Why are you being dismissive of what’s actually being described, which is something happening over and over again? It’s not one bad joke the original poster is crying over. It’s the “over and over again.”
You’re saying you can look at the cause of the injury and say what the injury is without checking for symptoms or even listening to the entire cause of injury.
Even if you won’t accept that social rejection and isolation over an entire childhood can cause trauma, can you at least give people with a social disability the smallest amount of leeway when describing their experiences and not react so dismissively in a mental health community?
Autistic people get fucked up well into adulthood by being rejected by their peers for reasons they can’t comprehend over the course of many years.
It doesn’t seem like reason is going to win out here.
Somebody who picks a single narrow definition for a word and then applies that narrow definition to every instance even remotely related ( when other, more contextually correct definitions exist and have been pointed out ) isn’t working with a full deck, intentionally or otherwise.
You can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.
Why are you being dismissive of what’s actually being described, which is something happening over and over again? It’s not one bad joke the original poster is crying over. It’s the “over and over again.”
You’re saying you can look at the cause of the injury and say what the injury is without checking for symptoms or even listening to the entire cause of injury.
Even if you won’t accept that social rejection and isolation over an entire childhood can cause trauma, can you at least give people with a social disability the smallest amount of leeway when describing their experiences and not react so dismissively in a mental health community?
Autistic people get fucked up well into adulthood by being rejected by their peers for reasons they can’t comprehend over the course of many years.
It doesn’t seem like reason is going to win out here.
Somebody who picks a single narrow definition for a word and then applies that narrow definition to every instance even remotely related ( when other, more contextually correct definitions exist and have been pointed out ) isn’t working with a full deck, intentionally or otherwise.
You can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.