Richard Land offers qualified opposition to beating people to death

In response to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech on human rights Tuesday, Richard Land, ethics czar for the Southern Baptist Vatican, said:

I certainly don’t believe homosexuals or anyone else should be flogged or put to death for their sexual sins. However …

Wait. Stop. Before you go on, Richard Land, are you sure you want to do that?

Here’s what you just said:

I certainly don’t believe homosexuals or anyone else should be flogged or put to death.

Is that really the sort of thing you want to follow with a “however …”?

There are only two possible directions such a “however” might lead.

The first would be a total non sequitur — something wholly unrelated, such as: “I certainly don’t believe homosexuals or anyone else should be flogged or put to death. However, I’m also fond of pancakes.” A statement like that might be confusing or it might make you look silly, but morally and ethically it’s mostly harmless.

The second possibility, however, is far from harmless. The second possibility is that you’re about to follow that however with some qualification or limitation or reservation about the statement that precedes it. Let’s look at that statement again:

I certainly don’t believe homosexuals or anyone else should be flogged or put to death.

Do you think that needs to be qualified? Or limited? Do you really want to suggest that you have reservations about saying such a thing? Might it not be a Good Thing, for once, just to go on the record as being firmly against beating people to death and to say so without hemming and hawing and trying to however your way into a bit of wiggle room should the occasion arise in which you think beating people to death might be something you’d like to do?

Because that’s the only conclusion the rest of us can draw from a qualifying “however” here. If you can’t just say “beating people to death is wrong” without offering caveats and loopholes, then the rest of us will suspect that you’ve got a hankering to beat someone to death.

Where a non sequitur about pancakes will make you look silly, a qualification or limitation will make you look depraved.

In any case, I’m too late here to stop Richard Land from however-ing himself into a moral hole, so let’s just see what he had to say in full:

I certainly don’t believe homosexuals or anyone else should be flogged or put to death. However, I don’t believe homosexuals should receive special treatment over and above anyone else either.

Hmm. I said there were only two possibilities, and Land seems to have chosen both of them.

His non-sequitur about “special treatment over and above anyone else” doesn’t make any more sense than if he had started talking about pancakes. But at the same time he seems to think it offers some kind of qualification or limitation to his previous statement.

He winds up looking both silly and depraved.

 

  • Demonhype

    Yes it is different from first and second degree murder vs. manslaughter.  First degree murder is cold-blooded, second-degree is more like temporary insanity, and manslaughter is death caused unintentionally by neglect.  The first two determine whether you, say, came home and caught your wife with your best friend and shot both dead in the heat of the moment or whether you walked away quietly and ended up causing their deaths later not in the heat of the moment but in cold blood.  Both are intentional, with the state of mind (and therefore decision-making capability) being taken into consideration to determine the severity of the crime and how dangerous the individual may be (someone losing their head in an extreme moment is not as dangerous as someone who can kill in completely cold blood).  The third would be more like losing control of your car or cleaning your gun and having it go off and shoot the neighbor–still bad, but not intentional.

    Not one of them determines your actual motives or opinions behind an action, just intention and the level of intention based on circumstance and state-of-mind.  You could deliberately and cold-bloodedly plot to kill a black family that moves into your white neighborhood and that would be first degree.  Or it could be a well known fact that you dislike black people while not having any intention of violence based on that, catch your wife in bed with a black man and completely lose your shit and shoot him in the heat of the moment, which would be second degree. Or it could be well-known that you dislike black people intensely and then you lose control of your car and hit a black guy completely by accident, which would be manslaughter.  Every one of those situations could be spun into a racially-motivated hate crime when the only one that could be fairly called racially motivated (innocent until proven guilty and all) is the first one.  So they are not the same.

    On that note, there was a local case (I think it was Cleveland, though it could have been Akron) where one black guy went on a rampage and shot about fifteen white guys he didn’t even know while raging about the evils of all white people (it was on the news, so I think it was in or around Cleveland).  They tried to pass it off as “not racially motivated” on the news despite many witnesses who all confirmed his ranting and the fact that he didn’t know any of the victims personally, which was a bit irritating to me–is this a law that only applies to white people, or does it apply to anyone who kills another person based on race?  Like Mark, I also get a little unnerved at the idea of the law deciding what opinions behind an action, where if my sister hits a black guy with her car she could get a harsher sentence because she has been known to say a lot of stupid racist shit–even though she has no intention and never had any intention of violence toward any black people.  I know plenty of jerks like that, who say stupid racist shit but it’s all a show with no violent language or violent intention behind it.  But I also get a little nervous at a law that only applies to one particular group and not to the other.  I never found out how that turned out in the end (they admitted reluctantly at some point that it was “probably racially motivated” then stopped reporting on it all together), but the hypocritical attempt at spinning it really irritated me a lot.

    And before anyone suggests that that’s good and that people should be afraid to say stuff like that for fear it will  come back to haunt them if they, say, lose control of their car and hit someone by accident one day:  I do think such language should be challenged by people and I have challenged it frequently in various ways.  I don’t, however, think it should be challenged by having a law that says “if you ever get into a situation where you cause a [insert protected group here] death, your personal opinions will be used to prove that you did it due to [racial, etc] motivation and your sentence will be exponentially increased”.  Say what you will, but that scares me on a lot of levels. I would feel the same way if you had a black guy making a lot of public opinions about how evil white people are, then caused a white guy’s death for whatever reason and they tried to use his personal opinions to give him a much larger sentence.  It’s too easy, especially in the case of a murder trial and the accompanying emotions involved, to take emotionally-charged languages or opinions and convince someone it was the leading cause of the crime even when it wasn’t, and I do worry about where that could lead (especially when we have nothing but Republicans and DemocRepublicans in power).

    Plus, I want the ignorant and deluded bigots to be visible, so they can be challenged in a more useful way, and I don’t want their hatred to boil up under cover and become something volcanic in time.  I was horrified to see how much racism just crawled out from behind the sofa when Obama got elected.  You can’t swat a wasp in the room if you can’t see where it is.

    And no, I don’t think that gays asking for equal rights is somehow tantamount to special rights, and that goes for any group.  And I’m not saying hate-crime legislation is “special rights” so much as I’m saying I’m not convinced that it is a solution and also not convinced that it’s not a bad idea that could easily blow up in all our faces.  And I know damn well that legislating motive is not the same as legislating circumstance and state-of-mind.

  • Tonio

    The idea of liberalism as opposing restraints sounds like an authoritarian redefinition of the word, which means that the true opposite of libertarianism isn’t conservatism but authoritarianism.

    In my experience, conservatism as an idea isn’t necessarily about holding onto what is good, but opposing change in general. So that idea’s true opposite is progressivism.

    But in the US political system, it seems that most people are typically liberal and progressive or conservative and authoritarian. That may be partly a factor of history where progress involves moving from authoritarian systems to more democratic ones, and partly because the US system like others put unequal restrictions based on ethnicity and gender.

    Libertarianism frustrates the dynamic I described because it seeks like conservatism to turn back the clock but also seeks more individual freedom like liberalism. But with many self-identified libertarians these days, that ideology is a veneer for a tribalist variety of authoritarianism, controlling everyone who is not like them.

  • Anonymous

    ” I also get a little nervous at a law that only applies to one particular group and not to the other.”

    Every hate crime law ever passed in the United States applies equally to whites, straights, men, etc. FBI statistics in the early 90′s showed ~20% of hate crimes were against white people.

    Or it could be well-known that you dislike black people intensely and
    then you lose control of your car and hit a black guy completely by
    accident, which would be manslaughter.  Every one of those situations
    could be spun into a racially-motivated hate crime

    Cite? I see no reason to believe that hate crimes laws would be applied to involuntary manslaughter.

    Perhaps you arguments would be more compelling if they referred to actual things that have happened with hate crime laws, rather than things that conceivably might have happened or that you kinda sorta remember hearing about.

  • Tonio

    I’ve always thought of Schlafly as a traitor to her gender, except that her hateful ideas about gender roles also do some harm to men.

    Those anti-ERA arguments sound very much like the sexist claim that “women already have the power,” with that power being sexual desirability and the ability to grant or withhold sex to get their way. Ugh.

  • Anonymous

    the ability to grant or withhold sex

    Since when do women have that power? Rape culture, I’m looking at YOU.

  • Tonio

    Ex-freakin’-zactly. The logical conclusion of the women-use-sex-for-control argument is that rape is justified if they withhold sex.

  • Lori

    Weight & Body image issues:

     Just look at any artwork prior to the 19th/20th century. Look especially at the women in many of the paintings of such ages. Full-bodied, round, fleshy hips and so on.

    It is even well-argued that such women were also socially more desirable … because to have some weight was equated to be well-fed – in an age of hunger for many. A heftier woman was more likely to carry more children to term, and those children would be healthier.  

    This. In modern times evolutionary drives aren’t so much of a factor in what body shape is deemed attractive in a society. You only have to look at art through history to know that the pop ev psych people are wrong about that. 

    This issue of attractiveness is very closely bound up with class though. Speaking as a USian, that’s part of the reason we’re so totally messed up on the issue. Class is one of the things that we can’t or won’t talk about in the US, so we also refuse to acknowledge the degree to which we shame people for having bodies that are deemed “low class”. 

    Place that at an intersection with sex, women’s rights and health issues and you have a combustible combination that creates tremendous pain for a lot of people. 

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I am of course talking about within my own culture.  It’s important to remember that not only is my frame of reference American – but not only that, so is the environment in which my particular point is relevant.  In other words:  I’m addressing US politics,  so I figure the cultural association is kind of necessary.

    I admit I probably could have stated it up front but I was hoping context would carry that element;  just saying it was the meaning of the word in-general was probably too vague.  (The invisible tacked on thought was “within the sphere of US politics and culture” – Sadly invisible thoughts are rather hard to read lol)

  • http://from1angle.wordpress.com emilyperson

    For me, fat’s a totally neutral descriptor, like “tall” or “freckly” or “dark-haired.” I see a fat person; my brain registers “fat person” (along with a bunch of other ways this person could be described); I try my hardest to judge the fat person based on what zie acts like, same as with skinny people.

    However. I don’t call anyone fat when I’m talking to (most) other people, because it has so many negative connotations, and they might not want it applied to them, might not know that my using it doesn’t mean I’m passing judgement on someone for being fat, or might have their own prejudice against fat people reinforced if I use the word to describe someone I’m feeling negative toward (for example, “I can’t stand that guy. He’s always talking loudly to me when I’m trying to read.” “Which one?” “In the red shirt.” “There are two guys in red shirts over there.” “Oh. I’m talking about the fat one.”)

  • ako

    Every hate crime law ever passed in the United States applies
    equally to whites, straights, men, etc. FBI statistics in the early 90′s
    showed ~20% of hate crimes were against white people.

    This is a very important point.  A lot of people imagine that these laws are written as protecting specific groups, when they are actually targeting specific types of crime, and protect everyone.  The reason why hate crime laws mostly go after people for violence against racial minorities, non-heterosexuals, women, etc., isn’t because they’re considered a special category under the law, but because those are the groups far more likely to be subjected to hate crimes. 

    Certainly, there are cases where injustices happen.  That is true for every aspect of the legal system.  It is, however, really easy to get the wrong impression of how widespread these injustices are, because the media tends to put a disproportionate focus on certain types of cases.  (The insanity defense is a good example – actual research on the subject indicates that the percentage of criminal defendants who succesfully use the insanity defense in the US is 0.26%, and the vast majority of people who successfully plead insanity were diagnosed as mentally ill prior to the crime, but if one looked at the reporting on a handful of exceptional cases and the many fictional portrayals of the insanity defense, it would look like an easy way to get away with crime.)  That doesn’t diminish the wrong of a particular case, but it does raise questions about where the problem actually is and what the best solution is.

  • Jared Bascomb

    Somebody’s probably brought this up further down in the comments, but . . .
    Hate crimes designations need to be backed up by *evidence* and that evidence is usually the words that come out of a perpetrator’s own mouth as s/he/they are committing the offense and which clearly indicate that they doing this because of the victim’s sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, et al.

    Prosecutors will often decline to add hate crimes charges if that strong evidence isn’t there. See the recent Lawrence King/Brandon McInnery murder case for example.

  • Hawker40

    On the subject of Phyllis Schlafly, I think the appropriate punishment for her would to be forced to live in a society that is exactly like she claims to want.  Since I don’t want to live in such a society, much less have my daughters* live in such a society, I can only hope that God gives her what she wants in the afterlife.

    *Or anyone else’s daughters, for that matter.

  • FangsFirst

    Oh, crap! I wasn’t actually disagreeing, just building further with my own ramblings!

    I’m not sure I even meant to separate out intent and motive so cleanly. I probably just typed “motive” the second time without thinking…

    Sorry! Not correcting at all!

  • Tonio

    It is, however, really easy to get the wrong impression of how
    widespread these injustices are, because the media tends to put a
    disproportionate focus on certain types of cases.

    Or if you have a persecuted-hegemon martyr complex, which is what the media enables and perpetuates but doesn’t cause. With the insanity defense, it’s not just an assumption but a narrative, the idea that murderers are routinely set free after simply acting insane enough to convince a psychiatrist or a jury.

  • Anonymous

    It okay hun. Please relax. I was just adding further clarity to my post – prompted by good points in yours. Didn’t think you were disagreeing, so it’s all good :)

  • Anonymous

    Indeed and you don’t get let free!

    This study is interesting (you can read the abstract to get the point)- http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/8/4/483.abstract – and so yeah, pleading insanity as a defense does not mean you are not incarcerated, just how you are.

    The interesting point from the conclusion – “There was no significant difference
    in the mean length of incarceration. For both groups it was slightly over 11 years.” – so yeah, same sentence length on average.

    Gotta love the myths of the population-at-large … otherwise referered to as common sense … far too common but not often very sensible.

  • Anonymous

    Same thing with suntans in British history. People who worked outdoors, e.g. farm labourers, had darker, weathered skin so for a long time pale skin denoted aristocratic origins. Then wealthy people could afford holidays in warmer sunny climes while the working classes were stuck working indoors as factory hands and maybe getting a week being rained on at a British seaside resort, so a tan became a sign of affluence. But now we have sun beds and cheap flights abroad the pendulum is swinging back a bit, with working class women sneered at for having “orange” skin.

  • Anonymous

    Suppose that Demonhypes’s sister did actually run over a person of colour a great deal would depend upon her subsequent actions. Does she immediately stop, call for help, wait with the victim until help arrives and make an honest report to the police? In such case her private opinions don’t enter into it, nor should they. If however she drives on regardless and is heard making racist jokes about the incident later, then the police ~ and a Jury ~ would have every reason to consider her a pretty sorry excuse for a human being.  No spin required.

    As to “actual things”, you may have heard of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young British man of colour. Justice in this case has been a long time coming and we haven’t got there yet. His assailants were heard shouting racial abuse and subsequently the suspects in the case used disgusting, violent racist language whilst under surveillance. The press and public opinion have assumed that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then there’s a very good case for trial.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    EvilKate:

    I’m glad you put ‘society’ in there as well, because the reality is that
    it has more to do with it than evolution. Indeed, some research shows
    that evolution runs the other way – that is, it grants a drive to find
    people with more weight than not.

    Fair point; that said, people often say they can’t help who they’re attracted to, and by and large, that’s true. People who discover a sexual attraction, I’ve read from people who discuss this, usually find they’re attracted to people who fit a kind of broad central norm of appearance. (the question of how much that central norm is socially modified is a good one to ask, and one I’m not going to try and claim there’s a definitive answer to)

    On the subject of size descriptions of humans – I for one will try to expunge it from my vocabulary, if only because there are acceptable alternatives: even if two people were to somehow unaccountably wear identical clothes their hair and faces and so on are likely to be different, and there is almost no need to use “skinny” or “fat” as the only descriptor of a human being.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I think the appropriate punishment for her would to be forced to live in a society that is exactly like she claims to want.

    It sounds like that is what Margret Attwood had in mind when she wrote the character of Serena Joy into The Handmaid’s Tale

    Err, though to clarify my earlier statement, I was not suggesting that Phyllis Schlafly should be killed as a form of punishment.  However I was pointing out that she is eighty-seven years old, and I doubt she has more than a decade left in her at most. 

    Actually, the amount of vigor she still has for this subject at her age suggests some dark power animating her, some force with which she has made a terrible pact…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Actually,
    the amount of vigor she still has for this subject at her age suggests
    some dark power animating her, some force with which she has made a
    terrible pact…

    Yoga?

  • Lori

    I think it’s more likely that she’s found a way to convert pure spite into energy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Oh… you  mean zumba!

  • Anonymous

    Scott Fujita has a pretty interesting story.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3643439

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    But we’re talking about the innate meaning of the words, not how they have been applied in the US political system.

    How is conservatism, as a term divorced from its modern context, not about keeping (conserving) what is good? Opposing change in general is being reactionary. The fact that over the last three decades most conservative politics in the Anglophone world has been dominated by reactionaries doesn’t change the innate connotations of the word.

    Similarly, liberalism meaning opposing restraint is not a redefinition of the word. It’s how it’s used in most of the world (outside the US and Canada, as far as I can tell). It’s a North American quirk that has people advocating government regulation of, say, industrial products or access to services labelled “liberal’s”.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I don’t know why but that cracked me up faaaar more than is reasonable >_< thank you, I needed a laugh today.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    Sadly the shoe-phone bit no longer holds up due to cellphones but oh well.

    I don’t know – over on TWoP, someone’s response to Katy Perry talking to her shoe with “who does she think she is, Max Smart?”

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    Even when she’s gone, her son and his Conservapedia will still be here.

  • Tonio

    How is conservatism, as a term divorced from its modern context, not about keeping (conserving) what is good?

    In my experience, that term has never had that meaning in the US, either in politics or out of it. In non-political contexts, it has meant approaching change or the future with a sense of prudent cautiousness. And in politics it has meant opposition to change, while reactionary positions have been about reversing change. The difference there may be largely academic or irrelevant but it still exists. And the other issue, keeping what is good, is probably also irrelevant since the definition of “good” would be wildly subjective.

    Similarly, liberalism meaning opposing restraint is not a redefinition of the word. It’s how it’s used in most of the world (outside the US and Canada, as far as I can tell).

    My objection is to how that definition is worded. It implies that individuals should be restrained unless they can prove otherwise, which is an authoritarian position. (Similar to how some atheists object to that word as treating theism as the default.) You’re right about the North American quirk in treating liberalism as though it includes progressivism.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Well I’m certainly not going to complain if peopl

  • Rikalous

    I think it’s more likely that she’s found a way to convert pure spite into energy.

    Destruction’s crappy poems! Why hasn’t she shared this with the world? We could end our dependence on fossil fuels, we could…oh, right. She’s spiteful. That’s why.

  • Anonymous

    [trigger: body image]

    This, a million times!

    Also, class war. Until the modern period most people, at least intermittently, didn’t get enough to eat even in rich countries. If you could afford a three course dinner every day, then by heck you flaunted it by putting on weight, while the plebs went cold and hungry (and thin).

    Nowadays most people (not all) in rich countries can actually get at enough calories to survive, so the way to show off is to live on a dainty diet of obscure fruits flown 10,000 miles in refrigerated aircraft while the plebs make do with fried crap and bad bread (and get fat).

  • hagsrus

    Ah, Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia… I have the Main Talk Page bookmarked for a daily headdesk giggle.

  • Anonymous

    There are plenty of perfectly ‘howevers’ that can be put in a sentence like that.  Maybe not that sentence, but a sentence like that…
    “I don’t believe murderers should be put to death, however, I do believe they should be punished.

    Sanctuary forces enemies to ignore a cleric as long as they take no offensive action.

    ‘Forces to ignore’ here means that ‘enemies must pass a will save to attack anyways’.

    From 3.5

    Any opponent attempting to strike or otherwise directly attack the warded creature, even with a targeted spell, must attempt a Will save. If the save succeeds, the opponent can attack normally and is unaffected by that casting of the spell. If the save fails, the opponent can’t follow through with the attack, that part of its action is lost, and it can’t directly attack the warded creature for the duration of the spell. Those not attempting to attack the subject remain unaffected. This spell does not prevent the warded creature from being attacked or affected by area or effect spells. The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act.

    In other words, the enemy can *see* you perfectly fine, and may attack if they pass a will save.  Likewise, they *can* target you with AoE spells freely, but *any* attack from you, against a character, object or a point in the environment, breaks the sanctuary.  It is indeed a good way to protect yourself for a variety of purposes at low levels, but it is by no means guaranteed invinciblity.You could do your trick with invisibility, though.  Although wizards especially will probably see through it..

    In that light, attacking a police officer equating to a stiffer penalty is on shakier ground than most hate-crime legislation. One should have to be able to show the police officer was attacker BECAUSE they were a police officer.

    It’d be a start to say that it only ‘counts’ if the officer is acting under ‘color of law’, or as you say, attacked because they are a police officer.

    Ex-freakin’-zactly. The logical conclusion of the women-use-sex-for-control argument is that rape is justified if they withhold sex.

    The ‘logical conclusion’ only if you start with some pretty crazy premises.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Yup. Yup. The ‘in’ look is whatever poor people can less afford to look like.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    On the subject of Phyllis Schlafly, I think the appropriate punishment for her would to be forced to live in a society that is exactly like she claims to want.

    Actually, I have a much better punishment in mind for Phyllis Schlafly.  When she is lying on her deathbed, I want her to be visited by one of her granddaughters who is a navy S.E.A.L. so she had a chance to tell her grandmother that she is getting married to a wonderful woman before Phyllis dies. 

    Yeah, I know it is implausible, but the thought of her dying peacefully with the knowledge that she failed to revert society fresh in her mind is a rather sweet one. 

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    ‘Forces to ignore’ here means that ‘enemies must pass a will save to attack anyways’.

    I should have mentioned that we were playing Second Edition at the time.  We also had a party wizard who had an invisability spell ready to alternate with the Sanctuary. 

  • Anonymous

    it’s like the light bill,  only for the whole country.

    That’s a great analogy.

    However, now I want to see each government agency issue bills to everyone with a job in the country. 

    “Honey!  The bill from the Department of Defense is here!”

  • http://jakobknits.blogspot.com Jake

    I really don’t get how you can feel okay about wishing for an old woman to feel pain. My hope for Phyllis Schlafly is that she be stopped from inflicting the harm that she inflicts. Ideally this would also make her happy, but that’s not necessary because what really matters to me is that she stop. To wish her pain instead of or in addition to that seems needlessly cruel. Why become her?

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I really don’t get how you can feel okay about wishing for an old woman to feel pain. My hope for Phyllis Schlafly is that she be stopped from inflicting the harm that she inflicts. Ideally this would also make her happy, but that’s not necessary because what really matters to me is that she stop. To wish her pain instead of or in addition to that seems needlessly cruel. Why become her?

    Because in this case I feel like that is an important part of empathy.  To inflict harm on others without remorse leads to people like Phyllis Schlafly.  It allows her to feel jolly and righteous for spreading pain.  I would like to take the pain she spreads, and make her look upon it in a way that she cannot ignore, in a way that hits home with her.  

    The fact is, if she were to realize what she were doing, if she were to come to terms with all the pain she inflicted, then yes, she would hurt.  Anyone not completely divorced from the consequences of their actions would.  If she saw how what she was doing was hurting her family, then she must be forced to acknowledge it.  

    Remind her that she is human, like the rest of us, and that she gets hurt, like the rest of us, and her tune must necessarily change.  

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    The fate of one of Terry Pratchett’s villains was to have his entire life flash before his eyes – from the perspective of all his victims.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    ¹ Professionally diagnosed, just to be clear. I’m wary–considering how
    recent the diagnosis was–of using it as an excuse, but trying to accept
    that the reality is that apparently there’s an actual reason I do some
    things in an odd fashion, and telling myself it’s all my fault and I’m a
    terrible, horrible, no good, very bad person doesn’t help me learn to
    correct it.

    Same here. I was only diagnosed last month. It explains a LOT about my childhood, and much of my adulthood. And I’m running into the same problems you are.

  • FangsFirst

    All I could do was “like”! IT WON’T LET ME POST! ARGH!

  • FangsFirst

    Since I can apparently post again: New Aspie fist bump! Or something!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    ::Fist Bump::


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X