Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT Strips 3221 to 3225 (16 - 20 May 2016)

<< < (37/78) > >>

Eastrim:
I'm seeing a lot more projection than actual evidence that Brun is autistic - I'll point out Tova's signature to everyone. Just because autistic people have some behaviors, and Brun has had some of those behaviors, doesn't automatically make her autistic. Being overloaded to the point of not speaking in the manner she does is not an inherently autistic reaction. Getting overwhelmed is a normal reaction, and the wide variety of ways people react to being overwhelmed is also normal. What's different about stuff like autism is the amount and character of what constitutes overwhelming, which can vary dramatically.

It seems like there are two trends going on in this thread. There's the overblown conversation about normality and typicality that's tipping into implications that there isn't any human behavior that's abnormal, letting the occasional negative connotations of that label override its actual applicability. Real talk here; EVERYONE is a little bit abnormal, just like everyone's a little bit crazy. What changes is how much our abnormalities affect people's perception of us, and what is considered abnormal; those with social abnormalities are more noticeable, but there are plenty of people who may seem 'normal' in a conversation but wash their hands 5 1/2 (right hand an extra time) every time they squash a bug. 'Normal' is a cultural construct, but that doesn't invalidate it any more than other cultural constructs get invalidated; it's okay to feel uncomfortable if someone gets in your personal space even if your a German in Brazil.

At the same time, there's an eager discussion about what kind of abnormal Brun is, which is at odds with the other trend in that it keeps assuming normal behaviors are abnormal. I just mentioned  the main one at the top, but we've seen plenty of other. Even within the universe, Dora, generally considered 'normal' until her abnormal trust issues got more focus, pulled a sword on a person, and unlike Brun brandished it with anger in her eyes. Her syntax is just as associated with linguistics as it is with atypical thought processes. And so on. Again, speculation is cool, but declarations are doing her character a disservice.

Question: Where the heck are all the other bargoers she was apparently more familiar with? I wouldn't trust him with a fishing pole, but where's Barry?

Atherea:
I've been following QC and lurking the forums here for a couple years, but never posted until now.

I tend to have a very similar reaction to Brun when I'm under extreme stress. Talking becomes difficult, as does the simple act of breathing. Even the way she keeps her eyes shut from the fourth panel onward. I'm often reduced to rigid, forced gestures and silence. This is generally an attempt to keep from completely breaking down and becoming hysterical in front of people (particularly people with whom I'm not entirely comfortable yet).

I've also noticed (pre-fire) that some of her behaviors are similar to my own when dealing with the public. My jokes are awkward and deadpan, I limit my conversation and responses, and I often come off as rude or a snob when it's not at all what I intended. Even the whole "threatening" with the harpoon is something I might have done -- I would have seen it as amusing and absurd, but there have been a lot of people here in the forums who blew it way out of proportion in a way I don't understand.

Despite that, I'm not on the autism spectrum; I DO have severe anxiety from past trauma that makes dealing with most people extremely difficult for me. That's not to say Brun doesn't have some degree of autism, but there ARE other explanations for the behavior and reactions we've seen thus far.

brasca:
If Brun does become a regular her presence will make Clinton less quirky. 

oddtail:
OK, two things.

Regarding the use of the word "normal" - I understand why the word raises some red flags for some people, but I think the word is useful. There *is* an average in everything, and this average is both the basis and the result of both innate and cultural expectations. There are people who are outside the bracket that we can call "normal". I don't see a problem with the word itself. In everything, including human behaviour and interaction, there is a template, a default go-to for the given time and place. I should know, I've been outside this behavioral bracket way more often than I would've liked to, usually with either hilarious or painful results. Denying that the "normal" exists is, to me, akin to closing one's eyes and hoping the concept of "normal" goes away. Which it never does. And I doubt it ever will. Humans are conditioned to assess things based on norms of one kind or another.

What I *do* have a problem with is both the automatic assumption that abnormal is bad, and the prejudice and fear that any kind of abnormal behaviour usually provokes. This automatic fear of what is unusual is ridiculous and leads almost universally to harm rather than good. But I don't think denying the term "normal" its weight is the way to go. I think it's better to repurpose the word so that it does not have universally negative connotations. But maybe that's just me.

As to Brun being autistic or not, and whether people are projecting... OK, I'm not seeing much projecting. Based on my limited knowledge about the autism spectrum and interactions with autistic people, her behaviour broadly and consistently just... fits the mold. It's not just one or two things that someone has latched on. It's a lot of signs that point in one particular direction. And yes, each of those can be explained differently. But I think Occam's razor, combined with the fact that the comic is a work of fiction, make other explanations unlikely.

Firstly, autism or another disorder from the autism spectrum seems, at least to me, like the simplest, most elegantly fitting explanation. Other explanations require some, for the lack of a better word, squinting. Yes, she might be an immigrant and also be just unusual in some behaviours, or have trust issues etc., but those do not seem to fit easily what we've seen in the comic. It takes some interpretation to *make* certain explanations fit. Autism seems more natural.

Secondly, this is a comic. I would not jump to conclusions too fast with a real person after just one interaction, but in a work of fiction, there are only so many details and signs that can be presented. Unless it's a deliberate misdirection by the author, usually the clear, simple explanation works, because otherwise the work gets confusing. It's a matter of conservation of details. If there's a scene in a movie when someone has to go to the bathroom, that usually serves a narrative purpose (usually something goes wrong in their absence or something bad happens to them in the bathroom; alternatively, they have a moment of introspection related to them being alone). There aren't many stories where someone goes to the bathrom, returns from it and nothing happens outside of more experimental works. Similarly, if a person displays certain traits, it's usually to signal something. Brun's behaviour points to a possible explanation and the comic has explored things like OCD in the past, so Brun's being autistic seems to be a plausible explanation. If some people do not see this? It's perfectly fine. I personally see this as near-certain based on what I've seen. It's OK if you disagree.

And I'm not on the autistic spectrum, that I know of, so I don't think my opinion is due to my projecting.

As a side note, isn't the "you're projecting!" argument non-falsifiable, and therefore not very useful in a discussion? One can always say that, but it's better to talk about the actual comic and discuss whether a certain explanation is valid. I personally think accusing someone of projecting is slightly patronising and condescending. It's also a kind of an ad hominem.

Case:

--- Quote from: Roxtar on 18 May 2016, 07:45 ---...
speech patterns: german name, cuckoo clock: likely german immigrant.
problem with emotion: see speech patterns above.

--- End quote ---

I'd ask you to re-read that & to try again. Discussing "cultural conventions about emoting" is one thing - equating "(having) problems with emotions" with "(being) German" is another.
Thanks for your understanding.


--- Quote from: oddtail on 18 May 2016, 12:04 ---OK, two things
...

--- End quote ---
+2 Internets

---
General ether: I find it quite easy to understand that people who experience-, and deal with a thing 24/7 tend to have a rather thorough grasp on the subject matter - second only to medical professionals.
I do not think this is due to my also being neuro-a-typical (albeit not on the spectrum) - it's simple logic.

As to the general tone of the debate, which quite frankly borders on "explaining" to people what they can and cannot think and say about a medical condition they live with every day ... I'll just point to oddtail, because I'm not in a emotional state suitable for explaining things calmly and rationally right now. If this was about OCD and/or ADHD, I'd have to stare very hard at my (non-existing) cuckoo-clock in order not to give an ... impressive ... demonstration of Germans' emotive abilities.

It's common courtesy, common sense and explicit forum policy that *trans people are "the leading experts on their condition" (points to forum rules). While *trans-issues are undoubtedly on the most urgent possible level, I fail to see how that difference frees us from continuing to muster the simple decency of treating people as if they know what is happening in their lives, and which problems they face on a  daily basis.

This forum is better than this.

(click to show/hide)EDIT: I also do not have great problems with "normal" - but(ts), that's because I can reasonably fake it, most of the time. I'm one of the "passing In-Valids in Gattaca", so to speak  :laugh:. Doesn't mean I don't know gnawing anxiety about saying smth. wrong, or "weird", or that "special" fills me with acute homicidal wishes. Personally, I'm neuro-a-typical - and allistic, if people feel the distinction is important.
I absolutely 'get' the idea behind "autism pride" (at least I believe I do ...) - because I'm just far enough off of the thin red line to see how tiresomely normative, and (de-)valuing the supposedly neutral "normal" really is. 

About neurotypical: Counting all developmental disorders under neuro-a-typical, we're about 2-3% of the populace. You can live with cis & het, but not with neurotypical?
And what was that about the "euphemism treadmill"? Where is this supposed to go? Back to "Calling a spade a spade", perhaps? 
The slurs that ADD, ASD, or the umbrella-term neuro-a-typical are a "euphemism" for are e.g. "Freak", "Spaz", "Schizo", "Idiot", "Retard" ...

Maybe it would be good to consider what 'freedoms' exactly one is uncomfortable with loosing? As has been pointed out by smarter people - some weren't worth having in the first place.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page