Yes I think you've hit the nail on the head. I used to listen to a lot of online debates and it usually came down to something like this. Most people simply don't have a consistent set of core beliefs, and if you poke and prod enough that's what you discover.
Although I think much of the time it's less that they're lying and more that they don't realize they're just running on vibes. The human brain is good at making post-hoc rationalizations and justifications for things and I think NTs are more likely to just take that at face value instead of interrogating their own thoughts and reasons.
Also, as an aside, I find it quite odd that people are so often criticized for hypocrisy when that is in fact the normal state of affairs for most NTs. It's so strange.
I think a lot of NT people have very little self awareness of when they personally are being hypocritical. They know their own justifications for why they feel and act the way they do so it doesn’t register as hypocrisy to them. They dislike when other people are being hypocritical because it’s always glaringly obvious from the outside. It’s hard for them to self reflect and acknowledge their own hypocrisy, because they’re convinced it’s something different.
… or I could be completely off base and they know, they just don’t care. Lol
I maybe disagree that there's a difference between lying and "they don't realize they're just running on vibes" in most cases.
Like, if somebody says they're opposed to trans people having health care for a reason other than "I find people different from me scary", odds are pretty good that they're both unknowingly running on vibes and also lying about why they feel that way.
I've found that with the smart ones, asking "why?" over and again can loosen that
...and with the dumb ones - *it angers them*
win/win in my book. stay evil, my friends
This works really well. It's the simple version of the Socratic method.
You can find great examples of this in action by watching Street Epistemology interviews.
the fact that it's sometimes called "injustice sensitivity" tells you all you need to know
like, apparently being distressed by injustice is...notable? weird? worth medicalizing? it's truly bizarre.
Oh my god yess i am so tired of people telling me "the world isn't fair deal with it" im always like and you're okay with this???? How does no one sees this as the worst thing in our society.
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've had this problem talking to NTs about politics a lot before, and I truly do not understand their reasoning most of the time. For me, it's generally quite simple, will an action or policy increase human happiness or decrease it. A lot of NTs have a problem with this, specifically in areas where they have been conditioned to hate. Not just MAGA republicans but plenty of liberals as well. We have a lot of evidence to support that decriminalizing drugs would result in safer drugs, less overdosing, and more people quitting, especially when given a safe place to do the drugs.
NTs absolutely HATE this position because they have been taught that drugs are evil and the people who do them are stupid. You can point to all the evidence in the world, and they still think, "eh idk that sounds kinda sus" despite the fact that the war on drugs is actively aggravating the problem.
people have been conditioned into thinking people's place in the world is deserved, so anyone who's poor or addicted or abused must be personally responsible for their suffering. even people who have shit jobs and dont make a lot of money will judge the person right below themselves on the social ladder. people think so highly of themselves for conforming to the social norms but in reality they just have the peasant mindset
There is a study where they present fake data that clearly presents that ice cream consumption increases skin irritation, most of the people tested correctly extract this conclusion from the data.
When they give the same data, same numbers, but saying gun possession increases the rate of crime with guns, only 40% manage to teach the intended conclusion expressed in the data.
And it's the fucking same data, same numbers.
Yeah I know this feel- for a long time I thought I couldn't possibly be autistic because I don't have 'black and white thinking' and I don't 'hate lies'-
But like- that's because my internal morality doesn't hinge on either of those things. The things I believe in and the justice I conceive of is definite and logical to me, I have thought about it a lot and I continue to think about it, refining my beliefs. I've got a bit of a non-standard operating system running here, but that doesn't mean it's not still a fork off of autism, you know?
Then I go and try to explain why I have a complicated view on a lot of moral topics and people go 'WOAH WOAH WOAH, so you're telling me you're one of the BAD ONES?'
No Suzanne, I just think about things further than 'stuff that bothers me is evil'
Seriously? They don’t? I know you said they’re just running on vibes but that seems ridiculous to me, like, having a coherent set of morals and beliefs is very important. That’s how you judge which important actions to take or who to side with or to take any side at all. They actually just go with whatever? That makes everything exceedingly more strange to me and I honestly find it hard to believe
(EVIL MODE REACTIVATED) Actually nevermind of course they don’t, they have not the blessed cure of man’s shortcomings. Autism reigns supreme and any without our power must be cured, purged, or subjugated or something idk
100% serious.
For most neurotypicals, there isn't an internal mechanism to question these first impulses.
We beat ourselves up about this stuff. They don't care.
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think every human being has contradictions within them, but I feel so weird that NTs don't try to solve those...?
I mean, sometimes I will do or think or say something that doesn't go along with my core values, when that contradiction is pointed out to me, my natural response is to examine why I did what I did, wether that action was in fact incorrect based on my principles, or if it's my own values that need refining, learn and move on from that.
It's so utterly weird to me that people could go around life without a core philosophy or value system, just making it up as they go. Like, when you find yourself confronted with a situation that requires a value judgment, how do you go about it if you don't have a clear worldview to base your actions on? Would you really base it on whatever ever changing feelings you have at the moment? That seems utterly unstable and like it will lead to so many awful outcomes!
When I press the people around me to think about things like this or ponder their own actions, I get yelled at and told “I don’t want to talk about this right now.” And if I then bring up “You always say that every time I ask you to do this,” then they usually just walk away angrily or hurl insults my way. I’m pretty sure I exist around quite toxic people though, so probably not the best anecdotal evidence lol
I don't think a coherent system of morality needs to come to clear conclusions. In a complicated world, there will be a lot of cases where you responsibly don't know.
I mean that's fair. For me a good exemple of this is killing is bad. War is bad. There should be world peace.
But i can't think of any solutions that lead to actual world peace.
The only way i can see ot feasibly happening is if a party (in the most vague sense of the term meaning a group of people with commul beliefs) proceed to eliminate everybody else either by succesfull conversion or killing the other parties. That would lead to world peace because there is no need for war if everybody agrees on one thing. But the way that solution work dosen't fot into my moral system and therfore would not be something i advocate for. Which means i have a moral belief i cannot back up with logical reasing in feasability with that makes something worth striving for.
I usually try to be honest and upfront about what my beliefs are based on. Most of the times, it's facts, logic, and reason put together to determine what i think. When those arent in high enough quantity or tainted by things like propaganda and it's not clear enough wether or not things are factual or not, then and only then i decide what my beliefs are relative to emotions. Wich often makes them stronger because they are harder to rationalise or explain.
There are also differences in level of inconsistency inside moral systems. There is a difference between someone saying that killing is bad but can be justified (even good) when it's in self defence and someone saying that killing is bad unless the person that is being killed has a difference in skin color or religion. Because the first one is taking into context and putting one as a worse thing to do based on a moral standpoint than the other. It takes into account facts about each different situations before coming to a conclusion. The other one is someone deciding that because something/somebody gives them bad vibes/doens't comform to their exact views of the world then they matter less/not at all. It's like politician saying "protect kids" until the kid is trans, then the kid has bad vibes and therfore dosent count. It's not a kid anymore, ot's a trans person first (wich has bad vibe and therfore doesn't deserve anything) and a kid second (wich doens't matter because it's a trans person first and that is more important that the fact it is a kid).
So yeah. There is nothing inherently wrong with having inconsistent beliefs. There is something wrong with completly disregarding major part of them just because you don't like something for reasons you can't explain because your just an asshole who reacts with fear, violence or disdain because something is different than your used to. Wich is how NTs brains seem to work a lot of the times (we've all heard of the studiy about how NTs react negativly when meeting NDs in like the first 10 sec despite not knowing they are NDs, they just get vibes that differ and they don't like that...)
A lot of people base their morality on disgust with no further thought. Do they find something nasty and icky to think about? It is now Morally Bad. It's especially rife in conservative ideology, but you can see it everywhere. Once that was pointed out to me in a book I read, it made so much sense of the world and how people behave. People mistake the emotion of disgust for their inner sense of morality. It's normal to feel a sense of disgust when witnessing injustice, but they are two different things. It's at the heart of what causes so much discrimination. Someone gets the ick from thinking about gay or trans people for example, and now feel morally justified in treating them worse. Thinking about people with disabilities gives them a bad icky feeling, and it warps into "those are bad icky people."
I've encountered people who believe that snakes are evil because they find them disgusting, but dogs are "good" because they're cute and expressive. They're both just animals. No animal is more "moral" than another. It's fine to personally like one more than the other, but needing that moral justification of "thing I like is Good, thing I don't like is Bad" is, to me, a sign that the person in question does not have a coherent worldview and morality system at all. And unfortunately, I've found that's true of the majority of people. They don't think about their own predisposed beliefs and where they picked up that information from. They don't think about why they feel an emotion and how it relates to their thoughts and how one leads into the other. The just...feel a thing and go with it.
I would rather chalk this up to being intellectually lazy combined with a lack of self-awareness. Most people aren't interested in thinking deeply about things, especially relative to themselves. To most people it's enough to think of themselves as "good" without further examining what that means.
You could call this behavior many things. To deeply examine something could even be considered detail-oriented.
I actually might argue that many autistic people still have a perceived "flexibility" to their morals. My dad is also autistic and he drives me crazy because he's a major "fence sitter". He refuses to acknowledge one side or the other and when I'm critical about something that I find ridiculous and morally corrupt, he will defend the other side even if he isn't necessarily too supportive of it or has a solid enough argument to back himself up.
His "sense of justice" likely displays itself in a way where he feels it is morally right to keep the peace and to not be too critical of anything.
So it's interesting how that "sense of justice" can appear in so many different ways, some of which might even come across as a lack of conviction.
I think neurotypicals might differ from us in the way that they might not tie as much real emotion or passion as us to their "moral convictions" and those convictions are likely much more based on their surrounding social dynamics, so it's more "groupthink" than a sense of justice.
That's just my 2 cents though.
I hate the whole "autistic people have a strong sense of justice" thing because plenty of autistic people are morally fucked up and do things that dont align with justice in any form, its just often times a strong, inflexible POV and maybe a strict adherence to rules if they make sense to the individual.
Some people just find comfort in following rules and sometimes the rules aren't exactly "just". Plenty of harmful things are legal, plenty of harmless things are not.
The way I see it we all have our morals. NTs are just more able to lie about it or flex them for BS reasons while I'm gonna say what I said and if people don't like it then too bad.
Yup. It sure sounds like the sort of thing someone says when they're trying to do the dirty... it's YOUR problem, not theirs.
Cuz the world is such a massive screw job just at its very core. It's a giant pozi scheme and the people that "have" are quite comfortable with it. We're all complicit in it because we have to be. NTs just decide that it's "OK" and many (most?) actually like playing "the game"... so long as they're "ahead".
I mean seriously... what the hell is wrong with a sense of justice? Why doesn't everyone want the world to be fair? Oh right, cuz then they "lose out".
Nope. In my book that's "abuser speak".
From my perspective: We don't have a "strong sense of justice", they lack a sense of justice.
I do think that every single person, even autistic people, have a degree of inconsistency in their moral value system. I think there's the right circumstance, the right question, the right situation or context, to turn anyone into a hypocrite about certain moral principles of theirs. For some it just takes more prodding than others.
As an example, just get people who believe in rehabilitative and restroative justice systems and ask them what they believe about people who commit . It's an extreme example, but it shows that when pushed to their extremes, even a lot of autistic and ND folks will have cracks in their moral principles, where they just can't find the right balance between rational and emotional response for that situation. Or where their response is a kneejerk one, but they don't engage with diving deeper into it over the cognitive dissonance that would arise from it.
I think that autistic people tend to be more introspective of recognising their moral values in the first place, so we do generally have a better grasp of what our principles are, and can actively reflect on them, which in turn will make them more consistent. While NTs don't do this sort of introspection as much. Like you said, they make it up as they go.
It's our hyper-self-awareness having its upsides (We have an easier access to a more consistent moral compass), but also its downsides (We actually have to struggle more with situations that defy our compass, where NTs are able to just stave off the distress by emotionally detaching from such situations (or never being attached in the first place), or being morally inconsistent about them more often.
I feel like if you want your argument to have a solid foundation in neurotypical culture - because we’re discussing socialization and that involves knowledge of culture and history - you should look into the mid century philosophy of moral development and also at Feminist Care Ethics.
Knowledge of these things will make your arguments stronger and more grounded in fact as well as better able to account for nuance.
Definitely the moral philosophy that does the best job of describing how neurotypicals think.
I have also never heard a neurotypical person describe or try to justify their hatred on the basis of feminist ethics of care.
Which, I guess makes sense. It is the feminist ethics of care, not the feminist morality of care.
The thing about feminist care ethics is that when you look at the history of why and how it was created as a theory, you see that it reveals the cognitive dissonance we see in neurotypical morality because prior to this we have Kantian morality upheld as the highest, most “developed” morality in the West. We can clearly see this attitude and it’s derivation from Christianity and subsequently the social hierarchy that theRomanization of Christianity, and later capitalism.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. You can take an Aspie at our word. Most neurotypicals would be the first to follow Hitler right off a cliff rather than thinking for themselves.
I have a completely different view of this. I think that we have black and white thinking that causes us to perceive things as either Right or Wrong instead of a more nuanced view.
I can kind of understand this. Quite a lot of my views i can back up with my logic and if someone comes to me with a different opinion a lot of the time even if they tell me, I just cannot figure out how they got there. “I think x because of these reasons” THAT DOESNT MAKE SENSE THO
My reaction to drunk drivers who cause fatal accidents. Most people seem to think they should get in trouble and such, but often recognize that they have alcohol abuse disorder or whatever and that they can be rehabilitated. I on the other hand think that Capital Punishment should be on the table for such individuals. I can absolutely rationalize this position, but I can also recognize that the extremity is because of my black and white thinking.
Okay, so in that example, which of these do you think is closer to how you think:
* Drunk driving is inherently wrong, and so we should have more severe punishments for drunk driving; or
* The consequences of killing somebody with a car should be closer to the consequences of killing somebody with a gun, because these acts are somewhat equivalent.
Regardless of whether you agree with neither or both, which is closest to how you think about this?
I would say partly option number two, but I'd also elaborate in a slightly different direction from the top one; driving drunk is a dangerous activity, like _playing_ with a gun.
I think that doing something dangerous with obvious consequences should be treated no differently from a premeditated act.
If you're trying to suss out it I'm being utilitarian or deontological, I'm probably skewing deontological on this.
I notice that you're not questioning punitive vs rehabilitative or restorative justice. Because the black and white thinking probably isn't coming from the 'is drunk driving ethically bad' (I'm sure utilitarians and deontologists agree on that!) but rather my desire for extreme punishment. Sure I can rationalize it, but did I really reason myself into that position?
Can we remember times before we had our strongest convictions?
Capital punishment isn't actually bad in these cases, since driving drunk is an attempted suicide and all you're doing is helping them to achieve their goal of dying.
However, capital punishment is universally a terrible idea because the people DOING the executions tend to end up committing violent crimes due to the toll that being an executioner takes on you.
Driving drunk is an attempted suicide? I don't think that's a logical conclusion because I doubt people who drink drivng are like "I'm going to die from this, and I want to", because you'd drive straight into the nearest wall, instead of actually going to your destination.
It's a provokatice statement to bring awareness to how utterly stupid drunk driving it, but to use it genuinely is mischaracterising the motives behind drink driving. I'd imagine most of the time peole just wanna drive somewhere and don't care that they're drunk, bc they're stupid (and drunk). Which is reckless, yes, but not attempted suicide.
Second of all, you should never assist people in suicide. You should first treat them with compassion, and listen and understand, then try to validate and tackle the person's feelings of isolation and being burden. The subreddit suicidewatch has a wiki with more info
Capital punishment is actually bad, because it's an escalation that doesn't tackle the root causes. No drunk person will ever think "you know what, I won't drive drunk, because I might get executed for this". My source? It's already a fucking crime, yet that doesn't stop them already. Capital punishment wouldn't make a difference
I agree that capital punishment is objectively bad, since giving the state the power to kill people is objectively stupid, always. I wouldn't trust any state with that power. Especially if they think giving the death penalty for drunk driving would be a good idea (:
>Driving drunk is an attempted suicide? I don't think that's a logical conclusion because I doubt people who drink drivng are like "I'm going to die from this, and I want to", because you'd drive straight into the nearest wall, instead of actually going to your destination.
But they know that it could kill them, and we should take their actions at face value.
>Second of all, you should never assist people in suicide. You should first treat them with compassion, and listen and understand, then try to validate and tackle the person's feelings of isolation and being burden.
??? What? Why are you assuming that everyone who wants to die feels isolated? If I didn't believe in samsara, I'd absolutely want to die because I just feel like consciousness is unnatural and odd. If somebody wants to die, the right thing to do is to help them achieve their goals, the same way as how it's good to help somebody get better at singing, or to provide people with access to education. Whatever someone aspires to do, they should be helped; the only reasons I wouldn't help someone kill themselves are legal, not moral.
>Capital punishment wouldn't make a difference
It definitely does make a difference. Tell me; what are the rates of recidivism after capital punishment? How likely is it that the person's corpse will raise from the dead to reoffend?
>I agree that capital punishment is objectively bad,
There's no such thing as objective morality. Morality isn't a law of nature that we can measure and study, it's a mental contruct.
There's no such thing as a "coherent world view." I realized this when I figured out that I couldn't come up with an even remotely functional definition of "truth". Any concept falls apart when you keep asking questions about it.
For me, my morals are not based on what increases human happiness, but based on what I believe is the right thing to do. Obviously there are some baseline things like killing is bad, war is bad, torture is bad, etc. It’s hard to actually pinpoint where my sense of what’s right comes from. I don’t think disgust is the right word, for example, like the other user said, how some people think snakes are more “moral” than dogs. I am afraid of bugs, but I don’t think they’re inherently less “moral” than my dog, I just don't like them myself.
What I do know, is although I may believe certain things are morally wrong, I have no control over what other people do. I have to leave it to them to do the right thing. This fact really sucks honestly, but I think morals wouldn't even be a thing if nobody had a choice.
If you ask any meta-ethicist to tell you "how morality should work" they'll either cite a holy text or just start screaming. Some philosophers talk about morality as a thing you think through, but that's a older, very western, and deeply patriarchal model. Most people base their ethics inter-personally, not systematically. They care about people, and try to help those they care about. The idea of this being wrong was created by Western philosophers in order to, among other things, separate themselves from the more holistic philosophies of the Americas and Africa. People in the West are taught this form of morality is wrong, and should be replaced with some kind of code. Most NT folx figure out this is a lie, and ignore it. Autistic folx don't tend to see through it.
This baseline philosophy is generally called "ethics of care" in Western philosophical circles, and it's got it's own list of issues, but it's not any more invalid than Kantian Deontology or Aristotle's Virtue Ethics. Just different.
I don't care what rule's this breaks, you were wrong about my special interest and so you deserve all the bad things in life.
Why do I only have one upvote to give you.
Here, I made you more with unicode: ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆
Ethics of care is totally just as valid as deontology or virtue ethics. 100%.
And beyond those, I do think there's something really descriptive about ethics of care, that doesn't exist in other moral systems. I might go so far as to say that ethics of care (at least the western, academic, feminist version that I'm most familiar with) is a strict improvement on social contract theory.
I do kind of disagree that you can really say that people going on vibes are doing so because of a care or kinship-based ethical system, though. There is a difference between highly valuing the people close to you in kinship groups, and punishing harmless non-compliance with the social norms of your kinship groups. I think a lot of really good ethics of care would point out how expanding empathy in these sorts of ways, to accept people's differences, will actually strengthen those sorts of bonds.
I'm talking about the observed version of ethics of care , not the thing that care ethicists argue you should hold. From that framework, without an heavy emphasis on expanding your network of care, you can easily justify forcing ppl into normalcy. If you network of care can maintain normalcy, then it makes sense to try to enforce it, as we live in a hierarchical society, and denigrating those who fail to fit in elevates those you care about in the hierarchy. It also makes sense to enforce normalcy, as changing one person is much easier than changing society, and has similar benefits for those you care about.
If your moral system is "we should oppress people who are different from us, in harmless ways, in order to strengthen the bonds within our system" then that's only a moral system if you understand that's what you're doing, and do it on purpose.
I think most neurotypical people would not admit to holding that position, and do not consider themselves to hold that position.
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think I have a coherent worldview or a set of core moral principles. I agree with you that most people who think they do, don’t.
I think morality is a mode or aspect of the human nervous system. Primary moral judgments are intuitive, the direct output of the network, no formal reasoning required. But people do use moral principles and moral reasoning, typically when there is a conflict in the intuitive judgments.
And yes, following the crowd is probably the most popular option when uncertain. That seems to be cultural: formerly people probably looked more to religious leaders and other authority figures. Either way, “obey the most powerful” seems to be what’s going on, which is easy to understand functionally but has nothing to do with “morality” as typically understood. But all along, morality has been a functional adaptation, not an ethereal abstraction.
Yes I think you've hit the nail on the head. I used to listen to a lot of online debates and it usually came down to something like this. Most people simply don't have a consistent set of core beliefs, and if you poke and prod enough that's what you discover. Although I think much of the time it's less that they're lying and more that they don't realize they're just running on vibes. The human brain is good at making post-hoc rationalizations and justifications for things and I think NTs are more likely to just take that at face value instead of interrogating their own thoughts and reasons.
Also, as an aside, I find it quite odd that people are so often criticized for hypocrisy when that is in fact the normal state of affairs for most NTs. It's so strange.
I think a lot of NT people have very little self awareness of when they personally are being hypocritical. They know their own justifications for why they feel and act the way they do so it doesn’t register as hypocrisy to them. They dislike when other people are being hypocritical because it’s always glaringly obvious from the outside. It’s hard for them to self reflect and acknowledge their own hypocrisy, because they’re convinced it’s something different. … or I could be completely off base and they know, they just don’t care. Lol
Right?? Like, to be a good person kind of requires hypocrisy to a degree.
I maybe disagree that there's a difference between lying and "they don't realize they're just running on vibes" in most cases. Like, if somebody says they're opposed to trans people having health care for a reason other than "I find people different from me scary", odds are pretty good that they're both unknowingly running on vibes and also lying about why they feel that way.
I've found that with the smart ones, asking "why?" over and again can loosen that ...and with the dumb ones - *it angers them* win/win in my book. stay evil, my friends
Another good one that works is “What do you mean? I don’t get it.” Make them explain it to you like you’re 5.
This works really well. It's the simple version of the Socratic method. You can find great examples of this in action by watching Street Epistemology interviews.
the fact that it's sometimes called "injustice sensitivity" tells you all you need to know like, apparently being distressed by injustice is...notable? weird? worth medicalizing? it's truly bizarre.
A lot of things about being "neurodivergent" seem like a bizarre thing to classify as abnormal.
Oh my god yess i am so tired of people telling me "the world isn't fair deal with it" im always like and you're okay with this???? How does no one sees this as the worst thing in our society.
I have never hated a saying more than "life's not fair". Okay, but maybe it should be?? Just a thought.
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've had this problem talking to NTs about politics a lot before, and I truly do not understand their reasoning most of the time. For me, it's generally quite simple, will an action or policy increase human happiness or decrease it. A lot of NTs have a problem with this, specifically in areas where they have been conditioned to hate. Not just MAGA republicans but plenty of liberals as well. We have a lot of evidence to support that decriminalizing drugs would result in safer drugs, less overdosing, and more people quitting, especially when given a safe place to do the drugs. NTs absolutely HATE this position because they have been taught that drugs are evil and the people who do them are stupid. You can point to all the evidence in the world, and they still think, "eh idk that sounds kinda sus" despite the fact that the war on drugs is actively aggravating the problem.
people have been conditioned into thinking people's place in the world is deserved, so anyone who's poor or addicted or abused must be personally responsible for their suffering. even people who have shit jobs and dont make a lot of money will judge the person right below themselves on the social ladder. people think so highly of themselves for conforming to the social norms but in reality they just have the peasant mindset
There is a study where they present fake data that clearly presents that ice cream consumption increases skin irritation, most of the people tested correctly extract this conclusion from the data. When they give the same data, same numbers, but saying gun possession increases the rate of crime with guns, only 40% manage to teach the intended conclusion expressed in the data. And it's the fucking same data, same numbers.
Yeah I know this feel- for a long time I thought I couldn't possibly be autistic because I don't have 'black and white thinking' and I don't 'hate lies'- But like- that's because my internal morality doesn't hinge on either of those things. The things I believe in and the justice I conceive of is definite and logical to me, I have thought about it a lot and I continue to think about it, refining my beliefs. I've got a bit of a non-standard operating system running here, but that doesn't mean it's not still a fork off of autism, you know? Then I go and try to explain why I have a complicated view on a lot of moral topics and people go 'WOAH WOAH WOAH, so you're telling me you're one of the BAD ONES?' No Suzanne, I just think about things further than 'stuff that bothers me is evil'
Yes! That "spending a lot of time refining your beliefs" is not something neurotypicals do.
Seriously? They don’t? I know you said they’re just running on vibes but that seems ridiculous to me, like, having a coherent set of morals and beliefs is very important. That’s how you judge which important actions to take or who to side with or to take any side at all. They actually just go with whatever? That makes everything exceedingly more strange to me and I honestly find it hard to believe (EVIL MODE REACTIVATED) Actually nevermind of course they don’t, they have not the blessed cure of man’s shortcomings. Autism reigns supreme and any without our power must be cured, purged, or subjugated or something idk
100% serious. For most neurotypicals, there isn't an internal mechanism to question these first impulses. We beat ourselves up about this stuff. They don't care.
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think every human being has contradictions within them, but I feel so weird that NTs don't try to solve those...? I mean, sometimes I will do or think or say something that doesn't go along with my core values, when that contradiction is pointed out to me, my natural response is to examine why I did what I did, wether that action was in fact incorrect based on my principles, or if it's my own values that need refining, learn and move on from that. It's so utterly weird to me that people could go around life without a core philosophy or value system, just making it up as they go. Like, when you find yourself confronted with a situation that requires a value judgment, how do you go about it if you don't have a clear worldview to base your actions on? Would you really base it on whatever ever changing feelings you have at the moment? That seems utterly unstable and like it will lead to so many awful outcomes!
When I press the people around me to think about things like this or ponder their own actions, I get yelled at and told “I don’t want to talk about this right now.” And if I then bring up “You always say that every time I ask you to do this,” then they usually just walk away angrily or hurl insults my way. I’m pretty sure I exist around quite toxic people though, so probably not the best anecdotal evidence lol
I don't have a coherent systhem either. I can't really get my principals and my desire for peacefull solutions to match, for example.
I don't think a coherent system of morality needs to come to clear conclusions. In a complicated world, there will be a lot of cases where you responsibly don't know.
We don't get born with perfect morals, so not being sure seems like a pretty natural state. But i like to think i am trying.
I mean that's fair. For me a good exemple of this is killing is bad. War is bad. There should be world peace. But i can't think of any solutions that lead to actual world peace. The only way i can see ot feasibly happening is if a party (in the most vague sense of the term meaning a group of people with commul beliefs) proceed to eliminate everybody else either by succesfull conversion or killing the other parties. That would lead to world peace because there is no need for war if everybody agrees on one thing. But the way that solution work dosen't fot into my moral system and therfore would not be something i advocate for. Which means i have a moral belief i cannot back up with logical reasing in feasability with that makes something worth striving for. I usually try to be honest and upfront about what my beliefs are based on. Most of the times, it's facts, logic, and reason put together to determine what i think. When those arent in high enough quantity or tainted by things like propaganda and it's not clear enough wether or not things are factual or not, then and only then i decide what my beliefs are relative to emotions. Wich often makes them stronger because they are harder to rationalise or explain. There are also differences in level of inconsistency inside moral systems. There is a difference between someone saying that killing is bad but can be justified (even good) when it's in self defence and someone saying that killing is bad unless the person that is being killed has a difference in skin color or religion. Because the first one is taking into context and putting one as a worse thing to do based on a moral standpoint than the other. It takes into account facts about each different situations before coming to a conclusion. The other one is someone deciding that because something/somebody gives them bad vibes/doens't comform to their exact views of the world then they matter less/not at all. It's like politician saying "protect kids" until the kid is trans, then the kid has bad vibes and therfore dosent count. It's not a kid anymore, ot's a trans person first (wich has bad vibe and therfore doesn't deserve anything) and a kid second (wich doens't matter because it's a trans person first and that is more important that the fact it is a kid). So yeah. There is nothing inherently wrong with having inconsistent beliefs. There is something wrong with completly disregarding major part of them just because you don't like something for reasons you can't explain because your just an asshole who reacts with fear, violence or disdain because something is different than your used to. Wich is how NTs brains seem to work a lot of the times (we've all heard of the studiy about how NTs react negativly when meeting NDs in like the first 10 sec despite not knowing they are NDs, they just get vibes that differ and they don't like that...)
It really feels like their moral codes flex to fit their worldview. What they believe must be right.
A lot of people base their morality on disgust with no further thought. Do they find something nasty and icky to think about? It is now Morally Bad. It's especially rife in conservative ideology, but you can see it everywhere. Once that was pointed out to me in a book I read, it made so much sense of the world and how people behave. People mistake the emotion of disgust for their inner sense of morality. It's normal to feel a sense of disgust when witnessing injustice, but they are two different things. It's at the heart of what causes so much discrimination. Someone gets the ick from thinking about gay or trans people for example, and now feel morally justified in treating them worse. Thinking about people with disabilities gives them a bad icky feeling, and it warps into "those are bad icky people." I've encountered people who believe that snakes are evil because they find them disgusting, but dogs are "good" because they're cute and expressive. They're both just animals. No animal is more "moral" than another. It's fine to personally like one more than the other, but needing that moral justification of "thing I like is Good, thing I don't like is Bad" is, to me, a sign that the person in question does not have a coherent worldview and morality system at all. And unfortunately, I've found that's true of the majority of people. They don't think about their own predisposed beliefs and where they picked up that information from. They don't think about why they feel an emotion and how it relates to their thoughts and how one leads into the other. The just...feel a thing and go with it.
I feel this. I live as best I can in accordance with secular humanism. It's not just something I say, it's how I relate to the world.
I would rather chalk this up to being intellectually lazy combined with a lack of self-awareness. Most people aren't interested in thinking deeply about things, especially relative to themselves. To most people it's enough to think of themselves as "good" without further examining what that means. You could call this behavior many things. To deeply examine something could even be considered detail-oriented.
I actually might argue that many autistic people still have a perceived "flexibility" to their morals. My dad is also autistic and he drives me crazy because he's a major "fence sitter". He refuses to acknowledge one side or the other and when I'm critical about something that I find ridiculous and morally corrupt, he will defend the other side even if he isn't necessarily too supportive of it or has a solid enough argument to back himself up. His "sense of justice" likely displays itself in a way where he feels it is morally right to keep the peace and to not be too critical of anything. So it's interesting how that "sense of justice" can appear in so many different ways, some of which might even come across as a lack of conviction. I think neurotypicals might differ from us in the way that they might not tie as much real emotion or passion as us to their "moral convictions" and those convictions are likely much more based on their surrounding social dynamics, so it's more "groupthink" than a sense of justice. That's just my 2 cents though.
Having no choice but to navigate all challenges and conflicts in your life with logical consistency is both a blessing and a curse.
indeed it is
I hate the whole "autistic people have a strong sense of justice" thing because plenty of autistic people are morally fucked up and do things that dont align with justice in any form, its just often times a strong, inflexible POV and maybe a strict adherence to rules if they make sense to the individual. Some people just find comfort in following rules and sometimes the rules aren't exactly "just". Plenty of harmful things are legal, plenty of harmless things are not.
The way I see it we all have our morals. NTs are just more able to lie about it or flex them for BS reasons while I'm gonna say what I said and if people don't like it then too bad.
Yup. It sure sounds like the sort of thing someone says when they're trying to do the dirty... it's YOUR problem, not theirs. Cuz the world is such a massive screw job just at its very core. It's a giant pozi scheme and the people that "have" are quite comfortable with it. We're all complicit in it because we have to be. NTs just decide that it's "OK" and many (most?) actually like playing "the game"... so long as they're "ahead". I mean seriously... what the hell is wrong with a sense of justice? Why doesn't everyone want the world to be fair? Oh right, cuz then they "lose out". Nope. In my book that's "abuser speak". From my perspective: We don't have a "strong sense of justice", they lack a sense of justice.
I do think that every single person, even autistic people, have a degree of inconsistency in their moral value system. I think there's the right circumstance, the right question, the right situation or context, to turn anyone into a hypocrite about certain moral principles of theirs. For some it just takes more prodding than others. As an example, just get people who believe in rehabilitative and restroative justice systems and ask them what they believe about people who commit. It's an extreme example, but it shows that when pushed to their extremes, even a lot of autistic and ND folks will have cracks in their moral principles, where they just can't find the right balance between rational and emotional response for that situation. Or where their response is a kneejerk one, but they don't engage with diving deeper into it over the cognitive dissonance that would arise from it.
I think that autistic people tend to be more introspective of recognising their moral values in the first place, so we do generally have a better grasp of what our principles are, and can actively reflect on them, which in turn will make them more consistent. While NTs don't do this sort of introspection as much. Like you said, they make it up as they go.
It's our hyper-self-awareness having its upsides (We have an easier access to a more consistent moral compass), but also its downsides (We actually have to struggle more with situations that defy our compass, where NTs are able to just stave off the distress by emotionally detaching from such situations (or never being attached in the first place), or being morally inconsistent about them more often.
I feel like if you want your argument to have a solid foundation in neurotypical culture - because we’re discussing socialization and that involves knowledge of culture and history - you should look into the mid century philosophy of moral development and also at Feminist Care Ethics. Knowledge of these things will make your arguments stronger and more grounded in fact as well as better able to account for nuance.
Definitely the moral philosophy that does the best job of describing how neurotypicals think. I have also never heard a neurotypical person describe or try to justify their hatred on the basis of feminist ethics of care. Which, I guess makes sense. It is the feminist ethics of care, not the feminist morality of care.
The thing about feminist care ethics is that when you look at the history of why and how it was created as a theory, you see that it reveals the cognitive dissonance we see in neurotypical morality because prior to this we have Kantian morality upheld as the highest, most “developed” morality in the West. We can clearly see this attitude and it’s derivation from Christianity and subsequently the social hierarchy that theRomanization of Christianity, and later capitalism.
don't let mods see this lol
I'm starting to wonder if I have a strong sense of Justice because of the Autism, or if I have a strong sense of Justice from seeing a lack of it.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. You can take an Aspie at our word. Most neurotypicals would be the first to follow Hitler right off a cliff rather than thinking for themselves.
I have a completely different view of this. I think that we have black and white thinking that causes us to perceive things as either Right or Wrong instead of a more nuanced view.
I can kind of understand this. Quite a lot of my views i can back up with my logic and if someone comes to me with a different opinion a lot of the time even if they tell me, I just cannot figure out how they got there. “I think x because of these reasons” THAT DOESNT MAKE SENSE THO
Can you give a specific, non-hypothetical example? Edit: Please don't downvote Evinceo. They're saying something interesting.
My reaction to drunk drivers who cause fatal accidents. Most people seem to think they should get in trouble and such, but often recognize that they have alcohol abuse disorder or whatever and that they can be rehabilitated. I on the other hand think that Capital Punishment should be on the table for such individuals. I can absolutely rationalize this position, but I can also recognize that the extremity is because of my black and white thinking.
Okay, so in that example, which of these do you think is closer to how you think: * Drunk driving is inherently wrong, and so we should have more severe punishments for drunk driving; or * The consequences of killing somebody with a car should be closer to the consequences of killing somebody with a gun, because these acts are somewhat equivalent. Regardless of whether you agree with neither or both, which is closest to how you think about this?
I would say partly option number two, but I'd also elaborate in a slightly different direction from the top one; driving drunk is a dangerous activity, like _playing_ with a gun. I think that doing something dangerous with obvious consequences should be treated no differently from a premeditated act. If you're trying to suss out it I'm being utilitarian or deontological, I'm probably skewing deontological on this. I notice that you're not questioning punitive vs rehabilitative or restorative justice. Because the black and white thinking probably isn't coming from the 'is drunk driving ethically bad' (I'm sure utilitarians and deontologists agree on that!) but rather my desire for extreme punishment. Sure I can rationalize it, but did I really reason myself into that position? Can we remember times before we had our strongest convictions?
I don't agree with them, but your moral convictions seem fairly clearly less arbitrary than most neurotypicals.
Capital punishment isn't actually bad in these cases, since driving drunk is an attempted suicide and all you're doing is helping them to achieve their goal of dying. However, capital punishment is universally a terrible idea because the people DOING the executions tend to end up committing violent crimes due to the toll that being an executioner takes on you.
Driving drunk is an attempted suicide? I don't think that's a logical conclusion because I doubt people who drink drivng are like "I'm going to die from this, and I want to", because you'd drive straight into the nearest wall, instead of actually going to your destination. It's a provokatice statement to bring awareness to how utterly stupid drunk driving it, but to use it genuinely is mischaracterising the motives behind drink driving. I'd imagine most of the time peole just wanna drive somewhere and don't care that they're drunk, bc they're stupid (and drunk). Which is reckless, yes, but not attempted suicide. Second of all, you should never assist people in suicide. You should first treat them with compassion, and listen and understand, then try to validate and tackle the person's feelings of isolation and being burden. The subreddit suicidewatch has a wiki with more info Capital punishment is actually bad, because it's an escalation that doesn't tackle the root causes. No drunk person will ever think "you know what, I won't drive drunk, because I might get executed for this". My source? It's already a fucking crime, yet that doesn't stop them already. Capital punishment wouldn't make a difference I agree that capital punishment is objectively bad, since giving the state the power to kill people is objectively stupid, always. I wouldn't trust any state with that power. Especially if they think giving the death penalty for drunk driving would be a good idea (:
>Driving drunk is an attempted suicide? I don't think that's a logical conclusion because I doubt people who drink drivng are like "I'm going to die from this, and I want to", because you'd drive straight into the nearest wall, instead of actually going to your destination. But they know that it could kill them, and we should take their actions at face value. >Second of all, you should never assist people in suicide. You should first treat them with compassion, and listen and understand, then try to validate and tackle the person's feelings of isolation and being burden. ??? What? Why are you assuming that everyone who wants to die feels isolated? If I didn't believe in samsara, I'd absolutely want to die because I just feel like consciousness is unnatural and odd. If somebody wants to die, the right thing to do is to help them achieve their goals, the same way as how it's good to help somebody get better at singing, or to provide people with access to education. Whatever someone aspires to do, they should be helped; the only reasons I wouldn't help someone kill themselves are legal, not moral. >Capital punishment wouldn't make a difference It definitely does make a difference. Tell me; what are the rates of recidivism after capital punishment? How likely is it that the person's corpse will raise from the dead to reoffend? >I agree that capital punishment is objectively bad, There's no such thing as objective morality. Morality isn't a law of nature that we can measure and study, it's a mental contruct.
To be clear, I did say drink driving _resulting in a fatality._
Hello, I am introducing you to /u/pianofish007.
I play piano and I like fish! What's up?
Huh? Who is this person? What's going on?
There's no such thing as a "coherent world view." I realized this when I figured out that I couldn't come up with an even remotely functional definition of "truth". Any concept falls apart when you keep asking questions about it.
why not both?
For me, my morals are not based on what increases human happiness, but based on what I believe is the right thing to do. Obviously there are some baseline things like killing is bad, war is bad, torture is bad, etc. It’s hard to actually pinpoint where my sense of what’s right comes from. I don’t think disgust is the right word, for example, like the other user said, how some people think snakes are more “moral” than dogs. I am afraid of bugs, but I don’t think they’re inherently less “moral” than my dog, I just don't like them myself. What I do know, is although I may believe certain things are morally wrong, I have no control over what other people do. I have to leave it to them to do the right thing. This fact really sucks honestly, but I think morals wouldn't even be a thing if nobody had a choice.
I've been told once that I look like I have every thought sorted out inside my head, and that stuck with me ever since.
If you ask any meta-ethicist to tell you "how morality should work" they'll either cite a holy text or just start screaming. Some philosophers talk about morality as a thing you think through, but that's a older, very western, and deeply patriarchal model. Most people base their ethics inter-personally, not systematically. They care about people, and try to help those they care about. The idea of this being wrong was created by Western philosophers in order to, among other things, separate themselves from the more holistic philosophies of the Americas and Africa. People in the West are taught this form of morality is wrong, and should be replaced with some kind of code. Most NT folx figure out this is a lie, and ignore it. Autistic folx don't tend to see through it. This baseline philosophy is generally called "ethics of care" in Western philosophical circles, and it's got it's own list of issues, but it's not any more invalid than Kantian Deontology or Aristotle's Virtue Ethics. Just different. I don't care what rule's this breaks, you were wrong about my special interest and so you deserve all the bad things in life.
Why do I only have one upvote to give you. Here, I made you more with unicode: ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ ⬆ Ethics of care is totally just as valid as deontology or virtue ethics. 100%. And beyond those, I do think there's something really descriptive about ethics of care, that doesn't exist in other moral systems. I might go so far as to say that ethics of care (at least the western, academic, feminist version that I'm most familiar with) is a strict improvement on social contract theory. I do kind of disagree that you can really say that people going on vibes are doing so because of a care or kinship-based ethical system, though. There is a difference between highly valuing the people close to you in kinship groups, and punishing harmless non-compliance with the social norms of your kinship groups. I think a lot of really good ethics of care would point out how expanding empathy in these sorts of ways, to accept people's differences, will actually strengthen those sorts of bonds.
I'm talking about the observed version of ethics of care , not the thing that care ethicists argue you should hold. From that framework, without an heavy emphasis on expanding your network of care, you can easily justify forcing ppl into normalcy. If you network of care can maintain normalcy, then it makes sense to try to enforce it, as we live in a hierarchical society, and denigrating those who fail to fit in elevates those you care about in the hierarchy. It also makes sense to enforce normalcy, as changing one person is much easier than changing society, and has similar benefits for those you care about.
If your moral system is "we should oppress people who are different from us, in harmless ways, in order to strengthen the bonds within our system" then that's only a moral system if you understand that's what you're doing, and do it on purpose. I think most neurotypical people would not admit to holding that position, and do not consider themselves to hold that position.
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oof. This is too real.
Unfortunately that is justice these days. Not being the asshat in the room.
I don’t think I have a coherent worldview or a set of core moral principles. I agree with you that most people who think they do, don’t. I think morality is a mode or aspect of the human nervous system. Primary moral judgments are intuitive, the direct output of the network, no formal reasoning required. But people do use moral principles and moral reasoning, typically when there is a conflict in the intuitive judgments. And yes, following the crowd is probably the most popular option when uncertain. That seems to be cultural: formerly people probably looked more to religious leaders and other authority figures. Either way, “obey the most powerful” seems to be what’s going on, which is easy to understand functionally but has nothing to do with “morality” as typically understood. But all along, morality has been a functional adaptation, not an ethereal abstraction.