this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
27 points (100.0% liked)
Autism
118 readers
1 users here now
A community for respectful discussion and memes related to autism acceptance. All neurotypes are welcome.
Values
- Acceptance
- Openness
- Understanding
- Equality
- Reciprocity
- Mutuality
- Love
Rules
- No abusive, derogatory, or offensive post/comments
- No porn, gore, spam, or advertisements allowed
- Do not promote Autism Speaks
- Do not request for donations
- Do not gatekeep or diagnose
- Mark NSFW content accordingly
- Unless supported directly by a publication in a respected scientific journal, do not link autism to vaccines.
- No racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, or ageism
- Respectful venting, including dealing with oppressive neurotypical culture, is okay
Encouraged
- Open acceptance of autism as a respectable neurotype
- Funny memes
- Welcoming and accepting attitudes
- Questions regarding autism
- Questions on confusing situations
- Seeking and sharing support
- Engagement in our community's values
Relevant Lemmy communities
ADHD:
Misc:
Neurodivergence:
lemmy.world/c/autism will happily promote other ND communities as long as said communities demonstrate that they share our community's values.
Helpful resources
Support Groups:
Self-assessments:
How to talk about autism:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But that are two different things, are they not?
That really depends on which philosophy you subscribe to.
The TL;DR is that existential and post-modern philosophy say it's varying degrees of relative, while everything anyone said before ~1800 was saying that facts were immutable.
One fact I can glean is that the data itself may be real (e.g., the wavelengths of light that hit your eyeballs) but the perception is a composite illusion of our mind (e.g., the fact that you just saw a kitty).
ooh, yes I see your point. I think both can be true, and a third; we think we (aka scientists) know how something is, but later finds out it works in a different way. The fact never changed, we just learned what it actually is.
example: red pandas used to be categorised with the gigant pandas (that are closer to regular bears) but after we've learned more about the red pandas they are actually closer to raccoons.
I don't know what I'm trying to say. I hope I understood you correctly, English isn't my first language.
Yeah, you get the idea. Things can be always true, but also where we see them wrong. The Sheep in the Field thought experiment shows it clearly.
you guys just did the OP meme