3 ms·

If that comment is intended as a ‘call out’ then it’s not going to receive a response. This site is not for ideological bullying. I wonder if Dan meant it tha

by zepto 5y ago

If that comment is intended as a ‘call out’ then it’s not going to receive a response. This site is not for ideological bullying. I wonder if Dan meant it that way, or whether he was just engaging in the discussion normally? As you are the author of the piece, I’d expect more from you. Call out culture and ganging up has no place in autistic advocacy for reasons that should be obvious. This is also behavior that I do not see on this site in general. I suggest checking in to see whether you are in touch with the double empathy problem if you can’t engage with a bluntly stated opinion for what it is. Whether or not there is room for disagreement over the impact of the word “ambassador”, or for that matter claiming to represent a “culture”, there is no room for this kind of tactic. From this response, it looks to me like you in fact do see yourself as a specially correct voice in this, and not just someone with a point of view which might be disagreed with.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- zepto 5y ago
danShumway 5y ago
> I wonder if Dan meant it that way? I did not intend the comment to bully, it was an honest attempt to see if there's a disagreement beyond some specific wording. I did mean it to specify that it's obvious to me that the author is not trying to speak for all autistic people, and that words like "ambassador" and language like "we"/"us" are being read in a very narrow way that doesn't line up with the the overall piece. I do understand the author being defensive after multiple people have called them paternalistic and claimed that they are actually trying to be prescriptive or to group autistic communities together into a single voice. I also understand people being upset about seeing that viewpoint in the article, because it would be an upsetting viewpoint if the author actually held it. But... as far as I can tell, they don't. I think it would be profitable to clarify what the actual issue is. Is the issue that the author is advocating for a harmful idea? Is the issue a specific kind of wording that rubs people the wrong way or that is ambiguous? Is the claim that the author is lying and that they do mean to paint everyone with same brush? Is that they're too rude and that they're unfamiliar with HN guidelines when they respond to people who say that they're trying to be paternalistic? What are people actually arguing about here? There is a lot of fighting going on and there are a lot of rising tensions about an idea that the author doesn't hold. I don't know what people will hear or internalize if I use the phrase "call out", but I am doing whatever the respectful equivalent is of calling out that the author very clearly to me is not trying to force everyone into the same box or claim to speak for everyone. Past that, conversations about phrasing are fine, but at the point where you have the author themself on this page telling people that they don't speak for everyone who is autistic, why are we still arguing about whether they think they do? Can we move past that to whatever the grievance actually is?
- zepto 5y ago
  Well for one thing, I didn’t see you use the phrase ‘call out’. That was the author. I thought your comment was quite reasonable, but as soon as they jumped in to characterize it as a ‘call out’, it became something else. If they want to be defensive in a response to me, I can respond to that. If a group of people get together to ‘call something out’, that’s very different. We can move past it, but we can’t ignore the behavior, which is not typical for HN. As for the use of the phrase “Ambassador of that culture”, I do still have strong objections to it. It comes way earlier in the document than the later qualification, and I am not of the view that the equivocation renders it moot. The entire piece is about taking care with how one communicates about autism, and who gets to represent it. It’s not surprising that the way it does so is under scrutiny. The word ambassador isn’t the only word in that phrase. The word ‘culture’ is also there. There is certainly an implication of two cultures in play. The later part talks about a diversity of autistic voices of which the author is only one, but that doesn’t eliminate the ‘two cultures’ idea that has already been introduced. The two cultures idea is definitely not universally held by autistic people. I suspect that this is at the root of a lot of the reactions.
  - Twisol 5y ago
    "a call-out" is a very distinct entity from "being called out". Nobody was calling you out; rather, Dan made a particular point that the author appreciated being raised.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > a call-out" is a very distinct entity from "being called out". Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on the context. This is atypical behavior for HN. > Nobody was calling you out; rather, Dan made a particular point that the author appreciated being raised. You don’t actually know this. It’s one viewpoint on what was happening.
      - Twisol 5y ago
        > You don’t actually know this. Then we can be overly confident together, without acrimony, in our readings of somebody else's words.

by zepto 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zepto 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

> I wonder if Dan meant it that way? I did not intend the comment to bully, it was an honest attempt to see if there's a disagreement beyond some specific wording. I did mean it to specify that it's obvious to me that the author is not trying to speak for all autistic people, and that words like "ambassador" and language like "we"/"us" are being read in a very narrow way that doesn't line up with the the overall piece. I do understand the author being defensive after multiple people have called them paternalistic and claimed that they are actually trying to be prescriptive or to group autistic communities together into a single voice. I also understand people being upset about seeing that viewpoint in the article, because it would be an upsetting viewpoint if the author actually held it. But... as far as I can tell, they don't. I think it would be profitable to clarify what the actual issue is. Is the issue that the author is advocating for a harmful idea? Is the issue a specific kind of wording that rubs people the wrong way or that is ambiguous? Is the claim that the author is lying and that they do mean to paint everyone with same brush? Is that they're too rude and that they're unfamiliar with HN guidelines when they respond to people who say that they're trying to be paternalistic? What are people actually arguing about here? There is a lot of fighting going on and there are a lot of rising tensions about an idea that the author doesn't hold. I don't know what people will hear or internalize if I use the phrase "call out", but I am doing whatever the respectful equivalent is of calling out that the author very clearly to me is not trying to force everyone into the same box or claim to speak for everyone. Past that, conversations about phrasing are fine, but at the point where you have the author themself on this page telling people that they don't speak for everyone who is autistic, why are we still arguing about whether they think they do? Can we move past that to whatever the grievance actually is?

zepto 5y ago
Well for one thing, I didn’t see you use the phrase ‘call out’. That was the author. I thought your comment was quite reasonable, but as soon as they jumped in to characterize it as a ‘call out’, it became something else. If they want to be defensive in a response to me, I can respond to that. If a group of people get together to ‘call something out’, that’s very different. We can move past it, but we can’t ignore the behavior, which is not typical for HN. As for the use of the phrase “Ambassador of that culture”, I do still have strong objections to it. It comes way earlier in the document than the later qualification, and I am not of the view that the equivocation renders it moot. The entire piece is about taking care with how one communicates about autism, and who gets to represent it. It’s not surprising that the way it does so is under scrutiny. The word ambassador isn’t the only word in that phrase. The word ‘culture’ is also there. There is certainly an implication of two cultures in play. The later part talks about a diversity of autistic voices of which the author is only one, but that doesn’t eliminate the ‘two cultures’ idea that has already been introduced. The two cultures idea is definitely not universally held by autistic people. I suspect that this is at the root of a lot of the reactions.
- Twisol 5y ago
  "a call-out" is a very distinct entity from "being called out". Nobody was calling you out; rather, Dan made a particular point that the author appreciated being raised.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > a call-out" is a very distinct entity from "being called out". Sometimes, sometimes not. It depends on the context. This is atypical behavior for HN. > Nobody was calling you out; rather, Dan made a particular point that the author appreciated being raised. You don’t actually know this. It’s one viewpoint on what was happening.
    - Twisol 5y ago
      > You don’t actually know this. Then we can be overly confident together, without acrimony, in our readings of somebody else's words.