Special needs user

[Janet Voxel]

Wow....

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

but I guess I just don't see how it regains them any power, when an outsider can still harm them with it.

Just my thoughts. I remain respectful of other people's right to feel differently, but I'm just not convinced.

Well I guess one could make the case that, since they need to exhibit a 'reclaiming' behavior, on some level they felt hurt and so are defending against this by 'reclaiming'.  In that moment, I would say they're doing something positive -- they are reclaiming their power -- it was needed for them at that time.   Perhaps it rests on how one interprets 'defenses', in a strictly psychological sense -- do they serve a purpose or not?

[Selene Gregoire]

@Annabell Wandsworth

If you click this link it will show you what your limits are. https://accounts.secondlife.com/lindex/economic_limits

These are mine:

So LL does have a way to limit spending in SL. What it will take is someone with the authority (legal guardian or power of attorney) to perhaps request a reduction in the limits. While I have never heard of anyone requesting a reduction (everyone wants to increase) I don't see why LL wouldn't comply with the request, if it can be shown the person in question is putting themselves in financial danger. It won't hurt to ask/look into it. The worst LL can do is say no.

[Selene Gregoire]

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

The sarcastic point was that if we wish to never harm anyone, no one should ever speak, write or type.

Joy is in the ears that hear (or eyes that read), not in the mouth that speaks (or fingers that type).

[Selene Gregoire]

1 hour ago, Syo Emerald said:

When was that past? And regarding internet people: As far as I'm aware, white knight is an internet term itself.

Quote

Noun[edit]

white knight (plural white knights)

1. (business) An individual or corporation that intends to acquire another company in order to avert a hostile takeover.
2. (fiction) a hero, savior, or righteous individual
3. (figuratively, derogatory) Someone who unnecessarily defends someone else.

•  (informal, derogatory) A man who defends a woman in debate etc. in an attempt to gain her favour.

 

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

but I guess I just don't see how it regains them any power, when an outsider can still harm them with it

Perhaps the relevant point is that reclaiming helps oppressed groups feel more empowered via joking with each other regarding the arrows the oppressors leveled against them.  They are getting support from each other, and putting down the abuser. And when people feel more empowered emotionally they are actually more likely/able to take action.

Think of Trump and his "nasty woman" remarks -- women felt empowered by making 'nasty woman' jokes, wearing hats and t-shirts with 'nasty woman' on them...even in forums I saw 'nasty woman' by-lines during that time.  They refused to let Trump define powerful women as "nasty". 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Drake1 Nightfire]

7 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Asians are embracing the term "Yellow" (Not just in that movie, it's true.) Hey, GOLD is yellow and Silver is white, So there!  

Platinum is white as well.. 

Also, this thread went well off topic...

[Annabell Wandsworth]

16 hours ago, Bree Giffen said:

I think you can only speak with this person and make them aware that their spending habits are excessive when compared to other residents and to ask if they can set limits for how much they spend. I doubt LL has the ability to make decisions on the mental health of the residents and control their spending. 

I agree, and with those who said there isn't much I can do. I have tried to talk to him about it, and that he doesn't have to spend a lot of money in sl to have fun, but he is set on his path.

Thanks to everyone for your input.

[Annabell Wandsworth]

20 hours ago, Tarina Sewell said:

I do not think LL will boot him for spending money. ** BTW I spend way to much money on land and give people money as well...  (well buying things) **

I agree, but I will make a report nonetheless, just in case, with our chat log, which anyone reading would see he has some mental issues.

[Annabell Wandsworth]

17 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Really not your place. 

If you saw someone bleeding, you would try to help them, or would you say it wasn't your place to interfere?

[Annabell Wandsworth]

10 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Retardation, by definition, is what it is. If you or anyone else takes offense at or find using a proper term to describe a particular aspect of a subject to be insulting, then that is your issue, not the speaker or writer. Not using words or substituting silly pseudo-words for real words is how the language gets dumbed-down to stupid levels.

Thank you.

I thought of saying learning disabled, but that term seems more squishy, and I wanted all readers to understand what I meant. Whether or not you were offended by term of choice, you all knew exactly what I meant, which was my goal.

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

5 minutes ago, Annabell Wandsworth said:

17 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Really not your place. 

If you saw someone bleeding, you would try to help them, or would you say it wasn't your place to interfere?

Maybe he would let them bleed so that he wouldn't be called a white knight if he helped.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

42 minutes ago, Annabell Wandsworth said:

I agree, but I will make a report nonetheless, just in case, with our chat log, which anyone reading would see he has some mental issues.

How? are you going to file an AR? Send a note to support? What makes this your business? Is he a family friend, ex-lover, second cousin twice removed? Who are you to dictate how he spends his SL?

40 minutes ago, Annabell Wandsworth said:

If you saw someone bleeding, you would try to help them, or would you say it wasn't your place to interfere?

As a trained EMT i would definitely help them. This is hardly the same. 

1. You have no factual knowledge of his finances.
2. you dont even know his actual mental state, you "Think" he is mentally hindered. 

Why do you feel the need to police his spending? Do you have any real proof of how much he is spending? Leave the poor guy alone to have his fun.

 

[Luna Bliss]

10 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

1. You have no factual knowledge of his finances.
2. you dont even know his actual mental state, you "Think" he is mentally hindered. 

Why do you feel the need to police his spending? Do you have any real proof of how much he is spending? Leave the poor guy alone to have his fun.

What makes this your business? Is he a family friend, ex-lover, second cousin twice removed? Who are you to dictate how he spends his SL?

Drake, you are treating Annabell as if she is some sort of child or 'special needs' person herself who can't observe her experience in SL and make determinations based on it.
She didn't ask whether others thought this person has special needs. It's clear from her experiences with him that she believes he does.
She didn't ask whether anyone else believes it's right or wrong to help someone based on a type of relationship. It's clear that, whatever their relationship, she believes helping him is the right thing to do.
She only asked if there's anything she can do to keep him from being self-destructive here via spending all his inheritance  -- some sort of authority she could appeal to -- this is what she wanted feedback on.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Selene Gregoire]

Some just don't get that others care simply because people are human. That's all the reason I need to care what happens to people, even if I don't know them. They are human.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

30 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Drake, you are treating Annabell as if she is some sort of child or 'special needs' person herself who can't observe her experience in SL and make determinations based on it.
She didn't ask whether others thought this person has special needs. It's clear from her experiences with him that she believes he does.
She didn't ask whether anyone else believes it's right or wrong to help someone based on a type of relationship. It's clear that, whatever their relationship, she believes helping him is the right thing to do.
She only asked if there's anything she can do to keep him from being self-destructive here via spending all his inheritance  -- some sort of authority she could appeal to -- this is what she wanted feedback on.

Just because she believes he is special needs does not make her his keeper.

Him spending money does not inherently mean he needs help. She is assuming his spending is too much for him to bear. I would like to know what amount she's talking about. 

She has never said he is spending his inheritance. That was an analogy i made. 

I spend between 100 and 150 USD a month in SL. I routinely give clothing i have made away and buy gifts for people. If someone decided i was spending beyond my means and reported me to LL, I would lose my 💩. 

5 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Some just don't get that others care simply because people are human. That's all the reason I need to care what happens to people, even if I don't know them. They are human.

So you would be cool with some complete stranger telling you how to spend your SL? Telling you that you spend too much and to stop or they will report you to LL? 

[Alyona Su]

13 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Platinum is white as well.. 

Also, this thread went well off topic...

~Facepalms~ I HATE YOU!!!11!!ONE!

[Ceka Cianci]

And now for a musical commercial break from our sponsor,Bisquick

hehehehe

[Love Zhaoying]

10 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Some just don't get that others care simply because people are human. That's all the reason I need to care what happens to people, even if I don't know them. They are human.

What about us non-humans? Ohhhh, you mean the human behind the keyboard.

[Alyona Su]

12 hours ago, Annabell Wandsworth said:

Thank you.

I thought of saying learning disabled, but that term seems more squishy, and I wanted all readers to understand what I meant. Whether or not you were offended by term of choice, you all knew exactly what I meant, which was my goal.

Retardation simply means to "slow down" in a simple definition, I get it. Sure, you could have chosen a better set of words to describe it. Some feel I am "defending" use of the word and that is not the case at all, but rather I am scolding others for calling you out on it as though you intended to sling malice. And this is the entire point of all my comments in this thread. Using a word as a descriptive (by its definition) or as a means to discuss the word itself is what I will do. Including hate-filled words such as the dreaded n. i.g.g word (Too many N-words to use that ridiculous description) - however, using *any* word as a hate word and slinging it is where the emotional-effect is justified. In your case it was just a typical knee-jerk reaction, which is why I proclaimed people should "own your own mind" about it, enough with the knee-jerk nonsense.

I never use the word "disabled" to describe another person, that is insulting. It's not a hate words, but is a demeaning word. Physically-challenged may be more appropriate, perhaps? Handicap also would be a very appropriate word by definition, yet many handicapped people take offense to that word. This is why, in my purview, if anything I say offends you then it's your problem, not mine. I speak frankly and as clearly as I'm able. If you cannot understand the context of my words the way I intend them, then you should sue your school for leaving you with a simple education, or stop being impatient when reading the words of others and never pull meaning from a phrase other than what it actually says.

No one here in the forums writes better than I do.

However,  I did not say that I write better than anyone else, either.  But while reading the above sentence you, dear reader, rolled your eyes and prepared to plonk me hard in a reply, didn't you? Then reading the the first sentence of this paragraph is when actual understanding happened. See how that works?

Edited September 11, 2019 by Alyona Su

[Love Zhaoying]

19 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

1. (Figuratively, derogatory) Someone who unnecessarily defends someone else.

•  (informal, derogatory) A man who defends a woman in debate etc. in an attempt to gain her favour.

TIL!

[Amina Sopwith]

I don't actually think it went off topic. It was about how to be appropriately helpful and considerate towards people with disabilities, which are of course very wide-ranging in nature. OP is clearly well-intentioned and while she knew the R word was wrong, wasn't sure of a better alternative. Seemed totally in line to have a conversation about it.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Amina Sopwith
Don't even want the R word in here now, even in quotation marks and with a context.

[Robin Kiyori]

As somone with learning difficulties/mental problems I have but a few things to say. It going to be harsh, blunt and not very friendly.

 

1: Keep the R-word out of your godsdam mouth. The fact that you use it even when you confess that you know it's wrong but do it anyway casts doubt on you "concern".

 

2: Mind your own business. If he is legally an adult then there is zilch you can or should do. Espically if you don't know him in real life.

Honestly,  some of the repilies are really disturbing. This is a situation where we have no information aside from one person's account. So we should really not be encouraging a stranger to try and take away an adult's agency.

Because that is what some people are suggesting.

[Luna Bliss]

10 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

I routinely give clothing i have made away and buy gifts for people. If someone decided i was spending beyond my means and reported me to LL, I would lose my 💩. 

It can be difficult knowing when to help and when to step back when dealing with a special needs person. It's a constant dynamic that must be explored so that we don't limit their self-determination or freedom, yet we must keep their well-being and safety in mind as well. When working with autistic adults some years ago I saw how difficult this process can be to sort out. Likewise, my daughter teaches high-school aged kids with special needs and speaks to the difficulties of balancing freedom vs safety in meeting their needs.
One thing to keep in mind is that while a typical person without special needs might be very concerned about feeling free (as you mentioned you would be disturbed if anybody tried to curtail your freedom to spend as you wish within SL), a special needs person often feels better/safer and can function better when certain freedoms are curtailed. Otherwise, the world can seem overwhelming.

But going back to SL or the world in general (outside a therapeutic relationship), the best friend you can have is one that recognizes your shortcomings and either makes allowances for these or tries to help you overcome them. And likewise, one would hope you could be such a friend to them.

I don't like how special needs people are thrown onto the streets now, without help, and suffering. I have friends working with these people (the homeless) and there's simply not enough funds to adequately provide what they need. I think you are in the UK, and I don't know how it is there, but here in the U.S. the services are pretty pathetic. What I'm concerned about is that this special needs person AnnaBelle is interacting with could lose the house he inherited and end up "free" on the streets -- free to starve and freeze without a warm place to sleep.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Amina Sopwith]

19 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Retardation simply means to "slow down" in a simple definition, I get it. Sure, you could have chosen a better set of words to describe it. Some feel I am "defending" use of the word and that is not the case at all

But you are. You do it in the very first sentence I quote here, right before denying you're doing it. You also did it when you said:

23 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Retardation, by definition, is what it is. If you or anyone else takes offense at or find using a proper term to describe a particular aspect of a subject to be insulting, then that is your issue, not the speaker or writer.

You even implied that the alternatives were somehow an inferior use of language by lesser, more stupid people:

23 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Not using words or substituting silly pseudo-words for real words is how the language gets dumbed-down to stupid levels.

 

Then there's this:

19 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Handicap also would be a very appropriate word by definition, yet many handicapped people take offense to that word.

You've just declared that you know many people with disabilities are offended by that word. So why have you chosen to use it??? 

Now I am not disabled, but if there are any people with disabilities who are as offended by the words "disabled" or "disability" as you say they are, I ask them please to let me know (in PM if you prefer). I ask this because I work with various people with disabilities and I have never known any of them to be offended by those words. If I'm getting it wrong, I WANT TO KNOW.

 

19 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

If you cannot understand the context of my words the way I intend them, then you should sue your school for leaving you with a simple education, or stop being impatient when reading the words of others and never pull meaning from a phrase other than what it actually says.

I could just as easily say that if you cannot express the context of your words in the way that you intend them, then you should sue your own school for a simple education and blah blah blah. That cuts both ways. As it is, you've had it explained to you numerous times now as to why words matter and the difference between denotative and connotative meanings. You claim to understand this, but you're still stating that the problem is in everyone else's patience/intelligence/education levels? 

If you know a word is offensive, and you know there is an alternative, then a) why wouldn't you use it and b) why would you be as angered as you clearly are by someone explaining the offence to someone who didn't appear to realise?

On the simplest level, why are you so very invested in this idea that there are accurate, respectful and inclusive terms to use for vulnerable people, and it would be better if everyone who knew them used them and gently corrected people who do not? What's so objectionable about this concept?

OP is clearly well-intentioned. She knew that was not the right word to use, but she wasn't aware of a better alternative. Now that she is, I am sure she will use that knowledge going forward.  
 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Amina Sopwith