In light of the recent ableism on my feed, I'd like to reiterate that I am a clinical sociopath, I have traumagenic ASPD, and I'm not ashamed of it because it's out of my control. It's as much a neurodivergent disability as autism/ADHD/OCD/etc is, and people with ASPD deserve as much respect as anyone else. Here's some key ohrases that are considered ableistic language when referring to someone who has ASPD.
"You're a psychopath" or "You're a sociopath" - These terms are often thrown around casually or used as insults, which stigmatizes and oversimplifies complex mental health conditions. This one is the only really tricky one, because you shouldn't assume what strain of ASPD someone has, nor should you apply it to someone who doesn't have ASPD. You can call someone with ASPD a socio/psychopath as long as it's not in a derogatory manner and they have confirmed they are okay with being referred to as such (like myself).
"You have no empathy" - While reduced empathy can be a characteristic of ASPD, using this as a blanket statement can be dehumanizing and dismissive.
"You're just evil" - Labeling someone as inherently evil because of their condition contributes to harmful stereotypes.
"People like you can't change" - This phrase reinforces the misconception that individuals with ASPD are incapable of personal growth or improvement.
"You're dangerous" - Assuming that everyone with ASPD is violent or a threat to others perpetuates fear and stigma.
"You don't care about anyone but yourself" - This phrase reduces the person to a stereotype and ignores the nuances of their experiences and behaviors.
"You're just a manipulator" - This phrase reduces complex behaviors to a negative stereotype, ignoring the underlying struggles that someone with ASPD might face.
"You must be a criminal" - Associating ASPD with criminal behavior reinforces harmful stereotypes and ignores the diversity of individuals with the disorder.
"You're heartless" - This phrase dehumanizes the person and dismisses any capacity for emotional depth or connection.
"You can't be trusted" - Assuming that someone with ASPD is inherently untrustworthy is unfair and contributes to social isolation.
"You don't have a conscience" - This phrase oversimplifies the nature of ASPD and ignores the complexities of morality and behavior in individuals with the condition.
"People like you are born bad" - This statement implies that individuals with ASPD are inherently flawed or evil from birth, which is both stigmatizing and scientifically inaccurate.
"You should be locked up" - Suggesting that someone with ASPD should be institutionalized or incarcerated solely based on their diagnosis promotes fear and discrimination.
"You're incapable of love" - Assuming that someone with ASPD cannot experience or express love is reductive and perpetuates harmful myths.
"You have no morals" - This statement unfairly labels individuals with ASPD as completely lacking in ethical principles, ignoring the complexities of their experiences. Morals are things humans are taught, not things we are born with.
Assuming any of these things about somoene with ASPD that you don't personally know is just as ableist as assuming someoneyou don't know who has autism does or doesn't need accommodations based on how "normal" they seem to you (just an example).
Online harassment has become an increasingly pervasive issue, affecting individuals across all platforms. From subtle microaggressions to outright threats, harassment takes many forms, each with its own set of consequences. In this post, we'll break down the different types of online harassment, their impact, and what can be done to address them.
Important vocabulary: Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information that deliberately intends to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.
Let's start with what does not count as harassment:
What Doesn't Count as Harassment
Constructive Criticism: Offering feedback aimed at improving someone's work or behavior. For example, a manager providing an employee with feedback on how to improve their performance.
Disagreement or Debate: Engaging in a civil disagreement or discussion on a topic. For example, two colleagues having a heated but respectful debate about a work-related issue.
Enforcing Rules or Policies: Applying rules or policies in a consistent and fair manner. For example, a teacher enforcing classroom rules or a supervisor addressing attendance issues according to company policy.
Isolated Incidents: A single, non-repetitive instance of a comment or action that might be offensive but is not part of a pattern of behavior. For example, a colleague making an offhand remark that could be seen as rude but immediately apologizes.
Perceived Slights or Misunderstandings: Situations where an action or comment is misinterpreted or taken out of context. For example, someone feeling slighted because of a misunderstood joke that wasn’t meant to offend.
Friendly Banter or Jokes (If Mutual): Light-hearted exchanges that both parties understand and accept as non-offensive. For example, friends or close colleagues teasing each other in a way that both find funny and acceptable.
Normal Management Actions: Legitimate management actions taken in the course of business, like performance reviews, promotions, or disciplinary actions. For example, a supervisor assigning tasks based on job performance and business needs.
Cultural Differences: Actions or behaviors rooted in cultural norms that may be misunderstood but are not intended to be offensive. For example, a greeting or gesture that is customary in one culture but may seem strange or awkward in another.
Refusal of Unreasonable Requests: Declining a request that is not reasonable or within someone’s rights to refuse. For example, an employee refusing to work overtime that was not agreed upon in their contract.
Addressing Harassment: Communicating to someone that their behavior is harassing you, when it is true. This can help make the individual aware of the impact of their behavior, seek resolution, validate your experience, set boundaries, and follow legal or organizational procedures. For example, telling a coworker that their repeated comments about your appearance are making you uncomfortable and asking them to stop.
Now let's break down what does count as harassment:
Disinformation and Defamation of Character
Definition:
Disinformation: This refers to false information that is deliberately created and spread to deceive or mislead others. It’s often used to manipulate public opinion, discredit individuals, or cause confusion.
Slander: This involves making false spoken statements that damage someone’s reputation.
Libel: Libel is similar to slander but involves false statements made in a fixed medium, typically written or published online.
Defamation of Character: This is a broader term encompassing both slander and libel, referring to any false statement, whether spoken or written, that harms a person's reputation.
As Harassment:
Disinformation becomes harassment when it is used maliciously to harm an individual's reputation or cause them distress. This might involve spreading false rumors about someone’s actions or beliefs, or fabricating stories to discredit them.
Slander/Libel/Defamation become harassment when false statements are made with the intent to damage someone's character or standing in the community, leading to social, professional, or personal harm. This is particularly damaging when spread online, where false information can quickly reach a wide audience.
Examples:
Disinformation: A group creates and spreads a false narrative that a well-known activist has engaged in illegal activities, with the aim of discrediting their work and damaging their public image. The false information is shared widely across social media platforms, leading others to believe the activist is untrustworthy.
Slander: During a live podcast, a speaker falsely accuses a colleague of being involved in unethical business practices. Even though the accusation is baseless, listeners begin to question the colleague's integrity.
Libel: An online blog publishes an article falsely claiming that a local politician has been accepting bribes. The article spreads rapidly, causing the politician to face public scrutiny and potentially affecting their career.
Impact on the Victim:
Emotional Distress: The victim may experience anxiety, stress, and a sense of powerlessness as their reputation is attacked. This can lead to mental health issues such as depression or anxiety disorders.
Social Isolation: As the false information spreads, the victim may find themselves ostracized by their community, friends, or professional network. They may be unfairly judged or treated differently by others who believe the falsehoods.
Professional Consequences: Defamation can result in job loss, damage to professional relationships, or loss of business opportunities, especially if the victim’s reputation is central to their work.
Financial Damage: The victim might incur legal costs in attempting to clear their name or experience a loss of income due to damaged reputation.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: In many jurisdictions, victims of defamation of character can pursue legal action against the perpetrator. They may sue for damages to compensate for the harm done to their reputation. However, these cases can be complex, requiring proof that the statements were false, made with malicious intent, and caused harm.
Platform Policies: Many social media platforms have guidelines against spreading false information and may take action by removing content or banning users who engage in such activities. However, enforcement can be inconsistent.
Ethical Implications: Even if legal action isn’t taken, spreading false information or engaging in defamation is ethically wrong and can have serious consequences for both the victim and society as a whole. It undermines trust in information sources and can contribute to a culture of misinformation and cynicism.
Disinformation and slander/libel can be deeply damaging, both personally and professionally, and are forms of harassment that are taken seriously both legally and ethically.
Amplifying Disinformation and Slander
Definition:
Amplifying Disinformation: This refers to the act of spreading or sharing deliberately false or misleading information created by someone else. It involves reblogging, retweeting, sharing posts, or forwarding messages that contain disinformation, even if the person amplifying it isn’t the original creator.
Amplifying Slander: This involves spreading spoken false statements about someone that are damaging to their reputation. It often occurs in social interactions, such as sharing gossip or rumors.
Amplifying Libel: This is similar to amplifying slander but involves sharing written or published false information that harms someone’s reputation. It typically occurs on social media, blogs, or other written formats.
As Harassment:
Amplifying Disinformation becomes harassment when it is done with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth. By spreading false information, individuals contribute to the harm caused to the victim, including damage to their reputation, emotional distress, and social or professional consequences.
Amplifying Slander/Libel becomes harassment when the person sharing the information knows it is false or harmful but continues to spread it, thereby further damaging the victim’s reputation and standing. Even if the person amplifying the content isn't the original source, they are still participating in and perpetuating the harm.
Examples:
Amplifying Disinformation: After seeing a tweet that deliberately spreads a false narrative about a political figure being involved in a criminal activity, a user retweets it with a comment that suggests they believe it, spreading the disinformation to their followers. The false claim quickly gains traction, causing the political figure significant public backlash.
Amplifying Slander: During a group chat, one person repeats a false rumor they heard about a coworker being unfaithful. Even though the rumor is baseless and was created with malicious intent, it quickly spreads through the workplace, damaging the coworker’s reputation and personal relationships.
Amplifying Libel: A person shares an article on their Facebook page that falsely accuses a local business owner of engaging in fraudulent activities. Although they didn’t write the article, their act of sharing it contributes to the spread of the disinformation, leading to a decline in the business owner’s customer base.
Impact on the Victim:
Increased Harm: The more widely disinformation or slander is shared, the more damage it can cause. As the false information reaches a larger audience, the victim may face increased social ostracization, professional setbacks, or emotional distress.
Difficulty in Correcting the Record: Once disinformation or slander is amplified, it can be challenging for the victim to correct the falsehoods. The spread of false information can take on a life of its own, making it hard for the truth to prevail.
Reputational Damage: The victim may suffer long-term harm to their personal and professional reputation, which can affect their relationships, career, and social standing.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: Amplifying disinformation, slander, or libel can expose the person spreading the false information to legal liability, particularly if they knowingly shared it with the intent to cause harm. In some cases, they may be sued for defamation or held responsible for damages caused by the spread of false information.
Ethical Responsibility: Even if there is no legal liability, those who amplify false information have an ethical responsibility to verify the accuracy of what they share. Spreading disinformation or slander without regard for the truth is unethical and can contribute to a culture of harassment and mistrust.
Platform Policies: Social media platforms often have policies against the spread of disinformation and may take action against users who repeatedly amplify harmful content. This could include warnings, suspensions, or permanent bans.
Amplifying disinformation and slander is a serious issue that can cause significant harm to individuals and communities. Those who engage in this behavior, even if they aren’t the original creators of the content, play a crucial role in perpetuating the damage and may face legal and ethical consequences.
Cyberbullying
Definition:
Cyberbullying involves the use of digital platforms, such as social media, messaging apps, or online forums, to repeatedly target, intimidate, or belittle an individual. It is a form of bullying that occurs online and can include various forms of aggressive behavior.
As Harassment:
Cyberbullying becomes harassment when the behavior is intentional, repeated, and causes significant emotional distress or harm to the victim. It can involve sending threatening or abusive messages, spreading rumors, or using online platforms to isolate or degrade someone.
Examples:
Personal Attacks: A student repeatedly sends mean-spirited and threatening messages to a classmate through a messaging app. These messages include insults, threats of violence, and derogatory comments about the victim’s appearance and personal life.
Public Shaming: A group of people creates a social media page specifically to post embarrassing photos and make derogatory comments about an individual. The posts are shared widely, leading to public humiliation.
Spreading Rumors: An individual creates fake profiles to spread false and harmful rumors about someone, such as accusing them of dishonest or immoral behavior. This false information is shared across multiple platforms, damaging the victim’s reputation.
Impact on the Victim:
Emotional Distress: Victims of cyberbullying may experience feelings of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. The constant online attacks can lead to severe emotional distress and a sense of helplessness.
Social Isolation: The victim may withdraw from online and offline social interactions due to fear of further harassment. This isolation can lead to a decline in social support and relationships.
Academic and Professional Impact: For students, cyberbullying can lead to decreased academic performance and school avoidance. For adults, it can affect job performance and professional relationships.
Physical Effects: The stress and anxiety caused by cyberbullying can result in physical symptoms such as headaches, sleep disturbances, and a weakened immune system.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws specifically targeting cyberbullying. Legal actions can include restraining orders, criminal charges for harassment or threats, and civil lawsuits for damages. Laws vary by location, so the availability and extent of legal recourse depend on local regulations.
Platform Policies: Social media platforms and online services often have policies against cyberbullying. Users who engage in such behavior may face account suspension, bans, or content removal. Reporting mechanisms are available for victims to report abusive behavior.
Ethical Implications: Cyberbullying is ethically unacceptable as it inflicts unnecessary harm and distress on individuals. It contributes to a toxic online environment and can have severe consequences for victims. Promoting respectful and positive online interactions is crucial for fostering a supportive digital community.
Cyberbullying is a serious issue with far-reaching effects on individuals’ mental health and well-being. Addressing it requires both legal action and ethical responsibility, with efforts focused on prevention, support for victims, and creating a safer online environment.
Doxxing
Definition:
Doxxing (or "doxing") is the act of publicly revealing or publishing private, sensitive, or personal information about an individual without their consent. This information might include details like home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and workplace locations. The term "doxx" originates from the word "documents," reflecting the sharing of documents or personal details.
As Harassment:
Doxxing becomes harassment when the intention is to harm, intimidate, or distress the individual whose information is being exposed. It can be used to provoke harassment from others, incite physical threats, or damage the victim's privacy and security.
Examples:
Public Exposure: An individual’s personal details, such as their home address and phone number, are posted on a public forum or social media site after a heated online argument. This leads to unwanted contact and harassment from strangers.
Threatening Behavior: An online user publishes sensitive information about a journalist who has been critical of certain groups. The journalist starts receiving threatening messages and is forced to take security precautions.
Intimidation Tactics: After a disagreement in a gaming community, a player’s real-life address and contact information are shared with the community, leading to in-person threats and harassment.
Impact on the Victim:
Safety and Security Risks: The victim may face threats of physical harm or stalking due to the exposure of their personal information. This can lead to a heightened sense of vulnerability and fear.
Emotional Distress: Victims often experience significant emotional stress, including anxiety, fear, and a sense of invasion of privacy. The knowledge that their personal information is publicly accessible can be deeply unsettling.
Social and Professional Consequences: The victim’s reputation can be damaged, leading to unwanted attention and negative interactions in their personal and professional life. They might experience social ostracism or job-related issues as a result of the doxxing.
Financial Impact: In extreme cases, victims may incur costs related to increased security measures, legal fees, or changes in their contact information.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions consider doxxing a criminal offense, particularly if it involves threats, harassment, or incitement to violence. Laws related to privacy, harassment, and cybercrime can be applied to address doxxing. Victims can often seek legal protection or file complaints with law enforcement.
Platform Policies: Social media platforms and online services typically have policies against doxxing. They may take action such as removing the offending content, suspending accounts, or providing support to affected users. However, enforcement can vary.
Ethical Implications: Doxxing is ethically problematic as it involves a deliberate invasion of privacy and can lead to severe consequences for the victim. It violates principles of respect and confidentiality and contributes to a hostile online environment.
Doxxing represents a serious breach of privacy and security, with the potential for significant harm to individuals. Addressing doxxing requires both legal measures and a strong ethical commitment to protecting personal information and respecting others’ privacy.
Stalking
Definition:
Stalking involves persistent and unwanted attention or surveillance of an individual that causes them to feel fear or distress. It can occur through various means, including physical following, digital monitoring, or repeated harassment through communication channels. The intent is often to intimidate or control the victim.
As Harassment:
Stalking becomes harassment when it is done with the intent to cause emotional or psychological harm, invade the victim’s privacy, or exert control over their actions. The behavior is characterized by its repetitive nature and the fear it instills in the victim.
Examples:
Physical Stalking: An individual repeatedly shows up at the victim’s home or workplace, waits for them outside, or follows them in public places despite being asked to stop.
Digital Stalking: A person continually monitors the victim’s online activities, sends frequent and unwanted messages or emails, tracks their location through social media check-ins, and creates fake profiles to gain more access.
Harassing Communication: The stalker sends numerous threatening or intrusive messages, calls, or letters, making the victim feel unsafe and overwhelmed. This can include persistent contact despite clear requests to cease communication.
Impact on the Victim:
Emotional Distress: Victims often experience high levels of anxiety, fear, and paranoia. The constant sense of being watched or followed can lead to severe emotional trauma and mental health issues, such as depression or panic attacks.
Social Isolation: Victims may withdraw from social activities or change their routines to avoid the stalker. They might also feel compelled to move or alter their personal lives significantly to ensure their safety.
Professional Disruption: Stalking can interfere with the victim’s work life, leading to decreased productivity, job dissatisfaction, or even job loss if the stalking occurs at their workplace or affects their professional reputation.
Physical Safety: In severe cases, stalking can lead to physical threats or attacks, putting the victim's safety and well-being at risk. This may necessitate physical security measures or legal protections.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have specific laws against stalking, which can include criminal charges and restraining orders. These laws address both physical and digital stalking behaviors, providing legal avenues for victims to seek protection and hold perpetrators accountable.
Platform Policies: Social media platforms and online services often have policies against stalking and harassment. Victims can report stalking behavior to these platforms, which may take action such as banning the perpetrator or removing harmful content.
Ethical Implications: Stalking is ethically unacceptable as it infringes on an individual’s right to privacy and security. It represents a severe violation of personal boundaries and can cause lasting harm. Ethical behavior involves respecting others' personal space and ensuring that interactions remain consensual and respectful.
Stalking is a grave form of harassment that involves a persistent invasion of privacy and control over the victim’s life. Addressing it requires both legal intervention and ethical commitment to safeguarding individuals' personal safety and well-being.
Hate Speech
Definition:
Hate speech refers to any communication—whether verbal, written, or visual—that disparages or incites violence or hostility against an individual or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It involves expressions that promote hatred or violence towards people based on these characteristics.
As Harassment:
Hate speech becomes harassment when it is used to target individuals or groups with the intent to demean, intimidate, or incite violence against them. It often creates a hostile environment and contributes to systemic discrimination and exclusion. The impact of hate speech can extend beyond the immediate target to affect entire communities.
Examples:
Social Media Posts: A user posts derogatory comments and slurs about a specific racial or religious group, encouraging others to join in and spread similar messages. These posts can lead to a climate of hostility and exclusion for members of the targeted group.
Online Forums: On a discussion board, members share and amplify content that advocates violence against LGBTQ+ individuals, including graphic threats and dehumanizing rhetoric. This can make LGBTQ+ users feel unsafe and unwelcome on the platform.
Hate Groups: Organized hate groups use websites and social media to recruit and spread propaganda that targets specific ethnic or religious groups. Their messages include misinformation, inflammatory statements, and calls for discriminatory actions.
Impact on the Victim:
Emotional Harm: Victims of hate speech often experience emotional and psychological distress, including feelings of fear, anxiety, and depression. They may feel dehumanized or marginalized.
Social Exclusion: Hate speech can lead to social ostracization and reduced participation in community or public activities. Victims may withdraw from online communities or public spaces to avoid hostility.
Physical Safety: In severe cases, hate speech can incite real-world violence or harassment against individuals or groups, leading to physical harm or threats. It can also contribute to a climate of fear and insecurity.
Community Impact: Hate speech can contribute to broader societal divisions and tensions, fostering environments where prejudice and discrimination are normalized.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: The legality of hate speech varies by jurisdiction. Some countries have specific laws that criminalize hate speech, while others protect freedom of speech more broadly, making legal action challenging. In regions with laws against hate speech, victims may have the option to report incidents to law enforcement or seek legal remedies.
Platform Policies: Many social media platforms have policies prohibiting hate speech and may take action by removing content, suspending accounts, or banning users who engage in such behavior. However, enforcement can be inconsistent, and some platforms may struggle to balance moderation with free speech considerations.
Ethical Implications: Hate speech is widely regarded as unethical because it promotes discrimination and intolerance. It undermines the principles of respect and equality, contributing to societal harm. Addressing hate speech requires a commitment to fostering inclusive and respectful communities, both online and offline.
Hate speech is a serious form of harassment with far-reaching effects on individuals and communities. Recognizing its impact and taking action to prevent and address it is crucial for promoting a more respectful and inclusive digital environment.
Trolling
Definition:
Trolling is the act of making deliberately provocative, offensive, or off-topic comments with the intention of eliciting strong emotional responses from others. It often involves disrupting conversations, creating conflicts, or stirring up controversy for amusement or to upset others.
As Harassment:
Trolling becomes harassment when the intent is to target specific individuals or groups with the purpose of causing emotional distress, confusion, or frustration. This involves consistently targeting someone with offensive or inflammatory comments, aiming to disrupt their online experience or provoke a reaction.
Examples:
Social Media Comments: A user repeatedly posts inflammatory or offensive comments on posts related to sensitive topics like mental health or personal identity. Their goal is to provoke arguments, upset the original poster, and attract attention to their own posts.
Forum Disruption: On an online forum focused on a specific hobby or interest, a troll deliberately posts off-topic or derogatory comments to derail discussions, causing frustration and confusion among regular members.
Live Stream Interference: During a live stream, a troll bombards the chat with spam, offensive messages, and provocative statements to distract the streamer and viewers, disrupting the content and conversation.
Impact on the Victim:
Emotional Distress: Victims may experience frustration, anger, and stress as a result of trolling. The constant need to address or ignore disruptive comments can be mentally exhausting.
Disruption of Conversations: Trolling can derail meaningful discussions and create a hostile environment, making it difficult for others to engage in productive or enjoyable conversations.
Reduced Participation: The presence of trolls can lead to decreased participation in online communities, as users may avoid engaging with platforms or topics where they have previously been targeted.
Psychological Impact: Persistent trolling can contribute to anxiety, depression, or feelings of helplessness, particularly if the troll’s comments are deeply personal or offensive.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: The legal response to trolling varies by jurisdiction and the nature of the trolling. While many forms of trolling do not constitute a criminal offense, behaviors that involve threats, harassment, or incitement to violence may be actionable under cybercrime or harassment laws.
Platform Policies: Most social media and online platforms have community guidelines that address trolling. They may take action such as removing offending content, suspending accounts, or banning users who engage in trolling behavior. Enforcement can vary, and some platforms struggle to effectively manage trolling.
Ethical Implications: Trolling is generally considered unethical because it aims to disrupt, harm, or manipulate others for personal amusement. It undermines respectful and constructive communication and can contribute to a negative online culture. Addressing trolling involves fostering a more respectful online environment and encouraging positive interactions.
Trolling is a form of online harassment that can have significant emotional and social impacts on individuals and communities. Recognizing and addressing trolling behavior is important for maintaining healthy and respectful online interactions.
Impersonation
Definition:
Impersonation involves creating or using a fake identity to deceive others into believing that you are someone else. This can include pretending to be a public figure, a private individual, or a professional entity. The goal is often to mislead or manipulate others for various purposes, including personal gain, harassment, or deception.
As Harassment:
Impersonation becomes harassment when it is used to target individuals with the intention of causing harm, spreading false information, or engaging in malicious activities. This might involve creating fake profiles or accounts to misrepresent someone or to exploit their identity for harmful purposes.
Examples:
Social Media Accounts: A user creates a fake social media profile pretending to be a well-known celebrity or public figure, using it to post misleading or harmful content that could damage the real person’s reputation.
Email Scams: An individual sends emails from an address that looks like it belongs to a trusted authority or organization (e.g., a company executive or a government official) to deceive recipients into providing sensitive information or making financial transactions.
Online Fraud: Someone impersonates a person in an online dating profile, using fake photos and personal details to manipulate or exploit other users emotionally or financially.
Impact on the Victim:
Reputation Damage: The victim may suffer from reputational harm if false or misleading information is spread using their identity, leading to confusion, mistrust, or negative perceptions among their audience or associates.
Emotional Distress: Being impersonated can lead to significant emotional distress, including anxiety, embarrassment, and frustration. The victim may feel violated and powerless, particularly if the impersonation is done in a malicious or humiliating way.
Professional Consequences: For public figures, professionals, or businesses, impersonation can lead to professional repercussions, including loss of business opportunities, legal issues, or damage to professional relationships.
Financial Impact: If impersonation involves fraud, the victim may suffer financial losses or be involved in lengthy and costly legal battles to address the situation.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws against impersonation, including identity theft, fraud, and misrepresentation. Victims may have legal avenues to pursue, such as filing complaints with law enforcement or taking civil action to seek damages. The specifics of legal recourse vary depending on local laws and the nature of the impersonation.
Platform Policies: Social media and online platforms often have policies against impersonation. They may take actions such as verifying identities, removing fake accounts, or suspending users who engage in impersonation. Effective enforcement of these policies can be challenging, especially given the scale of online interactions.
Ethical Implications: Impersonation is generally considered unethical because it involves deception and manipulation. It undermines trust and can have serious consequences for individuals and organizations. Ethical behavior online includes respecting others' identities and avoiding deceptive practices.
Impersonation can be a serious form of online harassment with far-reaching effects on both individuals and organizations. Addressing and preventing impersonation involves understanding its impacts, pursuing legal remedies when necessary, and fostering ethical online behavior.
Spamming
Definition:
Spamming refers to the repeated, unsolicited sending of messages or content, often with the intent to overwhelm, disrupt communication, or promote something, usually in a commercial context. It can occur through email, social media, messaging platforms, or other digital channels.
As Harassment:
Spamming becomes harassment when it is used to intentionally annoy, intimidate, or overwhelm an individual or organization. This might involve flooding someone's inbox with unwanted messages, bombarding a social media profile with repetitive or abusive comments, or inundating forums with irrelevant or harmful content. The goal is often to disrupt normal communication or to cause distress.
Examples:
Email Spamming: A user receives hundreds of unsolicited promotional emails, some of which contain malicious links or phishing attempts. The volume of spam clutters their inbox and makes it difficult to manage legitimate communications.
Social Media Spamming: An individual’s social media account is flooded with repetitive comments or messages from the same user or group. These comments might be abusive, irrelevant, or aimed at disrupting the user’s ability to engage with others on the platform.
Forum Spamming: A user continuously posts irrelevant or disruptive messages in online forums or discussion boards, often to derail conversations, promote products, or harass other users.
Impact on the Victim:
Overwhelm and Stress: The victim may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of messages or content, leading to stress and frustration. Managing or filtering through spam can be time-consuming and mentally taxing.
Disruption of Communication: Spam can disrupt normal communication, making it difficult for the victim to focus on important messages or tasks. It can also crowd out legitimate content or conversations, reducing the effectiveness of communication platforms.
Privacy and Security Risks: Some spam messages may contain malicious links or attachments that can compromise the victim’s privacy or security, leading to potential data breaches or identity theft.
Financial Impact: For businesses, spamming can lead to loss of productivity, increased costs related to managing or mitigating spam, and potential damage to their reputation if customers are affected.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws against spamming, especially when it involves malicious intent or financial fraud. For instance, the CAN-SPAM Act in the U.S. regulates commercial email and provides guidelines for managing spam. Victims of spam may also seek legal remedies for damages or file complaints with relevant authorities.
Platform Policies: Most digital platforms and services have policies against spamming. Violations can result in penalties such as account suspension, banning, or removal of the offending content.
Ethical Implications: Spamming is considered unethical as it disregards the recipient’s consent and aims to exploit or harass individuals. It disrupts normal communication practices and can contribute to a negative online experience for users.
Spamming, when used maliciously, can have significant negative impacts on individuals and organizations, and is addressed by legal frameworks and platform policies to protect users and maintain the integrity of digital communication.
Making Threats
Definition:
Threats to Harm Others: These are statements or actions that express an intention to cause physical harm or violence to another person. These threats can be explicit (directly stating the intention to harm) or implicit (suggesting harm or intimidation).
Threats to Harm Oneself: These are statements or actions that express a desire or intention to self-harm or commit suicide. Such threats may be made in distressing contexts and can indicate serious emotional or psychological issues.
As Harassment:
Threats to Harm Others: When threats are made to harm others, they can be a form of harassment if the intent is to intimidate, control, or manipulate the target. This can involve direct threats or veiled warnings intended to cause fear or distress. The impact can be significant, causing emotional and psychological trauma, and creating a sense of insecurity or danger for the victim.
Threats to Harm Oneself: Threats of self-harm can also be a form of harassment if they are used manipulatively or to provoke a response from others. In some cases, individuals may use threats of self-harm to exert control or to gain attention, which can create distress and concern among those who are aware of the threats.
Examples:
Threats to Harm Others:
Direct Threat: A user posts a message on social media stating, "I will come to your house and hurt you if you don’t stop talking about me." This explicit threat aims to intimidate the recipient.
Implicit Threat: An individual leaves a comment on a public forum suggesting, "People like you should be careful about what they say," followed by a vague reference to "consequences." This implies potential harm without explicit details.
Threats to Harm Oneself:
Direct Threat: A user posts on a social media platform saying, "I’m going to end my life tonight. I don’t see any way out." This expresses a clear intention to self-harm.
Implicit Threat: An individual frequently posts messages or updates about feeling hopeless and discusses self-destructive thoughts without explicitly stating their intent to self-harm, but hinting at severe distress.
Impact on the Victim:
Emotional and Psychological Trauma: For threats to harm others, victims may experience fear, anxiety, and a sense of vulnerability. The threat of violence can lead to psychological stress and trauma.
Behavioral Changes: Victims of threats may change their behavior to avoid potential harm, such as avoiding certain places or people, or taking additional precautions for their safety.
Distress and Concern: For threats of self-harm, friends, family, and others may experience significant emotional distress and concern, feeling helpless or anxious about the individual’s well-being.
Intervention and Support: Threats of self-harm often prompt intervention from mental health professionals or emergency services, which can be disruptive and may lead to involuntary treatment or hospitalization for the individual making the threats.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse:
Threats to Harm Others: Making threats of violence can be illegal in many jurisdictions. Victims can report these threats to law enforcement, who may investigate and take legal action if necessary. Criminal charges can be brought against individuals making credible threats of harm.
Threats to Harm Oneself: While threats of self-harm are not typically illegal, they often prompt intervention by mental health professionals and emergency services to ensure the individual’s safety. In some cases, these threats may lead to involuntary hospitalization or treatment if the person is deemed a danger to themselves.
Platform Policies: Many online platforms have policies against threats of violence and self-harm. Content that violates these policies may be removed, and users making such threats may be banned or suspended. Platforms often have mechanisms for reporting and addressing these issues.
Ethical Implications: Both types of threats raise serious ethical concerns. Making threats to harm others is fundamentally unethical and can have legal consequences. Threats of self-harm require sensitive handling, as they indicate significant distress and necessitate a compassionate response to address the underlying issues and provide appropriate support.
Threats, whether directed towards others or oneself, are serious and can have profound impacts on all involved. They are addressed through legal channels, platform policies, and ethical guidelines to protect individuals and provide necessary support.
Sexual Harassment
Definition:
Sexual Harassment: This is unwanted and unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that creates a hostile or intimidating environment. It can occur in various forms, including physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct. Sexual harassment is often characterized by a power imbalance and can occur in both professional and personal contexts.
As Harassment:
Sexual Harassment becomes harassment when it involves making someone feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demeaned through sexual advances, comments, or behavior. This includes behavior that interferes with the victim’s ability to participate in work or social environments and can create an atmosphere of intimidation or hostility.
Examples:
Verbal Harassment: Making inappropriate or suggestive comments, jokes, or propositions about someone's body or sexual activities. For instance, repeatedly commenting on a colleague’s appearance or making unwelcome advances.
Physical Harassment: Unwanted physical contact, such as touching, groping, or brushing up against someone in a manner that makes them uncomfortable. This can also include gestures or displays of sexually explicit material.
Non-Verbal Harassment: Sending sexually suggestive messages, images, or using body language that implies sexual interest or intent. This includes persistent staring or creating an atmosphere with sexually explicit material.
Online Harassment: Sending unsolicited explicit messages or images through social media, email, or messaging platforms. This can also involve tagging someone in inappropriate content or making unwanted advances through digital communication.
Impact on the Victim:
Emotional Distress: Victims may experience a range of emotional responses, including anxiety, depression, and fear. The harassment can lead to a diminished sense of safety and self-worth.
Professional Consequences: In a workplace setting, sexual harassment can affect job performance, career progression, and workplace relationships. Victims may face challenges in their professional environment, such as being passed over for promotions or experiencing isolation from colleagues.
Social and Personal Impact: Harassment can lead to a loss of confidence, social withdrawal, and strained personal relationships. Victims might avoid certain places or situations to escape harassment or its reminders.
Physical Health: The stress and emotional impact of harassment can manifest physically, leading to issues such as sleep disturbances, headaches, or other stress-related health problems.
Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws and regulations against sexual harassment. Victims may have legal avenues to pursue claims, such as filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the U.S. or similar bodies in other countries. Legal action can result in compensation for damages, changes in workplace policies, or other remedies.
Platform Policies: Online platforms and workplaces typically have policies prohibiting sexual harassment. Violations can lead to account suspension, removal of content, or disciplinary actions against offenders. Reporting mechanisms are often available to address harassment claims.
Ethical Implications: Sexual harassment is a severe violation of ethical standards and personal boundaries. It undermines the dignity and rights of individuals and perpetuates a culture of inequality and fear. Ethical responses involve creating safe and respectful environments, actively addressing and preventing harassment, and supporting victims.
Sexual harassment is a serious issue with significant legal, ethical, and personal implications. Addressing it effectively requires a combination of legal action, supportive policies, and a commitment to creating respectful and safe environments for all individuals.
Understanding and addressing online harassment is crucial for fostering a safer and more respectful digital environment. From the deliberate spread of disinformation and defamation to the invasive impact of spamming and threats, each form of harassment has its own set of consequences that can deeply affect individuals and communities. Sexual harassment, in particular, represents a severe violation of personal dignity and can lead to significant emotional and professional harm.
By recognizing the different manifestations of harassment, from slander and libel to online threats and unwanted sexual advances, we can better equip ourselves to combat these issues effectively. Legal frameworks, platform policies, and ethical practices all play essential roles in addressing and mitigating harassment.
It is our collective responsibility to create and maintain environments—both online and offline—where individuals feel safe, respected, and heard. By staying informed, supporting victims, and holding perpetrators accountable, we can contribute to a more just and compassionate society. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and it is up to all of us to uphold these values in every interaction.
Online Harassment Online harassment has become an increasingly pervasive issue, affecting individuals across all platforms. From subtle micr
I saw this post you've made about autism and ASPD and it was really helpful and educative. But there is something that I would like to ask, it probably envolves ableism and stigmatization of Cluster B disorders so Trigger Warning for that. I've recently watched a video about an autistic girl claiming to have ASPD (she was actually diagnosed, so idk, maybe it was a misdiagnose but we can't really prove), and this was one of the comments...
By this person's tone and way or wording, it seems like they're demonizing ASPD, specially because in the video in question, the autistic girl is compassionate and informative about ASPD and attempts to destigmatize the disorder. But since you already educated in your post about how having both autism and ASPD is impossible, I'm confused on how to feel about this comment. Specially because the replies were all ableist and demonizing ASPD. I feel like the comment wasn't trying to be educative on how having autism and ASPD is incorrect, but rather saying "well the girl in the video isn't a monstrous serial killer therefore she doesn't have ASPD". Am I being ignorant???? Sorry if this is dumb ;(
Anyway the video in question is this: https://youtu.be/QXXJHnE2_to?si=WCf-KrjKLLb7RZQ5
Absolutely not inappropriate to ask!!!
this is super super fucking long so I'm giong to put a readmore because I'm sooo fucking tired im on so many energy drinks rn i just got off a 14 hour shift but like holy hell do i wanna answer this rn you have brought me a gift i shall tear into it
Word count: 4.3k
One of the weird issues that I have with the psychology sphere when it comes to ASPD is that people see like symptoms that align with sociopathic traits and don’t consider the neurology behind it, which happens a lot in both the general population and the clinical sphere!!! My psychologist that had me set up long term for my ASPD diagnosis also diagnosed me with autism shortly after setting me up because my parents (specifically my dad) pushed for it even though all of my “autistic traits” were literally just basic antisocial behavior (as in literally anti-social, where the name for ASPD comes from, being uninterested in being social) but my dad had autism and I have ADHD (still undiagnosed even though I’ve been evaluated a lot growing up my dad literally fucking threatened my doctors yayyy Idaho and abusive parents)
The fact of the matter too is that like we don’t know when she got diagnosed, etc. a LOT of better understanding has come out about ASPD but only in the past few years, I barely understood my own fucking disorder until two years ago and when I tell you that I’ve gone above and beyond to try to understand it so I can help other people to understand it I mean all the fun essays I write??? Hours and hours of reading articles and first person accounts and even second person accounts!!! And my own experiences too ofc
I got diagnosed with autism 6 years ago. I’ve been viscerally aware of my ASPD for 8 years. My dad all but blackmailed my psychologist to get me diagnosed with autism so he could have an “easy” explanation to my anti-social behavior (he quite literally believes that ASPD is demonic possession, I don’t look forward to the day he realizes he has NPD worthy of diagnosis and heartbreakingly obvious to literally everyone in our family’s social circle. When I told him I have ASPD (he already knew but denial is a hell of a drug) he quite literally called me Satan and threatened to shoot me if I ever stepped foot into his house again. I currently live with him, so fun times, fun times, that probably gives some insight onto why the fuck I’m misdiagnosed)
Anyways that aside even I didn’t understand that neurologically autism and ASPD just don’t mesh (again I’m not saying it’s *impossible* purely because then next thing you know timmy 700 years in the future will manage it. But like 99.99999% of the time it’s not happening (as in yes impossible) and I’ve yet to see an example) until a year ago!!! When I first started talking about ASPD I was under the belief due to my misdiagnosis of autism that you could have both because it’s hard to unlearn something you’ve been spoon fed for years! I’m still trying to figure out how to schedule an appointment for a reevaluation (curse you no insurance) to get it removed because I’m nottt autistic lmfao
Anyways back to my original train of thought (insert adhd squirrel joke here) essentially there’s a shit ton of misdiagnosis both ways. A lot of people with ASPD get misdiagnosed with autism (symptomatically they present similarly on a surface level!!! So I understand that but that’s why it’s important to understand the neurological aspect of psychological disorders!!! Autism is a social disability, ASPD is an emotional disability! There’s a difference!!!). And often times people with autism diagnosed with “ASPD” are either misportraying NPD/BPD or they have DEFENSE MECHANISMS (these can be unlearned!!!) that are sociopathic (this is an adjective) in nature.
At this point I, an unlicensed non-professional, am going to watch the video and I will provide mild commentary where I see fit.
First and foremost "she said she'll disown me if i talk about my disorders" which is honestly more common than I like when it comes to mental health in general, but especially aspd and npd, those are both very heavily demonized, almost as much as the most common paraphilias (which I talked about on my side blog for my fucked up white boy disorder @rambles-of-mental-illness random self promo time), and yeah like I said I literally got threatened with gun violence the first time I even tried to talk to my dad about my own ASPD lmfao so I'm not shocked. It's always good to make sure that you have a support system in place, something I will note is that she seems to like be trying to make the disownment a lesser deal than it is, laughing, saying it's "whatever", etc. She may actually not care, but fuck even I cared about being threatened with disownment to the point that I literally never brought up my ASPD to my dad again (the gun violence and satan claims didn't bug me, it was being told that he would cut me off it I didn't "knock it off and grow up" because he's my dad and I love him and a common misconception with ASPD is that you don't love people (platonically) or care about them you do it's just different than how a non-ASPD person would, my care isn't the same as your care and it's hard to explain and is a post for another day but the best I can sum it up as is sentimentalism and tactical survivalist as well as personal advantage and convenience instead of just I care bc you exist). Anyways yeah no being threatened like that is so hard and it's likely that she hasn't really thought this through if that's a genuine concern (plenty of mental disorders (including ADHD which is highly comorbid with ASPD and ASD) have impulse issues), and I do hope she was okay after this video was posted.
I will say that it sounds like she's not fully processed being ostracized, and that she's definitely emotionally hurting from it despite claiming that she doesn't care (which is valid, like I said earlier), there's a lot of self-soothing laughter and mild humor going on which is a pretty common coping mechanism. The way that I see a difference between this and what I'd call ASPD humor is that there's a certain shape to her tone and expressions where it's not the same as like genuinely finding it funny, I'd almost describe it as she's cringing as she's making it into a joke (which is smth I do when I'm processing things still so I understand that) instead of actually being okay with it.
I do agree that there is a heavy stigma around ASPD (and it's sister disorder NPD). Not important but I don't like how she pronounces socio/psychopathy ajdfkls;fjafs super weird thing to point out but i don't pronounce it like that lmfao.
Annnd she lost me lmfao. "Antisocial personality disorder doesn't acutally have anything to do with being antisocial" and narcissistic personality disorder has nothing to do with being narcissistic and I'm the pope of rome. I think this is going to be the first of many spots where I'm going to go "oh. oh no. she has no idea what she's talking about."
The dictionary definition and a reddit explanation of antisocial that I think explains the word itself pretty well.
Being antisocial doesn't necessarily mean you don't want to be around people, it just means anti (against) social (society/people).
The problem with that claim is that it confuses the pop culture use of the word ‘antisocial’ (as in ‘I don’t like parties, I keep to myself, I’m shy/introverted’) with its actual definition. In psychology — and literally in the dictionary — antisocial means against social order, against the norms that allow people to live together, against the rights of others.
So being antisocial doesn’t necessarily mean ‘avoiding people.’ It means opposing or disregarding society’s rules and other people’s safety/rights. That’s exactly why it’s the core term in antisocial personality disorder. The person isn’t ‘asocial’ (lacking social drive); they’re ‘antisocial’ (hostile to or unconcerned with the social contract).
To put it another way:
Asocial = prefers to be alone, uninterested in interaction.
That distinction is Psychology 101. Pretending ASPD ‘has nothing to do with being antisocial’ isn’t correcting a misconception, it’s just flattening the language into nonsense
Now this bit "breaks rules, violates norms, disregards others" can accidentally feed stigma so I want to quickly elaborate on what it actually means outside of the connotation because it doesn't mean that sociopaths are violent people who are going to go out of their way to hurt people haha. In practice, what this looks like is much broader and often a lot quieter:
Cutting corners without guilt (stealing small things, lying when it’s convenient, manipulating to get by).
Disregarding obligations or responsibilities (dropping commitments, ghosting, ignoring authority).
Struggling with empathy in a way that makes other people’s needs feel abstract or unimportant.
Being indifferent to consequences or social expectations — not necessarily malicious, just detached.
Violence can exist in ASPD, but it’s not universal and it’s not required for diagnosis. Plenty of people with ASPD live relatively low-key lives where their antisocial traits show up in emotional detachment, chronic lying, or rule-bending — not in crime sprees. That’s why it’s important to stress that “antisocial” in the clinical sense doesn’t mean “avoids people” or “wants to hurt people.” It means having a fundamentally different relationship to rules, empathy, and the social contract. Which again is why I'm saying she's fucking bogus and doesn't know what she's talking about
Me when the interviewer corrects her makes out with the interviewer. Me and him are having a spring wedding and 1000000 cats. Essentially I just expanded on what he just told her, I should note I'm literally pausing and writing as I watch this so that's why it's so long and you don't wanna know how long I spent writng this already.
OH HE'S HOT. Anyways. uh. coughs
She definitely has someee. . . ego issues going on. I've been skeptical from the start about all this due to how often people with autism mistake NPD for ASPD symptoms (considering there's a v high rate of people with NPD having autism (like how people with ASPD tend to have ADHD (this does not work vice versa))) and it's definitely feeling that way. Ego is not an issue with ASPD. Pride is, definitely, my pride is always my downfall 1000% of the time haha but ego? You couldn't PAY me to care what other people thought, even in high school and shit I couldn't give two fucks and that's how everyone who I've met with ASPD have also been, plus self reported from diagnosed sources. She seems way too concerned with the way other people are perceiving her and not in the way you'd expect from ASPD (which is I need to at least be passing as socially acceptable in specific situations or I will lose things that I want/have earned, which also isn't 24/7 and isn't relative to personal want but instead social advantage).
I have so many issues with the statement "different type of person that has trouble feeling emotions who has probably been hurt" it just one: shows a MASSIVE lack of understanding and research and a LOT of ignorance about what ASPD is. You don't just develop aspd because your parents didn't support your rap career, as I've said on my side blog I've been drafting up a post about the correlation of child TORTURE and developing ASPD to show what specifically I mean when I say heavy and prolonged child abuse is a REQUIRED factor to properly be diagnosed with real ASPD. Two: I just don't like the term different kind of person people with ASPD aren't different kinds of people than the rest of the world and that wording could've been done better considering how often the term sub-human is used to degrade pwASPD.
Off topic but I lowkey think she's annoying and I'm trying not to let that bias my response to the video but oughhh oughhhh she's pissing me offfff. Anyways uhhh not too sure how I feel about her claim to have never cared about anyone in her life (once again shows ignorance to the disorder, and to how it developed. As I've said in the past I can literally give you the year I *stopped* caring about people I wasn't strongly bonded with already. And to this day there are people I care about to the point that I WILL humble myself (I hate doing this to the point I would rather eat a brick) if I hurt them or upset them. My mom, I love her sm. I care about my dad too, just differently. My girlfriend lemon, and my "adoptive" online mom pixelchills I also care about a lot, and ofc my bf @zthesheep who also has ASPD and my mahal so like 6 whole people!!! and my besties like y'all i care about a lot of people just not in the same way non-aspd people do) so uh yeah I'm not. Too sure how to feel bout that lol. Even with ASPD you get favorite person syndrome too. uhhh. yeah no basically what I'm getting at is that people with ASPD do care, but it looks and feels different than people without ASPD to the point that it feels alien to the rest of y'all and her claiming that she doesn't care just fucking feeds the stigma that ASPD people aren't capable of caring and also feeds the invalidation of the way ASPD people care because it's "unconventional" so once again ignorance and she shouldn't be talking about this disorder atp in my opinion.
Yeahhh okay no hearing her talk about a. not understanding basic human interactions and why people do the things they do and b. that she doesn't understand what happiness feels like or what love feels like that's. . . not. the disorder. at all. I'm honestly getting a little upset haha but I'm going to make this claim now and we'll see if I change my mind later but I don't think she has ASPD at all. Definitely autism, that all sounds v right as far as I'm aware for emotionally repressed autism, but not ASPD. In the slightest. It really feels like she googled the symptoms or her shrink googled the symptoms, got a bunch of misinformation from the early 2000s and stigma and didn't bother actually doing any research and slapped a label on and it's really. upsetting because this is not the representation pwASPD want or need, and shit like this does more harm than it can ever do good in the long and short term
btw i'm only 7.5 minutes in
I'm not going to comment on the abuse aspect because she doesn't go into details, she just says physical abuse which could literally be anything from like yk physical discipline (spanking, popping the mouth) to like being beat up and kicked yk so i'm not making a call there without details.
The fact that she says she doesn't lie or manipulate people anymore also raises red flags to my "is this ASPD" alarm because I'm 20 and high-functioning and a decent member of society who isn't violent and doesn't commit crimes and i still lie and manipulate people, in fact I *enjoy* lying and manipulating people because it makes me feel smart, I just save it for when it's deserved (read as when I find child predators in my community spaces and get to blast them on main for sending porn to 14 year olds) and then I gloat about it to my little circle of friends they're used to it by now (do they always appreciate it? probably not however I take a lot of pride in my skills)
Hearing the way she describes joseph lowkey bugs me also skill issue i make out with my best friends all the time we're the best friends ever i fucking love my best friends get on my level (i'm so tired)
The "I wake up angry" line actually reminds of my low functioning NPD ex, uh me personally insane that she claims that she has ASPD and feels that way since emotional deadening works both ways for ASPD (my ass is so bad at holding grudges wdym you're supposed to be upset with someone for longer than the 5 minutes it takes to express that you're upset). I've also heard this from other ASPD folk, it's just not easy to hold onto that active emotion, I'm much better at passive emotion and I know that like if I'm stressed for a long time then I bulid up this weird resentment stew but it's not like in my day to day. Also when I say people with ASPD tend to have anger issues it is NOT that kind of anger issues (i'll make a post clarifying that later)
Me when she says she got diagnosed because of a psychopath test:
This is the test btw
ONLY TWO QUESTIONS WERE REMOVED FROM A TEST MADE IN THE 70s AND THIS IS WHAT MADE THEM SAY SHE HAS ASPD??? Hold on I gotta take this test rq (not to mention that like teehee all over the place she claimed to be a sociopath but took a psychopath test okayyy twin)
wtf is the npd #1 symptom doing here
I'm crying anyways i included the betterhelp thing bc FUCK betterhelp everyone knows their a scam. Also if this is how you're diagnosing people with a disorder that can literally RUIN their careers and livelihoods you deserve to get your license fucking TORN IN HALF
Interesting that she says she doesn't try to hurt people. Ever. Sits here and sips my "disregard for others and violation of other's rights" tea as someone who has absolutely tried to hurt and upset people, even people i love and care about, just because i'm an impulsive little shit who likes shiny buttons yeahhh nooo. I do also find it odd how like whenever she's questioned on do you or do you not feel bad her answer is that she doesn't know like it's a yes or a no and it sounds like a no from the way ur laughing honey. I woulda said no i'm just saying
Why why why bring up serial killers dude there was no reason to tie that stigma into this oughhh personal complaint but again ignorance
16 minutes in btw
The fact that she started to blame her ASPD on the fact that she's an adult diagnosed autistic fucking blows me away what. What.
I was going to say earlier that it definitely does feel like she's got smth like C-PTSD going on so not shocked that she listed that in the diagnoses.
The fact that she's so obsessed with finding a partner is another thing that makes me go hm, but also we don't know her romantic orientation. Just feels like a good point to nudge into chat of a reminder that due to the empathy issues in ASPD pwASPD are on the aromantic spectrum (this does not mean they are repulsed, they could be demi, cupio, aro, etc, and it has nothing to do with sexuality).
Just listening to her and she just shows a very strong LACK of understanding of basic psychology. And two the ego goes hard wtf there's no need to be that demeaning towards other people. Oh btw chat NPD also has empathy issues it's just not the main focus of the disorder (all four cluster b disorders struggle with empathy in their own ways). Also the fact that she keeps going on and on about how she always feels angry again!!! reminds me a lot of my low-functioning npd ex, and my dad who's low-functioning npd. It sounds like low-functioning npd and like yk goes back to my statement about how like people with autism who claim to have ASPD are confusing NPD traits. Also to correct her math it's closer to 1 in every 50-100 people have ASPD, if that. The statistics are VERY fucking skewed because of over diagnosing in prisons for literally even just going into a cell and also psychologists who think they should diagnose you based on an online test from the 70s. I would, personally, put it at less than 1% of the population if you cleared out the prison bullshit.
Okay and finished it uh. I think that she should look at NPD lmfao.
Yk I was sooo ready to like kill that commentor, but I'm not even a fucking psychologist and I also don't think she has ASPD. Now she definitely has issues, but I think that's the furthest thing from the mark and like again this is not the rep that people with ASPD need or want. She plays into a lot of stereotypes and stigmas and most of her explanations are textbook stereotype that fit other issues better than ASPD but always get lumped in as ASPD because ASPD is "bad person disorder". More than one disorder can cause empathy issues and social connection issues and overall she just feels very very ignorant of the shit she's saying and how harmful it is to portray ASPD the way that she is.
I. I actually fully agree with this person.
And like I'm again not a professional, but I went to college for psychopathology (changed to business bc I want nothing to do with the american psychology sphere and this is why) and I'm on year six of studying it intensively on my own (which is basically what psychologists do anyways, give me one more year of it in college and I would have my bachelors degree in psychology). I also as I've said a lot on this blog haha, I got set up for diagnosis for ASPD when I was 14 years old, it's been a long while. I've also devoted so much time to learning specifically about ASPD because it's not just "oh i don't feel things" and "i struggle with relationships" disorder.
And yeah no I do think that the fact that, as someone who been here in the atmosphere (drops of jupiter in my hair), that like no the fact that she doesn't hurt people intentionally is just another disqualifier. It is literally a diagnostic criteria to disregard people's wellbeings and that's a diagnostic criteria I support!!! The main diagnostic criteria we hate here is the "must be committing crimes" one. Bitch I haven't committed a crime in a month (mmm shoplifted donuts - I shoplift a lot of donuts from my gas station), but not everyone with ASPD is committing crimes and outside of the states that's not a symptom of ASPD so like everyone boo the USA.
I did hunt down the comment itself, but I wouldn't say that those replies underneath are demonizing or being ableist at all. I think she's deeply confused, and deeply misinformed, and misdiagnosed (ESPECIALLY if she's autistic which it is v v v obvious to me that she is at the least neurodivergent in some way). I agree that she is probably just autistic, and deeply traumatized, and needs a shrink who isn't going to use a 1970s psychopathy test to diagnose her.
Considering the comment section is both filled with people with autism and some people with ASPD going "mmm this doesn't seem right" I feel pretty safe to say that yeah no I wouldn't call this ASPD at all. I know that yes yes it's just ONE video but you can learn a lot from 30 minutes and the way that she talks about the disorder I can just tell despairingly easily she is deeply misinformed on what ASPD is.
I hope she's able to get the help and support she needs tho, she seems like she had good intentions, but even good intentions can be harmful if they're sending the wrong message and she very much is not sending the right message. Misdiagnosis is illegal in some states and I hope that she was exaggerating how she got diagnosed because I would have revoked that dude's license.
Based on what she’s said, nothing lines up with ASPD as it’s defined, and a lot of it actually contradicts it. I’m not saying I can diagnose her, but I strongly disagree with her claim to have ASPD because what she describes is inconsistent with the disorder. What she’s describing fits stereotypes and other disorders better than ASPD
Also to clarify the "hurting people" doesn't mean murder or physical damage it can literally be as small as taking advantage of someone's kindness or saying something in a way you know will make them anxious/upset them because you're bored or you think you were slighted (not in an ego way but a prideful way) and you feel the need to level the playing field (not everyone with ASPD has this urge but a good amount of them do, myself included). It's more often emotional harm than physical, but harm is harm regardless.
Anyways no I don't think you're being ignorant, at least not on purpose, and I do think you brought this up with good intentions!!! hopefully this is helpful because I actually really enjoyed analyzing this and hopefully it helps you get a better understanding of ASPD in the long run <3
It’s midnight but I’m here and I’m unfortunately queer and I’m thinking about how ASPD is inherently tied into my romantic orientation.
Romantic attraction requires emotional connection. People with ASPD struggle to form, and may even be incapable of forming, proper emotional connection with other people, including their own parents. Which means that people with ASPD struggle to feel or may never feel romantic attraction.
Which means that all full-blown clinical psycho/sociopaths fall somewhere on the aromantic spectrum.
Hey guys, here's a reminder that if queer people are allowed to reclaim slurs against them and POC people are allowed to reclaim slurs about them then so are people with ASPD.
We are allowed to reclaim the terms sociopath and psychopath because we are the people those terms are targeted against. If you don't have ASPD? You don't get to have an opinion.
Everyone I've met and conversed with who also had ASPD are comfortable with the terms sociopath and psychopath being used to describe clinical ASPD.
Saying that we are not allowed to reclaim the term because you personally don't agree with it? Good for you, but you're not the one being stigmatized against. You don't get to have an opinion about this because you are not the one being affected by it. Stop being offended for other people who are trying to make the world a kinder place for themselves.
Empowerment and Ownership: Reclaiming a term can be a way for individuals to take control of a label that has been used to stigmatize or dehumanize them. By owning the term, they can redefine it on their own terms, reducing its power to harm.
Challenging Stigma: The terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" are often used in a derogatory manner and can contribute to the stigma around mental health disorders. Reclaiming these words can be a way to challenge and change the narrative, promoting a more accurate and compassionate understanding of ASPD.
Creating Community: Reclaiming a term can foster a sense of solidarity and community among those who share similar experiences. It can help individuals with ASPD connect with each other and advocate for their needs and rights.
Promoting Awareness and Understanding: By reclaiming and redefining these terms, people with ASPD can raise awareness about the disorder and its complexities. This can lead to greater empathy and understanding from the public and professionals.
Rejecting Misuse: Reclaiming terms can be a way to reject the misuse of these words in ways that are harmful or incorrect. It can help ensure that the terms are used in a manner that is respectful and informed.
Affirming Identity: For some, reclaiming these terms may be a way to affirm their identity and experiences. It can be a way to express pride in who they are, despite societal prejudices.
If POC and LGBTQ+ people get to reclaim terms used to stigmatize them then so do we. Denying us of that because you don't personally agree with it is rude, and calloused, and I'm going to fucking say it, borderline ableist. These words are not for you, they are for us.
And I choose to have pride in who I am instead of letting people ridicule and demonize me for it. I'm a clinical sociopath, I have ASPD, and people who don't have ASPD are going to have to fucking accept that because they are not me and they do not get a say in this.
so i heard there’s a stereotype that people with ASPD like attention and act out to get it
ofc that’s a stereotype so idk if it’s true
but the reason i’m mentioning it is cuz, i have a friend that is diagnosed with ASPD (they showed me your blog actually), and they have this mortifying fear of being perceived-ish(?)
it’s like- pretty bad?
i used to think they had severe social anxiety-
it’s the sort of thing where they’d rather be nothing more than a background character people would forget exist, in their own little bubble with the very few people they hang out with pop in every now and then
so like-
this example contradicts the stereotype, so i though i’d ask your POV(?) thoughts(?) on it
Heya! Attention seeking is not a part of ASPD at all, and someone who has that trait while also having ASPD probably has a comorbid disorder! Cluster B disorders can mishmash, I actually talked about it on my thread so hold on.
There's actually a whole list of ways the different disorders can combine by more or less being a weird mix and mash of two different disorders in the cluster B spectrum (For some reason narcopath is the only ship name disorder). Also most of these are the common use name for the specific combos rather than clinical ones bc the clinical ones kinda suck and cause controversy
- Narcopath (Sometimes referred to as Malignant Narcissism): Anti-social + Narcissistic
- Covert Narcissism: Borderline + Narcissistic
- Dramatic Narcissism: Histrionic + Narcissistic
- Dramatic-Emotional Disorder: Histrionic + Borderline
- Dynamic Histrionic: Histrionic + Anti-social
- Covert Antisocial: Anti-social + Borderline
I also talked about this specific stereotype the other day. It's less of a stereotype and more of a mix-up with NPD. The two disorders get mixed up a lot by the public.
People with ASPD tend to accidentally attract a lot of attention, from my experience and what I've noticed from others. We have a tendency for adrenaline-seeking behavior, which could put us in the spotlight. We're also very much surface-level people-people, if you know what I mean. Anyone we meet could be a potential ally, so we keep everyone on our good side as much as possible. That doesn't mean we're seeking attention, it just means we're a magnet for interaction because people love charisma.
I also have horrible social anxiety, and I'm a really paranoid person. I'm literally the kind of person that will cross the street to avoid a stranger, and my throat tightens up when I pass by someone while walking next to a road because I'm worried they're going to shove me into traffic. Paranoia just comes with the territory, most of the time, and I make it clear when I'm not willing to socialize. People tend to leave me alone because I am a walking "fuck off". The thought of being perceived is horrifying actually, and I try not to think about how large my fanbase is because that's also horrifying.
I'm just doing my own thing with my select group of people I interact with on a daily basis, and then a larger bubble of people I interact with less often. I don't have any desire to expand the smaller bubble, but I'm not against gaining more acquaintances should the opportunity present itself. But over all, I think people are tedious and they're all ticking time bombs because empathy makes you irrational.
Even the psychologists got that part right. Wow look at them go.
Silly little ASPD fact that most sociopath's don't have an ego, and there's not even a stereotype that claims they do. Rather, it's people mixing up NPD and ASPD. (Btw we love our NPD havers on this blog, y'all chilling.)
Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD):
Individuals with ASPD typically display a pattern of disregard for the rights of others. They may exhibit behaviors like deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability, aggression, disregard for safety, and lack of remorse. They often manipulate or exploit others, which can stem from a self-serving instinct, but this does not necessarily mean they have a grandiose ego in the same way as someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD):
Individuals with NPD have a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and in some cases a lowered sense of empathy. They often have an inflated sense of their own importance and are preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
The confusion might arise because both disorders can involve manipulative behavior and a lack of empathy, but the underlying motivations and self-perceptions can differ. People with ASPD don't tend to have the same need for admiration or the same grandiose fantasies that are characteristic of NPD.
None of this means that people with NPD or ASPD are inherently bad people. People should be defined by their actions, not their disorders.
My face when people make shit up and then genuinely get upset over the fantasy in their heads
Do you guys know the meaning of a delusion?
A delusion is considered a cognitive error because it represents a fundamental misinterpretation or distortion of reality within someone's thought processes. Cognitive errors are mistakes in thinking that lead to incorrect beliefs or judgments, often due to faulty reasoning, biased perceptions, or misinterpretations of information.
Distorted Perception: In a delusion, the individual misinterprets sensory input or experiences. For example, they might see a neutral interaction as threatening or believe that benign events have special, personal significance. This misperception is the result of an error in how the brain processes and interprets information.
Faulty Reasoning: Delusions involve a breakdown in logical reasoning. The person may jump to conclusions based on insufficient or inaccurate evidence, or they may cling to a belief despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This faulty reasoning leads them to form and maintain incorrect beliefs.
Confirmation Bias: A cognitive bias known as confirmation bias, where they selectively focus on information that supports the delusion and disregard information that contradicts it. This reinforces their false belief and prevents them from considering alternative explanations.
Fixed Belief: Once established, a delusion is typically held with strong conviction, even in the face of conflicting evidence. This rigidity is another cognitive error, as it reflects an inability to adjust one's beliefs based on new or contradictory information.
Disclaimer: Anyone can experience a delusion without having an underlying mental health condition. Delusions can arise from stress, trauma, intense emotions, or even strong beliefs that become irrationally fixed. In these cases, the delusion is usually specific to a particular situation or belief, rather than a symptom of a broader mental health disorder. It’s a cognitive error where someone misinterprets reality, leading them to believe something that isn't true, even without any other signs of mental illness.
