As a society, online and in person, people from many countries are on a mission that I won’t get into, but the themes are unity, tolerance, and acceptance — unless you’re overweight, unattractive, disabled, or disagree with the popular narrative. As a whole, the disability angle seems to be improving except for those with invisible disabilities and/or disabilities that affect social and communication skills. Online, people get nasty (that seems to be the default now), and if you mention suffering from one of the socially-impaired disabilities, you’re accused of making excuses or outright lying. As an agoraphobic hermit, I’ll be referring to the online community.
In short, people don’t like being disagreed with or someone being objective. My PDA (pathological demand avoidance) and ODD causes me to be a devil’s advocate, and even suggesting a different view places me as the enemy to whomever I’m speaking with, and they respond with the typical name-calling and labels instead of engaging in actual discussion or, Heaven forbid, acknowledging a different point of view.
I’m neither liberal nor conservative, meninist nor feminist, and I couldn’t care less about someone’s sexual orientation or transgenderism. However, I argue both sides of the coin because of my PDA/ODD. Those arguments say nothing about my views, as I will not discuss my views on social media. Objectivity does not mean choosing a side, and people can certainly be in the middle on any societal issue.
Take abortion for example. Being in the medical field for almost 20 years, I know for a fact that some women use abortion as a form of birth control (many have admitted it to the doctors and medical staff). It’s not hyperbole or extremism; simply fact. It would probably be less of an issue with abortion pills, but surgical abortions pose a serious health risk to women and that risk gets higher with each abortion performed. So, when someone is 100% for abortions for any reason, it’s easy to argue against that validly. Likewise, I am a firm believer in staying out of women’s healthcare and uteri. When someone is 100% against abortions and cites their religious views as the reason, it’s easy to argue against that as well. And I will argue both at any given time because of that pesky defiance part. I strive to disrupt the echo chamber.
Online, none of the above is acceptable to 98% of people. Now, I don’t do this stuff on purpose to argue and be a contrarian; it’s part of my social disability. However, that doesn’t stop me from being labeled as some kind of -ist or -phobe or bigot; whatever buzzword of the day to make others feel superior. The ones doing such don’t know my views; they only know my valid arguments and what I want the online world to see, but that never matters, and it’s really annoying.
Adam gets and accepts it because he’s used to it, but does one really need to justify someone who can argue both sides and be objective? Is one’s fund of knowledge so small and conceit so large that they can’t take even reading a different perspective without lobbing assumptions and insults?
Cari R Esta 