this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)
Beehaw Support
2797 readers
2 users here now
Support and meta community for Beehaw. Ask your questions about the community, technical issues, and other such things here.
A brief FAQ for lurkers and new users can be found here.
Our September 2024 financial update is here.
For a refresher on our philosophy, see also What is Beehaw?, The spirit of the rules, and Beehaw is a Community
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If someone from an affected community is telling you that something is a slur, perhaps it might be better to listen to them as they are likely to know more about it than anyone else.
Those with NP had a very understandable reaction to trauma and it is a shame how they are treated by the rest of us neurodivergent folks not least because it isn't actually useful in helping them out and just worsens the reaction to trauma.
There are ways we can all work together though and one of those is talking to and listening to folks with NP or any of the "axis of different 'disorders'" when they tell you something is a problem.
I have friends with various 'axis disorders' and they know exactly what they need and how they can be helped, after all of this kind of trauma reaction comes from abuse, a lack of understanding and lack of love. Do you think more of that will be useful?
Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn't viable.
There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.
There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.
Yes, that can be better in some cases than arguing and making things worse overall.
Choosing not to engage can also be a positive rather than just the prevention of negatives.
Would you like to explain how?
I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be "argue and make things worse" or "don't do that", a negative and a neutral respectively.
I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.
In case we are not :
Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.
In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.
Thank you very much for explaining!