Thread 82163267

Men with high functioning aspergers treat women equally, and they pay the ultimate price for it by recieving a women's disdain.

Really makes you think.

>>82163267 (OP)
What if I have Asdog's or Aspizza's?

>>82163267 (OP)
I got ball busted for offering to help a girl carry her luggage up the stairs once. Fuck em, wouldn't care if they were being strangled in front of me, I'd keep on walking

>>82163267 (OP)
They treat women with disdain and receive that same disdain in return

>>82163267 (OP)
>high functioning
>aspergers
just pick one. there's no reason to call yourself retarded if you are not retarded.

>>82163267 (OP)

girls are the same with autistic boys

>>82163267 (OP)
I have aspergers and women are normally nice to me but in a condescending way and think I am dumber but oh well

>>82163291
Fuck off. Women believe that normal treatment is disdainful because they're used to getting preferential treatment from everyone else.
Most people treat women as if they had a real disability

>>82163386
you can't get preferential treatment unless you are being preferred over the norm. most women are treated normally, but aspies notoriously treat women with disdain it's really not complicated.

>>82163315
Based boy. If I was his dad, I would take him to the train store and get him the biggest set I could afford.

>>82163386
This. Aspergers people treat girls like they do the average man, and the girls lose their mind.

>>82163394
Lawfag cheap talk. They do get treated as if they had an actual disability.
Preferential hiring and education opportunities included.
They're given more leniency in legal sentences just for being women and you're expected to judge them less harshly just for being women not to speak of how you're expected to walk around eggshells in certain topics when it's a woman but women are blunt like a hammer towards men
Furthermore depending on the country being a woman offers more benefits than having a recognized disability

>>82163468
I was talking about how aspies treat women with disdain. It's pretty well understood.

>>82163481
By who? Point a single thing in which aspies treat women different than how they treat men
>Inb4 I can't proof that people understand that
Ok

>>82163468
How is that relevant to autists being rude assholes to everyone around them and then crying when random women don't treat them like mommy does

>>82163536
>Completely made up scenario
>Still no proof
I'm not here to validate your stories

Op bashing on others because of his insecurities. Lame

>>82163481
>D-did that fucking retard just dare to be socially awkward in my vicinity?! Did he just not bend over backwards to make feel special??!
>Someone arrest that monster!
They talk to you in the exact same way they'd talk to a man.
The fact that the moment a woman is treated like a man they instantly get offended and believe it a personal attack says a lot.

>>82163673
Yeah it says that men generally treat each other like shit. That's why you're all ragequitting life.

>>82163673
>people with aspergers treat men with disdain too!
uhhh, lol no. they often at least give men a chance.

>>82163689
Avoiding overtly performative politeness has nothing to do with suicide.
Also is incredible how despite being 50 of the population women are never at fault for anything at all. At least according to them
>>82163698
>Fictional scenario
Ok

>>82163732
the irony is that all of the "im so smart and sarcastic" stuff that aspies do is purely performative. most of them talk like a tranime character instead of talking normally.

>>82163750
>tranime
Could you kindly fuck off to the sharty and never show up you ass again in this website

>>82163315
Normally I'd be making fun of the autist but the foidlet made a really shit joke so I'd also think there's more to it

>>82163315
why does he look like John Carmack

>>82163315
this mp4 is brutal, this kid is gonna have suicidal thoughts before highschool for sure.

>>82163818
>the foidlet made a really shit joke
that's why it's so funny

>>82163315
>superman on a hotdog

>>82163788
>getting mad about tranime
what

>>82163267 (OP)
>>82163431
I'm a high functioning sperg and apparently I treat everybody with a low level of dismissive disinterest, which people interpret as me disliking them. It's weird because I just treat people the same, regardless of who they are, but different people have different expectations.

I never played well in social hierarchies of any kind, since I treat people at the top the way I treat people at the bottom, which led to a lot of difficulties socialising in high school and early adulthood. The only people I give any kind of preferential treatment are people who are obviously weak or infirm.

>>82164856
explain the logic of treating your best friends as badly as you would treat random strangers.

>>82164869
I don't have any best friends. I really don't have many friends because, like I said, I am a sperg who had extreme trouble socialising as a teenager and young adult because I always got into clashes about hierarchy, where somebody would interpret my dismissal of hierarchy as a direct attack on their person. The closest thing I have to friends would be my tabletop group, but I never meet them outside of our sessions, even though several of them want to hang out or are romantically interested in me.

>as badly as you would treat random strangers.
This is a bold assumption. The truth is that I treat people decently well on average, helping them when they need it. I pull over to help people whose cars have broken down, step in when there's conflict, take over for people at work when they need to do something else, I rescue stray dogs and return them home, things like that. I should have clarified that, for me, "preferential treatment" is being obsequious and overly polite, or submissive. I didn't communicate that well.

>>82163315
>mfw superman on a hotdog

>>82164830
Tranime is a buzzword made up by /qa/tards and spammed in 2019 because they've always hated 4chan being an anime based website

>>82164912
>I don't have any best friends
Yeah because you treat people like shit. I already knew that you wouldn't actually build a relationship acting that way, I'm asking what is your logic for acting that way.

>This is a bold assumption.
Hey are you the guy who doesn't have any best friends?

>helping them when they need it
Helping a random stranger with their car when it's convenient for you is a completely different universe from helping someone you trust and know with something meaningful when they need it. You're obviously not jesus christ running around performing miracles for every stranger on earth, so I'm going to ask again what is the logic of treating your best friends as badly as you would treat random strangers? you're the one who says you would treat everyone the same.

>>82164946
buzzwordmaxxing is fine. i don't hate 4chan, but tranime watching retards do often have a problem. if your tranime is translated from japanese and is generally overdramatic in nature, you will pick up mannerisms and language that makes absolutely no sense in the real world.

>>82163291
Based on what evidence do you say that?

>>82164948
You keep saying "as badly" as I treat random strangers, as if I treat strangers "badly". It's obvious you have a chip on your shoulder, and that's none of my business. I suggest reflecting inwardly as to why you hold such hostile views. Your baseline for treating strangers being "badly" speaks of a troubling character.

I'm okay with my limited number of friends because socialising is draining for me. Generally speaking, I prefer being alone, and that's just how I am. Prostrating myself before others and being obsequious in order to maintain social niceties scarcely seems worth the effort.

>>82164989
Explain why I would reflect inward for your behavior? I was reflecting on you. Your baseline is that nobody is good enough to be treated with respect or trust. That's interesting to me since you're socializing here in spite of your contradictions.

>>82165052
Your reading comprehension is rather poor, that you don't understand the inward reflection was regarding your own views of the default mode of treating others also suggests a troubling character and lack of introspection.

Not only that, your inferences are completely apropos of nothing. I never said I treat people without respect or trust; that is purely a projection on your part. I treat everybody with the same level of trust, which is with the full understanding that all events in life are completely outside of our control and nobody is more worthy of respect than anybody else. Rich, poor, smart, stupid. All these circumstances are decided by variables outside of an individual's control, and being deferential towards somebody for circumstances they could not control is arbitrary.

>>82164965
And D&D promotes satanism too? Does GTA and Mortal Kombat make serial killers?
I have yet to meet a person who talks differently out of watching anime and I have lived through the era when it was really a niche hobby dependant on fansubs

>>82163267 (OP)
As an aspie, it's weird with women. Older women are kinder to me than older men, but younger men are kinder to me than younger women.

So, the best people in society right now are young men and old women, who are typically of equal kindness.

>>82165097
>Your reading comprehension is rather poor
How so?

>inferences are completely apropos of nothing
Some anon from earlier was saying that they treat everyone with the same level of trust, which is why I asked about that. She would treat anyone, even her own mother, like a random dangerous stranger on the streets. She has no family or community values.

>circumstances they could not control is arbitrary
Your relationships are in your control, hence why your behavior results in fewer friendships. At least you are honest about preferring to be alone, I have heard many disingenuous arguments from people who claim to want a relationship with someone, while treating people like shit.

>>82165134
No, relationships are not within your control, because NOTHING is in your control. This is where we will not be able to find synthesis as you live within a totally different mode of reality where "free will" exists.

Relationships are the product of circumstances. Circumstances outside of your control. Meeting your friends somewhere is entirely predicated on random chance. Your ability to make choices is completely tied to your personality traits, which are formed by a chaotic, unknowable mixture of random chance, and pretending otherwise is a method of self-validation. Saying any of your personality traits are due to your own choice is as absurd as saying your height or eye colour, barring surgery, are your choice.

>>82165100
D&D nerds talk strange too sometimes, but most D&D nerds grow up in the real world socializing with other people in their own community.

Tranimemaxxers talk nothing like people in the community, other than maybe other tranimemaxxers. You could easily find a lot of what people say about the way weeaboos talk and act, even if it's more subtle in your case.

>>82165177
If your post was created by random chance, then how are you magically writing complete sentences? You spent 10 minutes arguing that you exercise your free will to treat people like disposable garbage, and now you want to claim that it was caused by your eye color (except you spelled it like a retard)

>>82165200
You really do lack perspective and, ironically, take things extremely literally and are unable to see beyond the most basic building blocks of concept. Me making these posts is a series of circumstances and coincides outside of my control. I don't know English because I chose to, I was born in a country where it is the majority language. I didn't choose to be born with the intelligence to write, my genetics simply allow me the ability. Not once did I mention free will, ever, that is an inference you have made, once again apropos of nothing: the way I treat people is based on conclusions I reached thanks to factors outside of my control, and were I to "choose" to treat others differently, it would because of factors outside of my control, like a sudden change in disposition caused by brain damage or personal trauma.

Do you understand, or are you truly as myopic as you seem? Every single step of your life leading you to this moment was ultimately outside of your control. Nobody is poor or smart or successful because of their own actions, as those actions are influenced by circumstances nobody can actually control or account for.

>>82165186
>You could easily find a lot of what people say about the way weeaboos talk and act,
I have to assume that those are things which people who are online 24/7 say about other people who are online 24/7 because I've never seen that IRL

>>82165248
>allow me the ability
Whoops! you contradicted yourself. First your post was created by random chance, but now it's not? Explain yourself. The genetics are part of your free will. If you put your genetics on a paper plate, they would never be able to write this post.

>>82165256
You're extremely lucky that you didn't have to live through the fedora+virgin jeans era.

>>82164811
>>82164941

It was a gay dick joke, wasn't it? He was ahead of his age.

>>82165248
>i can't tell the difference between people i can trust and people i can't trust
>i can't tell the difference between unconscious behavior and conscious behavior
Truly fascinating specimen. A literal subhuman.

>>82165269
Wow, you really are myopic if you think that is a "gotcha". Being allowed the ability to do something is not "free will", it is circumstantial. I am sorry, but this is not an equal conversation in terms of intellectual capacity (which, again, is NOT your fault).

>If you put your genetics on a paper plate, they would never be able to write this post.
Oh, shit, you are STARTING to understand! Slowly, but surely, you are starting to know something beyond the immediate. Your genetics are totally outside of your control, and your genetics determine your ability to even make "choices" (ah, here we go!), ergo "choices" are the product of something entirely outside of your actual control, meaning they are not "choices" at all, simply expressions of genetic predisposition and circumstances... ergo, not your choice. Just like "winning" the lottery isn't your choice.

>>82165306
ALL behaviour is predetermined by factors outside of an individual's control. You are only here, posting on 4chan, because you were born at a certain time, with certain proclivities, in a certain country with certain access to certain technologies. NONE of these factors were within your control. You are too attached to your idea of self, and the idea that your actions are your own, and not simply expressions of unknowable factors and layers of chance.

>>82165286
I'm not from the US. Nobody was wearing fedoras. At worst a few guys adopted emo or visual key styled but they were pretty popular with women and not the online kind of guys

>>82165324
>actshually, my post was not created by random chance
Exactly. But you contradicted yourself from earlier when you implied that completely unpredictable random chance magically created your post, and not you consciously deciding to write a specific sequence of words. This isn't something you will ever understand because of your disability, but the trivial fact that it was NOT random chance should be something that you acknowledge. Thank you.

>>82165324
>I cannot tell the difference between my unconscious behavior and my conscious behavior
lol. people like this have no internal monologue either.

>>82165355
>>actshually, my post was not created by random chance
I literally did not say this, a bizarre inference. Sorry, I am not reading the rest of your post as your genetic predisposition does not grant you the ability to properly understand what I am saying.

>>82165363
You as well, your view is too limited. There is no such thing as "conscious" behaviour, as your behaviours are determined by circumstances you cannot control for. A person who commits a crime where he rapes and kills another person is not doing so out of "free will", he is doing so because of predispositions outside of his control (like low impulse control, a history of violence within his family, et cetera). EVERYTHING comes down to genetic predispositions and circumstances we cannot control for, ergo nothing we do is truly within out control. To believe otherwise is a desperate attempt to rationalise a chaotic system like the universe. Actually think about this instead of having a knee-jerk negative reaction.

>>82163394
>aspies notoriously treat women with disdain
are you just making this shit up?

>>82165451
Agreeing that you aren't sentient is not a flex. Your view is LITERALLY limited to the experience of a vegetable. People like you have no conscious thoughts or actions, you would simply never in your life understand what it's like to make a choice.

>>82165490
Quick question, can women be funny?

>>82165538
answer to your quick question: yes

>>82165523
Your lack of understanding is, once again, disappointing. Reflect on this: Nobody makes "choices" as these "choices" are determined by circumstances outside of their control. You completely lack perspective. A fish swims because that is how its brain is programmed, a man commits a crime because he has low impulse control, which is how his brain is programmed. The fish has no control over whether or not it swims, it acts within its nature and programming.

Please, reflect on this if you have the ability. Should you not, it is NOT your fault.

>>82165579
You are the one who agrees with me; you do not understand consciousness or self awareness. It's okay, there are many people who are incapable of understanding. You are parroting some talking point you heard from dualism without understanding dualism, while also admitting that genetics play a role in your actions. It's funny to watch, but you are basically a vegetable to the people around you.

>>82165555
oh great! i would bet you do not treat women with disdain.

>>82165633
well good but that doesn't answer my question

>>82165652
>are you just making this shit up?
no im not.

>>82163267 (OP)
I call my fren "my asperga" but hard R, oh my...

>>82165670
well i disagree with you until substantiate your claim

>>82165722
>well i disagree with you until substantiate your claim
i understand.

>>82165248
I'm assburgered too but I have wasted a lot of time trying to understand people. The person you are talking to is being disingenuous. They hate you and wish to hurt your feelings. If they are incapable of achieving this goal they are willing to settle for wasting your time in a pointless engagement. Normalfags also find it funny how we talk like books too instead of a more natural bruh cuh foo cap yo yo yo. Your attempts at speaking with them like a human is met similarly to how you suggesting shoes of appropriate size to a clown like an appropriately sized shoe wearer would be.

>>82166746
>disingenuous
>willing to settle
The person you replied to does not believe that someone can be sincere or disingenuous or that willpower exist. Did you reply to the wrong person?

>>82166808
You wouldn't get it. Autists are superior to you.

>>82166864
Nobody said they were not superior. Autists live on easy mode. They get paid just to exist.

>>82164912
The anon replying to you (>>82164948) is either trolling, a narcissist with BPD, or a woman. The overly disingenuous nature of their tagged reply should have tipped you off to that immediately. Please be more discerning when interacting with hostile retards, anon, for your own sake. No sane individual would interpret "I try to be altruistic to strangers" as "I treat those close to me poorly", unless they had a rape induced personality disorder or a vagina.

>>82167032
The person you replied to has no close friends. He keeps everyone at a distance, hence why nobody gets preferential treatment not even his own family.

I dont trust autist. Especially the women. They use their autism as a weapon and act like assholes. Most of their problems are self inflicted, since they're so narcistic and in their heads all the time. No one cares about you bitch, being kind also doesn't mean you're a good person. Jumping from guy to guy and blaming them for treating you bad is a sign of mental illness.

>>82167525
Autistic people are just incapable of having empathy. Once you realize that, you won't have any problems with them because you won't take them seriously.

>>82167532
Empathy is a buzzword used by the most scheming of social predators. 100/100 times someone has empath in their bio is a red flag as big as the one in Beijing.
No wonder why you hate autistics people so much.
They don't care about your petty games

>>82167593
empathy is just a normal concept. you don't need to label yourself with it, just as nobody with a brain would call themselves "depressed."
i actually wasn't talking about hatred i was just telling someone about the disability called autism.

>>82167525
Maybe it's because I'm autist, but when I judge someone as a good or bad person, kindness is the main consideration. Like what else is there? It's still possible to find mutually beneficial relationships with a person regardless of if they are good or bad I guess so maybe it doesn't matter. In general society is more harmonious and easier to navigate if more people are good than bad, so I strongly prefer good people over bad people.

>>82167604
Telling it wrong consciously to overstate a divide and present autistic people as evil.
The way you (people who always talk about empathy) present empathy is never normal

>>82167651
I couldn't tell you if autistic people are consciously evil or that's just their way of expressing themselves, often they are just violent against themselves and their parents. But obviously they don't have empathy, that's just part of the disability. You can't tell me there's no divide between autism and no autism if the disability exists. I'm talking about a very specific problem where you would otherwise expect a person who is behaving abnormally to consider your feelings and position and perspective on that behavior, where an autistic person is physically and mentally incapable of doing that. So the expectation will only lead to frustration. The autistic person will always say "I did nothing wrong"

>>82167686
You're confused. Autistic people have trouble understanding the emotions of others (how much trouble they have depends on the case) but can sympathize with people. Specially when explained.
You're mixing autistic and psychopathic traits.
You're describing someone without capacity to understand others and no sympathy.
Which is a mix of the worst of both conditions at an extreme level

>>82167651
You get autist who are pretty cool. But then you get the assholes. Just because you have some mental illness, doesn't give you a free pass to be a dick. You can correct some of the annoying ones with bullying. Tell them to shut up and stop interrupting, or calm down and stop sperging otherwise you wont be able to speak. If you dont do this they will roll all over you.

I find it hard to believe they have no idea they do this, when bully them works.
kek

>>82163315
i used to look just like that boy when i was younger. i think i had a shirt exactly like that too. but i had different glasses. i used to act a fair bit like a sperg when i was younger too

>>82163267 (OP)
anna was right again

>>82167745
Everyone has some level of "trouble" stepping out of their own ego and sharing the feelings that someone else has and understanding their perspective. Tribalism and in-group biases and other problems are common.

Not everyone has what we call autism, which includes an inability to empathize with others. They can maybe share the experiences and value judgments that other autistic people have, but they won't recognize what they are doing as both right and wrong depending on perspective, so if they do something really violent or unwelcome on purpose, they will continue to do it regardless of any amount of explanation or consequence. This isn't complicated or debatable, some of the key features of "autism awareness" and "being an autism parent" is showing people that you cannot expect autists to understand your position on anything or make much progress on their compulsive behaviors. they just won't figure that out, it's not necessarily their fault.

>>82167823
Autism is not about not buying into moral relativism at an interpersonal level.

>>82167866
moral relativism is irrelevant. I was talking about empathy. everyone knows what is objectively moral and immoral. not everyone has autism.

>>82167896
Believing in objective morality ultimately implies believing in a cosmology and a metaphysical order.
Probably you assume that everyone shares the same Christian values but that's not the case in the practice.

>>82167920
>in the practice
Prajeet, you're changing the subject and that's an entirely different conversation. What does Christianity have to do with anything? Morality emerged from human consciousness the same way any other human trait we can objectively observe. We can have relativistic discussions within the boundaries of what we naturally consider moral and immoral behavior, but if you can say that you objectively exist (self awareness), or that there is an objective sense of time/cause and effect, morality is just another layer on top of those things. and it's baked into how we function at the cellular and molecular level starting from basic building blocks of life=good, death=bad.

>>82167998
>What does Christianity have to do with anything?
Believing in moral objectivity needs to be justified by a divine order.
Who else defines what's right and wrong then?
Humans. Then it stops being objective and it's based on the rules societies adopt and modified to maintain the social order based on previous experiences.
That's not objective but empiric at best.
On the other hand religious people truly believe in God-given moral code tied to punishments and rewards by an ultimate arbiter that's above humanity.

>>82168076
>humans cannot be objective
what are you actually yapping about? objectivity is also defined by humans. outside of meaningless thought experiments and semantics, we literally decide what is objective and what is subjective. this is an entirely different conversation. whether morality emerges from a "higher power" or from the "universe" or whatever you want to call the origins doesn't matter, people have a common sense of what is moral and what is immoral. we use morality to explain to each other how we should treat each other and why we behave the way we do, and we objectively understand each other on a cellular, molecular, individual, and societal level. we can sometimes use relativism to justify immoral actions (eg for the greater good) or establish varying laws and methods of dealing with morality, but it never stops being objective. if someone tells you that a dead person is actually alive despite all the evidence that it's just a rotting corpse, they are simply objectively wrong.

>>82168162
Humans can't be objective about morality.
Think about it, anything that's nowadays considered immoral or even a crime has been normalized at certain point in history.
There is not as you say some objective morality and people just coping about morality.
If you tried to get people to define it you would see how there wouldn't be agreement at all.
What's the moral thing to do for you an a Maori warrior are completely different things in so many cases.
That's why allegedly objective systems of morality were always based on the premise of a superior power.

>>82165609
for someone arguing with autists you sure wouldn't be fun at a party working yourself into a shoot like that

>>82167745
autism is psychopathy I mean it's all just words like a rose by any other name would smell like dick but there's a spectrum lol. REAL autists are covered in snot and CAN'T talk. spergs n stuff are somewhere between oblivious and intentionally fucking ruining your whole life. Because not everyone who calls themselves a sperg is oblivious at all, they may just be a nerdy fuckwit edgelord who doesn't respect authority or "cool" people and you just pissed them off. It's all just words. The most "normie" people I know end up being the most autistic, I think that's how it works lol

>>82168242
>moral means normal
no. you're just yapping at this point. people have agreed on morality since the beginning of written history. if you point at immoral behavior and call it moral, the evidence would suggest you are objectively wrong at any point in history. your confusion stems from how people apply moral consideration differently and the fact that there is no natural consequence to moral or immoral behavior, so people tend to make up their own rules and reasoning for immoral behavior based on culture, resources, environmental stress, etc which does deviate from the underlying objective sense of right and wrong. the maori warrior and the blue haired suburbanoid dyke will always have a common language of morality, even if the warrior has no personal qualms, systemic deterrences, or spiritual fears associated with violently killing the dyke.

>>82168377
What does moral mean then? How do you accurately define something as moral or not? Do you have any basis to call something objectively moral or immoral other than how you feel about it?
>will always have a common language of morality
Which one besides none? That without even getting into more extreme like the Aztecs or the Assyrians whose whole moral system would feel completely alien to you.
Even a medieval monk that believes that suffering brings people closer to God and that there's only freedom when you submit to God's will would feel completely alien to people nowadays.
I'll say it again. There's not a single moral law common to all societies.
It's not that they all believed that it was wrong but did it anyways. It's that their understanding of right and wrong is/was completely different from yours