I'm not sure what it is. But we are all weird so be nice, even if you don't understand it. Don't make me come back and remove mean comments. And I don't need anyone to reply trying to explain it to me.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
13 points (88.2% liked)
Autism
9709 readers
428 users here now
A community for respectful discussion and memes related to autism acceptance. All neurotypes are welcome.
Community:
Values
- Acceptance
- Openness
- Understanding
- Equality
- Reciprocity
- Mutuality
- Love
Rules
- No abusive, derogatory, or offensive post/comments e.g: racism, sexism, religious hatred, homophobia, gatekeeping, trolling.
- Posts do not need be related to autism, off-topic discussions are allowed. This is a safe space where people with autism can feel comfortable discussing whatever they feel like discussing, as long as it does not violate the standing rules.
- Your posts must include a text body. It doesn't have to be long, it just needs to be descriptive.
- Do not request donations.
- Be respectful in discussions.
- Do not post misinformation.
- Mark NSFW content accordingly.
- Do not promote Autism Speaks.
- General Lemmy World rules.
- No bots. Humans only.
Encouraged
- Open acceptance of all autism levels as a respectable neurotype.
- Funny memes.
- Respectful venting.
- Describe posts of pictures/memes using text in the body for our visually impaired users.
- Welcoming and accepting attitudes.
- Questions regarding autism.
- Questions on confusing situations.
- Seeking and sharing support.
- Engagement in our community's values.
- Expressing a difference of opinion without directly insulting another user.
- Please report questionable posts and let the mods deal with it.
.
Helpful Resources
- Are you seeking education, support groups, and more? Take a look at our list of helpful resources.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Huh? I said something mean? See, this is what I am talking about. You cannot give me a hard concrete fact, but you feel like I am attacking you. Type A. Neat and easy.
And I don’t need anyone to reply trying to explain it to me.
I usually operate under the following premise:
- "You don't get to tell me what I can say, because you of course wouldn't let me tell you what you say."
- "You don't get to tell me your feelings are my responsibility, because you don't care how treating me like that makes me feel."
Usually I see people not being consistent in applying the rules they hold others to themselves.
Any emotion or tone you are hearing is called Projection. I'm generally don't let others control my emotions anymore after I stopped naively assuming good faith as a default. Now I assume neutral is the default.
You did not say anything mean. I'm telling everyone else not to be mean to you. Don't make me remove my own comment. I HAVE NOT HAD ANY COFFEE YET!
Apologies, I often get yelled at, and of course tone on text, I'm sure it happens all the time heheheh
And def don't remove any comment, I think this conversation is very valuable modeling of good communication skills!
Yeah my mind is kinda weird, I don't really have much more than a quick ping of emotion to tell me a quick tone check, but otherwise I don't really take anything personally anymore.
Here's the wild thing. If you read what i said outloud and pretend to be a robot, you'll get the real me. But if you read it in your own voice, BAM, what does it sound like? So different right?
Masking and Mirroring!
And did you see how I confused what you said for something else? That MY projection back onto YOU! Crazy complex topics!
Yet we humans like to pretend oh its just talking. How often do we really actually check whether or not we're on the same page in a conversation?
What does your comment have to do with the Atlantic supply war during WW2? Or is your comment completely unrelated to it?
OH! It was obvious to me that the meme image was an example of what I was talking about. A Type A personality talking to a Type B personality. They think they are having a debate. They are both facing a wall blindfolded and earplugs.
But I guess that answers my question. It's not my autism, its how zoomed out I am in perspective (or that's the definition of my autism I suppose). I guess the way I look at the world is very unnatural to people, even neurodivergent people. Fascinating... Well, even if you still didn't get me, you helped me out, so thanks!
This whole idea relates to an abstract concept called Ontology. But that's discussed in the very thread already posted at the OP.
No, this is not obvious at all. It just come across as parachuting into a joke post that's getting attention and rambling about something completely off topic. Like if I spat out 3000 words about the market price of lobster in response to this post.
People can't hear your thoughts. If you don't include your priors or your thought triggers in the actual comment, you're just having a public conversation with yourself, in front of someone else's audience.
You say this as if the fact the human mind is always interpolating data isn't a known fact. That's why some people pick up on sarcasm and some don't. Some people ARE psychic to the extent that they can read cues that are invisible to people like me.
For example, the response to my comment struck me as an incredibly ableist statement.
But I'm betting the author would respond that it wasn't his intention at all.
And my reply to that would be, so it's my fault for not being psychic during my initial comment, AND my fault for not being psychic during the reply?
Hardly seems fair to me.
maybe knowing the origin of the meme helps but it's still a meme.
All people can miss obvious things, it isn't a personality type thing.
Well if you think of personalities as Stereotypes and not quantized states, you can make a Venn Diagram of 3 types of minds.
Venn Diagram:
Type A (near sighted) Type C (combined) Type B (far sighted):
If you are type A, you see the tree. You don't understand the concept of a forest. Sliding scale.
If you are type B, you see the big systems, and sometimes lose sight of the single tree in the forest. Sliding scale.
If you are type C, you have depth perception and can choose your frame of reference as the argument needs. Sliding scale.
That's how I see the concept I'm talking about. Do you still disagree with something I said in this comment?
I'm just not a fan of putting people in such strict stereotypes because people are not ridged like that. People are complex and breaking them down to a single point of difference ignores a lot about the person.
Can you come up with a hypothetical person that would serve as an example of someone who doesn't fit into that diagram? The only type I can think of is Type D - (neuro)Divergent, they reside outside the diagram.
people are not ridged
I already accounted for that. I said the lines separating them as grayscale boundaries. A sliding scale.
People are complex and breaking them down to a single point of difference ignores a lot about the person.
People are complex and breaking them down to a single point of difference ignores a lot about the person.
I agree. But you CAN break a complex thing into many simpler things, and simpler things into even simpler things, etc etc. Eventually you get down to a grain of sand. This is Ontology.
I would counter that this is a borderline impossible task, but likely the wrong question, as if you create a system that includes people who see the trees, people who see the forests, people who see both, and people who see neither (or, alternatively, people who see the whole equation fundamentally differently; the aforementioned neurodivergent category), then of course you’re going to include all of humanity. It’s like saying “there are twelve kinds of people: those born in January, those born in February, those born in March…”; true by definition, debatably useful due to the broadness of the categorization.
I’m still not entirely certain I understand the point you were making in the original post, so I can’t really comment on the validity of the point itself, but I am certainly familiar with the Type A/Type B categorizations, and I’ve never found it to be that useful, simply because a person is not static across the board. Someone can be biased by their own personal experience to view the world in contradictory ways on a per-issue basis. In my experience, very few people are truly “type A” or “type B” all the time, as the viewpoints are inherently subjective and humans are seldom perfectly logically consistent. Indeed, the people I find to be the most often internally consistent are those who are outside of the classification (neurodivergent). Speaking from a personal perspective, I’d guess it’s likely because there is often a lot of manual reasoning involved in adapting new information to worldview/behavior.
Yes, but then you limit the SCOPE and BOUNDS to just the topic of the conversation at hand! And then suddenly... it becomes a much simpler discussion. Because of the concept of Ontology, if the discussion is at the societal level, the facts have to be society level facts. If the argument is at the individual level, you use single examples and explore the possibilities that branch from the one case. But more often than not I see a right wing person talking about his lived experience using very poor wording and insufficient formulation, arguing with a left wing person who is talking in systemic realities and predictable reasoning, arguing that the generalized system applies perfectly uniformly to all people as if they were a monolith.
If I remember my old math and physics, it would look like the cross product of two vectors as the two conversations they are actually having, and the resultant reality of no actual understanding or communication took place.
AxB = M (the vector result representing the misunderstanding that occurred.)
EDIT:
I had an LLM translate my weirdo brain native tongue into normal words. I'll try and develop this skill now that I am aware of it.
Misunderstanding implies at least some form of understanding. I can't even misunderstand any of this.