Special Needs Society

Man I walked into this one at the wrong time. So, Phoenix I can kinda see what you are saying but also it's kinda tainted with a ring of irony to it.

I say this because those of us who have stood up to you are in fact creating an inclusive setting for you.

I'm calling you out on this because c'mon this is in pretty poor taste to use autistic reactions to clapping to push your point. There are much better examples and ways to communicate this into a reasonable discussion, the way you presented it brings people in on the defense vector automatically.

I would put forth this, when we bend to affirm everyone beliefs we loose some of the social beliefs we all share. Now this is actually can be a good movement in society but for some it seems that these beliefs are moving to fast. In many cases this creates a binary where people are picking sides instead of discussing rational ideas. So, how do we avoid this? Is inclusion inherently bad? How far should those that have to change their set behaviors have to go, what does that mean to the idea of inclusion?

I am asking these questions legitimately, I am curious to read your answers and have a discussion.

On a side note, James's comment was kinda funny, it's ok to have a laugh even at yourself. And I figured you supported the idea that if you an't have a good laugh at yourself or a smart ass comment made to a comment, the internet probably isn't for you.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

To be fair, I think Phoenix makes a good point, albeit not in a very tactful manner. Life is not fair and it can never be made to be. In order to make life fair, we would have to drag the rest of society down to the lowest common denominator (Whatever that might be) Which of course hinders those who are able to succeed on their own merit and cheapens their accomplishments thereby bringing us back to unfairness. I don't think Phoenix meant any harm so I hope this can be a fruitful discussion and not a hostile one.

I actually agree fully that this is a discussion that needs to be had. Again I agree it was not put tactfully or with a hint of subtlety from the OP but an important conversation.

A good question to start at is, when do we start catagorizing the least common denominator in society? What actions towards inclusion are a bridge to far so to speak?

Much Love,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: I actually agree fully that this is a discussion that needs to be had. Again I agree it was not put tactfully or with a hint of subtlety from the OP but an important conversation.

A good question to start at is, when do we start catagorizing the least common denominator in society? What actions towards inclusion are a bridge to far so to speak?

Much Love,
Kobos

I think a good place to start is when people require society to change to conform to their personal wants and desires, I think society should not conform to the individual, nor should the individual be required to conform to society as a whole. That's why people join groups or communities of like minded individuals, such as this one. I think it goes to far when others MUST bend over backwards to meet the demands of an individual for the sake of inclusivity. Now of course, a group is in their rights to try if they choose but that hardly ever has positive results as the demands get ever more numerous and difficult to meet. In the case of mental and developmental disorders, that's up to the particular individuals in the group to decide how far is too far and what is acceptable or not. Sorry if that doesn't give a satisfactory answer but these are not simple questions to answer.

No, this is a great response, do not apologize for sharing your point of view in a polite manner.

So I agree on the point when society must, that's a good way of looking at it. Now I would simply ask what and how are we defining must. I tend to think of it as law (which if we want to go into semantics of governmental application of physical force, see I had my smart moment!! ). So from there that gives several ways in which pressure is given to a society to change in a rapid sense, actions by individuals and groups pick those and apply them as they push for change.

So, one of the questions I actually have here is, are we through wide spread of information assuming the pressure put on to one group in particular is being applied to society as a whole? Do we get kinda duped into assuming one groups ideas are the accepted norm because of the loudness of their voices?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Absolutely, as they say, "The squeakiest wheel gets the grease." But just because one group is louder than others, does that make their requests what society in general wants or even needs? Does it mean society bends to the will of the loudest minority or do we allow individuals to decide that for themselves? Laws, of course always come with implied force so how far are we willing to go to appease the squeakiest wheel, so to speak?

I would say absolutely not, in fact some of the loudest groups have been the worst in humanity.

Now it should be the ideal that society would always allow the individual to decide? Or to dictate it?

It is my opinion that society should leave it to the individual. It would make sense that eventually the majority would fall to the side of the most good as it benefits each individual when society is not in upheaval (there is obviously a way wiser range of thing when looking at society as a whole). So though when we look at the individual groups into a priority, and how do we do that without being d-bags about it, because we do have to do that IMHO because society has a maximum level of stress it can take as far as reform goes.

Just my opinion what do you think?

Much Love,
Kobos

You're right on. If enough people agree with an idea, it will be implemented without needing to use force to make it happen and that's the best of all possible outcomes. If some people still don't agree, they can join their own communities. This applies not only to online or social groups but to neighborhoods and cities as well.

Kobos wrote: I'm calling you out on this because c'mon this is in pretty poor taste to use autistic reactions to clapping to push your point. There are much better examples and ways to communicate this into a reasonable discussion, the way you presented it brings people in on the defense vector automatically.

1. To you, my example was in poor taste. To me, it wasn't.

2. You say there are "much better examples". That may be true, there may be examples you find less unsettling.

3. You say there are better ways to communicate this into a reasonable discussion and the way I presented it, brings people in on the defense vector automatically. I wonder if you even realize what you've just demonstrated here.

First, I'm not your student or some child in need of correcting, so don't treat me as such. Second, did you ever think I wrote what I did because that's what I wanted to write?

Lukezilla wrote: To be fair, I think Phoenix makes a good point, albeit not in a very tactful manner. Life is not fair and it can never be made to be. In order to make life fair, we would have to drag the rest of society down to the lowest common denominator (Whatever that might be) Which of course hinders those who are able to succeed on their own merit and cheapens their accomplishments thereby bringing us back to unfairness. I don't think Phoenix meant any harm so I hope this can be a fruitful discussion and not a hostile one.

If it turns out to be hostile, it can still be fruitful.

Kobos wrote: I actually agree fully that this is a discussion that needs to be had. Again I agree it was not put tactfully or with a hint of subtlety from the OP but an important conversation.

It didn't need to be, nor did I want it to be. I have said this before, I will not cater to safe space mentality.

The two are not mutually inclusive or exclusive. A hostile discussion can still be a fruitful one but it takes more time to become a productive one. If you start a discussion in an aggressive manner, people will respond defensively or with their own aggression and that gets no one anywhere. No one is saying to make this a "Safe space" As you say. In fact, it seems to me that people here are willing to discuss any subject matter regardless of how uncomfortable it may be so long as it's done with respect.