#a real comprehensive litmus test about how far billions will take its own questioning of power dynamics & norms

[unproduciblesmackdown]

thinking of [thinking & talking of the rian & winston dynamic] while reading the short study article "“This Was Just How This Friendship Worked”: Experiences of Interpersonal Victimization Among Autistic Adults" as thinking & talking abt things re: winston billions has Been something of a framework / touchstone for doing so re: [autistic experiences] more broadly....from going "dare i say winston is Autistic" (yes) to "sure he's established as being in a duo with this coworker who's insulated as he's vulnerable & supported as he's undermined as an already unfavorable foundation to the dynamic, & then as it plays out we see it's unilateral, with winston being hurt on purpose onesidedly for fun or to push him to do (or not do) something, left to 'just roll with it' onesidedly after such treatment, put down including around other people, Only getting less hostile, more constructive treatment when & while that's what happens to be what rian feels like, Not when he feels like it, b/c that's what he feels like all the time & only gets sometimes just out of frame laughing too, all while the basis of this is rian doing what she wants at any point while winston can only respond "accordingly" and Put Up With It and be disappointed while having no real recourse but to possibly give up on the relationship entirely, which doesn't even necessarily extricate him from being used / bullied here....but what about 'i mean is it That Bad(tm)' and 'i mean but did the victim respond with perfect strategy' and 'i mean but does the person hurting/using them feel like they're justified & normal actually' (ofc they can & do any/all thee time" lol like. yes.

anyways and some fun banger quotes in general, as stated re: [of course this is also like, talking about Anything irl too]

Forster and Pearson5 asked autistic adults about their experiences of relationships and understanding of mate crime, which is a form of interpersonal victimization perpetrated by those considered friends (“mate” is a British slang term for friend).1,2 Participants outlined the challenges that they faced building genuine, reciprocal relationships and their experiences of victimization. They also spoke about their difficulties identifying unreasonable behavior from others, and heightened social compliance. These findings were consistent with previous research into relationships16–20 and peer victimization among autistic adults.6,21

Participants in this study also explicitly suggested that a personal relationship between the perpetrator and victim was more insidious than bullying alone, as it could make it harder to spot disingenuous behavior. This aligns with the suggestion made by disabled scholars that terming interpersonal victimization as “bullying” can make it appear “low level” in nature.22–24

The difficulty in identifying manipulative and implicit social intentions can be explained through the lens of the double empathy problem.25 The double empathy problem posits that differences in communication style can lead to mutual difficulties in understanding between interlocutors. Autistic adults have self-identified how these bidirectional breakdowns can lead to problems with reading below surface-level social intentions in other people, and have shared concerns over their potential for being manipulated.20,26 The double empathy problem helps to frame these concerns as an interaction between the person and context, as opposed to an innate vulnerability.27

[...]

Theme 2 drew together three subthemes, centered around how the participants perceived what had happened to them. They focused on their difficulty in trusting their instincts around what is acceptable social behavior, often giving others the benefit of the doubt at a detriment to their own needs. They also highlighted how difficult it could be to recognize victimization, and how they felt when they did not recognize it. Finally, the third theme focused on the notion of compliance and how it had pervaded their situation.

[...]

Questioning their own input had meant it had taken them time and support from others to process a situation, only recognizing later what had happened to them: “otherwise having peace and time to focus on myself and my other friends (as well as support from a few close friends), I soon recognised that both ‘friends' had been abusive towards me from nearly the beginning of our friendship” (P.15, man, 26).

[...]

Some participants said that they struggled to spot negative social intentions and identify abusive behavior (theme 2.2), or trust their own judgment about other people (theme 2.1), which is consistent with some previous research.26,51 Some of the participants seemed to blame themselves for not “spotting” the abuse while it occurred, labeling themselves as oblivious, however, a participant who did recognize that they were being manipulated during the situation itself also said it made them feel naive. It is worth noting that the ability to retrospectively identify abuse and the ability to spot abuse “in situ” are not the same, but that they may lead to the same emotional response.

[...]

Some participants said that they struggled to spot negative social intentions and identify abusive behavior (theme 2.2), or trust their own judgment about other people (theme 2.1), which is consistent with some previous research.26,51 Some of the participants seemed to blame themselves for not “spotting” the abuse while it occurred, labeling themselves as oblivious, however, a participant who did recognize that they were being manipulated during the situation itself also said it made them feel naive. It is worth noting that the ability to retrospectively identify abuse and the ability to spot abuse “in situ” are not the same, but that they may lead to the same emotional response.

There are also multiple factors that can affect both identifying abuse and knowing how to deal with it. First, the ability to pick up on often subtle signals exhibited by abusers, particularly in situations where coercion is used, requires knowledge about what a good healthy relationship looks like. Comments from some of our participants were indicative of victimization beginning early in childhood, perpetrated by parents and caregivers. Abuse from those who are meant to care for us and “know better” can impact on the ability to recognize unacceptable behavior in others later in life.52

Spotting these signals can also rely on not taking people at “face value,” and engaging in continuing reflection on what someone has said or done. For an autistic person who tends to be straightforward in their communication style and who says what they mean, it might not occur that someone they are interacting with is being disingenuous. This can be explained through the lens of the “double empathy problem.”25 The double empathy problem recognizes that difficulties in inferring the intentions of others do not need to be labeled as a social “deficit” or “one sided” to recognize its impact. It is important that we draw upon the double empathy problem to find ways of supporting people who feel they struggle with understanding social intentions without pathologizing this difficulty.

Second, identifying abuse can also be impacted by our perceptions of our own contribution to the situation. Several participants highlighted the experience of gaslighting and invalidation from perpetrators, and this had led some people to question their perception of the situation and blame themselves. This made it harder for them to recognize that what was happening was abusive, and to put a stop to it or leave the situation. Our findings did suggest that a good support network and time/guidance to introspect could be helpful in recognizing abuse.53 This is consistent with research showing the importance of peer support systems47,54 and suggests that it is important to support autistic people in developing good-quality relationships.18

Third, even if someone can identify abusive behavior, this does not always result in knowing what to do about it, or feeling like you have a choice to change the situation, which our findings around compliance (theme 2.3) highlighted. Some participants discussed feeling like they needed to appease perpetrators, or avoid confrontation, which is consistent with previous literature.5,21 However, this was not the only reason for compliance, and the circumstances that contributed toward it were often complex. Some participants complied out of recognition that it was the only way to maintain a semblance of safety within risky situations, for example, having to comply with the demands of others to avoid physical harm. For other participants, power dynamics were present that made the situation they were in more complicated, for example, the perpetrator was a family member.

[...]

A recent study examined the experience of trauma and PTSD symptoms in autistic adults, finding that the experience of “bullying” was one of the common traumatic life events reported by autistic people who had increased PTSD symptoms.48 The authors argue that autistic people may be more likely to experience trauma from events outside of current PTSD diagnostic criteria, which is not unlikely given the sustained stigma that many autistic people experience.63,64 Some of the acts that our participants described as “bullying” and being “taken advantage of” included domestic and sexual abuse, and financial exploitation.

There may be considerations to be made here about the way in which we ask questions about negative life experiences, and how different questions may elicit different responses. The line between abuse, bullying, and more nebulous concepts such as “being taken advantage of” is not particularly clear, and we know that bullying can have incredibly negative effects on an individual.14 However, it is important that future research acknowledges that despite autistic people being labeled as “literal” in their communication, they may downplay their experiences through the terminology they use.