Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to and
I hate to warrant bad faith arguments, but setting that aside, the question here is whether disability provides a get out jail free card for harming others. (Granting for a moment that microaggressions etc. constitute real harms, which some like will probably dispute.)
1
The point of the doctor’s note is (a) it provides a basis for the teacher to explain: “This behavior that would be intentionally harmful coming from a neurotypical, in this case means something else; so don’t be offended or alienated but empathize with her disability” & (b)…
1
1
Sure, but the whole point of it was that this applies _not only_ to people who have particular diagnoses in the DSM, especially those who /did/ in the past, or those who could easily eliminate the disorders with a treatment...
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Honestly, the whole premise of this discussion looks to me like an attempt by disabled-masquerading neurotypical trolls to get POC to compete with disabled folks in some sort of victimization gladiatorial. It’s gross and should be called out as bad faith.
9
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I don’t think there’s any bad faith on Nils part here. The question is really whether the better norm is “assume neurotypical troll until proven ASD” or “tolerate socially toxic behavior until proven not-ASD”. It’s a context-driven judgment call.
Show replies