While I was going through a controversial thread, I came across this chunk from a comment.

much of the site’s attitude about “debate bros” actually stigmatizes the way many autistic people communicate to the point of making it a banable offence? Like the fact that you think that you can just step in, state your opinion, and not get pushback because its “obvious” (its not obvious to everyone, and im not talking about only cis people) and anyone who disagrees with you is just a debate bro is incredibly problematic for ND users.

While reading the thread, I was finding myself disagreeing with much of what this person had to say about a different subject altogether, but when I got to this point, it made me pause. The poster proceeded to continue their previous argument but I think this chunk was far more interesting.

I think there is some truth to this. The majority of our rules are correct and valid responses to the issues we’ve faced as a community, but they generally assume a neurotypical perspective. Of course rules and a site culture against civility-speak are a necessity from a neurotypical perspective, as such mannerisms are very rarely used by neurotypical folks except as a way to avoid criticism.

But that exact ability to shirk criticism is why it’s a manner of speaking I find even myself using. Sure, neurotypical people do it so they can continue to insist on reactionary points and suppress marginalized people, but I don’t. I assume most neurodivergent people who use that kind of language use it because it prevents them from being harassed or attacked for misperceiving a social situation. It’s a way to “hedge one’s bets” to protect the different social mannerisms caused by being neurodivergent from being judged.

And regardless of how hard we try to make this a safe space for neurodivergent comrades by banning certain words or certain kinds of rhetoric, the way people talk to each other matters much more. The kinds of mechanisms of oppression that neurodivergent people experience is much more akin to a form of systemic oppression, like the difficulty that black people have forced upon them when buying a house, then it is verbal bigotry.

The bulk of oppression against neurodivergent people is invisible, hidden due to it’s very nature, because the root of all of it is a core assumption that all people mentally function the same way, an erasure of neurodivergent people from existence in it’s totality.

In a sense, we have made progress. Neurodiversity movements have succeeded in forcing the general public to at least acknowledge that neurodivergent people are real. But this has unfortunately not changed the core of what people believe, but forced them to rhetorically mask it both in their mind and when talking to others. As opposed to dismissing the existence of neurodiversity in general, or worse, treating them as subhuman, those who would have previously been explicit bigots have been forced into adopting a kind of disability skepticism: “that isn’t really about being neurodivergent”.

But everything is about being neurodivergent. It is a different form of neurology. It is the most fundamental thing we currently know of that is relevant to our consciousness.

The worst part about this new form of ableism is it’s ability to reproduce itself in people who are explicitly against ableism as a whole. When we examine a new behavior or mannerism, and fail to ask ourselves, “could this be influenced by having a different neurotype?”, or worse, dismiss the notion out of hand, we allow ableism to exist completely undeterred. The “I don’t see color” of ableism.

As neurodiversity is not something that can be visually confirmed, combatting this necessitates a high degree of willingness for good faith and compassion to others, to a degree that most seem either incapable, or more likely, unwilling to provide. Such a high level of good faith, in fact, that we have to assume that someone else is acting in good faith even if we wouldn’t in that situation.

And this “new ableism” is everywhere. People become hostile when you dare suggest that someone could have been “making annoying noises” as a form of stimming. Even diagnosed autistic people can become defensive and angry when you mention how neurodiversity could affect someone in circumstances that aren’t conventionally thought of as being affected by it. Even when it’s based in lived experience, you are then hounded by people who call you a liar, because we are experiencing that extreme a form of hermeneutical injustice.

That’s all, I guess I don’t have much else to say about this. I just found this part of the comment concerning.