SkipperBlue

I recently saw a video answering the question “why do autistic people toe walk”. In the video the speaker explains that while not all toe walkers are autistic and not all autistic people toe walk there is a known connotation between the two and a reason for it. He explains that the reason for toe walking originates from emotional stress which translates into physical stress on the body. As autistic people encounter more stress in their daily lives, this means that they would also be more likely to be impacted by the physical affects of stress which would lead to toe walking.

Specifically, toe walking often happens when stress causes muscle tension, muscle tension in the back causes the spine to curve, a curved spine causes the pelvis to tilt forwards. This pushes the center of balance forward which encourages toe walking.

This made me realize something interesting about myself. When I was in school my hand writing was atrocious and illegible. My father once asked me “what do you think people think of you when they see your handwriting?” I responded “well, doctors are really smart and have bad handwriting so i think it makes me look smart.” He laughed at me. I deserved it. My struggle with writing isn’t just that my script is exceptionally bad. When I wrote for too long (most of three lines on a piece of paper) my hand, wrist, and arm would cramp up and hurt quite a bit. I even considered pursuing a diagnosis of dysgraphia, because I felt that i had all of the criteria to at least a moderate degree.

After seeing the video, my childhood cramping does not surprise me anymore. During my time in school I was subjected to much emotional- and sometimes even physical- abuse. I was under much stress which led to tension in my hands. When writing my fingers would not relax naturally which caused all of the small movements necessary to write to be jerky and uncontrolled, leading to a total mess of unreadable scribbles.

This theory that my handwriting was impacted by stress has more evidence. After leaving school I stopped writing by hand completely, even that to the point that if someone asked me to write something I would flatly say “I cannot.” Recently I bought a field note book and started using that to write notes instead of using my phone. Despite being over a decade out of practice my handwriting is significantly better than what it was when I was in school. The stress of being in school is gone and so is my cramping. My writing is actually legible now.

Whether it is a quirk of being autistic or just something personal about me I do not feel stress on an emotional level. If I’m going through a tough time it would barely even register to me unless I stop and audit myself. How bad is the urge to stim right now? Am I having more trouble than usual looking people in the eyes when conversing? Is masking more difficult than usual? How janky is my handwriting and walking gait? Have I been more nauseous lately? Do I have the physical sensation of ants crawling around inside my brain? I have to actually notice these physical affects and respond to them. If I see that my body is displaying a higher level of stress then I need to do something about it; maybe go out into nature, pray, stretch, or have a drink to get my anxiety down. You might think it’s cool to not feel stress. “Wow, I could get so much done if I wasn’t so stressed out all the time!” Not feeling stress is much like not feeling pain. People with nerve damage that causes them to not feel pain also have to constantly check their bodies. If you get a cut and don’t notice it because it doesn’t hurt you will just keep bleeding everywhere until you actually see that you are hurt. If you sprain or even break something in your legs you’ll just keep using that body part as normal and keep increasing the damage to it instead of getting off your feet to recover. If I do not manage my stress I end up being unable to sleep properly, am constantly nauseous, feel depressed, and get sick more often.

Stress management does not have to be a personal struggle. People can do things that reduce stress for everyone. For example work place policies that would benefit autistic people would also benefit stress reduction in everyone else too. Allow for flex time, if you make it into the office 15 minutes late then no big deal, leave 15 minutes late. Allow people to wear headphones. Autistic people are not the only people that want to avoid social interaction. People with ADD/ADHD would also benefit from wearing headphones. They would be less likely to have someone approach their desk and create a distraction with conversation that would make it difficult to stay on or return to their task. Some neurotypical people either just aren’t in a talking mood or need to hunker down and get some work done. A relaxed clothing policy means no more tight shirt collars and scratchy shirts for autistic people. I can say from personal experience that while its easy to find comfortable relaxed wear clothing, finding clothing that is business appropriate and comfortable is a great difficultly. A relaxed clothing policy benefits neurotypical employees too. People can wear things that make them feel more comfortable or confident in themselves and ultimately more happy. There are numerous studies showing that happy employees are more productive, but just knowing that the people that work for you are happy should be more than enough incentive to make positive changes.

During India’s time as a British colony the English were concerned with the number of venomous snakes and created a program in which anyone could bring the head of a dead cobra and receive payment for killing it. The intent of the program was to reduce the number of nuisance snakes that were maiming or killing people. In response people started breeding cobras and killing them for the bounties. When the British discovered this they cancelled the program and the snake breeders, having no more use for the snakes, simply released them into the wild leading to more dangerous snakes being present than before the program was implemented.

There is a lot of debate among historians whether this actually happened or not but whether its history or parable, its incredibly believable. “Easy money for dead snakes? Heck I’d breed them too if I had the chance.” This is an example of the intent of a policy not playing out after it has been implemented. There are many true modern day examples of this happening. For example during the pandemic the US government started handing out Paycheck Protection Program loans to businesses. The idea was that the government would subsidize the paychecks of small business employees allowing small businesses to stay afloat during the latest financial crisis and allowing their employees to maintain income. Instead, the pandemic and its financial consequences led to an immense upwards redistribution of wealth with this loan money going into and staying in the pockets of the wealthiest people in America.

These both are examples of new policies being implemented in a way that was abusable, but what of the reinterpretation of old laws? The second amendment reads as follows:

• A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun rights advocates say that this law simply grants the right to possess and bear weapons, specifically firearms, to the common citizenry without infringement by feature bans, type bans, licensing requirements, or other hurdles that would limit ownership. Gun control advocates argue that this grants citizens the right only to form citizen militias for the protection of the state. This would limit the right to gun ownership only to those that are members of a militia, reducing the number of legally owned firearms, in turn reducing the amount of gun violence. Were this alternative interpretation of the law play out, what would actually happen?

Currently gun owners only gather in the same way any other hobbyist group would. Board game players meet up at the game shop to play games. Fishers make day outings to the lake to cast their lines. Gun owners go to the range to poke holes in distant pieces of paper. If suddenly the only way to legally keep your guns is to join a militia many people would quickly find themselves actually joining a structured paramilitary organization to avoid turning in their weapons.

Why are militias such a bad thing?

Our founding fathers likely included the right to form a militia alongside the right to own firearms because they had just come out of a war with a global superpower and feared that the British would return for round two to reclaim their lost colonies. Since then United States soil has been attacked twice: Once during World War 1 when a German U-boat ineffectually shelled Cape Cod and the September 11, 2001 attacks. In both cases a militia would not have been able to contribute to the defense of the homeland. Militias are so unnecessary that every state has either constitutional text or a law which prohibits the formation of a paramilitary group or militia. Again though, why are militias so dangerous that every single state would independently write and pass a law to ban their existence?

Many background checks, especially checks done for government employment ask if you have ever been a part of a militia. Answering yes is a negative when considering you for employment. The US armed forces prohibits active duty members from also being members of a militia. In the wake of January 6, 2021, the bulk of the FBI’s investigative efforts were placed upon the Oath Keepers, a militia. In the news, “militia” is synonymous with “domestic terrorist organization”. The government considers militias to be a threat against its supremacy and against its people.

Militias in general have cultures that are consistently revolutionary and often white supremacist or fascist. Not all of them are, of course. There are communist militias, There is also the Three Percenters. The name “3%” refers to the American War for Independence in which it only took three percent of the population to galvanize all of the people into revolution. They do not allow (overt) fascism or racial supremacy in their ranks. They have themselves reported to the FBI their own members they believe are planning terror acts. They keep the early culture of federalism and militias alive in the modern day. Rather than calling for revolution they call for non-seditious reform. Despite this they are still labeled as a domestic terrorist organization by the US federal government.

How would it actually play out if we changed our interpretation of the Second Amendment?

Any state law prohibiting the membership or formation of a militia would be nullified. Rather than being discouraged from joining a militia (seriously, who wants to write their own name down on a terror list by joining?), militia membership would be strongly encouraged as it is the only way to keep your guns. Hundreds of new militia organizations would be formed. Membership of already active militias would swell dramatically. The culture of militias wouldn’t change much. Gun owners would quickly change from regular people who occasionally go to the range to partake in the harmless hobby of shooting guns in a safe environment to engaging in real training. Militias usually offer not just shooting training, but training in squad communication and tactics, combat first aid, room clearing, SERE, urban and forest combat, handling explosive materials, etc. Suddenly the average gun owner would change from being just that- average- to someone being exposed to antigovernmental ideals and being trained in effective means that can be used against the government. Reinterpreting the second amendment in this way would lead to real threats against the sovereignty of the American state.

I think if gun control advocates understood the longer ramifications of reinterpreting the second amendment they would probably realize it’s not the win they thought it was.

What are the outer bounds of freedom of speech? Should there be freedom from the consequences of speech? Should some speech be suppressed? Should there be consequences for suppression of speech?

I’ll start with US federal law regarding speech. “Speech” is not just classified as what you say or write. It also encompasses art and journalism. For instance, the government cannot ban depictions of nudity such as a Greek statue or pornography because it is classified as art and therefore falls under freedom of speech. Most public government buildings such as post offices and city halls prohibit the use of cameras or recording devices, but if an individual is recording information with a camera or sound recorder while in a publicly accessible area of a government office specifically with journalistic intent the US Federal Constitution’s first amendment supersedes rules that bar recording. The Federal Supreme Court has ordained that journalism is protected as speech. If an individual was only taking pictures for personal use that would not be considered speech, and thus could be barred from taking photos.

What about in situations where a private entity is regulating speech instead of the government? If I walked into your house and said something vulgar you could remove me from your property under threat of trespass and police intervention. There would be no opportunity for me to sue for a constitutional violation because I was on your private property.

Public Venues and Private Platforms

Consider these scenarios and decide for yourself which of these are appropriate and which are immoral suppression of speech:

1. You invite Bob to a private dinner party at your home. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You tell Bob to go home.
2. You host a private speaking event in your home. Bob is invited as a speaker. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You end Bob’s speech right then and silence him.
3. You host a event where Bob is invited as a speaker. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You end Bob’s speech right then and silence him.
4. You host a podcast that is publicly livestreamed to millions of people. Bob is invited as a speaker. Bob says that the state of Israel is illegitimate. You end Bob’s speech right then and silence him.
5. You host a public Bible study in a public location. You are giving a sermon and are the only speaker but others may ask questions to clarify your statements. Bob arrives as a guest and says that Jesus is not the Son of God. You tell Bob that this is not the right time or place for a religious debate and to be silent.
6. You host a public debate forum centered on communism versus capitalism. Everyone is invited to speak. Bob arrives and wants to debate atheism versus theism. You tell Bob to stay on topic, be silent, or leave.
7. You host a public debate forum centered on communism versus capitalism. Everyone is invited to speak. Bob arrives and argues that capitalism is bad. You tell Bob to be silent or leave.
8. A man stands on a side walk loudly preaching fire and brimstone. You tell him to be silent. He ignores you. You call the police and he is arrested for creating a public disturbance.
9. A man stands on a side walk shouting racist slurs. You tell him to be silent. He ignores you. You use violence to silence him.
10. A man holds a gun to your head and tells you that he will shoot you unless you sign a document claiming your support for a specific presidential candidate.

I believe that the first six scenarios are morally sound.

In the case of the first two, you are in your own home. You are not in any way obliged to hear things that disgust you. In the case of scenarios 2-4 you have invited Bob to speak. Other people will believe that you must agree with Bob if you have invited him to say obscene things. If you were obliged to allow him to keep speaking that would be classified as “compelled speech” wherein you are forced to say something that you might not believe. Scenario ten is a radical example of compelled speech. Scenarios five and six are harder to argue for their morality. In scenario five Bob is allowed to ask on topic questions, but is not permitted debate. A hard fence has been set on what discussion would take place. It would be equally unpermitted to talk about what everyone had for lunch that day. In scenario six the forum is public. You didn’t invite Bob to speak, so people cannot argue that you support Bob’s words. This should be a place where Bob can speak freely and his words are only his opinions and not yours or anyone else’s. The issue here is that the forum was built for a specific purpose. A fence was placed around the topic to only include discussion about communism and capitalism, but Bob wants to discuss something entirely unrelated. If Bob wanted to debate for another system of government such as monarchy you might be obliged to expand the bounds of the conversation to include him because his speech might be relevant to the topic.

In scenario seven Bob has arrived and is allowed to speak on the topic of communism versus capitalism. He stays on topic but is silenced regardless. If only the pro-communist people are allowed to speak then there is no debate which is the entire point of the forum to begin with. This silencing is immoral. In scenario eight the preacher is in a public place. Sidewalks have been enshrined by the Federal Supreme Court as a “public forum” where anyone can speak on any topic. The only boundary on this speech is speech intended to cause panic such as claiming a false alarm that there is some imminent harm. For example, that there is a nonexistent man on a gun rampage around the corner. Were a police officer arrest a man solely for preaching the preacher could sue the city that employs the officer, the police force, and the officer himself. The officer would not receive qualified immunity because of his actions because he engaged in “prior restraint” which is when a government official tells an individual that they cannot engage in specific speech. Scenario nine and ten should be obvious in it’s immorality. You cannot bring violence to a person for words alone. You cannot compel someone to say something through violence or threat of violence.

What about large private platforms like social media?

Twitter has been called a “digital town square”. It is not like any of the scenarios listed above. You are not bound to only certain topics. You are not invited to speak. If Bob makes a twitter account and says that the state of Israel is illegitimate his words have no bearing on the beliefs of Twitter or it’s owners. He was not invited to join. He did not stray outside of the bounds of discussion topics. It would be immoral to silence him no matter how obscene his words are. Others should be allowed the opportunity to debate against his position. They are not obliged to hear him and can block him.

What about users posting spam?

Twitter makes the majority of its revenue from on platform advertising. They want every advertisement to originate from money paid to them. This is a boundary on speech that is acceptable. You can talk about how great essential oils are but direct messaging 400 different people with a link to your store whether they want to see that or not falls outside the one boundary on speech.

What about small groups?

If you make a Discord instance about drinking and enjoying tea and Bob comes in saying “tea sucks! tea is lame! I hate tea” he clearly does not belong in your community and can be removed. the bounds of discussion are enjoying tea, not hating it. Discord allows for multiple different channels for different topics within a single Discord instance. There is an oft repeated meme about Discord culture: “Please do not post memes in #general. Please keep your memes in the #memes channel.” or “Please only post politics in the #politics channel.” This is a clear example of fencing discussion topics within certain channels. You can talk about whatever you want in #general, but if you start posting a dozen memes per hour you are going to clutter the discussion to the point that it would be hindered. To avoid that there is a separate space for posting memes. There is no moral issue with this.

Okay, but how do you manage a community while maintaining this moral framework?

I personally run two Telegram chats that I would classify as medium sized. There are a few specific rules that culminate into two intentions; no porn and no derision. The actual rules are as follows:

1. no porn
2. no derision
3. if you demand someone post hand/physique/fit/1rm you MUST post yours first.
4. you can ban evade by posting capybaras

Rule one is obvious. Rule two means that you should debate in good faith. You can attack someone’s argument with ad homonym (“that’s retarded”) but you cannot attack the other person with ad homonym (“you’re retarded”). You can get as heated or as passionate as you want but you should respect the person you are talking to. Rule three is more specific but follows the same spirit of rule two. Demanding someone post a photo of their hand is a demand for someone to prove their ethnicity. “Fit” challenges someone to show how presentable their appearance is. “Physique” and “1RM” challenges another person’s strength. The challenger cannot get away with using another person’s appearance in an argument. He must put his own cards on the table as well, so to speak. Rule four exists to create an opportunity for penance and indicate one’s interest in remaining in the group despite having broken a rule in the heat of the moment. Rather than just saying “I’m sorry” and possibly not meaning it, they have to go the very small extra step of searching Google images for a picture of a capybara and posting it as a sign of sincerity.

The chats are both Christian centric. If someone does not believe in Christ that doesn’t bar them from being a member. They can argue against God (in good faith) and I will often respond. They can ignore the issue and focus on other topics. Outright derision without an interest in debate means that the user does not belong in this discussion and should probably find a home elsewhere.

No matter what your political ideology is you are always being bombarded with news saying “the enemy is winning, do something!” while never encouraging effectual action. If you are a Second Amendment advocate you are scared and angered by the long churning of new state and federal bills that make it harder to acquire firearms, reinstate the 1986 Assault Weapons ban, or otherwise limit your right to self defense and firearms ownership. You hear about these bills being sponsored and submitted but never about their failure. If you are a women’s rights advocate or an abortion advocate you hear about the repeal of Roe v Wade but never about the vast number of states that have certified women’s ability to end a pregnancy. If you are concerned with growing wealth inequality you’ll see disturbing charts and graphs from every publication about Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, et al. seeing their personal wealth as much as triple during the 2020-22 pandemic but Washington Post (which is owned by Bezos) would never run a story about Amazon (also owned by Bezos) workers successfully unionizing to end their terrible working conditions.

In 1990 nearly all US States either did not allow concealed handgun carry at all or were “may-issue” States meaning that they would only issue licenses to conceal a firearm in public if the requestor was a retired police officer, gainfully employed armed security person, had a distinct need such as being a celebrity with stalkers, et cetera. In 2022 nearly all States are “shall-issue” meaning that unless there is a specific prohibition such as being a felon or mentally adjudicated by a court as incompetent you will get a license on request. Nearly half of all states have gone a step further in not requiring any permit to conceal carry. Some even claim to be “sanctuary states” that prohibit local police from prosecuting against federally banned devices such as suppressors and fully automatic guns that are not being used for crime. The Assault Weapons Ban ended in 2004.

Roe v. Wade was overturned but the majority of states have their own laws that still allow for abortions in most to all cases. The ones that don’t have threatened to pass laws that would make a woman guilty of felony murder if she crosses state lines to have an illegal abortion either fail for lack of legislative support or because they understand that this would almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional by the State or Federal Supreme Court. Many companies even go as far as to provide women with thousands of dollars for travel and medical expenses incurred from having an abortion.

The rich get richer but this is only rope for them to tie their own nooses. Socialist ideals are spreading like wildfire on both the left and right with young people pulling away from the Democratic and Republican parties towards left libertarian socialism and national socialism respectively. Eventually the rich will be incapable of keeping the status quo through bribes political donations because there will no longer be enough crony capitalists and moderates to give money to due to outvoting and political pressure from constituents.

This isn’t encouragement to do nothing. After all, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This bad news that is always being pumped out is designed to make the masses feel incapable of affecting change. “It’s always getting worse” they say. “It’s not worth leaving the house to protest anything.” Find the victories and celebrate them loudly. It’s fuel to to keep doing more. Change is possible but is slow and requires constant pressure. You roll the stone up the hill and celebrate, then there is another stone at the bottom of another hill that needs pushing. You did it before, you can do it again.