u/GarageIndependent114

They're ruining our attention span

Most charities, arts funds and independent markets have strong links to the military, even some churches do.

Most of the entertainment industry is either financially supported by private clubs (ran by military support), military charities or film producers and arts institutions ran by wealthy donors who are actually arms dealers.

Most construction site equipment and medical equipment as well as most transport firms and new build housing companies are ran out of firms that also build weapons or military vehicles.

Most open spaces are brought up by the military.

Most survival gear is ran by the same people who make military surplus products.

Camera lenses are made by people who make gun viewfinders.

People in the computer and phone tech industry have close links to the secret services and military.

Home decor is made by companies that either make doohickeys for weapons and military vehicles or by people who design things for military charities and housewives of men in the military.

Meat for livestock is killed using military weapons or chemicals. Crops grown in first world countries tend to be grown on farmland owned by people with military contacts or connections, and corporations that sell food have links to the military as providers. In third world countries, violence is used to steal land for growing commercial crops instead of homesteads, and this is supported by arms deals from major arms dealers.

Because the military industrial complex controls business, the military finances "independent" businesses and charities, the other money comes from wealthy arms dealers, and even Libertarian types have to rely on weapons or survival gear to live alone, these groups have to be convinced that war is less profitable than the stuff they are selling and making in peacetime to avoid instigating wars and violence.

I feel like it's just for people (usually men) accused of sex crimes.

What about people falsely accused of shoplifting or parsed as trespassers for retrieving lost or stolen property?

What about people who act in self defence against abusers and SAers/rapists?

What about people who fight back when someone attacks them and gets seen as aggressive?

I know that sometimes autistic people also get away with more due to autism, and socially awkward people often receive more sympathy, but I don't like how a lot of people who are socially isolated are often expected to go over and above other people just to receive sympathy and avoid being considered hypocrites.

If you're autistic and you don't have a diverse friend group or you can be a bit ignorant sometimes, people think you're either dangerous or dividing the community, or conversely, that you're a radical who hates privileged people or men.

But if you're a popular person, it's par for course to choose your tribe.

If an autistic person makes a microaggression, they're considered a fascist, but a white middle class person can lie their teeth off and be racist, homophobic and transphobic behind closed doors and so long as they don't actually hate people, they're fine.

If an involuntarily celibate man is misogynistic on a private Internet forum and doesn't have any female friends, he's compared to killers and rapists, and if a woman is abused by every male partner she can find and complains about it, she's considered a misandrist, but if a manosphere frat boy rants about women in a confidential setting that isn't secretive or a woman with lots of male friends and a decent husband says men are evil and demonises young or socially inept men she doesn't know, it's considered normal.

If a neurotypical person is patronising towards the disabled or mentally challenged, it's considered normal, but if an autistic or dyslexic person doesn't want to be associated with someone less capable than them, they are instantly considered ableist, hypocritical or elitist.

An unrepetent racist can receive mainstream support for their bullshit and get voted in, and white cis men can make "jokes" about trans people and still receive respect, but a gay or trans person who is harassed by Conservative immigrants or a gender critical woman who doesn't accept every trans person or gay person blindly is considered a bigot.

But equally, a TERF type could vote against puberty blockers and claim that all gay men were misogynistic and all lesbians were child hating perverts and still be elected as a Feminist, whereas an old white man could be as tolerant as anything and still be accused of having ulterior motives for not liking a bigot because she's a bitter old lady rather than an angry man who's a football hooligan.

But those latter examples might be more about having higher expectations and not endorsing bigotry than about demonising invisible differences and people who are considered unpopular, which is far more understandable, even if you happen to suffer by being on the wrong side of it.

The earlier ones aren't. Autistic people and people with other social conditions get treated poorly by the general public anyway.

I know it's normal not to get on with friends 24/7 or to sometimes fall out with people.

I know autism is a spectrum and that not all autistic people are going to like each other anyway just because they are autistic.

But recently, I had the same autistic traits that my friends didn't care about for years come up as a problem.

As much as it upsets me that I fell out with them, I'm not that bothered - I'm just more disturbed by the prospect that I'm somehow fundamentally different from everyone in negative but autistic coded ways.

The differences themselves are odd, too. I get why people who see me feeling calm would be disturbed when I'm not, but my voice, which always seems loud to neurotypical people and shyer autistics, was never an issue with my friends before, to the point that they defended me and said that I was imagining it when I was concerned about it being too loud; now, they're complaining about it being too loud themselves.

I've also been in situations in the past, with them and other legitimately autistic people who are on a similar part of the spectrum to me, where they have complained about being bugged when I displayed autistic traits which are negative, but very commonplace, like meltdowns and sensitive food palates.

I don't expect all autistic people to tolerate behaviours in other autistic people as much as they do in themselves, but it bugs me a lot that I didn't seem to have to tolerate those behaviours in them - are they masking and expecting me to be more socially appropriate instead of allowing myself and themselves more tolerance and compassion, or is there something fundamentally different about me and wrong with me that makes me quick to anger?

One possible explanation is that I'm conflating, eg, a slightly louder voice that is natural to me and don't notice with an intentionally raised one that's obvious. But that bugs me for other reasons; why is the onus on me and other autistic people to make ourselves smaller rather than to exercise empathy for each other? Why do neurotypical people and "well behaved" autistic people presume that showing natural traits of anger, excitement or bluster constitute the poor behaviour associated with malicious aggression instead of the equivalent of crying when you get upset?