3 ms·

Was he being sexist? Or was his detractors being ableist? I can't be sure whether Heinz lives on the autistic spectrum, but so many gifted intellectuals do, an

Was he being sexist? Or was his detractors being ableist? I can't be sure whether Heinz lives on the autistic spectrum, but so many gifted intellectuals do, and have real struggles with reading other people (let alone the crowd). It's ironic when loudmouths come out of the woodwork and call a socially-awkward ASD as 'tone-deaf', or just go ahead and use 'autistic' in the pejorative, often by 'well-intentioned' people fighting for some other brand of identity politics. It's hard to gauge whether the vitriol would be tempered if they knew they might be driving someone of great sensitivity to suicide, or if there truly is blood-lust driving this kind of collective outrage. In hindsight, it's pretty obvious he should not have been the public face of his own enterprise, but I hope one day we all learn to cut people a little slack.

whatshisface 8y ago
>Was he being sexist? Or was his detractors being ableist? Or option three, the entire thing was based on a mis-portrayal of an idea that might not have been that great to start with, but wasn't really wrong in a "we must bring justice" sense. This article, at least, makes the initial coverage seem pretty unfair. Most people in this thread, myself included, are tending to make this a discussion about spectrum disorders, but it's also worth remembering that this could happen to you or I if we ever end up in an unlucky combination of being off the well-beaten path, in violation of a social norm that is one of newly invented, not universal or applied retroactively, and receiving an uncharitable interpretation from the first person to write about us. The Public Death Squad can be called down on anyone, and having a natural propensity towards saying the wrong things only makes it more likely. It could also happen if you ever find yourself knowingly going against social norms because your goal is to change them.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  Furthermore, it's not like products that alter the smell of any body part are unheard of. So I'm definitely leaning towards a misportrayal. Outrage culture is dangerous and the people wielding this to do harm need to have some accountability.
- h0l0cube 8y ago
  The general gist of what I was trying to say, is that at the extremes, identity politics can easily come into conflict with itself, and somehow the humanity ends up caught in the cross fire. I also agree that there are much broader trends driving the issues.
banegames 8y ago
>Was he being sexist? Or were his detractors being ableist? Blame games won't help us understand what happened and how to prevent it. I think the shortest version of what happened is the linked article. You can't accurately summarize the issue into "sexism" or "ableism".
smsm42 8y ago
> Was he being sexist? Or was his detractors being ableist? No and no. He was just trying to describe pieces of his grand and overwhelming vision. The outrage generation machine that is the 99% of the press now seized on one of his comments, twisted in into something that can feed the outrage and run with it. Due to Heinz being particularly vulnerable, it had fatal consequences, which the outrage machine probably did not intend, but they definitely intend harm. It's like punching somebody - if situation turns unlucky, it may have fatal results, though usually it doesn't. But whatever is the result, the intent for harm is clear and inherent in the act of punching. Heinz was not targeted because of his vulnerability - he was targeted because he exists and that's what the outrage machine does - targeting people. Because of Heinz's vulnerability the consequences were more severe. But the outrage machine can target anybody. And the solution is not to figure out who is more vulnerable and dial down the outrage a little so that they don't kill themselves - the only solution is to dismantle the outrage machine.

whatshisface 8y ago

>Was he being sexist? Or was his detractors being ableist? Or option three, the entire thing was based on a mis-portrayal of an idea that might not have been that great to start with, but wasn't really wrong in a "we must bring justice" sense. This article, at least, makes the initial coverage seem pretty unfair. Most people in this thread, myself included, are tending to make this a discussion about spectrum disorders, but it's also worth remembering that this could happen to you or I if we ever end up in an unlucky combination of being off the well-beaten path, in violation of a social norm that is one of newly invented, not universal or applied retroactively, and receiving an uncharitable interpretation from the first person to write about us. The Public Death Squad can be called down on anyone, and having a natural propensity towards saying the wrong things only makes it more likely. It could also happen if you ever find yourself knowingly going against social norms because your goal is to change them.

Mirioron 8y ago
Furthermore, it's not like products that alter the smell of any body part are unheard of. So I'm definitely leaning towards a misportrayal. Outrage culture is dangerous and the people wielding this to do harm need to have some accountability.
h0l0cube 8y ago
The general gist of what I was trying to say, is that at the extremes, identity politics can easily come into conflict with itself, and somehow the humanity ends up caught in the cross fire. I also agree that there are much broader trends driving the issues.

banegames 8y ago

>Was he being sexist? Or were his detractors being ableist? Blame games won't help us understand what happened and how to prevent it. I think the shortest version of what happened is the linked article. You can't accurately summarize the issue into "sexism" or "ableism".

smsm42 8y ago

> Was he being sexist? Or was his detractors being ableist? No and no. He was just trying to describe pieces of his grand and overwhelming vision. The outrage generation machine that is the 99% of the press now seized on one of his comments, twisted in into something that can feed the outrage and run with it. Due to Heinz being particularly vulnerable, it had fatal consequences, which the outrage machine probably did not intend, but they definitely intend harm. It's like punching somebody - if situation turns unlucky, it may have fatal results, though usually it doesn't. But whatever is the result, the intent for harm is clear and inherent in the act of punching. Heinz was not targeted because of his vulnerability - he was targeted because he exists and that's what the outrage machine does - targeting people. Because of Heinz's vulnerability the consequences were more severe. But the outrage machine can target anybody. And the solution is not to figure out who is more vulnerable and dial down the outrage a little so that they don't kill themselves - the only solution is to dismantle the outrage machine.