherwise is bargaining. It's there alongside depression, anger and denial.

That's a pretty strong claim. There's been a lot of research on these topics, which you apparently don't pay attention to, but you somehow have full and total knowledge? You know, not only that there aren't known advantages now, but that there will never be new advantages discovered? That's... Amazing, really, because most of us can't predict the future like that. On the other hand, in the world where published research is an actual thing, there's some pretty good evidence of actual cognitive advantages.

I accept my autism. It's going to result in a lot of challenges to overcome, which means there's some things I can never really do. Attending a convention is a bad idea, because I'd just get sensory overload.

Hmm. See, this is where I think you might benefit from listening to other people who have more actual experience than you do. I've gone to a lot of conventions. Like, 20+. I know what happens when I am at conventions. I know what kinds of things are good ideas, and bad ideas. And I have a lot of fun at conventions!

This ties back into your constant assertions that anyone who disagrees with you is a "young" autistic, or an "angry child". What if we're not all young? What if we're actually more experienced, and are talking about things based on our actual experience? Because you've stated explicitly that you do not, ever, learn things about autism from other people who are autistic. "I'd just get sensory overload" is a phrase that strongly implies that you've never actually tried going to a convention. So your basis for claiming that you'd "just get sensory overload" is third-hand accounts only; no actual experience, no actual direct reports from autistic people who have tried it. You're going off what non-autistic people have told you.

And given that the non-autistic people have also convinced you that autistics are universally and totally incapable of sensing their own emotional states, and it takes less than five minutes of research to prove that one wrong, it seems to me that you're basing your opinions on very unreliable sources.

I didn't learn about autism from autistic people, because autistic people cannot approach their own disability with a neutral attitude and no emotions. The ones that think they do merely don't realize the extent of their alexithymia yet. Not one. Certainly not me.

Learning about things with "a neutral attitude and no emotions" is not necessarily the best way to learn about them. Especially when the topic includes whether or not people can be happy or fulfilled living a given way!

You're here, you're rambling on so far nobody but other autistic people - motivated by either anger or pity - are caring about the contents of your posts anymore.

What makes you think I necessarily care about this? I have met other people who had your attitude before. I've often talked them through how to deal with their experiences in a way that helps them be happier and less dependent on the belief that they'll maybe someday be cured. And that means that even if it's just some autistic people reading the posts, the posts may well achieve a thing I care about.

This line of argument is really interesting, though, because you're very status-conscious, and it seems to upset you when other people decide not to be. Sounds to me like you've been being taught about how important it is to be status-conscious, and you've taken it to heart, but I don't buy it, so I don't care. You seem really focused on it, though; same issue as with your obviously false claim that no one who had credentials would mention them in an argument on the Internet.

And you'll be stuck doing that until you learn how to control your emotions - your actual emotions.

I should know.

You haven't exactly convinced me here, possibly because you've offered no actual support for the claims. I did, long ago, try to "control" my emotions. Back when I was a teenager. I thought that controlling my emotions and being "rational" and "dispassionate" would Solve All My Problems. Then I discovered that it didn't.

I've not met many people who claim to be "controlling" their emotions who are so much controlling as their emotions, as controlling their awareness of them. Not really useful, honestly. More useful is letting the emotions be what they are, and controlling how you react to them...

 

[Megafire]

Just a note here: I don't hate myself. I hate my disease. I am not my disease.

You're still in the phase of autism where you haven't accepted it.

It's not a superhero power. It's not magic. It's a disease.

Autism is not a disease, and I am not sure why you are so dead-set on treating it like it is. I suppose I could call it an affliction, in my case, but 'disease' is definitely not a term I would use to describe a core part of me. That would imply a sort of self-hatred I just do not have.

I would also appreciate it if you stopped pretending to understand the experiences of other autistic people, or present yourself as an authority on the topic of autistic people's experiences when, by your own admission, you do not actually listen to autistic people when they explain their feelings, you just automatically dismiss them for not being as far along whatever psychological track you have already completed.

Why do you think dismissing the opinions of people who disagree with you like that will help them at all? Or do you refuse to listen because it allows you to maintain your own view of autism as a universal detriment?

It doesn't have these mystical advantages you would so desperately believe it does. Anyone can learn the cognitive tricks growing up as autistic often results in. It's a congenital defect, one we can hopefully soon eliminate.

It does not have mystical advantages, no. It has very tangible advantages that you seem entirely unwilling to acknowledge for... no real reason? I genuinely do not understand why you want to portray yourself as such a victim of your affliction.

Even if I were to accept your claim that 'anyone can learn the cognitive tricks' (and I do not), then you still have not shown that non-autistics can learn them as easily as autistics can, or that they will, even if they could. Just because you could learn to become a pianist just as much as anyone else, doesn't suddenly make a pianist any less good at being a pianist. People are different, they specialise differently, and a certain subset of autistics (including, apparently, Seebs and myself) find it easy to specialise in a certain direction. This is a good thing! People finding certain things easier than other people is what allows a free society to function. It's a thing called 'diversity' and it is very important in a society built on division of labour.

And claiming otherwise is bargaining. It's there alongside depression, anger and denial.

And you seem to be stuck in depression.

But, even if I were to accept this attempt to undermine my emotions and make me feel bad about my ideas and arguments, you still are not actually addressing anything Seebs or myself has said. Even if what you say here is true, using it in an attempt to shut down our arguments without actually addressing them does not actually make people take your words to heart and change their mind.

It does shut a certain kind of person up because you've made them feel bad, though. Generally, we consider this 'being a jerk'.

I accept my autism. It's going to result in a lot of challenges to overcome, which means there's some things I can never really do. Attending a convention is a bad idea, because I'd just get sensory overload.

This is how I feel about concerts, but I have attended a con or two. Quite enjoyed myself. The key turned out to be having people around me whom I knew and could focus on.

But, based on everything you've said thus far, I sincerely doubt you 'accept your autism'. It's a hollow statement given how negative you have been about it, thus far. If anything, Seebs and myself seem to have reached 'Acceptance' to a far greater extent than you, if we consider your psychological progress track here, while you are still stuck in 'Depression'.

I didn't learn about autism from autistic people, because autistic people cannot approach their own disability with a neutral attitude and no emotions. The ones that think they do merely don't realize the extent of their alexithymia yet. Not one. Certainly not me.

And you'll be stuck doing that until you learn how to control your emotions - your actual emotions.

I should know.

Again, undermining people's emotions to sabotage their own feeling of self-worth, instead of addressing the actual arguments. You also continue making a lot of assumptions about our intentions and emotions. Why do you think you have a better understanding of my emotional state than I do when, by your own admission, as an autistic person, you should not be able to do that?

You seem to be under the impression that your own understanding of autism or, by your own admission, your lack of understanding of autism, is shared by all autistic people. I do not know how you manage to consider yourself an authority on the topic while, at the same time, denying that any autistic person being an authority on the topic is even possible. It's honestly rather impressive.

We are not all like you. You are not the epitome of all autistics. You do not speak for all of us. If you want to have your opinion disregarded as a matter of course in the conversation about autism, I am not going to stop you, but I would like to ask that you do not drag the rest of us down with you.

You're here, you're rambling on so far nobody but other autistic people - motivated by either anger or pity - are caring about the contents of your posts anymore.

I am going to be kind and ignore the attempt at stating my motivations for me, but... and? Why would it be a bad thing if only other autistic people are still listening in a conversation that's about them? Are autistic people not worth addressing to you?

 

[insanelich]

We are not all like you. You are not the epitome of all autistics. You do not speak for all of us. If you want to have your opinion disregarded as a matter of course in the conversation about autism, I am not going to stop you, but I would like to ask that you do not drag the rest of us down with you.

There's no conversation to be had among the stars, only wailing and gnashing of teeth and the laughter of Cassandra.

I'm not trying to convince you, because you cannot be convinced. You will misrepresent my argument until it's something you can vehemently deny. You will continue to be angry and ignore everything I say. I can't blame you for it though.

You'll figure it out when you get older. Fire's a phase.

Though, if I could do it all over again, I sure wouldn't be spending Fire online or playing video games when tabletop games are an option.

 

[the_real_seebs]

There's no conversation to be had among the stars, only wailing and gnashing of teeth and the laughter of Cassandra.

I'm not trying to convince you, because you cannot be convinced. You will misrepresent my argument until it's something you can vehemently deny. You will continue to be angry and ignore everything I say. I can't blame you for it though.

Hmm. Okay, so let's say an independent observer comes along, and sees you posting, and sees me posting. And I say you are angry and are ignoring everything I say, and you say I am angry and am ignoring everything you say. Is there any way they could determine which of these claims is more accurate, or whether it's both of them?

For instance, you've made a number of specific factual claims, which I've pointed out fail to align with actual specific research done in the field. I don't feel it's accurate to claim that I'm ignoring everything you say. On the other hand, I've yet to see a single concrete response from you to any of the fact claims, just a lot of hand-waving. Heck, you keep talking down to other posters and asserting that they're "young", but you haven't even said exactly how young you think they are, or how old you are.

You'll figure it out when you get older. Fire's a phase.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as "Fire" here. I mean, "a phase", sure. But what makes you so sure that you are correctly identifying this "phase" in other people? You've stated that you do not believe autistic people are capable of such things, and that you are autistic. In which case, you can't do that. So why are you making the claim?

Though, if I could do it all over again, I sure wouldn't be spending Fire online or playing video games when tabletop games are an option.

This claim makes even less sense. If you're picking this terminology up from somewhere, could you suggest where? Also, what makes you assume tabletop games "are an option"? For that matter, what makes you assume people aren't also playing tabletop games?

This has just gotten weirder and weirder as you've backed into a corner and contradicted yourself.

 

[Megafire]

I'm not sure what you are referring to as "Fire" here. I mean, "a phase", sure. But what makes you so sure that you are correctly identifying this "phase" in other people? You've stated that you do not believe autistic people are capable of such things, and that you are autistic. In which case, you can't do that. So why are you making the claim?

Though, if I could do it all over again, I sure wouldn't be spending Fire online or playing video games when tabletop games are an option.

This claim makes even less sense. If you're picking this terminology up from somewhere, could you suggest where? Also, what makes you assume tabletop games "are an option"? For that matter, what makes you assume people aren't also playing tabletop games?

This has just gotten weirder and weirder as you've backed into a corner and contradicted yourself.

I believe he may have picked up 'fire' from the last part of my screen name, and connected it to the anger he imagines I feel and have expressed throughout this conversation. Am I correct in this assumption, insanelich?

 

[insanelich]

I believe he may have picked up 'fire' from the last part of my screen name, and connected it to the anger he imagines I feel and have expressed throughout this conversation. Am I correct in this assumption, insanelich?

... hah, no.

It's referring to "that fire", the source of the most insufferable of autistic behavior imaginable, the conviction that you're right and even if you aren't, your rationality makes you accept being wrong gracefully, and therefore if you're still arguing you must be right. And also text walls. The term comes from a strangely consistent way of describing it.

I've not contradicted myself, because I've kept my arguments short and to the point of "all of this is for naught". Yeah, yeah, I know, over-thinking shit is part and parcel.

(Also, y'know, I don't know if tabletop games are an option, but if I was able to give advice to my younger self... I wouldn't, because it's pointless.)

 

[Megafire]

It's referring to "that fire", the source of the most insufferable of autistic behavior imaginable, the conviction that you're right and even if you aren't, your rationality makes you accept being wrong gracefully, and therefore if you're still arguing you must be right. And also text walls. The term comes from a strangely consistent way of describing it.

Huh. I haven't heard that term used in that context before. Interesting. Could you tell me where you picked it up? I'd like to learn more about this strangely consistent way of describing it.

I mean, you've already stated you have no interest in convincing people that you're right, instead relying on the old condescending 'you'll learn when you're older' shtick, which, really, is the last line of defence for people who really do not actually have anything to support their position.

As for 'insufferable', that's just, like, your opinion, man. You clearly find us both annoying, but blaming us for your inability and, indeed, unwillingness to convince us of your point of view is not exactly doing you any favours. Of course I believe I am correct, that is why I am arguing for my position, and, of course, I try to accept being wrong as gracefully as possible, because that is generally a good way to go about having a discussion. The conclusion you come to, namely 'therefore if you're still arguing you must be right' does not even follow from your premises. The fact that I am still arguing with you does not make me right, it means neither of us has convinced the other. That is what an argument is.

I am not sure what text walls have to do with it, though. Is the fact that I am trying to explain my position somehow bothersome?

I've not contradicted myself, because I've kept my arguments short and to the point of "all of this is for naught". Yeah, yeah, I know, over-thinking shit is part and parcel.

Your original argument was that autistics cannot be authorities on autism, because they are biased to the point where they are not able to reasonably evaluate their own emotions regarding autism.

When asked to prove that particular claim, you revealed that you were autistic. Now, that either has nothing to do with your original argument, or you were trying to present yourself as an authority on the subject when your entire argument is that you cannot be an authority on the subject. Do you not see this?

By your own argument, everyone should immediately dismiss your thoughts on the topic.

When you were called out on this, you tried to appear superiour by calling everyone who disagreed with you 'young' and 'stuck in the Bargaining phase' in attempt to invalidate their arguments by making yourself look wiser and more experienced (this is what Seebs meant by 'status signalling'), which, again, according to your own argument, you cannot be.

When called out on that, you did your best to talk about anything other than your own argument, even suggesting we are the ones who cannot be convinced, trying to make us look bad and feel bad about our own perspective in an attempt to shut us up.

And now that that hasn't worked, you're trying to pretend this whole conversation does not matter to you in the slightest and we're being silly for even wanting to have it.

(Also, y'know, I don't know if tabletop games are an option, but if I was able to give advice to my younger self... I wouldn't, because it's pointless.)

Completely irrelevant gibberish in an attempt to talk about something completely different. Stick to the argument, please.

In fact, I'll make it easy for you:

Do you believe autistics can and do have valid perspectives on autism?