by grayhatter | 2025-09-24 22:58:26+00:00
I don't feel like you were communicating poorly, I only feel like you're advocating for tolerating the currently common meme of "you're either completely debilitated, or it's not worthy of consideration." It's a common meme, than IMO, needs to die. Humans should feel supported enough to say, "this is hard for me, let's trade you do the stuff that's easy for you, and forgive me for forgetting, and I'll do the stuff that's easy for me, and I'll forgive you when you're unable to do it."

We're stronger together, but only when we are able to acknowledge our weaknesses, and are given permission to focus on our strengths. A mildly autistic person, paired with a neurotypical person who's able to show compassion for the lack of stereotypical social awareness is stronger than the alternative.

The person who you chastise for claiming to be autistic, but they have developed useful coping mechanisms for their weaknesses, but really are just admitting they have weaknesses. Shouldn't be punished for admitting they are better at some things. Just like the person with severe weaknesses shouldn't be punished for admitting they need help with [specific deficit].

Really, I'm only advocating for treating people with respect, allowing them the freedom to define and describe how they interact with reality. And the importantly, treating them with the respect to not outright deny how they phrase, and how they describe the reality as they experience it.

You wouldn't have replied if you had a moral objection to by suggestion. So I know you're not trying to demean others. But I do object to you calling them lazy. I have a set of values that are different from yours. Neither of us is right to insist that other is wrong. I don't meant to suggest you should abandon your values, I only mean to insist that you shouldn't call others lazy when their set of values isn't exactly equal to yours.

Every day I will wake up with an unlimited amount of mental energy/effort, or an amount that is nearly or effectively at zero. But most often, that amount is somewhere in between those two extremes. So given that; It's wrong, and it's unethical to call me lazy, when I'm attempting to allocate my limited amount of energy to the things that I value first, before attempting to allocate the remainder to the things that I don't care about, but the things that you care about.

I can either do the things that I think are important, and ignore the things that you tell me are important. Or I can ignore the things that I feel are important, and only do the things that you tell me you think are important. (The rhetorical you.) I choose to reserve my energy for the things that I think are important, and promise to allocate the remainder for those that I know you find important. Too suggest I should behave differently is, in my opinion, a catastrophic mistake. It's ethically ok, and IMO should be expected that everyone should priortize the things that they value, think are important, and are good at, above the things they don't care about, or are bad at. And everyone is strengthened when we all work together with this same goal/expectation.

My objection is to calling someone lazy for prioritizing the things they value about the things they don't. No matter how they describe them. It's wrong to call me lazy when I do the things that I care about before I do the things that I don't care about. And I'm allowed to rest before I do the things that only you care about.