I suggest you re-read the article/listen to her speak because she is clearly taking a side. What she’s speaking to is not limited to that day, to the best of my knowledge. If you disagree with the coverage or find it inaccurate, feel free to point out the inconsistencies or distortions.
It’s pretty clear that this is a denial, I suggest you listen to her speak.
From the article:
“It’s not just the usual suspects. It’s a lot of young Jewish Americans who don’t know the history and don’t understand,” she claimed, adding, “A lot of the challenge is with younger people. More than 50% of young people in America get their news from social media.”
Clinton complained that when she tried to talk to young people “to engage in some kind of reasonable discussion, it was very difficult because they did not know history, they had very little context, and what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda.”
The former first lady concluded, “So just pause on that for a second. They are seeing short-form videos, some of them totally made up, some of them not at all representing what they claim to be showing, and that’s where they get their information.”
If that’s not a denial, what is? Even if there is some amount of propaganda, it’s undeniable the horrors that have occurred. It’s not pure propaganda and she failed to speak to what actually has occurred.
This is literally the same thing as holocaust denial. She’s claiming to be an authority of the history of the region, when in reality the history doesn’t invalidate or excuse what has occurred for over two years against an occupied people.
If somebody was denying the holocaust and making this point in the context of that denial, would you respond the same way and say it’s a totally fair point?
I am not doxxing myself because the paranoia will likely continue in such a scenario.
And what’s next? Suspecting US citizens of being foreign agents and then sicking the FBI on them?
Unlike you, I’m not going to be cheerleading the return of McCarthyism.
Discrimination and all forms of bigotry (racism, transphobia, homphobia, etc.) likely invalidate this image/thread title in some part.
People aren’t always worrying about random strangers, but when it becomes a pattern in an individual person’s life that has very real consequences and effects, it’s very easy for them to feel like the spotlight is on them and it could very well be in certain instances. It’s gaslighting them to suggest otherwise as a blanket statement.
Huh, never heard that one. I love it 😂
Thanks for sharing!
Just as stylistic choices for the anime could be considered, it’d also be fair to point out that a lot of the universe was designed in line with the RPG elements of the games - and 6 was the maximum amount that made sense on the small Game Boy screens.
I’m definitely going further to rationalize everything in-universe here than I ever have in my head and everything just came out naturally with no prior thought or exposure to other fan theory.
Really everything I posted is wild speculation, but it’s a fun exercise to try to make sense of how the world in Pokemon works according to the anime and games. Not many fantasy universes are arguably akin to a utopia like Pokemon, but still have darker elements at play - with real world parallels if you look closely enough.
And studied too, but the dataset and scientific understanding of most Pokemon is still mostly incomplete. There is a lot of data that can still be garnered from handing out the Pokedex and encouraging users to catch and interact with Pokemon.
It’s assumed that the Pokedex gathers some level of information autonomously on the interactions between trainers and the Pokemon they encounter and catch. The 6 Pokemon limit and sending excess Pokemon to the lab is likely another way to enable further research, with a steady supply of new subjects caught and interacted with in a specific, organic, and non-biased manner.
Instead of being taught about specific Pokemon prior to going out on their journey, trainers are taught about how to battle and catch Pokemon - the full breadth of literature could be sought out by them, but they are encouraged and incentivized to just go out into the world and explore.
Crowd-sourcing the collection of data in a controlled, natural fashion through a non-scientist user is likely a lot more valuable and realistic than observing or collecting data about non-wild Pokemon in a laboratory, by themselves in the wild, or through other known resources.
If you didn’t organically and intimately interact with a Pokemon without bias/filtering the situation through the lens of science, how can you truly claim any understanding?
From the user’s pespective, the lack of available data by default ensures that the user collects the best data, even if it does briefly explain the Pokemon upon observation - likely to serve as a warning of potential danger or to provide a brief explanation to avoid user bias to appearances.
This will end up releasing private info, right?
I suggest you re-read the quote in the comment you just replied to. It’s totally fine if we disagree, but I strongly believe that this is pathologizing behavior and even if it didn’t cause harm this time - it very well could with another person they suggest they might have autism to.
Here is evidence of the person in question’s behavior causing or leading to some level of stigmatization: https://slrpnk.net/post/30279460/19178188
“Because this isn’t a regular behavior. Ignoring a potential abnormality will just complicate their life. They didn’t diagnose anyone, please learn to read.”
I’ve been told that I’m likely on the spectrum or autistic in many different ways by people who believe they know what they’re talking about and it’s hurt me and my self-image greatly. This has been accompanied by discrimination, of course stigmatization - people seeing everything I do under the lens of “they can’t help their behavior”, “we have to feel bad for them/treat them differently because they have something wrong with them”, and so forth.
We simply cannot tell if somebody is autistic through a single online post that involves only text. Not even a little bit. This is pathologizing behavior, plain and simple.
ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder and shows up through behaviour and it does not hurt to get tested.
Autism has very, very specific diagnostic criteria and I find the criteria to be incredibly valid. Quick online searches that link unrelated behaviors to autism simply aren’t reliable. There are plenty of people on r/anticonsumption (an extremely large subreddit) who would likely refuse a gift just like OP did. Are they all autistic there? I don’t think so - not a little bit.
I don’t see any of my behaviors as specifically autistic or disordered - I see it as a difference that is both normal and distinct, even if there are patterns to my behavior. Even when I interact with or observe people diagnosed with autism who are open about their diagnosis, I don’t look at their behavior and see it as an abnormal product of their condition - something to be corrected or something that indicates that something is wrong with them.
The thing about autism is that yes, it can be inferred by clinical behavioral analysis, but the behaviors aren’t necessarily problematic, abnormal, or disordered. The treatment for autism is largely supporting the person diagnosed - not trying to change them, make them “normal”, or correct “disordered” behaviors. For example, masking can put significant stress on autistic individuals and cause them to experience burnout - which is the end result of trying to correct “disordered” behaviors.
The OP has replied and posted that other people in their life have suggested they get tested and they’re not surprised to hear this. That suggests persistent and repetitive behaviour that suggests neurodivergence.
None of those people were professionals from what we know. It wasn’t their place to speculate and vocalize this unsolicited, and even if no person meant to stigmatize OP and only intended to inform them with the best intentions - seeking help and diagnosis is a personal decision.
In many places, adult autism diagnosis is incredibly hard to initiate. It can cost anywhere from $1000-5500 dollars depending on the level of testing needed. Most people will have to travel for a diagnosis and will not have continuity of care between the person that diagnosed them and future providers. Testing can be emotionally exhaustive and invasive.
I will repeat that it does not hurt to get tested.
I’m somebody who sought help specifically for an adult autism diagnosis after I turned 18 and I encountered significant discrimination from my doctor, my therapist, and my psychologist. I was not led by any of them to testing or a diagnosis, really anything approaching it, when I specifically needed an evaluation for accommodations in college.
Not everybody will have a negative experience and awareness has only increased since then, but unless somebody expresses themselves that they need help or diagnosis - it’s not our business to push them to that. Not every professional is equal - there are just so few mental health professionals versed in adult autism that are also able to assess or lead somebody to assessment. Just as the role of trauma in distress is something that is often under-acknowledged in most mental healthcare, autism is as well - especially in undiagnosed adults, certain minorities, women, or high-masking individuals.
OP’s behavior does not suggest neurodivergence from what we can tell. Their birthday was ruined because they didn’t want to accept a gift they didn’t want, their spouse stormed out after arguing with them, and people are in the comments loosely saying OP is autistic, that they “should’ve just accepted the gift” and bit their tongue, that because they aren’t personally hurt and their spouse is - that’s all that matters, that they are “failing to understand” their spouse’s emotions when they demonstrated an ability to understand them enough to detail the events for us to understand from their perspective, and so forth.
It’s also not our business to analyze OP’s behaviors as being evidence of any disorder or neurodivergence, but we can infer their intentions and decision-making from what they wrote. It was entirely valid - demonstrating strong rationality. From what we know, they very likely did not intend on hurting their spouse. That is what matters and what their spouse needs to understand. We all can gracefully honor each other’s preferences and move on, even when we disappoint another after trying hard to please them.
False. You responded well after I responded in detail to another commenter - you are projecting your behavior onto me (which I described very plainly and bluntly). Not accepting gifts in the way you approve of or find acceptable is not part of the diagnostic criteria of autism and the person did not solicit your online diagnosis and speculation in any way.
Edit: I’m specifically arguing that autism is a normal difference. My first comment in the thread I specifically argued against the notion that OP exhibited irregular behavior from another commenter.
My position has been consistent, but I did use “disease” terminology to describe what the poster above me (that I perceived as being pathologizing or stereotyping) was suggesting. The person I was responding to was free to clarify that they meant “disordered” specifically, but still saw OP’s behaviors as being very likely autistic. A careful eye would see I use disease and disorder terminology interchangeably in a very specific context and that I personally believe autism is a normal difference or neurodivergence. Many do not share my views on neurodiversity - and in retrospect I would’ve used “disorder”; which is consistent with the wording the poster I’m responding to used.
Never once have I suggested to another that something they do is autistic or even loosely abnormal - especially if they have not shared a diagnosis with me and weren’t asking me for help due to a specific difficulty they were going through.
I believe that what is considered normal behavior is something that is gatekept frequently by many, including those in the autism community. A great deal of people believe that autism is a profound deficit and some have argued to me online that neurodiversity is a harmful view on disabling conditions and disincentivizes people to get help - so I’m careful to reveal my views on this subject. I don’t think autism is a superpower like some and I recognize the struggle because I am on the spectrum. I want people to get the help they need.
I have personally been traumatized many times over by people suggesting I might have autism in inappropriate ways. It has felt like discrimination and likely was to some degree at times. It was at the very least stigmatizing. I want to be seen as normal and I want others to be encouraged to feel that way too. I did not use disease terminology to be a “toxic, hateful, ignorant bigot”. I did not intend on smearing the person above me in the chain, either.
The line between a disease and disorder is blurred, but disorder is more sensitive terminology even if I don’t personally see autism as a disease or a disorder and see both terminologies as equally as harmful - especially in this context. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Disorder and the initial explanation of what is a disease here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease
I just want to point out that it’s a very difficult for an adult to just go get an autism diagnosis. It is an incredibly expensive, scarce, and emotionally exhaustive process. If OP was specifically asking for advice on how to proceed with seeking an autism diagnosis because of relationship issues they personally identified to be likely due to their autism or neurodivergence, I would’ve had no issues with what occurred.
I believe autism or neurodivergence is something one personally identifies with. This ideally can happen with a well-intentioned mental health professional who has observed that person in great detail, understanding their development and functioning intimately - following diagnostic criteria to diagnose and sharing that diagnosis responsibly - not by just throwing around suspicions irresponsibly or stereotyping behaviors from brief online posts or non-clinical interaction.
I explained my position very clearly below your comment, but I do believe you are pathologizing normal behavior as being diseased or disordered, yes. You are free to clarify your position and argue with mine here where it makes sense contextually: https://slrpnk.net/post/30279460/19186026 I provided reasoning both in the comment you chose to respond to and in others. Feel free to understand my position before mischaracterizing it.
Here are the specific quotes from me clarifying my position and understanding of neurodiversity: “I’m somebody who is on the spectrum too and I personally believe that autism is a normal difference or neurodivergence - with specific qualities, associated challenges, and diagnostic criteria. I don’t believe that OP’s reaction and behavior fits in this instance.”
And: “Disclaimer: I am autistic myself and I am a neurodiversity advocate. My point here is not to criticize other autistic people, but to highlight that framing OP’s normal, context-driven behavior as evidence of a disorder is medicalizing and pathologizing something that is very likely ordinary and rational human behavior.”
I feel that suggesting diagnosis is warranted if OP suggested that they might need that level of help and support, suspected autism themselves and was forward about that, or was otherwise having a difficulty commonly associated with the standard diagnostic criteria of autism e.g. OP was having sensory issues.
The way you say “potentially diseased” is pretty rude.
What else does saying somebody’s behavior is loosely abnormal and strongly pushing them to get professionally diagnosed really mean if not “potentially diseased”? They literally suggested that it may be autism, something they couldn’t possibly know about someone based on an online interaction.
I’m somebody who is on the spectrum too and I personally believe that autism is a normal difference or neurodivergence - with specific qualities, associated challenges, and diagnostic criteria. I don’t believe that OP’s reaction and behavior fits in this instance.
Forming an emotional, but unspoken attachment to the person receiving the gift enjoying it and gladly accepting it is the covert contract. The punishment is being upset because OP doesn’t want it or like it and them insisting that they keep the gift.
This is OP’s spouse, not a stranger. They can’t politely accept the gift and hide that they don’t enjoy or want that gift without deception.
BlameTheAntifa: Because I am autistic, have been through this myself, and game recognizes game. These are classic hallmarks of ASD. I appreciate that you care, but OP clearly needs to take the first step and seek a professional diagnosis, which could change their life for the better.
Strongly suggesting that OP’s behavior fits the “classic hallmarks of ASD”, appealing to their own diagnosis of autism by saying “game recognizes game”, and suggesting that they need to seek professional diagnosis and “take the first step” is basically suggesting that OP’s behavior is diseased or disordered. You are free to disagree.
Disclaimer: I am autistic myself and I am a neurodiversity advocate. My point here is not to criticize other autistic people, but to highlight that framing OP’s normal, context-driven behavior as evidence of a disorder is medicalizing and pathologizing something that is very likely ordinary and rational human behavior.
Is OP supposed to lie and act like they enjoy the gift when in reality they don’t for you to see their behavior as normal? What is the expected normal reaction in your mind?
It’s not an indicator of autism, full stop. OP is not having “difficulty” conforming to culture. OP received a gift that didn’t hit the mark - their spouse is free to try again and make it a nice gift for them.
OP can’t stealthily return it and there are likely financial considerations in addition to their personal preference of not wanting new things that directly replace things that they are content with.
OP’s spouse has preferences for gifts they will accept. Why is OP seen as being potentially diseased for also having them?
Respectfully, saying, “what they were being told on social media was not just one-sided, it was pure propaganda.” is what makes this denial. It’s fine if you disagree.
Hillary is free to acknowledge what’s happened from a neutral perspective and prove me wrong. But thus far, has she?