Question Concerning Behavior And Rules

[moritheil]

Being dyslexic is not shameful or anything.

Calling someone dyslexic who very well may not be is insultive. Basically, it seems that what they said is so messed up to you, that the only way it could have happened is if they are dyslexic, non english speaker, or messed up. Its like that what they said could not have been done on purpose so there has to be some underlying reason for the mistake. It is very dismissive and again insulting.

But I don't understand why someone would claim to have proof, and offer it, when they obviously don't. "He said so" has never been, in my understanding, sufficient proof for anyone of anything - it's not a mathematical proof, it's not a legal proof, and it's not a philosophical proof. Even kids have trouble believing things just because so-and-so said so. So I really don't get why someone would say something like that and call it a proof. It is very strange to me, on a level with standing in front of me and telling me the sky is green, when I can look up and see that it's blue, or handing me a ten dollar bill and telling me it's a hundred dollar bill, when I can clearly see that it's a ten.

How should I politely convey this fact?

It was my understanding that offering a possibility wherein a mistake was not someone else's fault is a polite thing to do. For example, I once posted correcting someone who misread the SRD, and asked if he missed it because it was late in his time zone. He responded with a smile and noted that it was indeed late where he was. It was my understanding that this was more polite than simply telling him he was wrong. My understanding of mental disability such as dyslexia is that it is similarly not the poster's fault for putting a wrong word in. But I'm seeing that apparently to most EN Worlders there is a real stigma associated with it, so I shouldn't bring it up.

 

[Kelleris]

No, the difference is that if it turns out not to be late where they are, the poster doesn't really feel insulted. If you suggest that they might be mentally disabled and they are not in fact so, you are that point effectively claiming that they are idiots, because their post shows clear signs of mental disability without them having a legitimate reason to display such functional problems, other than just being stupid.

It has nothing to do with the social stigma or lack thereof of being mentally disabled.

 

[Crothian]

But I don't understand why someone would claim to have proof, and offer it, when they obviously don't. "He said so" has never been, in my understanding, sufficient proof for anyone of anything - it's not a mathematical proof, it's not a legal proof, and it's not a philosophical proof. Even kids have trouble believing things just because so-and-so said so. So I really don't get why someone would say something like that and call it a proof. It is very strange to me, on a level with standing in front of me and telling me the sky is green, when I can look up and see that it's blue, or handing me a ten dollar bill and telling me it's a hundred dollar bill, when I can clearly see that it's a ten.

Different people have different burdens of proof. This is not acedemia, this is a discussion board that sometimes reads like its acedemia. So, you have to be able to deal with the whole "Different strokes for differnet folks" thing.

How should I politely convey this fact?

When someone offers a quote like that ask they provide a link to the source. You don't have to make it sound like you don't believe them or anything all you have do do is post something like:

I wasn't aware Monte Cook had said that, could you please provide a link to that so I can read more?

My understanding of mental disability such as dyslexia is that it is similarly not the poster's fault for putting a wrong word in. But I'm seeing that apparently to most EN Worlders there is a real stigma associated with it, so I shouldn't bring it up.

This says to me you don't get it. You are placing the blame on all of EN World and not yourself. Now, here is where I could ask you if you have some mental defect that makes you not understand. Or it could be possible that you are from a different place that has different understanding then the rest of us. Or perhaps you just mistyped this. THough, I'm pretty sure that all three of those don't apply to you.

 

[moritheil]

You're seriously asking me to list everything that anybody could say that would be regarded as impolite? I'm afraid I can't do that!

Unfortunately, it appears that you just don't see these things the same way as the rest of us. Basic civility is something which most people naturally understand, but not something I think I can explain to you in depth. Half of me thinks you're just pretending not to understand (for whatever reason), because I am finding hard to believe that you don't get it. If you honestly don't get it, I honestly don't know what I can do to make it clearer to you.

I'm not trying to be awkward here, I'm just confounded by your situation, and don't feel qualified to help you out with it.

Heh, I do see that that request is sort of extreme, when you put it that way. I do not feel that I don't understand basic civility at all, but rather that my appreciation of the civil does not entirely intersect with yours.

Er, I've just responded to Crothian with something about my concept of dyslexia/mental disability. Rather than repeat it, I'll try to summarize.

Primus: Dyslexia or mental disability is not shameful or bad.
Secundus: Dyslexia is a reason people use the wrong terms sometimes.
Tertius: We have an instance where someone used the wrong term.
Quartus: Dyslexia is therefore a possible reason for this.

As dyslexia and mental disability are not inherently shameful or bad, and as they are possible factors in the situation, there is no logical harm or insult in asking if someone suffers from them.

Is my logic flawed?

If it will help you understand my thoughts, I will relate to you a case where I was similarly at a loss recently - a woman at a car rental place went into hysterics when someone told her the car she wanted wasn't available and offered to rent her a truck instead. "Absolutely not! I would not be caught dead in a pickup," she said, indicating that the very thought was offensive to her. To me, it seemed that the car rental staffer had nothing but trucks available, and he didn't see the problem with offering one, as it is a working automobile, and the woman presumably needed transportation. It seemed illogical and irrational that she was somehow offended by the offer to rent her a truck.

Now, everyone has preferences. I could understand that she might dislike trucks. But she acted as if she was offended by the offer itself, and I found that strange. To me, the offer to rent her a truck was value-neutral, and just a yes/no question. It did not involve any sort of veiled hint or insult that I could detect. And yet, here she was, clearly very offended, and wanting to speak to a manager.

It seems to me that there are a couple of possibilities here.

1. The insulting character of the question can be logically explained.
2. The insulting character of the question cannot be logically explained.

The second one is rather arbitrary, and I do not think from the responses that everyone is talking about something arbitrary, so I will assume that this can be logically handled. Logically, either it is true that dyslexia is not shameful and/or bad, in which case I don't see why mention of it is insulting, or it is true that dyslexia is shameful and/or bad, in which case that explains why it is insulting to ask such a question.

 

[moritheil]

I wasn't aware Monte Cook had said that, could you please provide a link to that so I can read more?

But that would not be sufficient to prove anything either, as I outlined in my original post on the matter. The other party's original post indicated that they could unequivocally prove something, so I naturally assumed that that confidence was backed up by an iron-clad proof.

 

[moritheil]

This says to me you don't get it. You are placing the blame on all of EN World and not yourself. Now, here is where I could ask you if you have some mental defect that makes you not understand. Or it could be possible that you are from a different place that has different understanding then the rest of us. Or perhaps you just mistyped this. THough, I'm pretty sure that all three of those don't apply to you.

I am offended by your lack of faith in my intellectual honesty, though I understand your other questions and therefore am not offended in the least by them.

The mods and many posters have stated that there is no shame in mental disability or dyslexia. Should I not take it at face value that there is nothing shameful about dyslexia? For example, there is no shame in owning a dog. Because of this fact, I can be reasonably certain that my asking if you own a dog is inoffensive. Is the statement that there is nothing shameful about being dyslexic not logically equivalent? Can I not logically then ask if you have dyslexia and expect it to be inoffensive, in the same manner that asking if you own a dog is inoffensive?

Everyone's posts here about how dyslexia is somehow intangibly different in some way that they can't simply explain suggests to me that perhaps some of them DO find it shameful and bad, but they do not wish to actually state this fact. That would be the only logical reason I can find for this kind of reaction. Of course, I am repeatedly assured that this is not the case, so I must wait for a resolution of the apparent paradox.

 

[moritheil]

It has nothing to do with the social stigma or lack thereof of being mentally disabled.

By your post, it clearly has to do with the concept that being stupid is shameful. Therefore, implying someone is stupid is insulting, because you imply that they possess a shameful condition.

But we've said that that's not the case here. Being dyslexic is not, going by what I've been told, shameful.

 

[Crothian]

But that would not be sufficient to prove anything either, as I outlined in my original post on the matter. The other party's original post indicated that they could unequivocally prove something, so I naturally assumed that that confidence was backed up by an iron-clad proof.

Again, iron clad to you is not iron clad to everyone else. The poster is allowed to think that this is iron clad. And you can disagree, but my statement starts you down the road of exploring their proof.

 

[moritheil]

If they actually were dyslexic, or mentally disabled, or whatever, then it's not pejorative.

But how will I know, unless I ask? If they don't want to talk about it, they can simply say, "I prefer not to talk about such matters," or ignore my post.

I don't see how I can be held accountable for knowing who out there is dyslexic (and therefore, by your statement, not offended) and who is not (and therefore, by your statement, offended.) The question itself is value-neutral. If you ask me if I'm dyslexic, I will reply no, not to my knowledge. I've been asked that before off-handedly in real life, without any apparent reason, and I was not offended in the least.

 

[Crothian]

The mods and many posters have stated that there is no shame in mental disability or dyslexia.

You are focusing on the wrong thing. It is not that some mental conditions are okay. It is the fact you are implying that only someone with a mental ciondition could post what they posted, and that is insulting. Calling some one who is a dyslexic a dyslexic is okay, calling someone who is not one a dyslexic is not. And by asking the question if they are, is seen as the same as calling someone that.