Responsibility is to those that give status. Duty of the pro-social sort is what you buy status (regard) with.
Neither subjective or consensus accounts of truth (neither of which correspond with postmodernism or utilitarianism in the way you imply) are obviously inconsistent. Philosophers would not bother talking about them if that were the case.
Funnily enough, I can't tell which of Stalin and Mother Theresa you are worried will be confused with the other, given that many people have opposite ideas of which was moral and which was immoral.
Modern religions define objective morality, not objective truth (excluding metaphysical assertions, which are not what one usually means by truth).
Of course you don't get it: you're not autistic. Did you expect to get it?
There's what's that quote about good art disturbing the comfortable and comforting the disturbed.
Eating is very stressful for many autistic people because of trauma and lack of (non-enmeshing) support in childhood. They don't learn how to make a comfortable environment for themselves or that it is even possible. Every meal becomes stressful. Force feeding or depending completely on others.
Masking goes so deep, it's just not possible to easily convey with words, because after a lifetime of masking you don't even notice all the things that you do that count.
"Presenting behavior in a socialized way when necessary" has a hidden part. Presenting what behavior? To whom? Presenting autism-coded behavior around autistic people is stress-free.
I think masking is easily conveyed with words because everybody does it - other terms used are "code switching" where you talk differently to friends, family, parents, bosses, subordinates or children; "emotional labor", a phrase often used for service industry people (think receptionists) where people pretend to be in one emotional state (happy and cheerful) for the sake of their job or role while they really aren't. This is even worse / more obvious in the US where a lot of people can / do switch their personality on a whim, e.g. when picking up the phone.
What's different is that for neurotypical people they don't seem to be aware of it and it comes naturally, but for ND it's learned behaviour that costs energy and conscious effort to do. And they feel like they have to do it because society is used to people effortlessly doing it all the time, so if you don't you're considered off, or simply don't get to participate in society because you're weird/boring/scary. The latter is the worst, you're just yourself but people get uncomfortable around you. They won't tell you why nor just accept you (which is understandable, biological defense mechanisms etc), but you do become an outcast. Unless you play the social games.
> Presenting autism-coded behavior around autistic people is stress-free.
Anecdotal, but... not necessarily, any one person's behaviours can affect someone else negatively.
> but for ND it's learned behaviour that costs energy and conscious effort to do. And they feel like they have to do it because society is used to people effortlessly doing it all the time, so if you don't you're considered off, or simply don't get to participate in society because you're weird/boring/scary.
And of course, every now and then you fail to do it right and people think you were acting really weird but won't explain why.
I'd like to elaborate a little more on why "autistic masking" is different from "neurotypicals' masking".
For neurotypicals, masking is to exhibit behaviors that you subconciously know how to do because they are part of your natural range of behaviors. When a neurotypical is masking being friendly and happy in a social occasion (when they actually don't feel like it), they draw on their previous experience of having been friendly and happy in another social occasion. They know what it feels like, they know how to behave instinctively whey they really are happy and friendly, and faking it is only the effort of drawing from prior experience. For actors, this is called "the Method".
For autists, masking is emulating behaviors they wouldn't normally exhibit on any such occasion. They don't know how to do it, not subconciously, not instinctively. So they explicitly have to observe others, emulate their behavior on that occasion. That leads to two kinds of problems: First, they need to have observed this behavior, learned and practiced it, and need to know how to reproduce it correctly. Second, they need to recognize the occasion correctly, and not misinterpret their surroundings, the feelings and moods of others. And since autists also do have problems even interpreting their own emotional state (they do have emotions, but no intuitive way to know what they are at the moment) and even more the emotional state of others, the effort is far higher. Imagine an actor who is asked to play a totally alien role without any frame of reference and without prior experience, no do-overs and all the other people around him are also directors and constantly judging his performance and measuring it against their effortless instinct what it should look like.
I can buy your arguments, but not in the context of this game.
Saying "I'm tired I'll go work more silently" is just reasonably workplace behavior. Telling your coworker "can we sit down and talk about this somewhere more quiet" is just reasonable thing to say to improve productivity. Saying "This meeting is a bit unstructured and i feel if would be more productive to write out an agenda" is not breaking a mask or being an ass, it's focusing on getting shit done for everyone. Sending an email about concerns about unclear and un-mensurable performance in a post-meeting summary is productive and useful for the team (and less socially draining than doing it during the meeting).
All humans mask. Autistic people are simply more prone to "over-mask" or mask things others don't. But a-lot of masking behaviors are mal-adaoptions from childhood. A distraction-less focused and structured work environment helps everyone, so be the ass and enforce it. And particularly engineering fields have a higher tendency to attract (certain) autistic traits, which just further makes speaking out even more valuable for everyone involved.
Simply put; The game makes being "breaking the mask" a negative thing, and a failure case for the game. But all options that break the mask seem to improve energy and social connection. (which goes entirely against the supposed benefit or purpose of masking)
> Saying "This meeting is a bit unstructured and i feel if would be more productive to write out an agenda" is not breaking a mask or being an ass, it's focusing on getting shit done for everyone.
But in many cases, it will absolutely be interpreted as being an ass, and autistic people are less adept at spotting those contexts and communicating in ways which don't look like they're being an ass (also, autistic people are probably more likely to be irritated by the agenda of the rest of the meeting or next meeting being to discuss agendas...)
I agree with your wider point that everyone masks to some degree, but its obviously less consequential to non-junior neurotypical people in familiar environments who can reasonably accurately predict how everyone will react to them choosing to take the mask off and hint what they really think about the meeting. Sure, a lot of other stuff like requesting to talk in a quieter environment is usually something straightforward any reasonable person will accommodate, but it's not surprising people concerned that making too many requests perceived as "weird" might harm their career and not really sure what's "weird" or not default to just trying to avoid them.
Being unable to read or intepret the reaction or social cues given as a response to such blunt remarks is indeed a core issue. I think this is a core reason autistic people over-mask.
Beyond simply masking autistic traits, some people mask to the point of changing personalities or interests. Masking to be more "normal" than any "normal" person.
Knowing when and when not to raise or point out issues or concerns can be quite complex.
So in practice, its quite difficult to find the balance. But take issue with the "inevitability" present in a lot the explanations of autistic masking.
Googling "making workplace autism friendly" gives ... detailed descriptions of very nice workplaces. Particularly the examples in this game are things every workplace would benefit from adjusting even for "neuortypical" workers. (And if not pointed out, it will just continue to drain energy the future)
I am, and ironically it prevented me from being able to enjoy this; too many inaccuracies and absolutist perspective frustrated me.
Like others said, skipping breakfast should not be that big of a deal for a reasonably healthy adult, we didn't evolve having 3 meals a day. Intermittent fasting is a thing too.
'Masking' parameter misses the point in my opinion. Picking what I would personally realistically do (having adapted over the years) causes it to drop to 0 over a few days. Picking what i think author wants me to pick, same result. Yet somehow I managed not to get fired in 3 days irl.
I get it, it's an illustration of 'autism is hard' for 'normies'. But it was painfully close to being realistic/enjoyable too.
Not to say it's not useful, ADHD popups were 10/10, general vibe was spot on, will probably forward it to a few friends; it's just not nuanced enough to not annoy me personally.
One of rare times where I can be blunt honest and hopefully not come across arrogant.
> Like others said, skipping breakfast should not be that big of a deal for a reasonably healthy adult, we didn't evolve having 3 meals a day. Intermittent fasting is a thing too.
I haven’t played the simulator but I wonder if it’s also trying to account for more than just the physiological effects. A friend of mine has autism, and we were getting together one day. On the way over I suggested getting some food since it was close to dinner time. They agreed, gave me some items and I bought us some food. When I arrived they were amped up and excited to show me something. I set the food down, and I ate while they were showing me this thing that had them all excited. They ate some of the food too, but were clearly distracted and not all that hungry. No big deal. But a few hours later I noticed they’d gone real quiet and seemed down or anxious about something. Turned out they had been worrying for the last hour that they had offended me because they didn’t eat all the food and they knew they weren’t going to eat all the food because they were going through a phase where eating in general was just a difficult thing to want to do and so were eating just the minimums they needed to not have other problems.
The entire later half of their evening and their excitement over their new thing had been badly deflated all because of a decision / need to not eat all the food on offer. Never mind that this was nothing new for them. Never mind that I could easily see myself skipping food just for the excitement they were experiencing before factoring in any sensory phases. Never mind that it would be a truly shit thing for me to be offended because they only ate some of the greasy fast food I picked up for us. No this simple and normal act caused them an hour of stress and anxiety over worrying if they’d crossed some social line for doing something I didn’t even notice until they said something.
But it doesn’t matter whether I noticed. Their brain latched onto the “you did something abnormal, people might have noticed, now you need to analyze everything that’s happened to figure out what you next move should be” train of thought and it would not let go. So at least from what I’ve seen, choosing to eat or not can have impacts beyond just “hungry”
Yup, these people are perfectly fine. They don't need to identify each other and band together. No one is targeting them[0]. They need to stop making mountains out of molehills[1]. It's not like anything bad has ever happened to these 'high functioning' whiners[2]. I mean who cares if they are 'treated' by withholding food to force them to pretend to not be traumatized[3]. They should understand that if they stop identifying with the label or as oppressed victims it will be better for them[4]. Just like all those people with drapetomania[5] who don't realize what's best is a tough hand to guide them. Don't you miss how things used to be?[6] Back when there was more tough love[7].
Pricing in externalities (such as national defense impact) is a basic function of economic policy.
I searched 'economics 101 strategic industries' and found this[1] within 30s which includes an overview of 'national self-sufficiency'. It presents the standard argument, including the parts you claim the standard argument ignores.
I personally favor decentralized planning over markets, but I find it unnecessary to slander economics.
Federal employees swear a constitutional oath that supersedes presidential order and they have civil service protections beyond what most workers have available. Many are in unions.
As executive workers, they have a legal obligation to execute the law irrespective of what is decreed. Even then, they have their own - private - moral principles. The Nuremberg trials were clear: following orders is not a defense.
I completely agree with all of this. But at the same time your whole argument applies both ways.
I'm not sure it's fair to place the burden of constitutional interpretation on every federal employee. Understanding the constitution is complex, and frankly in many places open to a lot of interpretation.
And of course if unions want to join the fray, they're welcome to.
I will however note this. Your argument gives every federal employee freedom to do anything they like. This is true for left wing and right wing alike.
The problem with the "following orders is not a defense" logic is that it implies the person had choices (feds do, they can quit, guards didnt). Equally it implies that future-winners can retro-determine what you "should have done". It judges your present actions based on some future standard. Which means you need to decide which standard you think will ultimately win.
Clearly every person has their own limit. Lots of people quit their jobs every day. And clearly that is everyone's option.
At some fundamental level though, when you enter public service, you serve at the pleasure of the public. Right now it's hard to argue that this isn't the will of the public.
You may not like it, I certainly don't, but the permissions we tell ourself now are the same permissions that apply 4, 8, 12 years from now.
Which leads to the question- are you happy if a racist working under a Dem president uses your exact argument? And if not, why not?
I was making the deontological argument because I assumed that was the meta-ethical framework you were using, which can be extended by just saying "abiding by moral commitments and oaths is a matter of moral necessity". I think all the arguments you levied can be addressed by that extension.
Trump didn't run on project 2025 precisely because he knew it wasn't the will of the public.
My personal view is that much evil in the world occurs because people who make decisions and those that do them are not the same set. That any one, or any small group, can inflict so much unnecessary suffering seems surely to be a sign of pathology in the structure of our civilization. The fix, in my view, is to reassert direct personal responsibility, and to deny the legitimacy of looking to systems of rules to launder responsibility.
If I was a fed right now I'd probably already have been arrested for breaking people's legs. There are way more feds than there are people telling them what to do.
The thing being pathologized here - gender fluidity - is at its heart nothing more than willful insubordination. Hate doesn't require anger, and control isn't love.
Wow what a blast from the past. Sounds like /r/Tulpas. I've always thought it was a purely rhetorical trick + disassociation, and obvious what is happening and why. Sleep deprecation has always been part of it since that makes it harder to notice the errors at the edge of your perception. It goes back to at least the 2010s I think.
There is some precedent; the Twin Flame cult coerced transition in some members if I remember correctly. My guess is it was emotional manipulation used to make them do something that makes them more vulnerable to control. If you transition and you are not trans, you are going to have a hell of a lot of dysphoria, and shaming people and telling them it's because they are not trying hard enough/a good enough person/etc. would absolutely make it hard to break away.
The specific technique here is unihemispherical sleep. Stimulating one side of the body while resting the other (one eye closed) to get one hemisphere to fall asleep. I think Gwen originally developed this trick to probe the mind and see if behavior was altered when one hemisphere was asleep versus the other.
However, it turns out that when you do this, the brain as a whole does not get adequate sleep, even if you alternate hemispheres. People had symptoms of sleep deprivation while still being semi-functional. Ziz took if a step further and had some sort of secret initiation process where both hemispheres were trained differently to produce multiple personalities. At least that was the assumption from those of us on the outside gathering scraps of info being dropped.
Get you 8 hours of sleep everyone. Sleep is important.
Please note that there's no real evidence that single-hemisphere sleep is a thing in humans. Some sleep researchers suggest that a brain hemisphere can spontaneously be awake during ordinary sleep in "unfamiliar" places, and that this can be a cause of poor quality sleep - but that's a very different thing from what Ziz claims to be able to do.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, Gwern has never written anything on his site about this purported single-hemisphere sleep, see https://gwern.net/doc/zeo/index for the details of what he has written about.
Gwen, not Gwern. Gwen Danielson, if he is still alive, is wanted for his possible involvement in multiple homicides related to the Ziz cult. Not Gwern.
And unihemispheric sleep (Gwen’s word for what they do; they like to invent their own terms) is one of the techniques the Ziz cult uses.
Thanks for correcting that mixup! So there's no source whatsoever for this bizarre notion other than the Zizian death cult itself. That makes it even crazier that some people (whether here or in the news media) seem to be taking it at face value, though.
I am uninvolved (thankfully, not many people have been confused) but on the topic of the meditation practice: years ago when reading the zizian.info writeup, I found the unihemispheric sleep part to be the most alarming & interesting part.
There are many strange altered states of consciousness found by experimentation, and I can totally believe that some form of auto-hypnosis + sleep deprivation - which would parallel many well-attested mind-altering practices in many different cultures & religions - could have bizarre effects or induce psychosis and hallucinating demonic entities, and turn an activist vegan into a murderer. (Their specific interpretation of 'unihemispheric' sleep may or may not be true. I would say that it's worth checking... except I'm not sure how one could either prudently or ethically investigate it, given the apparent consequences.)
And it would answer the question many people have been asking about how these unlikely-seeming murderers were made, in a way that the rest of it all does not.
Generally I think it's good to take people's reports of their unusual mental experiences at face value, even when they're crazy. Not that they never lie, but that you learn more by assuming they're probably telling the truth.
I haven't attempted unihemispheric sleep, and it sounds like a phenomenon that isn't represented in the literature, but it also sounds like it wouldn't get past an IRB anytime in the last decades, so I assume it's probably real.
The technique might have 'merely' prevented deep sleep due to interruptions; similar to why uberman[1] doesn't work.
When I was younger I stayed up to see what happens. The worst experience of my life was when I lied down to sleep and felt 'too tired to go to sleep' and then started hallucinating sirens. I have no idea how long I was up; after a few days I lost track. I had to paced to stay awake, which I did the entire time. I got pronounced disassociative symptoms - which I'm prone to anyway - ("it's not me in control of my body; there is a mutiny", "my reflection is weird/scary/different; that is not me", "the lines that make up the walls and reality don't seem to lay correctly"), gaps in memory, broken pattern matching (everything looks like a spider, chasing down mundane sounds to figure out what they are), and mixing up memories and imagined thoughts (e.g., fill up a cup, go to drink from it, it is empty and I'm not sure if I filled it up and then drank from it or imagined filling it up or if my memories are out of order).
Given the loss of contact with reality, I could see it being easy to manipulate people if you are in the room with them. I was alone, but if someone told me another me talked to them and then drank from the cup, the mix up could easily seem like evidence that it had actually happened that way, especially if I was trusting, vulnerable and open-minded. And once someone has a model that suggests that, they would probably make up stories on their own to support it.
So, yeah, definitely agree on the importance of sleep.
I would guess he probably just convinced a roommate or friend they need to kill other people to accomplish their lofty goal, which would be a lot simpler (see: the Mangione fandom). Once he got a couple people to agree the rest came over from peer pressure.
This might be a different thing with the same name, but on 4chan's /x/ (paranormal) board there have always a lot of people trying really hard to summon a tulpa to be their ghost waifu. For a lot of them it's an ironic meme but I'm pretty sure some of them are serious and do it because they (perhaps correctly) believe it's more likely to work than talking to women that actually exist.
Making excuses for abuse is just as unhealthy as seeing it everywhere.
I have been diagnosed both autistic and adhd and I experienced food insecurity despite living in a house with several balconies and a detached garage bigger than my friends' families' houses because my parents thought I would get over it and start going out to eat with them if they didn't bring me any food. I don't think they intended deliberately to harm me - or realize that me not going out to eat with them didn't mean there was enough food - but their authoritarian way of thinking did the harm nonetheless and it's a completely predictable outcome of such a way of thinking; so it's not "I didn't mean it" so much as "I don't want to think differently because I value my attachment to this mode of thinking more than the wellbeing of others; and when I harm them I'll say 'nothing could be done' because changing how I approach the problem isn't on the table".
The healthiest thing most autistic/adhd people ever do is moving from 'I am sick' to 'the society I inhabit has an autoimmune disorder'.
Neither subjective or consensus accounts of truth (neither of which correspond with postmodernism or utilitarianism in the way you imply) are obviously inconsistent. Philosophers would not bother talking about them if that were the case.
Funnily enough, I can't tell which of Stalin and Mother Theresa you are worried will be confused with the other, given that many people have opposite ideas of which was moral and which was immoral.
Modern religions define objective morality, not objective truth (excluding metaphysical assertions, which are not what one usually means by truth).