The future "racism"

[OzyWho]

I put "racism" in quotation marks because that's not what it is but it's thy closest word I could think of.

According to this site, the number of neurodivergents (in that case - autistics) is slowly increasing: (albeit that's not the point of the article, but it's what I take away from)
2000 1 in 150
2002 1 in 150
2004 1 in 125
2006 1 in 110
2008 1 in 88
2010 1 in 68
2012 1 in 69
2014 1 in 59
2016 1 in 54


Just imagine a scenario where let's say in 1000 years, for example, 1/3rd of people would be neurodivergant. How would the people handle it? Would they be more mature than people nowadays? Or they couldn't help themselves but secretly talk about the neurodivergents behind their backs, which would lead to "looking at them weird" - one thing leads to another and VOILA a new kind of "racism" emerges! And then even further in the future, suddenly the neurotypicals are in the minority and it's all in reverse.

I find it a funny scenario to think about.

By the way, if you guys don't mind me asking, which do you think is more politically correct? Identity first language vs people first? Autistic person or person with autism?

[Helz]

That is interesting. I had a conversation with Superjack a while back on how Autism is spreading and there is no real effort to find out why. I kinda feel like 100 years from now it will be like how we look at smoking-> cancer now but it will be something else in our lives like preservatives or cell phones or whatever.

For the PC term I am the wrong guy to speak on that subject. I am a social fuck up in many regards : )

[Oberon]

That increase seems gargantuan. A 200% increase in just 20 years?
I wonder if that's legit.

[Oberon]

Maybe it's the diagnosis of autism that's changed, or rather, the threshold for getting diagnosed.
Such a massive increase within not even a generation seems highly unlikely

[Oberon]

In any event something I do see happening on a longer timescale is the increased prevalence of mental illness and neurological disorders (especially the latter), as they're tied to intelligence.

[Oberon]

I put "racism" in quotation marks because that's not what it is but it's thy closest word I could think of.

According to this site, the number of neurodivergents (in that case - autistics) is slowly increasing: (albeit that's not the point of the article, but it's what I take away from)
2000 1 in 150
2002 1 in 150
2004 1 in 125
2006 1 in 110
2008 1 in 88
2010 1 in 68
2012 1 in 69
2014 1 in 59
2016 1 in 54


Just imagine a scenario where let's say in 1000 years, for example, 1/3rd of people would be neurodivergant. How would the people handle it? Would they be more mature than people nowadays? Or they couldn't help themselves but secretly talk about the neurodivergents behind their backs, which would lead to "looking at them weird" - one thing leads to another and VOILA a new kind of "racism" emerges! And then even further in the future, suddenly the neurotypicals are in the minority and it's all in reverse.

I find it a funny scenario to think about.

By the way, if you guys don't mind me asking, which do you think is more politically correct? Identity first language vs people first? Autistic person or person with autism?

Probably the latter.

[OzyWho]

Maybe it's the diagnosis of autism that's changed, or rather, the threshold for getting diagnosed.
Such a massive increase within not even a generation seems highly unlikely

I agree. But I believe there's probably an increase nonetheless.

[Ash]

Just imagine a scenario where let's say in 1000 years, for example, 1/3rd of people would be neurodivergant. How would the people handle it? Would they be more mature than people nowadays? Or they couldn't help themselves but secretly talk about the neurodivergents behind their backs, which would lead to "looking at them weird" - one thing leads to another and VOILA a new kind of "racism" emerges! And then even further in the future, suddenly the neurotypicals are in the minority and it's all in reverse.

The numbers are skeptical but regardless, do you think people have grown to be more mature during the past 1000 years? There's been discrimination and genocides based on religion, race, political, and sexual orientations. Has history shown that humans are capable of learning from history? Has it shown that humans are capable of "maturing" and capable of growing sympathy for strangers? If there is another 1000 years for mankind, then the same discriminatory factors will remain on our social scale. Discrimination and genocide on neurodivergents isn't unheard of, and was already done by the Nazis during WW2. Neurodivergents are bullied everyday and their voice isn't very loud because they're a minority. Nothing that exists today will be "new" for the future.

Perhaps something that would actually be a problem, would be AI, and people could discriminate against AI for taking our jobs...

[Renegade]

The apparent increase in neurodivergence is probably just better estimation of the baseline for most of it. Better diagnostic tests and awareness around autism is my guess.

[DJarJar]

Yea the autism spectrum system leads to a lot more diagnosis than before. I think better data would be number with Asperger's syndrome.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

The numbers are skeptical but regardless, do you think people have grown to be more mature during the past 1000 years? There's been discrimination and genocides based on religion, race, political, and sexual orientations. Has history shown that humans are capable of learning from history? Has it shown that humans are capable of "maturing" and capable of growing sympathy for strangers? If there is another 1000 years for mankind, then the same discriminatory factors will remain on our social scale. Discrimination and genocide on neurodivergents isn't unheard of, and was already done by the Nazis during WW2. Neurodivergents are bullied everyday and their voice isn't very loud because they're a minority. Nothing that exists today will be "new" for the future.

Perhaps something that would actually be a problem, would be AI, and people could discriminate against AI for taking our jobs...

You seem to forget that 100 years ago, women could basically not work outside of certain "less prestigious" spheres and were officially lesser than men. That has changed. Change is therefore possible. I'd even argue discrimination against non-neurotypicals is already frowned upon and that this acceptance is bound to increase as other forms of discriminations are decreasing as well. Unless those who fight for equality go crazy and polarize society so hard they sabotage their own mission, it's doubtful discrimination against non-neurotypicals will worsen, at least in democratic societies.

[Oberon]

I don't think so tbh, but don't make me explain why. Talking about the OP.

[Oberon]

The apparent increase in neurodivergence is probably just better estimation of the baseline for most of it. Better diagnostic tests and awareness around autism is my guess.

Yeah, pretty much. Or over diagnosis.

[Oberon]

You seem to forget that 100 years ago, women could basically not work outside of certain "less prestigious" spheres and were officially lesser than men. That has changed. Change is therefore possible. I'd even argue discrimination against non-neurotypicals is already frowned upon and that this acceptance is bound to increase as other forms of discriminations are decreasing as well. Unless those who fight for equality go crazy and polarize society so hard they sabotage their own mission, it's doubtful discrimination against non-neurotypicals will worsen, at least in democratic societies.

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons. I don't think women were discriminated against in the way you put it.

[MartinGG99]

Maybe it's the diagnosis of autism that's changed, or rather, the threshold for getting diagnosed.
Such a massive increase within not even a generation seems highly unlikely

I'm actually quite curious about what picture this would paint on a spectrum for the data.

I would hypothesize its mostly high-functioning cases (of Autism) that are suddenly being discovered; not that autism in general is somehow becoming more prevalent.

One of the primary difficulties faced with people with high-functioning autism (or Asperger's syndrome in some cases) is that their base-line developmental effects are smaller but still in some ways noticeable. However, its not significant enough for most unaware people to consider to be an actual disability in some cases and may just write it off as eccentricity instead. So when awareness is spread about Autism, its more likely that someone with high-functioning Autism isn't just going to be written off as some weirdo or just some eccentric kid.

I personally experienced the negative effects of when most of my middle school staff didn't suspect nor take seriously my developmental disability, and while I could write paragraphs about my overall experience I'll just leave a small bit of evidence that I recall: An independent psychologist had evaluated me, and wrote to the school (for whatever reason(s)) advising that I shouldn't be forced to participate in Gym classes (As per the norm for Maryland schools). They disregarded that; With lackluster school support I never really had any positive social experiences, and as a result had even worse social development. It's very important that developmental conditions or disorders get acknowledged and/or treated. If they are not then the effects can get much worse since it is developmental (affecting one's development) and therefore can have a compounding negative effect even if the original disorder or condition wasn't really severe.


Side note: However, I'm not sure if Asperger's syndrome (which is very similar to high-functioning autism) is counted as having Autism in the data. Back in 2012~ish the APA in the U.S. had basically put Asperger's syndrome as a separate thing when compared to Autism in the DSM-5 (Yay the U.S. basically being the only one to do X thing again). Since the data only showed an increased prevalence rate, rather than decreased or other data around that time, I would assume they didn't count that.

[MartinGG99]

Also

Just imagine a scenario where let's say in 1000 years, for example, 1/3rd of people would be neurodivergant. How would the people handle it? Would they be more mature than people nowadays? Or they couldn't help themselves but secretly talk about the neurodivergents behind their backs, which would lead to "looking at them weird" - one thing leads to another and VOILA a new kind of "racism" emerges! And then even further in the future, suddenly the neurotypicals are in the minority and it's all in reverse.

If you're asking if people in general will have biases against or for eachother for something or anything, then very likely yes.

If you're asking if bias due to (specifically) neurodiversity or neurotypicality will happen, I'm not sure if we can say either way as sometimes it depends on the conditions themselves. For example, some aspects of cultures carry a passive stigma around having certain mental or health disabilities (or even for just visiting a therapist in general) and I'm not sure if they will go away any time immediately soon.

[MartinGG99]

By the way, if you guys don't mind me asking, which do you think is more politically correct? Identity first language vs people first? Autistic person or person with autism?

I think its more politically correct to say "X with Y", like "I am a person with Asperger's Syndrome / Autism". They aren't defined by their autism, which is what placing the descriptor before-hand does or implies.

It also sounds weird to say "I am a Asperger's Syndromic person".

[DJarJar]

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons. I don't think women were discriminated against in the way you put it.

I have to believe this is bait

[theoneceko]

I put "racism" in quotation marks because that's not what it is but it's thy closest word I could think of.

According to this site, the number of neurodivergents (in that case - autistics) is slowly increasing: (albeit that's not the point of the article, but it's what I take away from)
2000 1 in 150
2002 1 in 150
2004 1 in 125
2006 1 in 110
2008 1 in 88
2010 1 in 68
2012 1 in 69
2014 1 in 59
2016 1 in 54


Just imagine a scenario where let's say in 1000 years, for example, 1/3rd of people would be neurodivergant. How would the people handle it? Would they be more mature than people nowadays? Or they couldn't help themselves but secretly talk about the neurodivergents behind their backs, which would lead to "looking at them weird" - one thing leads to another and VOILA a new kind of "racism" emerges! And then even further in the future, suddenly the neurotypicals are in the minority and it's all in reverse.

I find it a funny scenario to think about.

By the way, if you guys don't mind me asking, which do you think is more politically correct? Identity first language vs people first? Autistic person or person with autism?

future of the world is looking pretty bleak rn, bc i know oops is autistic

[theoneceko]

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons. I don't think women were discriminated against in the way you put it.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Oberon again."

UWU!!!!

[OzyWho]

Also



If you're asking if people in general will have biases against or for eachother for something or anything, then very likely yes.

If you're asking if bias due to (specifically) neurodiversity or neurotypicality will happen, I'm not sure if we can say either way as sometimes it depends on the conditions themselves. For example, some aspects of cultures carry a passive stigma around having certain mental or health disabilities (or even for just visiting a therapist in general) and I'm not sure if they will go away any time immediately soon.

I meant more in the realm of discrimination rather than biases.
Though I'm now curious how will employer biases affect employee prospects.

[OzyWho]

One of the primary difficulties faced with people with high-functioning autism (or Asperger's syndrome in some cases) is that their base-line developmental effects are smaller but still in some ways noticeable.

I'm sorry for this probably dumb looking question, but what is "base-line developmental effects"? That combination of words I don't understand, and I tried to google "autism base-line developmental effects" but to no avail.

I personally experienced the negative effects of when most of my middle school staff didn't suspect nor take seriously my developmental disability, and while I could write paragraphs about my overall experience I'll just leave a small bit of evidence that I recall: An independent psychologist had evaluated me, and wrote to the school (for whatever reason(s)) advising that I shouldn't be forced to participate in Gym classes (As per the norm for Maryland schools).

Tbh, at least over the written text - I would never had guessed that you have a, quote: "neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication".
I can't imagine how that'd change if I met you IRL. I'm curious if you can think of something that I'd notice if met you in person?


Also, I can't imagine what does difficulty in social interaction have a do with the gym. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[MartinGG99]

I meant more in the realm of discrimination rather than biases.
Though I'm now curious how will employer biases affect employee prospects.

Well, isn't racism/discrimination just a more apparent form of bias?

I think the point still stands unfortunately.

[MartinGG99]

I'm sorry for this probably dumb looking question, but what is "base-line developmental effects"? That combination of words I don't understand, and I tried to google "autism base-line developmental effects" but to no avail.

Sorry, I don't really have a good set of words to describe it in a short summary. I'll explain it in more length now. Basically, while Autism **can** be treated in some respects (such as social support), in many other ways though it will still have an effect on the person.

Take, for example, sensory over-responsitivity/overload. It's well suspected or supported that people with Autism (or even Asperger's Syndrome) possibly experience certain senses a lot more strongly or weaker than most people. This often occurs for when trying to hear. So, eventually, you can encounter stressful situations as shown by this video at 3:20. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect for people who are lower on the spectrum can experience this more severely.

As far as I know, there isn't a developed & effective way to treat sensory over-responsivity/overload other than to just

a. Have them experience or otherwise learn what to expect in an environment or situation
b. Use some sort of device such as the headphones shown in the video before-hand

Regardless though, even if it's "treated" and you aren't stressed out by the situation, it can still be preety difficult to focus down onto one voice. This happens fairly common for me whenever I'm in cafeterias; unless I'm near a person, I can't tell what they're saying even though I can "hear" them just because I can't single-out their voice. If you want to know more about this "single-out" ability, in psychology its sometimes referred to as the Cocktail party effect.

Keep in mind for most people with autism, this is just *one* of their challenges. While some aspects of autism can be treated with developmental support, others can't. This is also not mentioning that many people with Autism have a vast variety of potential comorbid conditions link.

Also, I can't imagine what does difficulty in social interaction have a do with the gym. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One potential reason for removing one from Gym class is the above with sensory over-responsitivity/overload. Given that a child with autism is, well, a child, having to deal with complex social pressures in gym (such as playing a team-based game like football) can be really overwhelming. And as with the other children, they are children as well and so they may make the unwise choice of not being supportive of their teammates especially if the see them lose because of someone else (even if that isn't the clear-cut truth, that's presumably how a child could see it).

So, in some respects (and especially if the school is not supporting a good social enviroment), gym classes can be very meaningful in a bad way or in some degree traumatizing. Though I want to caution the word "traumatizing"; that doesn't mean it's like the worst of the worst that one can experience. It can still make meaningful life impacts though. Just not good ones.

Tbh, at least over the written text - I would never had guessed that you have a, quote: "neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication".
I can't imagine how that'd change if I met you IRL. I'm curious if you can think of something that I'd notice if met you in person?

Well here's a few ways that my condition affects me, though some of it is rarely seen:

1. I am typing here. I can formulate vast lengths of what I'm trying to communicate into typed words. If you met me IRL, chances are at certain points I would start doing a lot of stuttering especially if I'm discussing topics that I don't verbally discuss often or haven't before.

I'm also high-functioning (if Asperger's were on the spectrum within the U.S.), so I don't really have as an adverse issue. More often than not past life experience have had just as much of an influence on who I am and how I interact today just as my Asperger's does.

2. Per my earlier cafeteria example in this post, I would have difficulty understanding what you say in certain environments. There is no real way of mitigating this unless we used some sort of communication technology like an earpeice + microphone.

3. Depending on the setting, you may find me walking around a lot. This isn't because I can't sit or whatever; this is just my way of fidgeting.

4. My face (and other non-verbal communication) is more often un-responsive, though that has been improving in recent years as I've studied psychology among other activities in order to better understand myself and how to achieve my goals.

5. For much of my life I had serious difficulty managing anxiety at times. I would say that this would've been apparent, but nowadays not really because I've shifted my mindset towards life in a way that helps me ignore + I understand it better. If I have a very unusual situation that is *unexpected*, that could have serious consequences, that's where my anxiety will become really prevalent. I would tend to want to stick by some sort of text-book interaction or rule because that would sometimes be the only level of expectancy towards the situation that I can get, which is important for managing my anxiety.

6. I don't really do this when interacting with people (because I find it embarassing) but one thing I often do when excited at my computer, for example, is to flap my hands. It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but it's what I do. If I see an exciting battle or explosion and I don't have any pressing commands to do in a strategy-genre game, I'll occasionally just flap my hands due to excitement.

About #6, I have absolutely no clue about the research or prevalence on this. I was once told by my psychologist that it's not uncommon for people with autism to have some sort of unusual reaction to emotions / excitement. Though it's not like I've studied it like I have for other aspects of Autism.

[Oberon]

It's interesting to see how these things blend into normal behaviour at the really neurotypical end of the spectrum. I see myself in some of those things you described (fidgeting, trouble with understanding what someone else is saying, facial expressions). In another day and age maybe I would have very mild autism. I probably just have some extreme anxiety disorder, since, from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons. I don't think women were discriminated against in the way you put it.

...you ought to be joking/baiting... women couldn't vote or sign damn contracts without the consent of their husband or father lol... that very much is systemic discrimination against women, and saying that didn't happen would be hardcore revisionism. If you really believe that, you're like the 9/11 deniers who count like this: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14...

[Oberon]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they were seen as lesser than men.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they were seen as lesser than men.

Ah, yes, I can very well picture this mentality.

You're not lesser than us men! But because you're not men, you have inferior rights and we have domination over you.

That would be a completely nonsensical stance, even excluding the fact that many sources stated women's inferiority back then. It would be a waste of time to go try to find a ton of them, but you're free to do so by yourself. Here's one example among many: https://www.icr.org/article/darwins-...s-inferiority/
This one does not only imply women's inferiority as was the norm back then, but clearly states it. But as I said, denying that it was implied in that period's mentality is completely nonsensical because it's illogical: there would be no foundation to discriminate women if they weren't inferior, after all. When people realized women actually weren't inferior, the inferiority of their social status lost its meaning and began disintegrating.

Another example I just thought of (probably a more canonical one): Eve was the one who ate the apple and who brought sin to Adam... Don't tell me you never heard negative discourse against women referring to this.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Also, I can move the off-topic posts to another thread if so you wish, Ozy; my goal was not to derail your thread, but to elaborate on principles on which are based the flawed logic of discrimination. Speaking of which...

Discrimination against neurodivergents is based on a similar flawed reasoning, but this time, it's harder to debunk because it's more subtle. A non-negligible amount of them (but not all) happen to be less functional in society than average because of the way their brain works, which is either less suited for autonomous life or simply less suited for the rules society established. That doesn't make them any "lesser humans"... yet the confusion between "having trouble doing something" and "being a lesser person" is common and leads to very sad results.

[MartinGG99]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they were seen as lesser than men.

I think the definition of "discrimination" and the connotation it carries here is important.

Even if we wholly accept they were not seen as lesser; that there was no ill-will in such beliefs or societal constructs, the law itself viewed them differently (a synonym of discrimination) because of sex. Most of these differences arguably disadvantaged women, and were not necessarily mandated by biological differences as a result of sex.

[Oberon]

I think the definition of "discrimination" and the connotation it carries here is important.

Even if we wholly accept they were not seen as lesser; that there was no ill-will in such beliefs or societal constructs, the law itself viewed them differently (a synonym of discrimination) because of sex. Most of these differences arguably disadvantaged women, and were not necessarily mandated by biological differences as a result of sex.

Never disagreed on that.

[theoneceko]

LOL. looks like a man is more offended than a woman by mag's comments

[DJarJar]

LOL. looks like a man is more offended than a woman by mag's comments

The stance he is taking is so nonsensical that it can’t be seriously argued against

[DJarJar]

It's interesting to see how these things blend into normal behaviour at the really neurotypical end of the spectrum. I see myself in some of those things you described (fidgeting, trouble with understanding what someone else is saying, facial expressions). In another day and age maybe I would have very mild autism. I probably just have some extreme anxiety disorder, since, from time to time, I act very much like a normal person.

It sounds like you are on the autism spectrum and would benefit from accepting that, rather than being afraid of it not being “normal” (which doesn’t exist)

[Marshmallow Marshall]

LOL. looks like a man is more offended than a woman by mag's comments

I am not offended, I simply disagree and find his stance dumb lol. I don't find him dumb for it, nor do I think he's a lesser person for having that stance.

~~

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
UwU.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

It sounds like you are on the autism spectrum and would benefit from accepting that, rather than being afraid of it not being “normal” (which doesn’t exist)

Yesss another abnormal person saying NORMAL PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST! If people stopped wanting to be "normal" and thinking they're at fault for not being "normal", they would be much happier.

And ftr, I don't think Oberon is autistic lmao. If he is, then so am I, and so are a lot of people (I could be wrong of course, but you seem to be pushing it :P). Not being "normal" doesn't mean you have to put a specific "abnormality status" sticker on your forehead.

[theoneceko]

The stance he is taking is so nonsensical that it can’t be seriously argued against

omg lol

ur the best uFu

[theoneceko]

It sounds like you are on the autism spectrum and would benefit from accepting that, rather than being afraid of it not being “normal” (which doesn’t exist)

haha obe got rekt. UWU he got rakt!!!

[Oberon]

It sounds like you are on the autism spectrum and would benefit from accepting that, rather than being afraid of it not being “normal” (which doesn’t exist)

I'm not afraid of it not being normal. I don't think autism is my problem. From what I understand autistic people have problems with understanding social interactions, but with me it kinda comes and goes. I figure if it's something inborn like autism, the effects shouldn't change from time to time - they should be permanent, with perhaps minor variation.

[Oberon]

Ah, yes, I can very well picture this mentality.

You're not lesser than us men! But because you're not men, you have inferior rights and we have domination over you.

That would be a completely nonsensical stance, even excluding the fact that many sources stated women's inferiority back then. It would be a waste of time to go try to find a ton of them, but you're free to do so by yourself. Here's one example among many: https://www.icr.org/article/darwins-...s-inferiority/
This one does not only imply women's inferiority as was the norm back then, but clearly states it. But as I said, denying that it was implied in that period's mentality is completely nonsensical because it's illogical: there would be no foundation to discriminate women if they weren't inferior, after all. When people realized women actually weren't inferior, the inferiority of their social status lost its meaning and began disintegrating.

Another example I just thought of (probably a more canonical one): Eve was the one who ate the apple and who brought sin to Adam... Don't tell me you never heard negative discourse against women referring to this.

I'm sure you can find sources nowadays as well that say women are inferior to men. Something something misogyny? :P
If you think women were seen as inferior, what did common people think of a Queen leading them? :P
A Queen like Queen Victoria.

The Biblical example you gave doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. Men do a lot of stupid shit for women :P I'm pretty sure that Adam would've eaten the apple even if he'd known what it did.

[Oberon]

Yesss another abnormal person saying NORMAL PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST! If people stopped wanting to be "normal" and thinking they're at fault for not being "normal", they would be much happier.

I guess that's true. There are other kinds of abnormality though, more useful than having a disorder of some kind
Nothing wrong with having a disorder, but I feel like nowadays a lot of people go out of their way to be "abnormal" in any way they can - because they can't be interesting as they are.

[Oberon]

I am not offended, I simply disagree and find his stance dumb lol. I don't find him dumb for it, nor do I think he's a lesser person for having that stance.

~~

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
UwU.

surrender Frenchman

[OzyWho]

I guess that's true. There are other kinds of abnormality though, more useful than having a disorder of some kind
Nothing wrong with having a disorder, but I feel like nowadays a lot of people go out of their way to be "abnormal" in any way they can - because they can't be interesting as they are.

Why would they want to be interesting?
I'd imagine most introverts don't want too much attention to them.

[Oberon]

Why would they want to be interesting?
I'd imagine most introverts don't want too much attention to them.

Maybe not interesting, but special.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

In case it's not apparent enough since it got buried, I'm gonna post my edit here lol:

And ftr, I don't think Oberon is autistic lmao. If he is, then so am I, and so are a lot of people (I could be wrong of course, but you seem to be pushing it :P). Not being "normal" doesn't mean you have to put a specific "abnormality status" sticker on your forehead.

Trying to put a sticker is trying to normalize abnormality. Can't functional human beings just be human beings lol? I'm speaking in general here, not just in this context. Issues like children being fed random pills they often don't need (like Ritalin) because they aren't robots would be avoided if this mentality was to disappear.

I'm sure you can find sources nowadays as well that say women are inferior to men. Something something misogyny? :P

Yeah, and it's still retarded and only held by a small minority XD. There also are people saying the Earth is flat nowadays, but they're dumb and a minority too.

If you think women were seen as inferior, what did common people think of a Queen leading them? :P
A Queen like Queen Victoria.

Female ruler = -10 opinion, no matter the fact you have 30 in every damn skill...
Although I'm not highly informed on the matter, I'd say Victoria was ok for the people because she was great. Same goes for Elizabeth the First or Isabella of Castile, for example. Any woman who wasn't great was in trouble to various extents because of her gender, though.

The Biblical example you gave doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. Men do a lot of stupid shit for women :P I'm pretty sure that Adam would've eaten the apple even if he'd known what it did.

I'm not talking about what the Bible teaches, but rather about how people interpreted it in history. Now, that interpretation is regarded as... pretty bad, and honestly, I think a lot of Christians try to forget that part xD.

[Oberon]

I kinda wanna delete everything I posted bc I was drunk and don't remember typing it lol

[OzyWho]

I kinda wanna delete everything I posted bc I was drunk and don't remember typing it lol

Isn't it a bit early to be drunk?

[Oberon]

Isn't it a bit early to be drunk?

Good question

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Don't play FM while drunk ==> don't debate while drunk xD

[Ash]

There's clearly some people in this thread that falls under the neurodivergent category, not including Martin.