Am I just austistic?

Recently people have been misunderstanding me. When I make comparisons they take the opposite meaning from it. People aren't getting the nuances behind my specific choice of words and it's hard to make examples of what I'm trying to express because it depends on circumstantial conditions.

Also there are all kinds of "bad words" I could have sworn where ok growing up. Like people get offended by the word "nigga", I understand if it's a hard r but isn't the soft a used all the time in hip hop? No one told me not to say nigga growing up but libtards on the internet say it's always been a big bad nono word.

>>83624 yeah, also "fat" you can't even acknowledge that someone is fat when they obviously are 5 times more fat than they should be

>>83623 >Recently This is the most interesting part of your post. So you were able to talk with others easily, but now something changed and you can't express yourself? How recently are we talking? What happened? Have you, perhaps, find new community or philosophy, that would change the way you think about the world? Or maybe something with isolation during covid? (I am still no completely over it.) >...people have been misunderstanding me. Generally, you should tailor your communication to the other side. That is, if you want to get your message across - which is the whole point of communicating in the first place, isn't it? Some would call that insincere, but I call it practical. >Am I just austistic? You sound figuratively autistic. If this is a serious question, then serious answer would be to see the doctor. >>83624 >Also there are all kinds of "bad words" I could have sworn where ok growing up. Past is a foreign country, as Americans say. Whether those words were always bad doesn't really matter now - they are considered bad taboo now. I think it would be also interesting to ask your parents or just someone older, whether there was some shift in the meaning. Perhaps you just didn't quite get all the nuances of these words when you were younger.

>>83625 "Retard" is another one I just always understood it as another way of calling someone stupid. >>83628 >How recently are we talking? What happened? Well I've been in near isolation for the past 6 months to work on myself and study. And when I came back to some old communities I was a part of everything seemed like it had changed so much. It specifically has to do with how my words come off as contradictory to people even though I'm using a more diverse vocabulary to explain specific nuances in things. I've never been someone to wholeheartedly accept something without being aware of it's consequences. >You sound figuratively autistic. Ah then I'm autistic.

i crave society's labels, give me society's labels, call me something, i must be some words, call me words, what's that word? oh that word is 'me' now they tryna say i can't be that no more???

>>83629 I'm going to dispel the illusion that something is wrong with you, because there probably isn't. The rate at which the meanings and connotations of words has increased exponentially in the last five years, as well as the policing of them. It's not so much that you are being offensive with your words, but that you out yourself as not being on the current iteration of doublethink and doublespeak. This makes you an enemy, a thought criminal. Beware. Be careful.

>>83630 Labels are a convenient way of classifying social problems. >>83631 Then how do I make sure people understand me without pretending I'm something that I'm not? It does kind of feel like language is being over simplified to the point of Ingsoc reinventing language to remove people's ability to comprehend nuance.

>>83633 > Labels are a convenient way of classifying social problems. While unfortunately also being able to make things that are not problems seem like problems merely for there being a word for it. > It does kind of feel like language is being over simplified to the point of Ingsoc reinventing language to remove people's ability to comprehend nuance. Nuance doesnt exist anymore. You're either black or white not shades of grey. Result of big tech social media being designed in a way it divides people into extremes.

>>83638 derezzed/not derezzed is all it is. big tech shapes public perception with it.

Autism spectrum is not just isolation or lack of social skills. It's completely normal and understandable that isolation leads to degradation of social skills. You can relearn them. There are other sings and symptoms, too., Like alexithymia, repetitive behavior patterns, difficulty to understand figures of speech, problems with executive function, unable to function under stress (which may or may not lead to meltdowns), certain neurological symptoms (like over/under active senses), cognitive symptoms, etc. Also, you said that people started to misunderstand you recently. Autism spectrum disorders can't start later in life, instead you are born with them. They are caused by differences in the brain and development. If you want, you can take a test online to give you some insight for introspection purposes but you shouldn't trust any online test fully. You can't be diagnosed with anything over the internet. You need to talk to a trained psychiatrist, if you are concerned about this. Even then you won't get any diagnosis on the first appointment. Also, isolation can be a symptom that's linked to social anxiety, SzPD (remember that it has onset during adolescence) or even schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder. I'm not saying that you have any of these diagnoses but I'm saying that your situation can have a lot of different possible explanations. But honestly I think that you have these problems just because of your isolation period. You should work to integrate back to your social contacts.

this thread is so cringe, you obviously haven't read ted k if you feel this way. or you're a bot, whatever. i know damn well this site outside of /lit/ /prog/ and /tech/ is ragebait but low and behold /mega/ once again makes me act out on these unhealthy impulses. fuarrrk you op, seriously

The "*" are in the reply to this post btw. >>83631 >Beware. >Be careful. Although the diagnosis here seems to be mostly correct when it comes both to OP being a normal person and the meanings of the words as well as the "taboo line" shifting on average a little bit* I have a major problem with the receipt for conducting yourself that is being given. While it is true that most people will see you as a “thought criminal” if you do not adhere to their** hivemind baseline of what is acceptable to say and what on the other hand "irks them the wrong way"*** it is not that way with a lot of people you may run into irl. When it comes to the majority you will hardly be able to find any enjoyment from conversing with them once you spot that they would always choose to follow the change immanent in this same baseline (Or simply said, set by this baseline/universal-consensus/hivemind) of what is acceptable instead of venturing on their own into the unknown. Its the same if you wanted them to place you above the hivemind so that consensus is being reached between only you and the person you are speaking to**** on the matter you choose to discuss. What is more, with the way that communication became so widespread and easy nowadays it is nigh impossible not to be constantly focused on how this baseline, or social consensus changes, and it changes rapidly, although in ways that from a further perspective seem without consequence.***** There is also the problem of how we are constantly bombarded with this common consensus from all sides and that the hivemind is tumorous by nature so that when one goes into isolation, or develops other ways of directly opposing it, it is seen by the wider public as what a madman would do****** But all these are digressions so let’s get to the point. My problem after all is with advising one to “Beware” or “Be careful”. These sound waaaay too menacing. All this labeling as the “thought criminal” and such is not even done consciously by the wider public. What is being done at most is that people that are directing their vision of the world in a way that doesn’t do harm to the common consensus/baseline/hivemind (or whatever you wanna call this phenomenon) become negative in their interactions with you. This however is not really that big of a deal, because this most common and quite egalitarian (to name one of its characteristics) consensus******* of what is acceptable is distinct from what you may actually do as a person. It doesn’t really do you any harm to ignore it and do things your own way. In majority of cases all that happens is some people look at you weirdly. Note that “your own way” will often enough be the same way, or at least similar enough, that some other people have chosen, so it will also be possible to create a type of consensus between you two that is of different characteristics than this most common/powerful one (its obviously a simplification, you cannot really pinpoint one consensus to rule them all and this term is really fuzzy, but we could probably agree that there is such a force present in the inner workings of society). The only problem is that you may simply not know the people that you can talk to, who do not adhere to this most common of baselines and at the same time follow some path similar to your own. It is even more troubling for a person who just recently broke himself free from this most widespread way of valuation and conversation with others through the use of isolation. The things that you start to notice due to lack of human contact are usually accompanied by the feeling of loneliness (After all often enough you come back from this state of isolation because you could not bear this loneliness, or at the very least with the expectation of being able to bond with others in some way, with hope of sharing what you discovered in this unusual state of being with others.********) and you ask yourself “is there something wrong with me?” “has the world changed this much while I was gone?” “Have I changed for the worse?” and many such things, perhaps due to simple curiosity, but most likely due to the fact that you suffer from loneliness. What I’d say really happened is that you have undergone a change that made conversing with others in the old way seem pointless and tiring. This is also coupled with a change in the most common of consensuses itself and you becoming rusty at “identifying the shadows on the wall of the cave” as Plato once put it. What you gained through this change however is a way to communicate in a different manner which may enable you to gain more from interacting with people that also undergone a similar change. Now it is not certain that you will really gain something better by breaking from the hivemind but it certainly seems worth the trouble of trying, seeing as the bar set by what is commonly understood as good is not that high up.********* While this loneliness may indeed be a problem in environments where the attitude people have towards you is crucial (such as workplace for example which may be quite surprising to hear but often it matters little how good you are at something compared to what is the attitude of the right people towards you. Also notice that having a platform to discuss things in a way that suits you may be beneficial for actually becoming good at things that you discuss in this way) to your success, in places where things are more formal (such as university, where even though cronyism is a thing, it is still workable if you are good enough at what you do. I am not sure if formality is the thing that makes it so, its rather that the usefulness of saying what you really think without facing backlash was recognized by those that had most sway in the creation of universities.) you are free to search for people that have strayed from what is acceptable as seen by the hivemind and at the same time value things similarly to yourself. You may without much trouble (other than some disapproving looks by people you really shouldn’t bother about once you discover in what tragic way they are bound to the thing I called, among other names, the “most common consensus”) show openly what you truly think by not shying away from saying it out loud and doing the things you desire to do even if they go against the current. From my experience even this whole distinction between places such as workplace, where it is the attitude of others towards you that should be placed higher, and university, where the opposite ought to be the case, is superfluous and somewhat paranoid. But if you really wanna make sure you won’t suffer the unjust consequences from small-minded people, then I suppose you can take some time to think when and where you can and cannot express yourself openly and where you want to stay put with how you see things. As for me I think there is nothing to really be afraid of when it comes to the outside world factors in this issue and its not hard to find people in real life who are willing to openly and without much prejudice stemming from what most deem taboo, discuss the strangest things. It might just be that the feeling that you cannot express your true thoughts because you will be met with weird looks is not justified by the real world situation and outside prejudice, but instead comes from either your lack of ability to think, in which case you may be afraid that you will simply discover yourself to be wrong and crush the high opinion you held of yourself so far, or from lack of communication skills - lack of ability to express your thoughts clearly to others through the use of language. Tldr(sort of… I guess?...); I believe its better to be courageous. It may be lonely for a while but searching for people with whom you can speak your mind out is worth it. Most of the things you can be afraid of are in your head and you can search for those similar to you in the light of day without fearing that you will be found out, because even if that will be the case your supposed enemies will most likely be unable or unwilling to harm you seeing as they themselves don’t even fully understand why you are their enemy. There is also the fact that the same force that sets them against you makes them dislike the idea of trying hard to create viable arguments against you, because such an ability is dangerous to the hivemind itself. Most they can do is say, somewhat angrily I will give them that, “this guy is weird (bad)”. They can probably try to harm you if you will be too much of a dick about the whole hivemind thing and if they will think you see yourself as above them, but all you have to do is simply focus on discussing the thing at hand your own way without directly spiting in their faces and it should work out. If you wanna be extra careful you can pretend you are self-unaware so that they will think that you cannot think the way that the hivemind does or that you are blind to it. I guess it would count as imitating autism. This leads me to another thing which is the fact that if you used to feel this taboo line of what is acceptable and what is forbidden to say and you adjusted to its changes over time before the isolation without being specifically told that you cannot say something or that you ought to see something as good or interesting, then it means that you aren’t autistic but simply rusty at your conversation skills, which could have had the effect that you noticed some things you couldn’t before when you did all that without thinking.

>>83663 *(There is also the fact that isolating oneself for even a shorter amount of time than 6 months will cause you to perceive the conversations you used to partake in casually, and without a care in the world, differently. But let us not delve into that.) **(It is not really their, they are bound to it and not the other way around, at least in the sense that the individual is lost.) ***(They won't say that it does to you directly but instead will adjust their actions towards the "criminal" (you) accordingly.) ****(And if you dare to ignore both the wider consensus and the abstract perspective set by the "truth" and instead choose to position yourself in the face of some public issue as "Me and the person I am conversing with against the common good" (this common good may be understood both ways, as the consensus and as this abstract "truth") you are already seen as the thought criminal, although now you may comfort yourself in that you are not alone in your excommunication ;) ) *****(An analogous example showing this lack of consequence would be how people are in a frenzy over issues like abortion, when in fact compared to, let's say, abolition of slavery (And this more extreme example of a social issue is what sets the "further perspective" for us in this case) the people (or at least the majority (!)) weren't that much ahead in the extremity of their seriousness and emotional reaction to the problem. What I mean is that because they were in the peak of stimulation that still let them function properly outside the scope of the issue that stimulated them this limit of possible stimulation by the issue is quite stable no matter what the issue that is being dealt with is. It is rather the conflict over the issue that makes most people approach the limit of how much can they be invested in the issue while at the same time function properly outside of the problem. But this last bit escapes our analogy or at the very least makes it way too convoluted so lets leave it at that) ******(it is also quite difficult to do and seeing as the hivemind requires its participants to exert a very limited amount of individual pressure on how the hivemind itself changes it adopts the valuing of “not trying hard to achieve your goals” as virtue. This means that avid participants in the hivemind are required to see you negatively, one of the ways to do that, and quite powerful at that, is to call somebody mad.) *******(and there are many consensuses, they serve the role of regulating the flow of conversation among many other things. What you really wanna do is find one that fits you and serves the goals for which you partake in conversation and socializing in general, some consensuses work in such a way that if you partake in them they exclude you from partaking in some other consensuses and its up to you what you choose to partake into, what should be noted is that those modes of communication have little power over what is acceptable and possible for a person to do when it comes to how a person is as seen simply through the lens of biology/physics/law etc. although in a certain sense not through the lens of psychology (Unless you are a shizoid and do not require human contact)) ********(A fascinating thing btw. It always baffled me how I could not reduce the need for human interaction and bonding to anything more base and any such tries ended up in me becoming miserable… But that is besides the point.) *********(Although it is not really true that what is commonly understood as good or worthwhile is truly the lowest common denominator of the whole populace. (which makes it not the most egalitarian of consensuses, but instead something like the consensus that “exerts the most pressure per single person” from available consensuses, provided that this “pressure” would be calculated by not skipping the step of dividing our value by every single human being living in the world**********.) It is rather that some things are simply ignored and not talked about and seen as anomalies (the whole taboo shtick) and the people holding strong opinions on those subjects other than that one should not talk about them are likewise excluded from influencing the specifics of what is being seen as acceptable by the hivemind.) **********(this division would be the egalitarian criterion I suppose, but we would still have to get into the specifics of how to calculate the original value “harvested” from a single individual, it would have to, for example, give more value for one person that adheres to some consensus present in some terrorist organization than to a consensus that, let us say, makes an individual wash his hands after taking a piss. It is that way because it can be easily seen that a terrorist believing that by his adherence to his consensus (among other things, but let’s not delve into the discussion of how much sway the phenomenon we identified as a consensus wields and how much those other things that don’t really have anything to do with interacting with other people) he will be able to fuarrrk 70-something virgins in the afterlife will be more zealous than a person that thinks his peers will look at him weird if he doesn’t abide by what is seen as hygienic.)

>>83633 >How do I make sure people understand me without pretending I'm something that I'm not? I'd say you can seek out the more able people, since shaping people in a way that makes them see nuance is a hopeless task, or you can work on expressing yourself clearly and convincingly. The clarity part is especially hard, because if you got used to being in isolation you probably didn't need to think about how to exactly structure your thoughts in a way that can be easily understood by others and were satisfied as long as you felt that the thoughts themselves made sense to you. You could say that being in isolation makes you create a sort of "private language" that could technically become public, but its usually up to you to translate it. The more clearly you naturally think, and the less you use metaphors/images and other things that are not simply words that could be written down and function commonly in everyday speech the harder this translation will be. So it might just be better to take what you discovered or arrived at while with yourself as inspiration for arriving at an analogous point using only those phrases that can be easily communicated to others and are difficult only in the way they are connected together and not in the wealth of phrases that you start with. But the last thing is not really a rule I guess, there may be instances where some complicated phrase really rich in meaning should be used instead of more simple phrases that are ingeniously linked together, because this richer phrase is more commonly used. However searching for able people also works well here since if you find people that naturally have both the bigger arsenal of phrases they can correctly use, as well as are more talented in linking the phrases together then even your own shortcomings in clarity may not be a problem since they themselves could have many elements of language as well as skills in linking them that make it so they will immediately be able to understand your point at times when an average person could not. The correct choice of people also solves the problem of simplified language stemming from social media and other such places. Most of the people I met in real life that I'd say were intelligent had a really strong aversion to social media/marketing/politics and other such things or were at a point where they even blocked out the existence of those things to a point that they couldn't discuss these things with me since they didn't know what I was talking about. If choosing the right people for associating yourself with is the key to solving the issue, as what I wrote so far leads me to believe, then we need to think of a right conduct for getting to know those people. But that I already discussed in a way somewhere above. So I guess the answer to that would be: courage and unwillingness to compromise about the things you truly believe in, if all you are met with are dissatisfaction on the part of the person you are speaking with, provided that you arrived at your cherished conclusions with full seriousness and truly see no better alternative to them. If the person wants to provide an argument then its in your own best interest to hear them out because maybe they arrived at something better than you, but only if you yourself see that it is better should you change your stance on things. If you act in this open way and say what you think, and are serious about thinking it is visible to others. And I mean, IT IS REALLY VISIBLE. Its very rare to see a person actually speak their mind and actively seek to know more in this same serious and open manner. I also guess that some environments are better for it than others. Sometimes you will be looked at weirdly and you have to have enough confidence in yourself to not be bothered by things that cannot present any good (and the category of "objectively good" is very useful here) reasons for you being wrong and worthy to be shunned by others. Its somewhat like living in a castle under siege, also because compared to the common informational slop that is being served the masses through venues such as social media you are indeed a king in a castle, but more importantly this siege is something that may or may not occur depending on how lucky you get and where you choose to display your true thoughts. I'd say its worth it to try one's luck in all that, but oh well. Sometimes a worm is less likely to suffer harm simply because it wasn't spotted.

>>83639 Getting derezzed isnt a new thing yet people didnt act like they do today not even 10 years ago and especially not 20 years ago. So no it isnt.

>>83623 It really depends, and no one can say anything accurate without actually hearing you talk. Maybe you aren't thinking about how other people are going to comprehend what you say, or maybe other people are not trying to comprehend what you say. Also, your word choice is important. Autistic people are overly literal and will use words as their exact meanings. The other end of the spectrum (schizo-affective disorders), tend to use words based on the ideas around them. You could be doing either of these things, or none of them. It doesn't help that normalcattle sometimes have a weird way of comprehending things based not just on what you say, but also on their own perception of you.