Incredibly upset by this article

[Judge]

Yes but if the site were saying the same about a certain race or something then it would have been taken down the second it was out up there, or at least not been allowed to be discussed here.

Not necessarily. At best this proprietary domain relies on its own sense of order which may or may not reflect or parallel American constitutional civil rights and civil liberties. All perfectly legal at present from an American perspective.

And yes, it's complicated. If you wish more details, PM me.

 

[Misty Avich]

And yes, it's complicated. If you wish more details, PM me.

Ooh, may I? I have a few burning questions that might actually put a lid on my obsession with PC if answered without causing offence.

 

[Judge]

Ooh, may I? I have a few burning questions that might actually put a lid on my obsession with PC if answered without causing offence.

Privately, yes. Bearing in mind that your nation's laws on certain civil matters are quite different from our own.

 

[Au Naturel]

Yes but if the site were saying the same about a certain race or something then it would have been taken down the second it was out up there, or at least not been allowed to be discussed here.

That depends on whose site it was. There are sites where racism is mainstream.

 

[Mary Terry]

Yes but if the site were saying the same about a certain race or something then it would have been taken down the second it was out up there, or at least not been allowed to be discussed here.

I don't think so, Misty. The guarantee of free speech is often misunderstood by Americans, not to mention people from other countries.

Freedom of speech is the right to express ideas and opinions without government restraint. On a basic level, it means that people can express opinions (even unpopular or unsavory ones) without fear of government censorship.

The US judiciary (courts) have placed limits on this freedom. Forms of speech that are not protected include obscene materials such as child pornography, plagiarism of copyrighted material, defamation (libel and slander) and true threats. Speeches inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren't protected, either. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech because of the risk of harm to others who attempt to flee a fire.

The website about marriages with an autistic partner and people's negative, repulsive comments about it are protected speech under the US Constitution. The website itself can shut down the article and the comments, but the government can't do that. It is protected free speech whether we like it or not. The same would be true if the website was saying nasty things about people's race.

What we can do is to refuse to read such rubbish and voice our opinions about the content of the website and its comments. But the government is not going to shut it down because it is protected speech in the United States of America under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Misty Avich]

I wasn't talking about the government.

 

[MNAus]

I'll have a proper read of the thread when i have a chance, but just wanted to take the time to mention that the linked article is laughable. It is so transparently marketing to people it's comedic. I think people in the US (and its cultural colonies) do tend to communicate in ways that are more earnest, bombastic and over-bearing so perhaps they don't view the article in this way, but to me it's as subtle as a TV shopping infomercial.

So it's selling the dream. For women whose lives failed to live up to expectations: it's not your fault, it's the evil other. Nothing appeals more than being the victim, because then you don't have to take any responsibility, you can just be angry about not getting what was yours by right. This is going to become a bigger and bigger problem.

I mean, just read it. It just needs something extra on the end:

When a neurotypical woman is married to a man who has the behaviors associated with autism spectrum (ASD), several things typically occur. Over the course of her marriage, she experiences herself as gradually disappearing. In the place of her former self emerges a person she barely recognizes. She is so lonely. So hurt. So … angry. She feels isolated, as her social connections have gradually diminished. She feels misunderstood by everyone who knows her, so she has learned not to talk about her “problems.” She starts to feels crazy. She also feels guilty, because her husband is a good man. This woman deserves to be noticed, she deserves beauty. "Cherished" the new fragrance from Givenchy. Because every woman is worth it.

 

[MNAus]

I'll have a proper read of the thread when i have a chance, but just wanted to take the time to mention that the linked article is laughable. It is so transparently marketing to people it's comedic. I think people in the US (and its cultural colonies) do tend to communicate in ways that are more earnest, bombastic and over-bearing so perhaps they don't view the article in this way, but to me it's as subtle as a TV shopping infomercial.

So it's selling the dream. For women whose lives failed to live up to expectations: it's not your fault, it's the evil other. Nothing appeals more than being the victim, because then you don't have to take any responsibility, you can just be angry about not getting what was yours by right. This is going to become a bigger and bigger problem.

I mean, just read it. It just needs something extra on the end:

I read some more of the article and the comments. There's some real hatred in there, isn't there? There's people actually suggesting men with ASD need to be removed from the gene pool. I must admit I do struggle to think of any other social group where that comment would be left up on the site. Actually calling for eugenics and people are fine with that.... SMH.

 

[Misty Avich]

What scares me is one of the commenters want to publish a book...

 

[Misty Avich]

A YouTube comment on a Home Alone clip said that Uncle Frank is Asperger's because he's callous and uncaring. I am sick of Asperger's or autism being viewed this way. It's like everyone who's a jerk or a sociopath gets called Asperger's or autistic. It's an insult and needs to be dealt with in the same way racism was dealt with.

 

[MNAus]

What scares me is one of the commenters want to publish a book...

Yeah, because her husband could never remember that she hates carnations, likes roses. LOL. What. A. Princess.

What I love in all this is that the fundamental assumption they all have is that they are basically the archetype for humanity. They are the "right" form, and these cold, heartless husbands are deviants. I mean reading the comments it sounds like some of the guys are complete gits. You can be autistic and not a nice person, that's perfectly possible. But virtually zero of them have any personal reflection on what they might have done differently.

 

[MNAus]

I think I'd like to write a mirror article for the ASD partners. We could have the comments:

"OMG, thankyou for this. I would be in tears if I'd ever learned to feign emotion for attention. All those years i thought it was me......

 

[Misty Avich]

I read some more of the article and the comments. There's some real hatred in there, isn't there? There's people actually suggesting men with ASD need to be removed from the gene pool. I must admit I do struggle to think of any other social group where that comment would be left up on the site. Actually calling for eugenics and people are fine with that.... SMH.

This. In an over-the-top politically correct internet, you'd have thought that would be taken down.
I think we should all get together and get this whole site taken down and the owner shamed. It's what other groups would do.

 

[Judge]

This. In an over-the-top politically correct internet, you'd have thought that would be taken down.
I think we should all get together and get this whole site taken down and the owner shamed. It's what other groups would do.

Unlike considerations of protected free speech, nebulous "political correctness" is neither policy, nor law.

More often just a political mantra used both by supporters and detractors. Leaving it in a legal "no-man's land" where some governments will suggest it, only to a point of an empty threat in the purest legal sense. That even such empty threats are sometimes taken very seriously where the private sector may simply back down and apply its own brand of censorship. While government effectively does nothing else.

This is the reality of the situation at the present in my country. That any real pressure over "political correctness" must come with government intervention to gain any serious traction, as we have seen play out in congressional hearings quite recently over another matter. Where no laws are being enforced, but merely political pressure applied by the public sector against the private sector. Whether or not it is even fair, or ethical. Often by grandstanding legislators with their own agenda.

With all that in mind, do you really think any government is going to rush to the aid and interests of a neurological minority that may reflect less than two percent of the population?

In essence that "political correctness" can mean something entirely different when the emphasis is on "political" and not necessarily "correctness". One doesn't have to like it, but at the same time should make an effort to understand how it really works- or fails. With an understanding that the web is composed primarily of proprietary domains which are free to create and enforce their own rules in the absence of occasional government political pressure.

That as autistic people, in many such cases all we can so is to "keep a stiff upper lip" and little else. That this isn't the first time we've seen such preposterous articles online, and that it won't be the last either. Knowing that protected free speech can get incredibly ugly, whether substantiated or not.

Though I like the idea of this thread being as accessible as the offending article in question.