bookmark_border“Hate has no home here”

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Glory Glory (@oldgloryglory)

Bingo!

I would also add, hate for people who have trouble making friends, people who are bullied, people who don’t fit in, people who think for themselves, people who hold minority views, people who resist authority, people who decline medical interventions, and people who are different from the norm in any way.

bookmark_borderThe absolutely disgusting reaction to the Nottoway Plantation fire

Last week, the Nottoway Plantation, the largest antebellum home in America, burned down. Despite the efforts of firefighters, the historic home in Louisiana was a total loss.

This loss is heartbreaking. As someone who loves history, the destruction of any historical site, landmark, or artifact is painful. The destruction of such a large and significant historical home should be saddening to every person.

Yet an enormous number of people have reacted in the exact opposite manner. Horrifyingly, thousands upon thousands of people have responded not with heartbreak, but with celebration and laughter. “Let it burn,” proclaim well-known political commentators. “What a waste of water,” social media commenters jeer. On posts by various news outlets, the “laughing face” reaction is either the most or the second most common reaction. Tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of sickening, gleeful reactions and comments contaminate every piece of content related to this tragic situation. I’ve tried as hard as I could not to read these comments, but I’ve glimpsed a few, and what I’ve seen has made me both sick to my stomach and overwhelmed with rage at the thought that thousands upon thousands of similar comments exist.

It must be made abundantly and unmistakably clear: these ways of reacting to the Nottoway Plantation fire are absolutely disgusting, despicable, and disgraceful. It is not okay to react in this manner. These emotional reactions are not valid, and they are not understandable. They are simply wrong. People who react in this way are bad people. Period. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the “people” who react in this way are not even really people at all. They are lumps of flesh and bone with no consciousness, no mind, and no soul. It is impossible for a being with consciousness and thought to react in such a heartless, mean, cruel, and nasty manner. It is impossible for a being with consciousness and thought to demonstrate such a complete lack of empathy for those who see the world differently than they do. The people – or rather, excuses for people – who react with laughing faces and jeering comments accomplish nothing other than demonstrating their own abysmal character, their lack of capacity for rational thought, and their complete, utter, and abject moral bankruptcy.

Thinking about this situation, and seeing coverage of it, makes me feel angry and sick. My heart hurts. The trauma that I’ve experienced over the past five years is resurfacing painfully, and dark emotions are weighing heavily on me. It is the same toxic and mean-spirited ideology of black supremacism that has motivated both the statue genocide and these sickening reactions to the destruction of a historical site. I will write further about this gut-wrenching situation when the agony has receded to a manageable level and I am able to think more clearly. For now, it is enough to say that I condemn these celebratory and gleeful reactions fully, wholeheartedly, and as strongly as it is possible for a person to condemn something.

bookmark_borderActivism, new frontiers, and moving goalposts

I’ve been reading various articles about transgender ideology lately, and one thing mentioned in many of these articles is the concept of “social justice” movements and how their “goalposts” (for lack of a better term) are constantly moving. What this means is that activist movements emerge with a particular goal, but then once they achieve this goal, move forward to a more ambitious goal, and then another, and then another, ad infinitum. In this way, successful activist movements cause the “frontier” to keep moving. The movement keeps winning, succeeding, gaining ground, while its opponents continue to lose, fail, and lose ground.

This, of course, isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. Movements can have ideologies and goals that are either good or bad. The proponents of a movement might be in the right, or their opponents might be in the right. That depends entirely on what the movement is all about and what its goals are. 

What is a bad thing is when a movement, throughout this entire process, denies that it has gained any ground at all. Despite winning victory after victory, and gaining more and more ground, the movement claims that things are “as bad as ever.” I’ve noticed this phenomenon happening a lot regarding several movements with which I disagree. And quite frankly, it’s a form of gaslighting towards the opponents of the movement. Opponents, who lose more ground every year and are thwarted in their goals time and time again, are portrayed as always getting their way, and therefore having nothing to be upset about. The members of activist movements claim that they (or the people they claim to champion) are the only ones who have a right to be upset. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. 

An example of this is the gay rights movement, which began by advocating merely that being gay be legalized. The goal of this movement was for gay people to be able to live their lives without fear of being arrested and/or jailed. Once this goal was achieved, the gay rights movement pushed for increasing levels of social acceptance, and then for legal protections that were the same as what would be given to straight couples. It was demanded that gay couples be allowed to adopt children, to form civil unions, and eventually to marry. As the infamous Masterpiece Cake Shop case illustrates, the gay rights movement demanded that businesses be legally required to serve gay couples just as they would straight couples. As queer people have gained nearly universal social acceptance, and same-sex marriage has been federally legalized, the focus has turned to trans rights. Today, LGBTQ+ advocacy centers around not only increasing social acceptance of trans people, but also increasing the availability of trans-related medical procedures for people of all ages. Gay rights organizations, their goals having been realized, have, well, transitioned (no pun intended) to trans issues as their next frontier.

Race-based movements have followed a similar trajectory. What began as a movement to abolish slavery turned into efforts to secure voting rights, citizenship, and equal treatment under the law for black people. In the 1960s, protesters were marching in the streets for equal access to public accommodations such as buses, restaurants, schools, and water fountains. At some point in this process, demands for equality of opportunity transformed into demands for equality of outcomes. Demands for protection from discrimination turned into demands for discrimination against others. Equality became “equity,” affirmative action became the norm in schools and workplaces, and political correctness silenced dissenting views. All while activists claimed that the current state of things was merely “the new Jim Crow” and that no meaningful improvements had been made for black people. Now, among the goals of “anti-racist” movements is the obliteration of all statues, memorials, holidays, place names, and monuments honoring historical figures who had anything to do with anti-black racism in any way. This is an issue that is very important to me, because I’m an autistic person who happens to be white, and whose special interest is history and statues. Race-based movements started out with goals that no one in their right mind would disagree with. But after achieving these goals, they gradually morphed into mean-spirited campaigns to invalidate the struggles of others and to actively inflict harm on people who are truly oppressed and disadvantaged, such as myself.

Logically, it makes sense that a movement would do this, because if a movement admits to having achieved all of its goals, then it would be admitting that it no longer has any need to exist. This would understandably be a difficult pill to swallow for people who have built their identity around advocacy for a particular movement, as well as for organizations that have offices, employees, fundraising apparatus, and infrastructure dedicated to their advocacy work. But to enjoy success while pretending otherwise, is not fair to a movement’s opponents. Getting your way while claiming to be as oppressed as ever is inexcusable gaslighting of those who think differently than you do. Too often, movements for social justice transform into movements for injustice, demands for equality turn into demands for preferential treatment, advocacy for inclusion becomes advocacy for exclusion, and protests against oppression and discrimination morph into demands for oppression and discrimination against others.

bookmark_borderLydia O’Connor, a despicable bully and bigot

There are no words that can adequately express the cruelty, nastiness, and immorality demonstrated by the despicable lump of flesh and bone that calls itself Lydia O’Connor:

“Trump Signs Order To Restore Inclusive and Diverse Monuments, Remove ‘Anti-America’ Ideology.”

Or perhaps:

“Trump Signs Order To Restore Monuments Signifying That People Who Are Different Actually Have a Right To Exist, Remove ‘Anti-America’ Ideology.”

There, Lydia. I fixed it for you. 

Needless to say, I did not read the entire article, because my mind and nervous system don’t have the resilience needed to handle such a traumatizing experience. Thanks to merely glimpsing the headline, my body is shaking with rage, my stomach is sick, and my chest feels like it’s being crushed in a vice.

This headline, and the accompanying article, are enormously harmful to me as an autistic person who has grown up being excluded, bullied, and different from the norm. The monuments that O’Connor sickeningly characterizes as “racist” are the monuments to people like me. They are monuments to people who are different. They are monuments to the entire concept of being different from the majority, resisting authority, rebelling against social norms, not fitting in, thinking for oneself. They are the monuments that enable a person like me to actually be accepted and included in society. They are the monuments that signify that I have a right to exist. 

But yeah, this is clearly racist.

Obviously, allowing people who are different from the norm to exist, is racist. 

It’s racist to honor a diverse range of viewpoints, stories, and perspectives, rather than only honoring those that conform to the dominant ideology.

It’s racist to accept and include people who are different.

Not.

This headline and article are completely unacceptable. And this is an understatement. In fact, anything negative that could possibly be said about this headline, article, and author would be an understatement, because no language has words adequate for the task of accurately describing such complete moral bankruptcy.

Racist monuments. 

Yup. Because for me to actually have a life worth living is “racist.”

Because allowing me to exist as an autistic person is “racist.”

No.

Wrong, Lydia.

Allowing people who are different form the norm to exist, is not racist.

This is obvious. It should not even need to be stated. It is, in fact, bizarre that it needs to be stated. It is bizarre that over the past five years, I have had to state this again and again, because despite how obvious it objectively is, it is clearly not obvious to a large percentage of the population. Even after five years of living through this hell, it is still both shocking and sickening beyond belief that an ideology has taken over this country which believes that allowing a person like me to exist, allowing a person like me to be accepted and included in society, is racist. 

I have a right to exist. My existing is not racist. Period. Full stop. End of story.

Thanks, Lydia, for completely destroying my morning. Just another attack on my very existence, one of hundreds, if not thousands, of such attacks that I’ve been subjected to for nearly five years now. I am so incredibly sick and tired of people thinking this way, speaking this way, writing this way. I am sick and tired of having to justify my existence again and again, of having to defend my very existence against claims that it is “racist.”

Lydia O’Connor is the epitome of a bigot and a bully with no mind, no soul, no capacity for independent thought, no empathy, and no tolerance for any perspectives other than her own. She and the Huffington Post have inflicted severe harm on me by writing and publishing this article and should be sued for the harm that they have caused. 

I have a right to exist. Statues like these have a right to exist. We are not racist. Period. Full stop. End of story.

bookmark_border“If you plan to make content that isn’t the exact same content that I would make…. just don’t”

I recently came across a social media post that said the following:

“If you plan to make content on the distinctions between ODD and PDA* but gloss over the racial disparities and intersectional factors, just don’t.”

My response: Excuse me? Who the heck are you to tell me what type of content I can and cannot make?

The author of the post describes themselves as black, “moderate support needs,” and “agender and queer.” Perhaps belonging to demographic categories that qualify them as more “oppressed” than others gives this person a sense of moral superiority. Perhaps their membership in these socially favored demographic categories makes this person feel that they are in a position to determine what others are and are not allowed to do.

Guess what? If someone wishes to make content about the distinctions between ODD and PDA without going into the alleged racial disparities and intersectional factors, they have every right to do so. As a white, high-functioning, asexual autistic person, I have the right to voice my opinion just as much as you do. You have no right to tell other people what type of content they can and cannot make.

* ODD is the abbreviation for “oppositional defiant disorder,” and PDA is the abbreviation for “pathological demand avoidance,” two mental health conditions that share some similarities.