Special Needs Society

Environments of inclusivity where people are told everything is okay and nothing is their fault, results in emotionally stunted people who can't deal with conflict.

An atmosphere of blind acceptance, results in people with a weak sense of identity. This identity will fail to stand up to being challenged and this in turn will result in people with an even weaker sense of identity.

Once, it was commonly understood that life wasn't always fair, some had more opportunities than others, and you played the hand you were dealt. Boys were boys, girls were girls, kids had to fight plenty of their own battles, and it often meant a schoolyard scrap or two where you may have come home with a black eye, especially if you didn't fit in.

That was just part of growing up. Rejection was just something that happened. Either you tried to fit in because you wanted acceptance or you didn't. Some created their own groups, some didn't, and some became loners.

Today, everyone is expected to be inclusive, tolerant, and censor themselves if they might possibly offend some group of "specials". Everyone, every business, and every group is expected to roll out the welcome mat and bend to the needs and wants of all these "specials", including having to build another washroom for men and women who are having an identity crisis.

In some schools in the US, "jazz hands" have replaced clapping because the autistic kids can't handle the noise. I have a better solution, put the autistic kids in a special needs class or school. I don't see what's difficult about that as it was common practice when I went to school.

I'll give you an experience of mine... I was that kid who wasn't allowed sugar. "ADHD" they said. The type the school gives you pills for when they can't deal with your behavioural quirks. So, when it was ice cream day, I wasn't allowed any. I had to watch all the other kids enjoying ice cream, while I wondered how anyone could be so cruel. That's how it was and that's how it should be. Sure, it wasn't fair but neither is life. It wasn't up to the school to bend to my needs, it was my problem and my parent's problem. I dealt with it.

It's as if people are so obsessed with making "specials" feel included and accepted, they have transformed society into one giant special needs classroom.

So just because you had to put up with not getting ice cream, you want to have everyone beholden to your whim?

Rex wrote: So just because you had to put up with not getting ice cream, you want to have everyone beholden to your whim?

Huh? Did you actually read my OP?

More or less what I said when women wanted to vote....

JamesSand wrote: More or less what I said when women wanted to vote....

Can you NOT troll my thread, please?

1. By your own spruiking, I can more or less say what I want, and your offence is your business.
2. I was making a point, via sarcastic means.
3. I apologise, it was a moment of weakness, I try to avoid "your" threads and posts as much as possible. I've just been running, my blood was not all in my brain when I replied.

With any luck, we'll both learn from this moment.

JamesSand wrote: 1. By your own spruiking, I can more or less say what I want, and your offence is your business.
2. I was making a point, via sarcastic means.
3. I apologise, it was a moment of weakness, I try to avoid "your" threads and posts as much as possible. I've just been running, my blood was not all in my brain when I replied.

With any luck, we'll both learn from this moment.

You can. However, I can also make my wishes known. Whether you choose to honor my wishes or not is your call.

I hate to be baited, but I'm waiting for my soup to warm -

You can. However, I can also make my wishes known. Whether you choose to honor my wishes or not is your call.

The autistic kids (citation needed) made their wishes known, and the school honored them.


Is there anywhere else this conversation can go, or was it better served by a one-off post in the rant thread?

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Can you NOT troll my thread, please?

Okay, so you can create troll threads, but nobody can respond to them in kind? Is that how it works?

steamboat28 wrote:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Can you NOT troll my thread, please?

Okay, so you can create troll threads, but nobody can respond to them in kind? Is that how it works?

This isn't a troll thread and you can do as you please.

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.