Who Finds This Extremely Offensive?

Post Reply New Topic

Hear, hear. That post sums up my views more eloquently than I could have done (in the two minutes that are left of my tea break, anyway).

Just as long as people are trying to find a job and trying to hold one down, they aren't using their AS or anything else as an excuse because they are trying. I have difficulty finding one myself so all I can do is apply at hotels or housekeeping related jobs because I know I have a higher chance I will get hired because I have experiance.

Um...I already think the whole movement to get acceptance is a joke, as it won't happen. Welcome to humanity; humans don't like to accept those who are different, that wont' change.

I could care less. I've pretty much never been accepted or understood, so I'm not really expecting it anytime soon.

JUST LIKE HOW NOBODY EVER ACCEPTED THE BLACKS! Oh wait! There is a black president now! Never mind.

How do you know this? Where do you derive this authority from? By what criteria do you pass this judgment? How long did it take you to determine they "really have nothing wrong with them" using your infallible ability to Know This is True?

The blacks are part of nobody and they accepted themselves long before there was a black president in the States.

That website totally ripped off Cracked.com.

Naw, it's not offensive at all. Heck, you gotta have a sense of humor. Every few weeks I check the AE page on Aspergers, it gets funnier each time

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Asperger%27s_syndrome

It is an easy test. A person with a real disability will work to overcome it if given a chance...fail or succeed. Someone milking something to not have to work will avoid any opportunity to be more independent.

The federal government creates "welfare" programs where half the rules empower you and the other half make it impossible to get the job done. As a case worker, I was supposed to sign up anyone who was "qualified" for assistance, but the bar was set very, very low (income level being the main issue). However, both the program's mission statement AND repeated policy statements indicated that we were not to enroll people who were not serious about completing the program and going to work.

The government's idea on how to determine this objectively? ASK THE APPLICANT ON THE APPLICATION AND LET THEM INDICATE THEIR ANSWER BY CHECKING A "YES" OR A "NO" BOX.

This is moronic. The first thing you will learn in working with welfare applicants is that the ones who defraud the system will say anything to get assistance. More so, people who will defraud also own property under another name, deal in cash only, don't use banks, etc....really, just the same tactics most criminals use so nobody can prove what they do or don't have.

So, how do you tell the truth? Well, this is what my teammates and I did....

We erected SIMPLE barriers to every application. If an applicant could not (or would not) do this much, we knew they'd never finish job skill training or get a job:

1. Since the file required copies of several documents and a 20+ page application, I required any applicant to come to my office with their originals and sit down and do the paperwork (with me walking them through it).

2. Since the program required a "goal," I required any applicant to determine what job they wanted training for. If they couldn't make up their mind, they would not be enrolled until they did make up their mind.

3. In most circumstances, part of the application required papers to be signed by "other parties." For those applicants, I did not enroll them until they brought the signed papers back to me.

Nothing in the regulations specifically authorized (or prohibited) this, but I (as a case manager) had to "discern" who was sincere about completing the program and going to work and who was not. I needed something tangible that an applicant couldn't just lie about and walk away. This was the best solution myself (and my fellow case managers) could come up with. It was a subjective test at heart, but it had objective elements. I'm sure the bean counters would say we had to enroll them and then have them do all the paperwork, but we were not willing to open a file for someone too disinterested (or lazy) to come in and do what would be required at any job site they applied for work at.

This was critical because our performance (as a program) was rated by outcomes. We got 3 points on a file. 1 point for finishing job skill training. 1 point for being employed in the first quarter (3 months) after finishing job skill training and 1 point for being employed in the third quarter after job skill training.

Believe it or not, we still got negative outcomes (no points) and less than 3 point outcomes with weeding out people who we determined did not belong in the program. If we did things as the bean counters said to do things, we would have over 100 negative outcomes every year because we'd enroll on nothing more than a "YES" answer and financial eligibility and find out the applicant would not bother to come in and do the paperwork. Exiting them out of the computer system would result in a negative outcome.

So, the regulations would say, "Sign up anyone who is financially eligible and kick them out if they don't do the work required." But then the case manager looks bad because he/she is expected to magically be able to force a person to do what the program requires.

The problem is that the regulations were drafted by a political idiot who has no experience in welfare operations. An idiot who believes that one man can compel another man to do what he does not want to do. An idiot who thinks micromanaging an operation from hundreds of miles away has any chance of getting a good result.

We dealt with the reality that over 90% of people referred to us were non-responsive because they indicated an interest to protect their benefits from an imagined threat. Of those that were responsive, I'd say 70-85 percent were enrolled, but even that wasn't an assurance that they were sincere about going to work after they got done with classes.

as far as nt neo nazi troll virgins are concerned i would rate it 3 and a half swastikas, not bad but it could do with a aspie holocaust reference

I am not offended by it, seems to say more about the writer to me and thats not so good

Hm somehow I don't get the idea that the author was actually joking.. but I could be wrong. I do find it slightly offensive because it might give someone who is completely ignorant about AS a negative 'first' impression that people with AS are just jerks who are using a made-up disorder to justify their jerkiness.

I do, however, agree to a certain extent about what he says .. I don't think it's right when people just use it as an excuse but I'd probably say that most of us don't.. we use it as more of an explination for why we act like a dork.....

But for someone who doesn't understand how some 'simple' things are so hard for us.. it seems so simple to them that it means we must be doing it on purpose, right? I dunno...

lmao

And would he have been taken seriously as a white guy? I highly doubt it.

And what I mean is humans will always attempt to scapegoat another group, when they see they're different.

Lest we forget as well that unlike we Autistic folks, the majority of minorities, women and whathaveyou are ALL NTs. So they can all still relate better on a certain level.

Well, they were careful enough to say "Asperger's is a real disorder for some". But really, i abandoned the term "asperger syndrome" early this year, it's lost. It can't be salvaged anymore. Way too many normal people with social issues decided they had it, the doctors supported them, and it has all gone to hell from there. It's been a long time since the diagnosed population stopped having things in common. I am really hoping to save the term autism, but i am prepared to fall back to a new term if even that can't be done.

I knew a guy who was diagnosed as Aspergers, but that wasn't his main problem. He'd turned into a spoiled bully because he was so bloody big and people were afraid to discipline him or stand up to him. Even the (mainly female) staff in the schools Integration department. I hate asshats like that, it gives Aspergers a bad name.