During one of my journeys through videos online, I encountered an interesting suggestion: "If you are sensitive, don't use the internet!". This makes one wonder, how much does one have to restrict themselves?
Just to avoid any kind of disturbance in this world? Just because they have a liability, which could cause such disturbance? In other words, if you're epileptic, does it mean you should avoid watching videos just because not every video creator puts an epilepsy warning before each trigger?
This series of questions I asked myself also occurred when I watched a certain video where, at the end, there was an auditory overload; a short duration where there was intense music and screams.
Of course, I couldn't have predicted that, because the video was a movie review. I can't just expect, as a man with Asperger's, that every movie review will have a sensory overload session in their final part, right? Does it mean that I shouldn't watch movie reviews or videos in general?
In one other example, I was on a walk in a public place, while someone indirectly screamed in my ear from an opposite direction; they were probably calling for someone, and I just so happened to be in that unfortunate, specific positioning. Does it mean I should refrain from taking hikes, just because any random stranger could scream near me to people that are away from a talking distance?
That, you see, is what I call the "Punishing the Unfortunate" fallacy: the call to confine the more unfortunate members of society to a smaller area of living (not necessarily a physical space), just because of their unfortunate traits.
You see, sensitive people don't necessarily choose to be sensitive. It's not something you can decrease by ordering them to be "less dramatic" or "less of a chicken" or whatever. It is a fact that some people react more dramatically to things than other people, and it is also a fact that not all do so of their own volition. Perhaps it is possible to be less sensitive, and perhaps not. I am uncertain and wouldn't resort to generalizations regardless.
In a way, being insensitive is a privilege not all people possess. It opens for you more job opportunities, such as in reception and telemarketing (where you must talk to strangers); it makes you more immune to insults; and so on. In the end, if you happen to be sensitive like me, the inevitable fact is that you too are sharing a place in the world, just like the rest of humanity.
Some populations are denser; some are smaller and more isolated. Ultimately, unless you're a complete hermit, being in any kind of interpersonal forum is inevitable. Therefore, calling for a major form of isolation for someone, such as not being online, is not only unjustified but also ineffective.
Of course, there are ways in which refraining from certain things works. Using the epilepsy example, it's probably a good idea to not watch a video with an epilepsy warning if you have that unfortunate condition, but that doesn't mean you should avoid any kind of online media or television.
Aside from unfortunate conditions, even without caveats, it's preferable that you live life as much as you can. That's despite said warnings and conditions, even if it means that there will be a risk at hand.
And still, you can't expect every risk to be worth it when the stakes are too high. I like video games but wouldn't play stressful ones, as they're bad for my mental health. After all, I play them for fun and rejuvenation, not to gamble away my mental health. Is it worthy to trade wellbeing for fun?
Of course, refraining completely from gaming, would mean that I would be punishing myself for something specific that doesn't exist in the entirety of the field. Likewise, the sensitive shouldn't refrain from using the internet just because there are some insensitive people or insensitive content hidden in its corners.
This fallacy applies when people -- or even yourself -- mistake you for a person with a wheelchair that cannot access buildings with just stairs. Not every person with something unfortunate has something so unfortunate that should make them completely abstain from something, they too deserve it, just like a "normal" person without said "something". For example, the fact that I have Asperger's and am sensitive to sound doesn't mean I should be deaf or refrain from watching anything with sound.
It isn't the same weight as a person who uses a wheelchair and needs ramps to access buildings (or other kinds of accessibility, for that matter). Thus, autistic people shouldn't completely isolate themselves from audio just because specific audio makes their lives difficult. That would be punishing the unfortunate, for good or bad, by intention.
I myself am a hermit, ironically as it may sound, and I recently became even more of a hermit after cutting ties with an entire branch of my family. However, I do not let my Asperger's get in the way of my ambition to be a writer and philosophize publicly. The internet has brought me benefits as well as harm.
The fact that there is harm on the internet shouldn't make one give up the entirety of its benefits to individuals, societies, and mankind. It is, in a way, one of the few true places where you can express yourself with minimal worry for retribution (depending, of course, on which platform you use and whether it is a public or private domain).
Even in a democracy, you see, you can suffer consequences for expressing yourself: violence, arrest, harassment, being fired from your job, and so on. Democracy is pretty much a spectrum rather than a specific definition, because even in the democratic world there are more democratic countries than others, whether through law, culture, or both.
She, Ms. Chen, punished me through disconnection because I spoke too freely of emotion. It only happened twice because I hoped she had matured by the second time. She will pay by realizing the worth of two things: her sheer honesty and the fault of her false assumption that I am irrelevant.
Even people with my specific condition can be relevant; even philosophers can be relevant in today's world. I will not let the embargo of her non-presence defeat my ambition for greater success.
