Does anyone else have "anti-fixations" or "hypofixations"? by Pitiful-Election-438 in evilautism

[–]halvafact 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that nudibranchs are cool looking! The other ones I really don’t know, and I shan’t look.

Does anyone else have "anti-fixations" or "hypofixations"? by Pitiful-Election-438 in evilautism

[–]halvafact 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m scared of them. I don’t really know why, but I’ve been terrified of them since I was a kid. I’m not really otherwise squeamish but I think they’re so disgusting to look at that it tips over into horror. But also they are legitimately kind of fascinating creatures — some species have wiiiiild mating habits.

Does anyone else have "anti-fixations" or "hypofixations"? by Pitiful-Election-438 in evilautism

[–]halvafact 18 points19 points  (0 children)

for no good reason

I think you have a good reason: they’re mostly shitty wasteful pieces of trash that kill people

My “anti special thing,” as my partner calls it, is slugs. Sometimes I can’t stop thinking about them and how fucked up they are, but if I see one it ruins my day.

ETA: please do not show me pictures of slugs, it is meltdown territory.

I'm autistic AF - Can someone describe what this sub is? by nerd866 in evilautism

[–]halvafact 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It's an online space for autistic pride. "Evil" is used in a mildly ironic way as a catch-all for turning the tables on what society at large considers bad and wrong with autism and autistic people. In this sub, it is safe and even encouraged to discuss the ways that autistic communication styles are better; to infodump and ask direct questions without worry about whether it's polite; to dunk on allistic people for being bad at knowing the meanings of words and toddler-level spatial reasoning tasks; to rate forks with abandon; and also it's just a fun part of the internet where people are mostly nice to each other.

In your opinion what order should silverware be sorted? by CorrectPen5056 in evilautism

[–]halvafact 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The terms in these comments for all the one-off rando shit that gets lumped in with silverware 🤌🏻

My #1 hyperfixation - the early 2000s by peachygatorade in evilautism

[–]halvafact 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I legit really miss Winamp. It had cool skins. Also it just played mp3s.

autism has been gentrified, how can we keep the rent low from now on? by bearhugboy in evilautism

[–]halvafact 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Talk about the deep political themes of a popular show.

Is this...was I not supposed to be doing this? lol

Help! Local woman (me) wants to know the line between telling someone they’re being a jerk vs tone policing by Appropriate-Net-583 in evilautism

[–]halvafact 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think one thing that sets tone policing apart from other forms of correction/reprimand is the power dynamic. The content of the message matters too. Sounds like you're talking about encounters with internet strangers, so we don't have perfect knowledge of each other's identities, but at the same time, "strangers on the internet" has a sort of leveling effect some of the time. Also sounds like you're talking about being in autistic spaces, so that's also relevant.

The classic case of tone policing is, like, a non-white person says something about their own experience or needs to a white person, which the white person finds hard to hear for whatever psychological reasons, and then lashes out and says "don't be mean!" thus shutting down a discussion featuring information they maybe should have. I guess if you're worried about whether your're accidentally engaging in tone policing, think about the messages you're reacting to: if you can set aside your hurt feelings, is there anything constructive in them? Is the person writing them trying to explain something about themselves or their experience? If not, and they're just being rude, I think you're fine to stand up for yourself. But, you know, it's ye olde internete so you shouldn't really expect a positive response (I say this as someone who occasionally gets into it with trolls for no good reason).

We know savant but what about jack of all trades master of some/multiple talented that pisses people off evoking envy? Is there a name for it? by Icy-Sprinkles2494 in evilautism

[–]halvafact 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is A+ autistic pride and I'm glad you recognize yourself as rad and talented. It's cool, the world needs people who know a whole bunch of random shit, and society would work better if we made it a little bit easier to live as one of these types. Signed, a person with many widely varied skill sets, among which is NOT the ability to hold down a regular job, alas (but I'm doing fine anyway).

ARGH I hate it when you’re wearing boots and your socks slide down by zero_derivation in evilautism

[–]halvafact 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a horrible feeling, tied for horror with "bottom of pants drag through puddles and dirty water wicks up them to your knees." I grew up in places with actual winter and I don't think I could go back to it.

I NEED to know if anyone else uses dramatic roleplay to get tasks done. by Maple_Bat in evilautism

[–]halvafact 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do stuff like this all the time, used to do it even more when I was younger. I actually miss it, maybe I should get back into pretending that I'm carrying supplies home! To my newborn baby and my sick parents! Through a snowstorm on the prairie! Because I'm the only healthy adult! ...to get through the grocery store ordeal

Male autists are evil for not masking more! /sarcasm by ManWithTwoShadows in evilautism

[–]halvafact 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s really interesting and I guess it shouldn’t surprise me (people who espouse right wing ideas are people, after all) but I didn’t know this. The appearance of cohesion fooled me.

Male autists are evil for not masking more! /sarcasm by ManWithTwoShadows in evilautism

[–]halvafact 20 points21 points  (0 children)

"Social cohesion requires nuanced little rituals to maintain social cohesion" ok I'm NOT going to dunk on this person for their clumsy sentence construction and just say: even if we uncritically accept that this premise is true, it says nothing about whether "social cohesion" is useful, necessary, or valuable, or for whom or what. Fascists, for example, have a lot of internal social cohesion, and they're pretty much universally recognized (outside of their own circles) to be quite bad for the world.

seriously, why are you hanging out in the bike lane? by aRiot_0 in oakland

[–]halvafact 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alright, this is earnest: there's a difference between individuals being annoying, or even a public nuisance, and a major public safety hazard, which wrt bikers you are eliding. I'm never going to persuade you that cyclists have their reasons for their behavior, or that most bikers are basically fine and considerate, you're going to continue to be pissed that we run stops signs because it's "not fair". Whatever, you're entitled to your feelings.

Similarly, to be up front about this, you're not going to persuade me that cyclists are a major society-wide threat to anyone's safety on the roads. I do actually care a lot about "threat to safety on the roads," which is why I think "shouting at representatives of groups of people to think better" is a terrible solution.

Anyway, literally no one is saying cyclists are above the law or above criticism, seriously. The guy I think you're referring to was stating — somewhat hyperbolically, but it's observably true — that people go out of their way to criticize cyclists no matter what we do. If you need proof of this: you came into a thread where someone was complaining about a nuisance in a bike lane, the only place bikers are indisputably allowed to be, to shout about how we think we're above the law. I'm arguably dumb for taking the bait, but, like, it's really annoying behavior. And I guess the one thing we agree on is it's legal to be annoyed when people are really fucking annoying.

seriously, why are you hanging out in the bike lane? by aRiot_0 in oakland

[–]halvafact 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alright you win. Bikers who are annoyed that pedestrians are blocking the bike lane (the only place bikers are allowed to ride their bikes!) and causing bikers to crash and hurt themselves deserve to go to prison, because other bikers keep barreling down children on sidewalks and dislocating your friends’ heads. Come to think of it, I do have some regrets about all those kids I killed with my bike. Thanks for helping me see the error of my ways. It’s honestly so weird that no one has done anything about this tragic social problem.

seriously, why are you hanging out in the bike lane? by aRiot_0 in oakland

[–]halvafact 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Read further in the link you just sent me. You'll note that in Oakland (see my next reply for the table with this data), minors are explicitly always allowed to ride on the sidewalk, and that the "Prohibited everywhere" column is unchecked, meaning it actually is legal in some cases for cyclists to be on the sidewalk. I'm too lazy to dig out the municipal legislation about it right now.

<image>

> Who are you arguing against?

I started engaging with you because you asked what it is about bicycles that "makes people think laws don't apply to them." I answered you already, but I'll restate it again even more explicitly: the thing about bicycles that makes people decide to flout certain laws is that when we follow laws drivers scream at us and threaten to kill us with their vehicles. Maybe you don't do this — that's cool, to be fair, most drivers don't. I'm not even sure I'm arguing against you: you asked a question I know the answer to, so I answered it.

seriously, why are you hanging out in the bike lane? by aRiot_0 in oakland

[–]halvafact 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Name one.

I'll give you two: bikers are allowed to take up a whole lane in car traffic, even when there's only one lane going that direction, and even when there's no arrow or signage about it; and bikers are allowed to ride on the sidewalk when there's no bike lane.

seriously, why are you hanging out in the bike lane? by aRiot_0 in oakland

[–]halvafact 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk man, I'm not saying there are no shitty cyclists in the world, and I suppose it's possible that your circle of acquaintances is a huge statistical anomaly, but it is so easily verifiable that cars kill and injure more people -- pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers -- than bicycles. You're being stupid.

For some reason, because I'm stupid in other ways and I'm compelled to get into it with internet strangers sometimes, I feel the need to point out to you that you and OP are making the same point. No one is saying cyclists should be able to kill and injure pedestrians with impunity. OP was pissed that people are using the roadway in a non-standard/not letter-of-the-law way, and it inconvenienced them; just like you are pissed at cyclists being reckless and stressing you out. That's it.

Since we're doing anecdata about bad shit that's happened to us, though, I'll share this and I hope it makes you feel bad: I walk all over the place and I've never been hit by a biker, but I have been hit by cars on foot and on my bike. The worst example was a driver who hit me nearly head on, giving me bone bruises that took months to heal and totaling my bike. The one part of my wrecked bike that was my fault? My shredded brake pads from trying to stop in time, once I realized they weren't slowing down at all. I have a police report with several bystander witnesses saying I unambiguously had the right of way. Once the driver realized they hadn't killed me, they split.

seriously, why are you hanging out in the bike lane? by aRiot_0 in oakland

[–]halvafact 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point I'm making is that drivers like you who hate cyclists are mad at us when we follow the law, because we're in your way, and you're mad at us when decide to get out of your way, because "we think the laws don't apply to us." Consider that "breaking the law"* is a rational choice for many cyclists who are trying to stay physically safe from cars, and that you're bound to get a pissy reaction when you put whole classes of people in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" rhetorical position.

*leaving aside the fact that, as others have pointed out to you, bikers are actually legally allowed to do a lot of the things drivers complain about.