SJWs are ruining the Neurodiversity Movement

Post Reply New Topic

 

Very true.

While I can't say that I've known many people that have literally declared themselves to be "SJWs", I've known people that fit the images that Fnord has posted. I always described their beliefs by saying: "I'm tolerant of other people's viewpoints...provided they think like I do."

I did know a woman about eight years ago who did say she was proudly a champion for "social justice issues" and was very focused on the topic.

In regard to the OP topic. I do agree that the Neurodiversity Movement is being co-opted.

Autism transcends ideologies. This should be emphasized. This should be a cornerstone.

Autism crosses race and gender. There are autistics that are heterosexual, homosexual, etc. There are autistics that are "liberal", ultra-liberal, conservative and ultra-conservative. There are autistics that are atheists, religious and hard core fundamentalist Christian. There are autistics that are transsexual and there are autistics that are white male cis and everything in between. In my opinion, the "Neurodiversity Movement" has favored certain ideologies to the exclusion of others. Remember, autism transcends ideologies.

I believe a neurodiversity movement or an autism movement SHOULD include, accept, embrace and support ALL examples of the groups above and any others.


For a movement that would say something like:

"We're for autistics except for SJW autistics." Co-opted by ideology first, autism support last.

or

"We're for autistics except for MAGA autistics." Co-opted by ideology first, autism support last.

I don't want to be a part of a co-opted autistic movement.

That said, if some people did only support autistics that weren't SJWs or weren't MAGA or whatever else, that's their choice. However, they shouldn't think of themselves as supporting autistics in a general sense, they should think of themselves as being part of a fringe group.

I won't say that there are not some ridiculous people, but I kind of suspect that there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of more progressive stances. Progressives champion for tolerance for everyone, one very specific exception, no tolerance for intolerance.

It is antithetical for the progressive to defend the equal rights of people of different races, but support Nazis or KKK to have their own view of white people being superior. Makes no sense support LGBT people to have their own lived in experiences of their sexuality or gender, and support homophobic people who see them as deviants that would prey on children and so should be beat up. It is contradictory to support equal opportunity for women to be able to get into fields that they have historically been discriminated from, and also support the view of a misogynist or incel that believes all women should be subservient and belong in the kitchen. It is not right to respect a vegan's right to eat the type of diet that matches their morals, but then treat all meat eaters like they are monsters. And wrong to support a feminist who fights for fairness of women, but support such people that take that to hating men just for being men.

It is not really morally grounded on real issues to support anyone regardless of how it may relate to other groups, otherwise we would have to support someone's opinion of intolerance of autistic people, that we fake it, that we are dumb, that we should be institutionalised, or maybe straight up put down. As a progressive worried about social issues, I will push for tolerance of others, but I won't extend that right to an antivaxxer who thinks vaccinations cause autism, and thus won't immunize her kids, that put them and other children such as those with immunity problems at risk.

I think it is really irresponsible Fnord, to keep spreading the idea that the socially minded people on the left that call for tolerance, are actually raving lunatics that spaz out if your opinion is different from them. Sure, there are likely such unreasonable people that are just super opinionated, but most that might get angry at you for your own opinions will be upset that your own opinions are intolerant or even hateful to others.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it does not mean their opinion is accurate and can be used to justify ones actions, like being anti Hillary because you believe that Hilary Clinton was a literal demon that smelt of sulphur.

^ Intolerance for intolerance.

The homophobic person who beats up a homosexual person for being a homosexual is wrong, just as an ANTIFA person who beats up a MAGA person for being a MAGA person is wrong. Both are intolerant of who they perceive to be intolerant. Righteous indignation regardless of the ideology fueling it shouldn't be a license to be an aggressor.

I am not at all advocating violence, and in fact I am very much against it, but your examples are not even the same thing. People that go against MAGA people are because they are generally pretty intolerant, they hate immigrants and foreigners, buying into the rhetoric of Donald Trump and dangerously close to a number of dangerous beliefs. It is nationalistic ideology that makes up part of the beliefs of mass shooters. The homophobe just sees homosexual people as freaks for who they are.

You can choose to be MAGA, you can't choose to be gay.

Again, I am not saying violence is good, or even attacking someone wearing a MAGA hat in any way. But if it is used as justification to start yelling at a bunch of Muslims to go back to "their country", then an identity as MAGA can be sign of intolerance.