Chronos wrote:
mmcool wrote:
the word nurotypical is getting old and it's meaning is not that right we need a new word for nurotypicals
please reply with suggestions
There was a word. "Normal". However some individuals took offence to the implication that they were not normal.
I find that reaction utterly ludicrous. "Normal" is a
statistic. If you fall within that wide swath of average, then you are typical, or normal - in line with the majority of the population.
If you fall OUTSIDE that band of normalcy, then you are AB-Normal. It ain't rocket science.
If your neurology is statistically consistent with
only a small fraction of the overall population of the species, then you cannot be considered "normal."
I am not normal, and have no shame or embarrassment in owning that fact. It would be stupid of me to assert otherwise. No one on the LGBT spectrum is "normal," either, and I don't give a damn how politically incorrect it is to say so, it's a mathematical fact, and if you can't see or accept that, you're living in denial.
Being something other than "normal" does not mean you are unacceptable, or bad in any sense.
Defective? Well, you may have to come to that determination for yourself. Personally, I freely acknowledge my deviations from the norm involve many defects that make it extremely difficult for me to function in a world designed and organized for "normal" people.
On topic, I kind of like the term "
normies," because it sounds vaguely diminutive and insulting, without being crass or openly hostile.
I just had a mental image of an NT walking into a bar full of Aspergians and being greeted with a chorus of "
NORM!" like on
Cheers.
_________________
"I don't mean to sound bitter, cynical or cruel - but I am, so that's how it comes out." - Bill Hicks