Published on 12, July, 2020
Over the course of the last two years, I was able to form some friendships through Twitter. Through reaching out to autistic people, I was able to create bonds like I had never had before.
I am an autistic male and I did predominantly reach out to autistic women/femme people. The problem was I did this too much. Unbeknownst to me I was coming on too strong and trying to reach out to too many people.
Last month, some screenshots of conversations were shared publicly. Conversations I'd had with other people. It became a huge Twitter storm for a few days and I lost my entire support network.
I own what I did. Without wanting to use my autism as an excuse, through misreading things the conversations became inappropriate (sexual in nature) and I realise that it was just not appropriate to speak to or about women in that way, regardless of intent.
I did a statement but ultimately I knew I wasn't going to make amends so I came off all social media and basically disappeared. I knew I just needed to work on myself. I have an autistic therapist which is helpful and I have three professional contacts I speak to but very occasionally (once a week if that).
There are some silver linings. My social media usage was incredibly unhealthy anyway - refreshing Twitter basically all day and checking my follow list to see if anyone had blocked me was just wrong. I was beginning to enjoy engaging in the autistic community on Twitter a lot less even before this happened.
I know now to be more of an open book with friends (if I'm ever able to make any). Setting out boundaries, parameters, expectations etc from the off and creating a safe environment for both of us. I used to find friendships stressful because I'd have this small network of people I consider friends and then I'd still be talking to 30 other people on social media. My energy is spread really thinly, it becomes overwhelming and too much for me. I'd want a much smaller, tighter group.
I put pressure on myself to hold friendships together and I was never 100% honest with people as to how I felt about that. Part of creating a safe environment is so both of us can speak to each other without the fear of upsetting the other person, especially if one of us is unhappy with something.
There's other things about the nature of conversations I have. I just need to be careful about what I say in private with anyone.
I know I need to win back trust, but it'll take time. I also need to trust other people too, because I don't want to feel like every little thing I do and say is going to be blasted online.
So what am I doing now?
There's still an overwhelming fear of being doxxed, so I changed my phone number. I'm taking it on the chin - I've had my punishment and I'm facing the consequences so I could probably punish myself a bit less.
It has been difficult to see a future. I wanted to channel my experience into something positive, like a guide for Autistic adults. Maybe something like "online etiquette for autistic adults" and "understanding boundaries for autistic men". I don't want this kind of situation to happen to anyone again so I'd want to be part of the solution.
Hears the thing. You say you didn't offer autism as an excuse and I think, respectfully, that was a mistake. You see if I kill a man depending on the excuse I offer in court it might be murder, manslaughter or not guilty. People these days tend to say things like 'there is no excuse for saying something like that,' rather lightly but when you think of it compared to, say, an excuse for killing some one, that's an absurd assertion to make.
In any large community there are always going to be a few people who hate you, who want you gone before you ever did anything you could reasonably be criticised for. If you hold your hands up and say, 'I have no excuse,' then years later if you try to come back and say, 'hey I'm a changed person,' guess what? They will say, 'he had no excuse, he was just an awful person then, so even if he's changed he doesn't deserve to come back.'
I'm going to assume you weren't malicious in any of your actions. That you didn't send any of those messages intending to cause offence or upset. You say its never appropriate to speak to women in a sexual way? In saying that you are essentially saying men shouldn't have sexual relationships with women. Because unless you are such a mind reader that you can know 'yes this women wants to have sex with me now' there is going to have to be some sexual talking at some point. So obviously there are situations where it is appropriate to send women sexual messages. And if your autism caused you to become confused as to what those situations were then yes that is a valid excuse.
Have you ever noticed how those who say, 'I have no excuse,' tend to follow it up with a 'but' and then immediately offer an excuse? It's just a disingenuous way of introducing an excuse. Personally I think if you have an excuse it's better to be direct and open about it. Holding up your hands and saying, 'I have no excuse,' will always be used against you down the line because there are haters and 'haters gona hate.'
Now you may think you were negligent. Maybe you were I don't know. But the difference between wilful killing and negligent killing can be the difference between murder and manslaughter. Also you have to ask by what standard were you negligent? Did you take fewer precautions than a neurotypical in the same situation? Should you be expected to take more because you find these things harder? Wouldn't that be a manifestly unfair expectation to place upon you?
You know I think communicating with people is a bit like driving a car and these 'incidents of offence' are a bit like car crashes. The difference is no one ever died from being offended. In fact being offended isn't harmful to a person at all, in fact some people might even say being offended can be good for a person in that it forces them to think about things they usually don't. Now beyond offensive behaviour there is harassing behaviour which can give people cause for alarm (and I say cause because not everyone who is alarmed has cause to be) but it doesn't sound like that was the situation here?
So what if you're disabled and your disability slows your reaction time on the road? Well obviously you wouldn't be allowed to drive but this is a metaphor and it would be manifestly unfair to ban autistic people from communicating (sexually or otherwise) because they might offend people. You could try driving more slowly but then traffic around you will be forced to slow down to your speed, or cars will zip past you cutting you up on the road. You will not be a part of the natural flow of traffic. You will either be excluded by default by traffic cutting you up on the road till you pull over or by the cops who'll pull you over for being a nuisance to others as you force them to slow down. If you want to interact with the 'flow' of neurotypical conversation you need to keep up with their speed and level of caution. You can't hesitate significantly more then they do or you will be left behind. That includes when it comes to flirtation and humour.
Unfortunately that means that autistic people will be involved in more communication collisions than their non autistic peers. That is the price of inclusion. Including disabled people is inconvenient. Whether it's only booking events in venues with wheel chair access or making sure your film has subtitles there is a cost associated with including disabled people, and accepting that now and again autistic people are going to say things that make other people uncomfortable is just one more of those costs.
That said the healthy way to deal with issues like this is not as a system of blame to 'call people out' for the awful things they've supposedly done or said. Instead you go to the person who's made you uncomfortable and tell them, and importantly tell them why. That way instead of a witch hunt you can actually help people improve their ability to communicate with you. In my view it's the people who start these witch hunts who need the etiquette guide.
Peter said:You know I think communicating with people is a bit like driving a car and these 'incidents of offence' are a bit like car crashes. The difference is no one ever died from being offended. In fact being offended isn't harmful to a person at all, in fact some people might even say being offended can be good for a person in that it forces them to think about things they usually don't. Now beyond offensive behaviour there is harassing behaviour which can give people cause for alarm (and I say cause because not everyone who is alarmed has cause to be) but it doesn't sound like that was the situation here?
I was with you (sort of) right up until this point tbh, I don't think that specific opinion will be of any help should something big enough happen that a defence needs to stand up in court, even if the offence was accidental "being offended is good for you" would go down like a lead balloon in a harrassment hearing, and for good reason.Other glaring issues aside it's just not good legal advice if charges are ever pressed based on the unintentional innapropriate behaviour, which seems to be HMO25's implied worst case scenario fear of the things that happened. (I'm not always able to read behind the lines, but this context seemed pretty clear.)
Whether it's a popular view or not I do believe more offence would do society good. My views are largely similar to Rowan Atkinson's expressed here. There are people, highly over sensitive people, who could probably do with being offended a lot more often. Because not only has living in an echo chamber made them unable to engage with views different than their own it's caused them to try and ostracise and excommunicate any of their peers who do thus stifling discourse and debate.
Harassment law on the other hand is a different thing. UK Law defines harassment in this completely barmy circular way. It's harassment if a 'reasonable person' would think it harassment. How many reasonable people have you ever met? Thankfully even there there are a couple of defences on top of that. Among them are that if a reasonable person had as little information as the defendant they wouldn't have thought it harassment and that "that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable." Both of those defences could potentially cover missundersantings that could be constrewed as harassment. The clasic example might be the dirty Hungarian phrasebook
Peter said:It's very hard to say things about 'a' stranger but actually it's very easy to say things about lots of strangers. I don't know how tall a given woman is. But the average woman is 4'5 and the larger the group we are talking about the 'truer' the statement 'woman are 4'5' becomes. So yes I'm generalising about oversensitive people ... but there are quite a lot of them which makes that quite plausible.
Plausible but not a certifiable fact, which is the issue I'd be happy to discuss with you in DMs like I said, but you don't seem to want to take me up on that and would rather keep making this about us and our disagreement and not refocus on the OP's issue which I find very disrespectful to do to HMO's thread. So goodnight Peter.
π Bees π (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:But more importantly I don't think you can know a stranger well enough to be able to say they are "living in an echo chamber"
It's very hard to say things about 'a' stranger but actually it's very easy to say things about lots of strangers. I don't know how tall a given woman is. But the average woman is 4'5 and the larger the group we are talking about the 'truer' the statement 'woman are 4'5' becomes. So yes I'm generalising about oversensitive people ... but there are quite a lot of them which makes that quite plausible.
You see a person who finds an idea so disturbing that they can't even bring themselves to talk about it is not only unwilling to accept that idea they are unable to no matter how true it is. Their brain spits it out like un-chewed food before the digestive juices of their logic and reason ever really gets to have a go on it. You could argue all debate is force feeding others ideas they don't want until one sticks.