Unpopular opinion thread

[Alexei_Kirillov]

Potentially unpopular and slightly ignorant opinion: People need to stop trying to label everyone as neurodivergent or autistic

I just came across a thread by someone on r/TheGarden where they were trying to speculate whether or not the twins are ND. Around two weeks ago, someone on a different thread claimed that the twins are autistic. The thing is, neither of the twins have ever claimed to be ND and a lot of the speculation behind them being ND is based on flimsy evidence. We don't know the Shears twins personally, nor are any of us psychiatrists. We only get quick glimpses into them as people from interviews and their music. Otherwise, they are basically just strangers to us and we shouldn't be trying to slap a psychiatric label on them. This gets into an issue I've been having for years which is the issue of people being quick to assume that others are ND based on little to nothing (this typically seems to be the case with autism and ADHD). I've seen this way too much, to the point where I've seen people try to argue that Keith from VLD is canonically ND, even though he isn't and a lot of the supposed "evidence" for this is incredibly flimsy. I don't care if people headcanon him as such, but seeing posts in which people actually think that he is cannonically autistic and act as though the creator confirmed this is kind of wild. Hell, my own uncle (who was recently diagnosed with autism at the time) thought that I had autism, leading to my grandparents printing out a bunch of stuff on autism to hand to me. The thing is, this man barely knows me. I go out of my way to avoid him whenever he comes around because I don't like him. How exactly do you come to the conclusion that somebody you don't fucking know and who actively avoids you has autism?

A lot of the traits that people point to when trying to claim that others are autistic or ND are traits that are typically displayed by the general public, just to a lesser degree compared to some ND individuals. Along with that, many symptoms of autism and ADHD can also be found in other psychiatric disorders or might be displayed in cases of distress. Issues with socializing are common symptoms of social communication disorder and social anxiety. Stimming is a common behaviour that even many NTs engage in when stressed or when in a state of deep focus. Many allistic individuals are also seen as weird by wider society because the lines between weird and normal are very narrow, so much so that even many allistic people have a hard time fitting in. Along with that, sometimes I see ND people being too quick to label certain traits and behaviours that aren't symptoms of anything as being ND traits.

Sometimes, when I hear people with autism and ADHD complain about people online labelling themselves as ND over stupid BS and making it their whole personality I can't help but feel like the community is partly at fault for this. You can't keep on labelling everything and everyone as something and then get surprised when others start to believe that they must have said something. This isn't to say that they are fully at fault because part of the blame does still land on those ND individuals, but I feel like if more ND people tried to not be so quick to immediately label others or certain behaviours as automatically being ND then issue wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Relevant article.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Are we sure that there is no truth? Of course it's fair game to say that what I'm saying isn't really the truth as there are a few subjective premises behind what I believe in but surely there are some truths that can be derived from life? Like how 2+3=5 or I am inside a room in a house when I was typing this message out. Is it fair to say that there are no truths at all?

If we are talking about it specifically when it comes to things, such as meaning in life, there really aren't any truths, at least not an objective one. Of course, there are certain things that are hard to, if not impossible to argue against, but there are also a lot of things that don't have any objective truths to them. For example, views of bodily autonomy and the degree to which they should extend are very subjective. Morality can be very subjective and views on it can change a lot from person to person. The truths you are referring to in your post seem to not be in regards to something, such as physics or math, but rather seem to be based more on general things regards beliefs about life. Of course, that's just how I interpreted it, so maybe I interpreted it wrong.

However, your statement about being inside of a house also could still be applied to the whole "truths are based on perception" stuff I'm talking about. Let's say that you have two people (person A and person B). Person A claims that they are both sitting inside a room while Person B claims that they are sitting outside. Both disagree with each other and claim that the other is wrong and there must be something wrong with the other person, such as hallucination. Because of the fact that they both perceive their environment in two very different ways and there is no one else around they can ask for a third opinion, who is right? Who is the one in this situation who truly sees the truth? The point is, that our reality comes down to our perception. The way in which we perceive the world around us actually isn't one-to-one with reality because perception evolved to only be about as good as needed in order to allow for our ancestors to survive.

This is why we have to be so careful when it comes to research, replicating studies, taking note of potential design flaws, making sure to specify when something is a correlation vs a causation, using double-blind experiments, etc. Even then, there are cases of the consensus of truths amongst researchers changing because somebody decided to challenge them or because of changes to wider societal values allowing us to consider or accept things that we never accepted before. Researchers still have a hard time even agreeing on clear definitions for things. For example, defining what an emotion is can be challenging. We have some agreed upon aspects of them, such as them being a physiological reaction to stimuli and behavioural response components, but no consensus on how to define the term emotion. What we consider to be the "truth" is generally something that can something end up being shaped more by our subjective interpretations of reality rather than being shaped by actual reality itself. Hence why things like the scientific method exist because understanding the world around us requires that we have to have a bunch of stuff in place in order to get past our own personal perceptions of reality and truly understand the world around us. Even then, it's still a struggle and our biases can still impact how we interpret things, like the results from studies.

I guess it's better to view it more like there are no "truths" on a more individual or philosophical level. We tend to interpret our views and opinions as objective facts, even though they aren't. On some level, truths do exist, but in the context of your post (which I interpreted as being more in line with things, like discussions on RTD, opinions on wider society, views on life, and whether or not there is a meaning to it, etc), there aren't really any "truths".

 

[Rabscuttle]

It's okay to feed wild animals/leave food out for them.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

It's okay to feed wild animals/leave food out for them.

That can actually lead to wild animals becoming more comfortable around humans, which is very dangerous. For example, amongst certain primate species, giving food to them might be interpreted as them being of a higher social ranking compared to us. This is because food access is based on your position in the hierarchy, with those ranked higher eating first and those ranked lower eating afterwards. Feeding them can result in them generalizing humans as being lower than them, thus leading towards them being more likely to mess with us.

Along with that, by feeding wild animals this can lead to them becoming dependent on us for food and lead to a disruption of natural foraging behaviours. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone. Please do not feed wild animals. They don't need your food.

 

[Rabscuttle]

That can actually lead to wild animals becoming more comfortable around humans, which is very dangerous. For example, amongst certain primate species, giving food to them might be interpreted as them being of a higher social ranking compared to us. This is because food access is based on your position in the hierarchy, with those ranked higher eating first and those ranked lower eating afterwards. Feeding them can result in them generalizing humans as being lower than them, thus leading towards them being more likely to mess with us.

Along with that, by feeding wild animals this can lead to them becoming dependent on us for food and lead to a disruption of natural foraging behaviours. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone. Please do not feed wild animals. They don't need your food.

We've already decimated the natural world. Their natural foraging behaviors have already been disrupted. In cities you can find birds, and squirrels and other small animals literally eating dog shit out of garbage cans. Wild animals suffering is absolutely a real and tragic thing. We should be stewards to those less unfortunate, rather than utterly destroying this planet, and going "sucks to suck, but I'd hate for you to depend on me for food."

Insect populations have rapidly declined, this travesty echoes up the food chain.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

We've already decimated the natural world. Their natural foraging behaviors have already been disrupted. In cities you can find birds, and squirrels and other small animals literally eating dog shit out of garbage cans. Wild animals suffering is absolutely a real and tragic thing. We should be stewards to those less unfortunate, rather than utterly destroying this planet, and going "sucks to suck, but I'd hate for you to depend on me for food."

Insect populations have rapidly declined, this travesty echoes up the food chain.

Yeah, and messing with nature even more by feeding wild animals isn't going to do shit to help wildlife. You are causing even more disruption and you are putting some of their lives at risk since we have to kill off certain animals that have been fed human food for safety reasons, such as bears. That's not even getting into the fact that human food can also make many of these animals sick. If you truly want to help them, how about you listen to what biologists say instead?

 

[Rabscuttle]

Yeah, and messing with nature even more by feeding wild animals isn't going to do shit to help wildlife. You are causing even more disruption and you are putting some of their lives at risk since we have to kill off certain animals that have been fed human food for safety reasons, such as bears. That's not even getting into the fact that human food can also make many of these animals sick. If you truly want to help them, how about you listen to what biologists say instead?

It has the potential to help the individual animal, as well as the individual animals who may fall victim to predation. I think that's significant. We're in the midst of a mass extinction event. Many species will go extinct regardless what we do at this stage. I think it's more important to look at the well being of individuals animals and let that guide us in our treatment of them. Many biologists like to glorify nature. Likewise I think many people like to glorify nature and act like wild animal something isn't something grand in scale and nearly unfathomable when thought about with any depth.

There is quite a leap in leaving out food for small animals who may have historically relied on insects or seeds or fruits, which are undeniably harder to come by, and hand feeding bears, or other large predators.

Some biologists advocate releasing wolves to limit deer populations, rather than advocating for sterilization program. One is a literal horror movie, the other decreases suffering.

I like to believe the golden rule applies here. And we have ignored the suffering of wild animals far too long!



Here's a good video on this subject.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

It has the potential to help the individual animal, as well as the individual animals who may fall victim to predation. I think that's significant. We're in the midst of a mass extinction event. Many species will go extinct regardless what we do at this stage. I think it's more important to look at the well being of individuals animals and let that guide us in our treatment of them. Many biologists like to glorify nature. Likewise I think many people like to glorify nature and act like wild animal something isn't something grand in scale and nearly unfathomable when thought about with any depth.

There is quite a leap in leaving out food for small animals who may have historically relied on insects or seeds or fruits, which are undeniably harder to come by, and hand feeding bears, or other large predators.

Some biologists advocate releasing wolves to limit deer populations, rather than advocating for sterilization program. One is a literal horror movie, the other decreases suffering.

I like to believe the golden rule applies here. And we have ignored the suffering of wild animals far too long!



Here's a good video on this subject.

Some animals are supposed to fall victim to predation. Predators play an important role in keeping certain animal populations in check. Feeding animals doesn't do anything to address the issue of mass extinction. You are actually making things worse by essentially making it so that wildlife starts to depend on humans for food. Along with that, a lot of the food that people feed to wild animals can also make them sick. It is generally not recommended to feed wild animals. This isn't up for debate.

Biologists are the ones qualified to say stuff about this, not you. I don't know how it is that you think you have any qualifications to deny the claims made by people whose literal job is to study life, including how animals interact with each other and their environment, but you aren't. I'm also not going to listen to what some random vegan animal rights advocate has to say since this person doesn't claim to have a background in biology. A lot of animal rights advocates sometimes advocate for things that are actually harmful to animals because they aren't educated in fields, such as ecology.

It feels like your arguments hind completely on your emotions rather than on actual fact. You are projecting your own human values onto animals but that doesn't do shit to help them.

 

[Rabscuttle]

Some animals are supposed to fall victim to predation. Predators play an important role in keeping certain animal populations in check. Feeding animals doesn't do anything to address the issue of mass extinction. You are actually making things worse by essentially making it so that wildlife starts to depend on humans for food. Along with that, a lot of the food that people feed to wild animals can also make them sick. It is generally not recommended to feed wild animals. This isn't up for debate.

Biologists are the ones qualified to say stuff about this, not you.

How about these biologists?

Welfare biology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You should watch the video! I used to have your views, then I went vegan due to understanding the cruelty of factory farming, which led me to question my prior glorification of nature.

Thanks for discussing with me!

 

[EvisceratedJester]

How about these biologists?

Welfare biology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You should watch the video! I used to have your views, then I went vegan due to understanding the cruelty of factory farming, which led me to question my prior glorification of nature.

Thanks for discussing with me!

It has also been suggested that while welfare biology, as a field in its infancy, lacks sufficient empirical studies on the welfare of wild animals, it can make up for this through the use of existing demographic data, currently used to inform [COLOR=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]biodiversity conservation[/COLOR], to inform future research efforts

Based on the article, a lot of people who advocate for it are mostly people in fields such as philosophy, not fields in biology, such as ecology. Along with that, the field is basically in its infancy.

 

[Rabscuttle]

Based on the article, a lot of people who advocate for it are mostly people in fields such as philosophy, not fields in biology, such as ecology. Along with that, the field is basically in its infancy.

But there are biologists who advocate for it. What does it matter if it's in its infancy? Would you say the same thing for other movements related to morals and morality? Right is right, irrelevant of appeals of authority or age of a movement. The suffering of ALL sentient life should be a concern to us humans, especially since we have been making their lives worse, and harder, and we have some means to make their lives better, and easier.

Once again, please watch the video, and then we can discuss! Life is more fun when we question our preconceived notions. As I said earlier I had your same beliefs for much of my life, it was a hard road acknowledging the suffering of companion, farm and wild animals.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

But there are biologists who advocate for it. What does it matter if it's in its infancy? Would you say the same thing for other movements related to morals and morality? Right is right, irrelevant of appeals of authority or age of a movement. The suffering of ALL sentient life should be a concern to us humans, especially since we have been making their lives worse, and harder, and we have some means to make their lives better, and easier.

Once again, please watch the video, and then we can discuss! Life is more fun when we question our preconceived notions. As I said earlier I had your same beliefs for much of my life, it was a hard road acknowledging the suffering of companion, farm and wild animals.

It matters because it means that there is limited empirical evidence behind whether or not this would even be beneficial to the environment. Unlike other movements, we are talking about a specific field in biology, not just a regular social movement. I hate to break it to you, but suffering is an integral part of life for all living beings. Along with that, the efforts that you are suggesting (feeding wild animals) would still likely end up being harmful from the perspective of those who work in that field because we know that feeding wildlife can disrupt their ability to forage, can disrupt their social hierarchies, can lead to them being more more comfortable around humans and associating them with food with puts people at increased risk of being attacked, and can even make them sick since it isn't uncommon for people to feed wild animals food that can be bad for them. By feeding them, you are causing them to suffer.

I'm not going to watch your stupid video because it's literally just another one of those dumb videos by people who advocate for nail rights while not having a background in biology. The majority of people in biology recommend against what you are advocating for. Having compassion for animals means not humanizing them and meddling with them when not needed. Projecting onto them doesn't help them, and many of them were already doing fine prior to us getting in the way and doing shit, such as destroying their habitats. We should be focusing more on conservation efforts and on trying to create a better environment for them rather than on playing saviour.

 

[Rabscuttle]

It matters because it means that there is limited empirical evidence behind whether or not this would even be beneficial to the environment. Unlike other movements, we are talking about a specific field in biology, not just a regular social movement. I hate to break it to you, but suffering is an integral part of life for all living beings. Along with that, the efforts that you are suggesting (feeding wild animals) would still likely end up being harmful from the perspective of those who work in that field because we know that feeding wildlife can disrupt their ability to forage, can disrupt their social hierarchies, can lead to them being more more comfortable around humans and associating them with food with puts people at increased risk of being attacked, and can even make them sick since it isn't uncommon for people to feed wild animals food that can be bad for them. By feeding them, you are causing them to suffer.

I'm not going to watch your stupid video because it's literally just another one of those dumb videos by people who advocate for nail rights while not having a background in biology. The majority of people in biology recommend against what you are advocating for. Having compassion for animals means not humanizing them and meddling with them when not needed. Projecting onto them doesn't help them, and many of them were already doing fine prior to us getting in the way and doing shit, such as destroying their habitats. We should be focusing more on conservation efforts and on trying to create a better environment for them rather than on playing saviour.

I could go through history and point out movement by movement where people who advocated for objective truth were temporarily a minority.

Your issue is arguing in defense of the environment rather than the individual beings suffering. The environment is not a sentient breathing thing, just a mishmash of whatever human supremacist want to describe as outside of our human centric world.

You're getting aggressive for literally no reason lol. This is a thread of unpopular opinions. I posted mine, you engaged, I asked you to watch a video which explains my viewpoint more in depth. As I've said twice now, I've already had the view point that you currently hold. No amount of convincing, or hand wringing or appeals to authority to the sacred biologists will change my opinion on this subject.

Objective truth is objective truth. Just because society is as usual late to the party doesn't make something less true.