4 ms·
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 i
by 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.
- zepto 5y agoCan we? Why did you feel the need to correct me on what was happening? Does it make the discussion more substantive?
- Twisol 5y agoIt's painful to see such frustration between people who are all trying to make themselves understood. I hoped you would be relieved with the possibility that you weren't being personally attacked. I don't really care whether you're correct or not; I care that you are heard.
- zepto 5y agoOk - I appreciate that motivation and believe you. The impact however was the opposite, since it just seemed like an attempt to contradict my perceptions. I also felt less heard since most of my comment wasn’t even about the ‘call out’ part, and for me that was over once Dan clarified his intentions. Note that Dan acknowledged that the author might be being defensive.
- Twisol 5y ago> I also feel less heard since most of my comment wasn’t even about the ‘call out’ part I totally get that. Not to belabor the point, but I think the original author probably feels much the same about some of the other criticisms being shared on HN. It's hard to engage with a whole work when there are particular highlights that hit you the wrong way. I'd like to hope that a shared understanding of what "call out" might mean will help everybody move past it to appreciate the rest of what you're trying to share. > The impact however was the opposite, since it just seemed like an attempt to contradict my perceptions. I'll take that on board; I'm still on my own personal journey of relating to people effectively.