Modification: 'Neurotypical'

Post Reply New Topic

I agree.

By the elimination of the term, it was more that I want the meaning to be 'reset' or somehow 'clarified', actually defined in a real dictionary. I don't mind if it still exists, but I was attacked in a somewhat subtle way for not literally stating so. The 'idea' was there in the original post, but the opposite was taken to an extreme, with a side dish of visceral backlash.



Yes, thank you.

Don't take it to heart. The topic was discussed anyway.

I do not know if the meaning can even be deliberately reset in a culture that is using a particular term in a certain way, but talking about the use of a term can have some kind of affect. As mentioned, I actually joined wp because I began to notice at the aspie functions I was attending people were using this term in a way which seemed unwholesome to me, and I wondered if people were doing it here. I have to some degree lost my original interest in this topic, though I am still kind of interested. My interest is that I think it is harmful to themselves for autistic people to think in this way. Knowing you are autistic is one thing, but constantly comparing oneself to other people is something else. People who are not autistic are not going around constantly comparing themselves to people who are autistic. They are basically just being together. When a situation comes up they may stereotype an outsider, but to base a major facet of ones entire functioning upon making such a distinction and to be constantly thinking and talking about it, perceiving other people by means of this black and white dichotomy is harmful to oneself. I don't think this constant self-referential material and comparing oneself to others is mentally healthy plus it amplifies ones own autism. Yes, it is easily understandable why some people do it, but imo it is greatly to their benefit not to do it.

One of my peeves is people who keep saying it is understandable why they do it. Duhhh...yes it is understandable, but this does not mean it is good to do it.

Not my point of view, but rather based on the ICD and DSM that identify what "neurologically atypical" means. When one is far away from typical than one may qualifiy for a "disordered" label.



It is NT people who are the ones abusing us, laughing at us, name-called, torturing us, telling us "something is wrong with you", discriminating against us cause we act different or don't respond expectantly, not providing sensory accommodations for us.

Yet, you argue, "Hey, it is possible a hypothetical ASD person may do those mean things to you too. See, it is all part of human nature. So, it isn't proper to blame NT people".

I am not convinced your hypothetical is correct that ASD people will hate on other ASD people simply because of another person's ASD .
However, even if we assume it is true, then the hypothetical is very seldomly going to be reality. It is so far away from reality to be an insignificant consideration.




NT people have identified what is neurologically atypical in the ICD and DSM?

Huh, are you talking about me?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5904446.html#5904446






You come across like you are trying to control the way other people discuss things here. The only kind of spite being expressed here is that people are going to continue to discuss things the way they want "in spite of" what you expect them to do.

That's not what I said, but I'm curious. Why should it be a fault of anyone else for your views?

I agree. Allistic doesn't immediately suggest any meaning. Neurotypical is pretty much self-explanatory.

It is abused, but it shouldn't be eliminated because they are things that I can only talk to my autistic friends about, not my neurotypical friends.

Yes I was talking about you, but I was somewhat wrong in that you haven't directly claimed you were highly intelligent (it is implied though). I'm not saying you aren't intelligent or anything remotely like that, it was more the fact that I previously stated (in an old thread) that the main reason I respected your opinions was due to an intelligence that you possessed, and in this thread I felt heavily let down by the 'This' post and failure to explain why the entire thread is purely my fault etc. It seemed to me as if you posted with a complete lack of care as to what the thread was actually about, continuously, and just wanted to argue against me.

When I see your name, generally I expect a well thought out response to a controversial thread such as this, but I was left feeling disappointed. You definitely aren't required to post in such a way, that much is true, but it is a slap in the face.

Random link to similar thread




How am I trying to control what is discussed? If I spend a long time creating a thread and people come here and post cheesy one-liners as to why they disagree, why is it a problem that I respond in a negative manner? Should I not feel disrespected? To me it seems your only intention behind saying that was to agree with another poster, in a sly way.

You stated that it is only my problem, and then picked apart all these other random things that I was saying, rather than explaining why it was just my problem, and then just below the post I'm now quoting asked me to explain why again, without reading what I wrote. It annoys me that you can instantaneously claim something to be my problem, but don't even consider my point of view. I don't even know what about the original post you disagree with (if you have read it), as you haven't mentioned a thing outside of the sole contention that it is in fact just my fault.

I'm not going to reply anymore, as it is increasingly defeating the purpose of the thread.

Last edited by Norny on 11 Jun 2014, 11:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Well yes, but that isn't the 'point of view' that I was referring to. The term isn't actually defined anywhere, and everybody seems to have their own definition for it, and uses it as more of a term to resort to, to blame others, and to use for more than what it is intended to mean. You can agree with the DSM science-implied definition for the word (and in a sense I'm fine with that), but the majority don't, and that's why human traits are frequently mispositioned under 'neurotypical', 'neurotypical' has no solid definition etc.





The issue is, you can't claim it to be 'NT people' mistreating you. You have no proof that such people are legitimately 'NT', you use the term solely as a gap filler for not having a label for such people, and it's harmful in that you refer to every undiagnosed person in this way. That is what I mean by a misplacement of human traits. Imagine an NT person encountered a murderer, and immediately assumed that they were autistic because of the news. That is similar to what happens, if you assume that every nasty person you meet is going to be NT (which some here do).

Technically, (and I know people do consider this) people such as homosexuals/transsexuals and more can be considered not to be NT. What constitutes 'NT' then becomes increasingly blurry, as you could literally find smaller and smaller 'differences' in every person you come across. The use of the term in this community is highly inaccurate, and that is one of the reasons as to why.

If people with ASD won't hate others purely because of their ASD, then why do some people with ASD (generally not a majority) consistently hate on NTs purely because they MIGHT be what they, or someone else views to be NTs?



I agree with this, it is a flaw I noticed after I had posted the OP.

The idea is still there though, in that it should either be used to refer to non-autistic people, or that it should be more properly refined/defined to actually have solid meaning. It should ideally distinguish between what are human traits, and what aren't. Right now it is far too encompassing and misleading.



Thanks, don't worry I'm not. It has been discussed, but not as much as I would have valued from the perspective that it is all inaccurate.



Succinct and decent point.

I can understand the conversational needs to have the term 'NT', and that's one reason why it would be incredibly hard to default to better definitions.

How was it remotely condescending? I gave a straightforward answer.



I do not like ASD superiority posts either, and have said so many times.

I'm not being pretentious. I expressed frustration with the community this forum appears to foster. I think some people here express some very odd notions about how NT is used and what NT means and go from there to "We should just stop using 'neurotypical.'" It leads to surreal discussions in which saying something negative and in anger about NTs is exactly the same as NTs exercizing cultural hegemony in such a manner as to exclude autistic people from access to employment, education, etc. as well as justify abuse and even outright murder committed against autistic people.

The latest thread I saw in which such arguments were made in all sincerity made me less inclined to spend time here.

Why are you reading so many things into what I posted that I didn't actually post?

If you want autistic people to discuss what you intend to discuss, try being more straightforward and literal and less misleading with your titles and arguments. perhaps?

To make my point again, there is a clear difference between 'aspies' and 'NTs', otherwise aspies wouldn't be decriminated against. Society/NT's says we are inferior.

Aspies are tired of the discrimination and started labelling non-aspies 'NT'.

Unless it happened to be chance, you used the cliche phrase 'How about no', which unless used in a joking manner (from my experience) always has negative connotation. Perhaps condescending isn't the right word, but it's definitely highly negative.



I'm confused as to what I read in to, but I'm assuming that you're referring to the supremacy part.

I wasn't implying that you specifically supported the supremacy posts, it was more highlighting the fact that the original post was never equivalent to a rant like that of supremacy (similar to what I thought you meant by 'preciousness'), but an open-ended discussion of which I was seeking fruitful replies.

I only thought you were being pretentious because you were referring to my post as 'preciousness'. Whether you meant to or not, I didn't see any other reason for you to have commented in that way without having said anything else. This was fortified in my mind by your previous post. I accept that maybe I interpreted it wrong (I'm not sure if I did), so if that is the case, I apologize, but I then don't know what those posts were actually created for.



I accept this, but I do feel as if the OP isn't misleading, assuming anyone whom disagrees read the entire post.

The one problem I have is the title - I can see how that is misleading. Perhaps you are right, in that the title may setup the entire post to be viewed in an awkward light, but I don't think it deserved one-liners etc, hence my post on the 4th page.

'Allistic' isn't as catchy. I tend to use TDP (typically developing people). But NT is everywhere, everyone knows it so I'll just go along.

I like the original meaning of NT.

There's no way I could go through this whole thread. But to me there being this supposed division between autistics and nurotypicals is completely ridiculous to me.

Nurotypicals are basically a myth as far as I'm concerned.

Everyone has disabilities of one kind or another.....Everyone.

Alltistic is silly to me.

Why not add whatever name for people not having cerebral palsy, or epilepsy, or blindness, or not being deaf, or not having dyslexia, or arthritis???

There aren't autistics and alltistics.....There's just people who have one type of disability or another.

Enough with labeling so called "nurotypicals". Enough with Them vs Us. Enough already.

,

Last edited by EzraS on 12 Jun 2014, 1:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

That is essentially why I made the thread.



That's actually what I've been thinking about lately, and basically what I meant by the second point in my OP.