c/neurodivergence isn’t being moderated at all lately. Three months ago there was the great post from NoOnesLazyInLazyTown@beehaw.org concerning ableism against people with NPD, and the amount of toxicity I saw in that thread was shocking. Some great people pushing back on the ableism and hate there, but I couldn’t believe those hateful comments were being left up, or the sheer volume of them.
Yesterday I posted a new article I wrote also concerning NPD, hoping I would get the same kind of positive response I’ve gotten from Beehaw in the past when talking about neurodiversity. But instead I saw nothing but hate, personal attacks, and vicious toxicity. This isn’t the kind of discourse I come to Beehaw to see, and I don’t think I’m alone.
Looking at the community history, it looks like the post volume has dramatically reduced since immediately before that first NPD post. I’m not surprised people are avoiding the community, I don’t intend to use it anymore either if what I received yesterday is going to be the norm.
The modlog of this community hasn’t been touched in 7 months, and the only comment removal visible at all is tagged with the removal reason “stupid comment”, which I frankly find quite ironic.
Can we please have some actual moderation on this community? If there is absolutely nobody else who can volunteer their time then I’d even be happy to do it Myself.
If someone from an affected community is telling you that something is a slur, perhaps it might be better to listen to them as they are likely to know more about it than anyone else.
Those with NP had a very understandable reaction to trauma and it is a shame how they are treated by the rest of us neurodivergent folks not least because it isn’t actually useful in helping them out and just worsens the reaction to trauma.
There are ways we can all work together though and one of those is talking to and listening to folks with NP or any of the “axis of different ‘disorders’” when they tell you something is a problem.
I have friends with various ‘axis disorders’ and they know exactly what they need and how they can be helped, after all of this kind of trauma reaction comes from abuse, a lack of understanding and lack of love. Do you think more of that will be useful?
It is literally the official technical term for a person with narcistic personality traits, we call those people narcissists. Granted that has a distinct negative connotation, but that is simply due to what kind of person narcissists overwhelmingly are. In fact I would be hard pressed to find alternative terms that are accurate and not equally or more “offensive”.
Many ‘official’ terms have been used and dropped over the years for the offense and opression they cause to those they impacted, it’s not unusual to it be pointed out that a term is offensive and that we should stop using it.
The thread, article and The OP made it very clear that NPD or a person with NPD are better terms if you are genuinely looking for better terms which aren’t offensive/opressive.
Those terms are just abbreviations to hide the ugly word though. How would you describe a person with a narcistic personality profile without using the term narcistic, or alternatives with even more overtly negative connotations such as selfish, egotistical, demanding, antisocial, obnoxious, dismissive, and so forth?
I understand the value of inclusive language, but it should not obstruct communication.
I guess I would use some of those words but probably more in describing actions rather than the person themselves, most of the time anyway. As it’s easy to portray someone as ‘evil’ based on a single word in common use that likely oppresses and doesn’t see the person underneath the label/actions, which is what ‘narcissist’ often does for/to most people I believe.
Sure, however, I don’t think it obstructs it as much as encourages folks to think more about what they’re saying rather than relying on a shortcut in language which in my opinion and it would seem the opinion of those with NP’D’ is harmful and encourages harmful thinking.
Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn’t viable.
There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.
There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.
Yes, that can be better in some cases than arguing and making things worse overall.
Choosing not to engage can also be a positive rather than just the prevention of negatives.
Would you like to explain how?
I read your reply as stating that the only outcomes could be “argue and make things worse” or “don’t do that”, a negative and a neutral respectively.
I perhaps read only the words and not the intent, I think we are may be saying the same thing.
In case we are not :
Not engaging actively frees someone up to do literally anything else, which could overall be more positive than just the prevention of the negative.
In addition some people might consider the avoidance of the argument itself to be a positive rather than just maintaining a neutral position.
Thank you very much for explaining!