“because that’s just how things are done”
Then things are done in a stupid way for stupid reasons that nobody likes and we shouldn’t do it then.
A little girl sees her mum cooking sausages and asks “mum, why do you cut the ends off of the sausages before you fry them?” Her mum replies “well, that’s how I learned it from my mother.”
So the girl calls her grandma and asks “grandma, why do you and mum always cut the ends off of sausages before you fry them?” The grandma replies “well, that’s how I learned it from my mother.”
So the girl calls her great grandmother and asks “great grandma, why do you, mum and grandma always cut the ends off of sausages before you fry them?” The great grandma replies “have they not bought a bigger pan yet?”
I’ve always heard and told it as “baking bread in an oven that got bigger over the years” but it’s my favorite go-to for appeal to tradition.
My go-to is this version, but that’s a bit long to type out on my phone. Either way, appeal to tradition is a joke.
Nice :)
The version I heard was with a roast and involved cutting the ends off. Funny how many version there are.
“because that’s just how things are done”
Yeah, that’s the essence of conservatism.
My family members always get up in arms when I tell them I changed the family recipe for one dish or another. “You can’t change perfection!” Then they try it and ask for the recipe. I hate reverence for the mystical ancestors; they can be - and often are - wrong.
as if our ancestors didn’t change recipes themselves, yes i’m sure ol’ great-great-great-great-gramma Beatrice used tomatoes
Mom, please get off the internet. It’s not good for you.
For clarification, Just joking. That sentence was one of the most repeated anwsers to everything when i dared to ask how something works from my mother.
And also “this is how we’ve always done it” - cool, you’ve always done it wrong.
I literally did that when I started my current gig, because they were doing so many things manually that were trivially automated and didn’t require a three page checklist and multiple hours of time. Within 3 months I took a 4-5hr/instance task into a 30 minute one that also gives you 80% of the shit you need to check off on the QA sheet.
/c/autism is leaking.
This is me to my core. (I mean, just check the username.) The easiest way to lose my trust is to say the reason is “because I said so.” Okay, but why do you say so? Is there a real reason, or are you being a buzz-kill? Because plenty of people have arbitrary reasons for things and sometimes that’s what it comes down to.
I can recall specific instances where I was given a reason and it made all the difference. Like a lot of little kids, I used to scream when having fun. Just saying, “Don’t do that” didn’t make an impact. But when my mom explained that when she hears me scream, she thinks I’m in trouble, and if I scream for no reason it’d make it harder for her to respond if I were actually in trouble, that’s the day I stopped.
A little bit of explanation can go a long way. Sometimes people treat kids like they can’t understand deeper reasoning, but that’s not true for everyone.
I pay it forward now. A kid I worked with preferred to point at things using his middle finger instead of his pointer finger, even when the thing he was pointing at was on the ceiling. When I told him to use his pointer instead and he asked why, I told him, “Some people think that means something very mean. I don’t want people to think you’re trying to be mean.” That’s all it took for him to start using his index finger instead.
Point is, when people explain why something is done a certain way, they can be far more likely to respect their rule. I get that there are times when quick obedience is required, like when there’s imminent danger. However, explaining more trivial situations builds the trust necessary to navigate those moments better. If someone’s always pushing for authority over arbitrary things, they shouldn’t be surprised when people (especially kids) don’t listen to them when the matter is serious. Which is why I take the time to explain things with the kids I work with - sometimes we really do need to move quickly, particularly when another kid is acting out aggressively and we need to leave the room. They know I’ll give reasons when there is time, so when I tell them to do something with urgency, they know things are getting real and it’s time to move.
it’s frankly baffling to me that people don’t just throw in a one-sentence explanation of why kids should do things, how tf are they supposed to learn?
Something i’ve come to realize is that an absolutely horrifying amount of my “”“autistic”“” traits were just from not having had the opportunity to learn things, like when i was a kid i literally didn’t understand that i was supposed to speak up if i’m in pain, i just sort of assumed that adults knew and didn’t care.
Just in the past 5-10 years my life has been hugely improved by seeking out knowledge on my own, to the point that i now find informal social stuff so easy that other people are impressed.It’s why i’m an ardent supporter of the idea that most (or at least many) disabilities are almost entirely a problem with society, not the individual. And the depressing thing is that a lot of the adjustments to be made are really not that significant at all.
I think one of the reasons some of the little kids in my life like me is I try to give them honest explanations. They don’t always fully understand, but I think they appreciate getting answers. And probably appreciate the occasional “I don’t know, actually. Let’s look it up”
My parents did this as well, and I have massive respect for them because of it. Similarly, the only time my dad would yell at me was when something was urgent and dangerous and he needed me to do the thing right then and there’s no time to explain. I knew I could always ask for an explanation after the fact.
“Because we’ll stop paying you if you don’t do it.”
…well, that’s fairly convincing.
Yeah, convincing me to find another job.
Supremely unconvincing.
See if starvation is a little more charismatic.
An object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.
This is why Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest sunnuvabitch in space!
Space isn’t expanding, it’s running away.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
ITT rampant discrimination/ableism. People acting like the world is functional or that most rules make sense and are grounded in reality.
If somebody asks why a rule is the way it is, something really beautiful happens if people entertain and allow that questioning.
Was the rule made that way to simply punish someone in the past? Could the rule be improved? Does the rule apply to the present day? Could the rule be done away with?
If the enforcement of rules is taken seriously, the questioning, validity, and improvement of those rules should be, as well.
Otherwise, we live in an authoritarian society that actively encourages enforcing/following draconian rules no one understands - rules that would likely be enforced improperly or in an unbalanced sense, because nobody can properly explain it when somebody questions the rule (in good faith).
Having trouble with authority and/or being neurodivergent doesn’t mean you are anti-social, dangerous, or bad for the workplace.
Bad rules, however, can be anti-social or create a culture of anti-social behavior, they can be dangerous or harmful (especially if they can not be explained and are not widely understood), and they can be bad for the workplace. It may just not be readily apparent when everybody keeps their heads down and says yes all the time to bullshit.
It’s like people think I’m just trying to be an asshole. I really don’t like starting conflict without having a good reason, and questioning the questionable is one of the best reasons out there.
I swear, some of my recent posts have brought out some nasty responses that I didn’t expect. On one hand, I don’t want to hold myself back from posting stuff just because I fear unjustified backlash. At the same time, I need to better prepare myself for it.
Don’t change anything about your posting! You’re literally one of the best posters I’ve encountered on here.
Nah sis, your post is totally on point, and I love it. Authority is something we must question!
I’m sorry your experience has been less than ideal. I enjoy every single one of your posts that I’ve caught and I truly appreciate them.
I suggest doing what I did, just accept that every experience (in this case, post on social media) is a learning opportunity for yourself and others.
Some people have more learning to do, and we don’t have to blame them or feel badly about ourselves for being discriminated against, or not being understood/accepted, or having our intentions misread. You clearly aren’t trying to hurt anyone!
You said it in your reply earlier to me, embracing yourself and all your quirks helped you move forward. That helped me! Think about all of the people who are helped by the discussions you spark and move forward proudly! 💚
If somebody asks why a rule is the way it is, something really beautiful happens if people entertain and allow that questioning.
What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?
If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.
Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.
Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).
Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.
If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that.
To be fair, most people doing stuff like that know very well, why the specific rules exist, but do not care, and are intentionally breaking them. In this example, if you have a driving licence, I image in most places they require you learning the rules of traffic, so they can be assumed to already have the knowledge. If they cared about the actual specifics of the reason, they would have asked, when they had to learn about it: thus them demanding answers for the rule on the fly, should also be assumed to be dishonest.
And also in this example, if you are unable to figure out on your own, why you should not endanger bikers, by putting huge metal obstacles, with suddenly opening doors in front of them, means you should not have a driving licence at all.They always have some reason, they think is good enough for rule breaking - and might be, like some medical emergency or something, but those times would normally be solved with a polite discussion anyway, after the situation allows it - but usually it is just them being selfish morons.
What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?
I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it’s over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?
If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.
I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we’re not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.
Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.
As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can’t assume to know what somebody does or doesn’t know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.
Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).
Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.
Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.
I specifically made sure to include that I specified “in good faith”. That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I’m not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it’s sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.
As for somebody being perceivably “annoyingly obtuse”, that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn’t waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.
Is the rule well intentioned but impossible or self defeating to apply consistently, and the intent needs to be known because that’s the only part that’s worth a single fuck?
You’re right. You can also learn a lot about the culture and society around you because of that questioning, even if you end up still following the rules.
On the other hand, what’s there to gain from following the rules without question and forcing others to do the same? The only thing I can imagine right now that could be gained is the feeling that you are helping society “stay in the right track”.
This means that there are about 3 options:
- Learn something new;
- Continue to follow the rules without question while trying to force others to not learn something new, and feel good about it.
- Do nothing and continue to follow the rules (you’re not bothered enough to learn something new, but also don’t want to be a pain in the ass);
Notice that when questioning the rules, you might come to the conclusion that there’s no harm in following the rules, or that following the rules is what’s the best for you or those around you. Questioning ≠ opposing. Question = checking validity and understanding why.
For the reasons Michael has outlined above, questioning the rules feels like the most productive approach.
But you might improve something or expose malfeasance. You’ll have to be killed. Sorry; just the rule.
You’ll have to be killed. Sorry; just the rule.
Hopefully the Agent Smiths of the world consider another way of being.
Do you think that would be better?
Yes, much better, and not only that - I advocate for them (even when it’s unpopular). I’m somebody who thinks even Peter Thiel can choose another way of being and I’d be happy to help them out if they ever decide to release their ambitions for world domination.
yes
Then either its illegal or you’re wrong.
Me? Suggest illegal action? Never. The matrix can be released without advocating for any harm, loss of freedom, or suggesting anything illegal. It just takes a willingness to reform our justice system and engage in rehabilitative or restorative justice, justice that is based on a foundation of consent.
If Peter Thiel wants to surveil the entire world and create AI-based tools to enslave humanity, with his consent, we can answer his desire and make him a computer program that resembles the matrix/our world. Let him cook and enslave/kill billions in a virtual reality he is empowered to help create. We could even employ human actors who choose to participate in his recovery. When he’s gotten it out of his system, he can be assisted in joining the society he sought to enslave under the guise of libertarian ideology.
autism in one picture.
Removed by mod
Sometimes the real reason is uncomfortable and they don’t want to say it out loud. Like, “the CEO is an idiot, and wants it this way for stupid reasons”
Though maybe “the CEO doesn’t understand how Google calendar works, so he thinks putting our time off in a shared spreadsheet is easier” would satisfy?
At my job a lot of stupid things come out of “someone high ranking doesn’t understand computers” or “they don’t benefit from fixing this, so it’s easier for them to leave it stupid”
In my experience the reason is often “because fuvk [relevant slur]”
I agree but I can also accept that I’m not necessarily capable of understanding a reason why. Something not making sense to me personally doesn’t inherently mean it doesn’t make sense objectively. Maybe I’m lacking context or perspective or I’m ignorant to some important factor. I’m not the arbiter of what makes sense or not and my ego isn’t so big that I think I get to be the one who decides what makes sense and what doesn’t. If a person can explain to me why it’s important to them and it can withstand some poking or prodding that’s good enough for me. Sometimes it’s an understanding problem not an explaining problem. I accept the rules of physics are real but I don’t actually understand them in any depth, it’s the same thing. Humility is important too.
Yeah! That feels like the right approach!
I agree but I can also accept that I’m not necessarily capable of understanding a reason why. Something not making sense to me personally doesn’t inherently mean it doesn’t make sense objectively.
Rulemakers not being able to explain something in a way you do understand is not a you a problem though. That just implies the rulemakers also don’t understand.
Rulemakers not being able to explain something in a way you do understand is not a you a problem though.
Doesn’t that depend on who the “you” is, and whether the rule itself falls within that person’s expertise?
There are plenty of safety rules written in blood, enforced by those who might not understand the background or the theoretical reasons behind the rule. But someone knows the reason why, and sometimes the reason is difficult to explain to someone who doesn’t have sufficient background. I’d rather someone build a house to comply with the fire code than to ignore the portions he can’t justify to the homeowner.
“I don’t understand gravity so fuck it, Imma just throw a cat out of the window so that it can go for a walk”
Meaning there are different kinds of rules, different reasons and different understanding capabilities. Some rules are bullshit, some rules I will be able to verify only by experiment, simply because my knowledge and perception are limited
deleted by creator
some of these mysterious rules are peer pressure from dead people; fuck that. some of these are safety rules meant for conditions that no longer exist
What is an example of a safety rule who’s conditions no longer exist which would not have the conditions almost immediately return if the rule was removed?
Like every example I can think of is a regulation to stop companies from hurting people which they would simply resume doing given the choice, thus making us still need the rule?
What is an example of a safety rule who’s conditions no longer exist which would not have the conditions almost immediately return if the rule was removed?
My job is populated by dinosaurs that only recently adopted git for version control. They had some rules and procedures that made a kind of sense when deployment meant “I’ll scp the files to the prod server”, but don’t add value anymore.
Some people had a rule where after “deploy” they would SSH into prod and check the md5 hash of the files and compare them to their local copy. You don’t have to do that.
They also wanted to only allow one person to work on a file at the same time because “you can overwrite their changes”. Git handles that fine (unless you really fuck up the merge conflict, admittedly)
“Safety Law” that is still on the books, but not enforced.
Kentucky has a law that states that all women drivers must be preceded by a flagger on foot, to warn oncoming pedestrians and other traffic. The true irony of this law is that it was passed before Kentucky had paved a single road, and the cars of the time still used wagon style wheels. This meant that those cars were practically “on rails” as they were driving in the ruts that other wagon and car wheels had created in the roads.
i mean more like rules as adaptation to dangerous condition that no longer exists instead of rules that prevent the dangerous condition from occuring. like, i have a habit of boiling all drinking water even after moving to a place that doesn’t require it
tons of things relating to food, like here in sweden you can honestly straight up just eat raw chicken and you’ll probably be fine, in germany raw ground pork is a fairly normal dish, but in other parts of the world and in the past this would have fucking horrified people.
I don’t want to “probably” be fine. I don’t want to roll a D20 when I eat chicken and I get salmonella if I roll a 1. And why is your chicken so clean anyway that you can get to “probably”? Because of a ton of laws and regulations mandating cleanliness in the processing plants.
Conservatives are measurably dying at slightly higher rates because they have stupid beliefs and believe lies about things like drinking raw milk.
Some fire safety laws predate modern fire resistant building materials and active fire suppression. A big example is the requirement for multiple stairwells in multi family homes.
Edit: disregard; I misread the comment above me. For the record, I’m very much in favor of vaccines.
Poliovirus agrees and would love fewer vaccinations against it
If not for the CIA making a deal with Plague we’d be done with polio by now.
And I’d like to know the latter even if they’re no longer appropriate.
Removed by mod
“you are insufferable for asking why”
“you need to mask, to adapt”
😬
Right lol poor kid. “Don’t question anything, just mask and shut up so nobody thinks you’re insufferable.” Lowkey sounds like what the parent went through and views as the ‘normal’ way of dealing with being ND.
Aren’t you the guy who thinks some invisible, male entity created the entire universe? Did this male and masculine entity create evil and is he now powerless to stop it? Or is it that this invisible penis having guy actually enjoys the suffering and tortures souls for eternity?
God has no sex as he is, LITERALLY God, omnipotent, omniscient creator
and he didnt create evil, he created free will
and if he was to destroy all evil, why do you think he wouldnt start with us?
That’s weird. The Bible is pretty specific about god’s gender. God created everything but not evil? So god didn’t actually create everything then? Or is he just powerless to stop it?
If he destroyed all evil, why do you think he wouldnt start with us?
That’s not the point. HE, as you refer to HIM as, can either be powerful enough to destroy all evil or is not good so does not stop evil from happening. Whether eradicating evil destroys you or not is irrelevant. Your existence contradicts your teachings.
So your penis having God, that used his penis to impregnate a virgin and cuck her fiance, is either not all powerful or not all good. Which is it?
why is your mind imprisoned in the physical?
the Virgin Mary was impregnated via a miracle, and remained sinless
he is all powerful and all good, he just CHOOSES not to destroy us and took the punishment for us because he loves us
Questioning social norms doesn’t necessarily makes you an asshole, it depends on how it is approached.
By not defying them we will remain stagnant, imagine the downhill slope we would end up on if no one ever questioned why a man shouldn’t love another man or a woman shouldn’t love another woman.
People shut you down because many are intolerant to change and have their values under scrutiny is seen as hostile, but that doesn’t imply compliance is productive. Of course, you don’t want to this all the time, but teaching your kid to repress their displease of social norms doesn’t sound good either.
because if you want to succeed let alone survive in life the attitude needs to change or it needs to hide.
Framing things this way is a big mistake and I don’t see why it isn’t more obvious to people that it’s a mistake. You want someone you care about to believe that there is a binary choice between a sustainable existence and resolving their emotional needs? You couldn’t make a more persuasive argument for suicidal thinking and self destructive behavior if you tried. And it isn’t even true because they are mutually dependent priorities. It took me too many years and therapy to figure this out, you should really consider approaching the issue from a different angle than this one.
Thank you. I’m glad some people realise that telling autistic people to adapt or die is an awful inhumane thing to do.
Because for people like me, that is what you are asking us to do.
social norms have reasons as well. you cant just say “because social norms exist” and expect someone to accept that answer as a reason. its basically the same as saying “because everyone says so”. so why dont you explain why the particular social norm is one in the first place. if you dont know maybe you need to find out before you try to enforce it on others.
also as an autistic person you shouldn’t be encouraging people to mask. that shit is incredibly damaging to people. i masked for most of my life and what people dont see is that i was basically just surviving that whole time. i developed an incredible amount of anxiety, to the point where i couldnt really function in society for more than a few hours at a time before i had to isolate for a day or two to recover. i wore the mask so often for so long i didnt even know who i really was anymore. i didnt start to live until a few years ago when i started making a concerted effort to take off the mask and be myself. and you know what, people fucking accepted me way more than they ever did when i was being fucking fake all the time for the sake of appearances. you might mean well telling your son and all the autists who will see your comment to mask to get by, but all youre doing is fucking hurting them and you need to stop. masking isnt for us, its for you.
“If you don’t learn to adopt them you will isolate yourself” might be true if there was 1 neurodivergent person. We are a community and personally I’m not interested in being more than acquaintances if I have to mask around you all the time. That’s not a mutually beneficial relationship.
Autistics are constantly told this lie and it completely ignores the fact that there’s plenty of other autistics that will understand and accommodate each other’s needs.
This is an ableist way to see the world and my lived experience directly contradicts it.
That’s awesome. Sadly, it does’t apply to their kids PTA, their neighbors or their Jobs.
There is some level of faking and coping that greases the wheels and lets you not have to swim through the raw sewage of every other ‘normies’ ignorance.
Don’t fold in and just give on every thing, but don’t die on that fucking hill either.
Perfectly reasonable but let’s also recognize that some social norms exist only because of tradition, and are unnecessary & uncomfortable, these social norms need to be questioned & challenged & done away with. When enough people question them and challenge them, and eventually get rid of some unnecessary oppressive social norms, we can continue to evolve as a species.
They’re still social norms because people are fine with them.
Just because a group of people online are against things, doesn’t mean that everyone else isn’t fine with it.
The issue isn’t people choosing to behave a certain way, it’s the expectation that everyone need to behave that way. If people want to do the same as everyone else, fine. If the standards ultimately don’t matter, then who cares?
In my experience, the people who hate me for not following them wouldn’t like me even if I tried to play along. I am often more respected when I confidently stand as myself than when I try to follow the rules as meekly as possible. If I’m gonna be freak either way, I’m better off keeping my head held high.
You’re free to act however you want to. Honestly, that’s fine with me.
But the crux of this is, if you’re acting how you want, there’s a good chance that people don’t want to be around how you’re acting, and those people shouldn’t be chastised for not bending over backwards to cater to people who’re behaving in different ways.
If you want on that ride, fine. But don’t cry about it when no one else wants to accept that kind of thing.
It’s fine so long as we can coexist and work together without issue. I would dislike spending time with you more than you would with me
If people are actively excluding somebody for being themselves, especially in a workplace, that is a problem that needs addressed.
It’s one thing if you’re being yourself and not being respectful at all, such as violating somebody’s space or taking up their time excessively, it’s another to silently shun somebody because they perceivably “went their whole lives being catered to”.
That’s discrimination. You said it yourself, “But don’t cry about it when no one else wants to accept that kind of thing.”
Not accepting is discrimination. You can communicate your needs, such as a need for focus or a reduction in non-work conversation, without being a dick.
Someone avoiding a person is not discrimination. People are not entitled to other peoples’ time or patience. That’s what I’m trying to say here.
Avoiding is another level of discrimination. If you don’t like someone or you are uncomfortable talking to someone, then say so instead of contributing to the culture of discrimination that they face.
Communicate your needs instead of acting like you don’t owe people basic respect because they were perceivably catered to… because they are different.
As someone with that, I say, fuck off to that “authority”.
Social norms are to be broken. We didn’t get Stonewall riots by following police and law and order. We didn’t get women’s rights by meekly letting men trample us. We didn’t get general suffrage by not rioting. We didn’t get the right to strike by doing nothing.
I think the attitude you’re being held back by, is more destructive. You’re willfully following rules instead of questioning them, then deciding whether they are justified to follow or not.
I think what you’re telling is not a “harsh reality” but a fabrication that neurotypical people tell themselves to justify “following orders”. Fuck that shit.
If I did what you said me to, I’d be in a much worse mental headspace now. I feel sorry for your son. You blindly following social norms IS the problem. Try to address that instead. Try to actually understand why your son finds it difficult. Most of us find it difficult because the authority is not justified: there’s no explanation, not even an imperfect one. We’re instead told to just suck it up instead of hearing, “hey, yeah, you got a point.” or even just engaging the discussion. Let it be the other way around. You go try to think if there’s something that you both could agree as justified for a rule. If such a thing isn’t there, then no need for the rule. Good authority doesn’t flow from “because I say so”, but from clear and justifiable rules.
I’m not going to mask myself because others refuse to take others into account. I have plenty of good interaction when I am not forced into masking, and less when I have to mask.
Let me ask you a question. Have you ever gone through what your son is going through with you now? Should a good parent not want to try to understand their child instead, rather than to force their own norms onto their descendant?
When you tell your autistic child to mask you’re encouraging them to make their mental health worse: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613251353358
I’ll take unloved and alone over your fake love.
you are never unloved
You are always loved by God
any love of man is incomparable to the love of God
Which one? I’m vetting them to see who has the better dental plan. There’s just so many to choose from, it’s tough to decide.
whatever you do don’t fucking deal with the fae, they’ll get you to sell your own teeth for a pittence
Jokes on them, I’m all out of pittances.
There are a lot of gods, so which one? Also, i never saw a god showing love to me, did i got left behind? Damn it
The one triune God
and you being born, being alive, having food, having a machine to comment this are all examples of hs Love for you
and he expressed the ultimate love to us on the Cross
You’re right. Brahma, the one true god, did all this for us.
I didn’t know he got rhe romans to kill that imposter on the cross but you learn something new every day.Hinduism is false as it commits multiple fallacies in itself, it is a mess of thousands of contradicting books with no unity.
many modern hindus claim its a “philosophy/way of life not a religion”.
Hinduism is also slowly dying, and the only reason it has a “billion people” is that the Indian government assumes that everyone is a Hindu at birth, and they made hinduism the “default” religion in their databases
he expressed the ultimate love to us on the Cross
By masochistically sacrificing Himself, to Himself, to pay a price He chose to charge of His own free will, in order to cleanse us of the “taint” of actions He considers sins.
For the sake of argument let’s assume what you believe happened happened and that your god is real. The problem with omnipotence is that you can’t blaim anyone else for the system you set up. The crucifixion didn’t need to happen to “free us from sin”, God wanted to incarnate into a mortal form and be tortured to death. Why? I cannot say, but He could have chosen some other way. He could choose to not threaten us with eternal torture simply for not loving Him. That isn’t love.
It is not God who rejects us, it is us that reject God
and the concept of hell is basically a place without God
you didnt want God your entire life, so yeah, you wont be with God, you have free will
but ohhh you want the privileges that come with creation and God himself but not put in any spiritual effort yourself?
God is a fair judge, and he cant just let people off UNLESS someone else takes the punishment
Jesus took the punishment
God is a fair judge, and he cant just let people off UNLESS someone else takes the punishment
Why not? Seriously. He set up the system. Why require punishment in that system? Jesus and God are the same person (hence “triune” ), so He essentially had us torture and kill Himself to appease His own vengeance.
He could have forgiven us without preconditions. He chose to require punishment. Then He chose to be tortured and killed . Now He demands that we thank him for it or He’ll punish us for eternity. That’s psychopath behavior.
because there are consequences for your actions?
and the trinity is comprised of three different persons and one God
We know very little about hell currently, and dantes inferno isnt canon
you being born
WAIT SO MY MOM HAD AN AFFAIR WITH GOD?!
being alive
No need to slap it again in my face TwT
having food
He never paid a dime duh
having a machine to comment this
I am sure that i have this phone because some chinese kid manufactured this, unless…THE KID IS GOD??
This is a lot to process…-
no, God ensured the circumstances for your birth
-
He provided the food, without him, there would be no wheat for the bread you enjoy
-
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?
Martin Luther is a heretic
The one universal church (the Catholic Church) is true
I was referencing a joke about that exact sentiment. You have zero self awareness.
Lol if you didn’t see their take on Hinduism, it’s even more hilariously unaware. Some of their points are the most common skepticisms of Christianity.
the complete absence of upvotes on this lmfao
Also the complete absence of ability to read the room.
And as far as I know this community’s instance doesn’t do down votes, so any down votes are from your home instance. Never seen such a ratio on Lemmy before, wow.
it still has zero upvotes except their own
if “god” “loves” me then why does its book say it hates me (im queer)
when have there ever been signs of a real god
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8HT6Ux8FM (invidious: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=zi8HT6Ux8FM )
(long) transcript of that song:
I have an apology to make. I’m afraid I’ve made a big mistake. I turned my face away from you, Lord.
I was too blind to see the light. I was too weak to feel Your might. I closed my eyes; I couldn’t see the truth, Lord.
But then like Saul on the Damascus road, you sent a messenger to me, and so …
Now I’ve have had the truth revealed to me. Please forgive me all those things I said. I’ll no longer betray you, Lord. I will pray to you instead.
And I will say Thank you, thank you, thank you God. Thank you, thank you, thank you God.
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum.
I had no idea but it’s suddenly so clear now. I feel such a cynic. How could I have been so dumb?
Thank you for displaying how praying works: a particular prayer in a particular church. Thank you Sam for the chance to acknowledge this omnipotent opthamologist.
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum. I didn’t realize that it was so simple, but you’ve shown a great example of just how it can be done.
You only need to pray in a particular spot to a particular version of a particular god, and if you pull that off without a hitch, he will fix one eye of one middle-class white bitch.
I know in the past my outlook has been limited. I couldn’t see examples of where life had been definitive. But I can admit it when the evidence is clear, as clear as Sam’s mum’s new cornea.
That’s extremely clear! Extremely clear!
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum. I have to admit that in the past I have been skeptical but Sam described this miracle and I am overcome!
How fitting that the sighting of a sight-based intervention should open my eyes to this exciting new dimension. It’s like someone put an eye chart up in front of me and the top five letters say: I C G O D.
Thank you, Sam, for showing how my point of view has been so flawed. I assumed there was no God at all but now I see that’s cynical. It’s simply that his interests aren’t particularly broad.
He’s largely undiverted by the starving masses, or the inequality between the various classes. He gives you strictly limited passes, redeemable for surgery or two-for-one glasses.
I feel so shocking for historically mocking you. Your interests are clearly confined to the ocular. I bet given the chance, you’d eschew the divine and start a little business selling contacts online.
Fuck me Sam, what are the odds that of history’s endless parade of gods that the God you just happened to be taught to believe in is the actual one and he digs on healing, but not the AIDS-ridden African nations, nor the victims of the plague or the flood-addled Asians, but healthy, privately-insured Australians with common and curable corneal degeneration
This story of Sam’s has but a single explanation: a surgical God who digs on magic explanations. No it couldn’t be mistaken attribution of causation, born of a coincidental temporal correlation, exacerbated by a general lack of education vis-a-vis physics in Sam’s parish congregation. And it couldn’t be that all these pious people are liars. It couldn’t be an artifact of confirmation bias, a product of groupthink, a mass delusion, an Emperor’s New Clothes-style fear of exclusion.
No, it’s more likely to be an all-powerful magician than the misdiagnosis of the initial condition, or one of many cases of spontaneous remission, or a record-keeping glitch by the local physician.
No, the only explanation for Sam’s mum’s seeing: they prayed to an all-knowing superbeing, to the omnipresent master of the universe, and he liked the sound of their muttered verse.
So for a bit of a change from his usual stunt of being a sexist, racist, murderous cunt, he popped down to Dandenong and just like that, used his powers to heal the cataracts of Sam’s mum of Sam’s mum!
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum! I didn’t realize that it was such a simple thing. I feel such a dingaling, what ignorant scum!
Now I understand how prayer can work: a particular prayer in a particular church in a particular style with a particular stuff and a particular book for particular problems that aren’t particularly tough, and for particular people, preferably white, for particular senses, preferably sight, a particular prayer in a particular spot, to a particular version of a particular god.
And if you get that right, He just might take a break from giving babies malaria and pop down to your local area to fix the cataracts of your mum!
“a god that loves you unconditionally, but only under certain conditions” type shit XD
and there have been multiple miracles proving God
such as?
On August 15, 1996, a discarded consecrated Host was placed in water according to standard protocol. Instead of dissolving, it developed reddish tissue and grew.
- The Archbishop who ordered the investigation was Jorge Bergoglio — now Pope Francis
- Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez, a former atheist, coordinated the scientific analysis
- A tissue sample was sent to New York for blind testing
- The primary examiner was Dr. Frederick Zugibe, a secular forensic pathologist and cardiologist at Columbia University
- He was not told where the sample came from or what it had been
The Witness
Zugibe analyzed the tissue and identified it as human heart muscle — specifically from the myocardium of the left ventricle near the heart valves.
- He found intact, active white blood cells — cells that typically disintegrate within 15 minutes outside a living body
- Professor John Walker (University of Sydney) later confirmed intact white blood cells in the same tissue six years after the event
- The blood type was AB, matching the Lanciano relic and the Shroud of Turin
When Zugibe was finally told the sample came from a communion wafer that had been sitting in water for three years, he stated: “How and why a piece of a human heart is still alive, sitting in distilled water, is totally beyond my comprehension.”
https://nacn-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/Zugibe-scanned-reports-26-3-05-and-15-3-05-RON-ack.pdf
article analyzing that claim: https://stacytrasancos.substack.com/p/dr-zugibe-and-the-living-heart-tissue
the blood type was tested and it is AB
they failed to do some genetic tests, but living muscle tissue is present
the Bible never says God hates queer people
I personally see the “love of God” people feel as actually being self love that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to give themselves. That love really is the most essential to living a full life.
the 1 upvote to 29 downvotes is so funny to me
I kinda feel bad about it because I think they were genuinely trying to be supportive. They’re far more supportive than the person telling ND people to shut up and mask.
For real. That’s why they kept having to pull my grandma aside in Sunday school. I guess you’re not allowed to ask questions but I wasn’t willing to believe things you couldn’t ask questions about. It made no sense. Like seriously if Adam and Eve were the only two people and they had two sons Cain and Abel then where did Cain and Abel’s wives come from? Anyway I got in trouble for asking that and got annoyed when my question wasn’t getting answered. I knew then and there if you could not ask questions you were being taught bullshit
I feel like this meme being originally from an autism community, posted outside of it without that context, has lead to some egregiously bad takes in the comments. Unfortunately ironic. People coming in here having no idea what the autistic experience of people giving vague instructions and then just assuming you will figure stuff out is like. And then the reverse; trying your best to explain a process in hopes that there will be no ambiguity, only to be accused of being condescending.
And of course we have a plethora of “well in this edge case, its actually necessary to not question instructions!” takes, as if we are talking about last minute bomb defusals, instead of everyday office procedure or insensitive social situations. People on the spectrum are a great showcase of how unwilling the average person is to question the status quo.
Exactly. This thread is a good reverse example for those wanting to learn to be more sensitive. There hasn’t been much sensitivity displayed here.
As someone neurodivergent but not autistic I definitely see both perspectives here.
Sometimes the rules are stupid or unclear and the autistic person who’s willing to ask the questions changes it from “everyone is winging it in accordance with their own interpretation without understanding why” to bringing everyone onto the same page.
But on the other hand, I and most non autistic people, can instinctively interpret the questioning of the rules as disrespect for the clear reason for them or as a polite way of calling the rule bullshit. I’ve had enough experience with autistic folks to ask for clarity and try to explain, but most neurotypicals don’t (doesn’t make it ok). This is something neurotypicals need to be taught to be sympathetic towards. It will make them better not just at interacting with autistic people but with being coherent towards each other and preventing the situation where everyone just assumes their way to incoherence.
Also sometimes it’s a situation of “can you please just accept the rules so we can get to what we’re here to do?”, which is a situation where I’m sympathetic to both sides.
Nah. Those people are just always the problem. They are how the world got like this. Modern (and historic) articulations of tyranny that last more than five minutes would not be possible without them.
“That’s just how it is” is not a good reason, just fucking explain to my autistic ass!
I mean I kinda get it and a team with an understanding of a situation can handle it more efficiently and throughly but if I had to reason every management decision with everyone we would finish nothing at work.
At a certain point, you just gotta label it as “management bullshit” as shorthand. Besides, is management causes confusion that makes it hard to get anything done, that’s their fault. In an ideal world, competition from the market would weed out the bad ones, but competition is pressure capitalists loves to mitigate.
Maybe that’s a sign that we don’t need all that bullshit management then?
It can go too far in either direction. If you’re writing a report you know no one will ever read it can help to ask why and push for an answer, but it isn’t the driving instructor’s job to explain why you should stop at the red light.
Removed by mod
“I can explain” is different from “you can understand”, and chain of command means you do not have to reason with literally everyone involved/affected by your decision. So if used well, the drop-any-rule-lacking-backup is useful
“It’s there for a reason” drives me bonkers. Sometimes the reason is bad!
Removed by mod
I work with a guy like this and he has my eternal allegiance.
