Modification: 'Neurotypical'

Post Reply New Topic

Just backing it up with my own 2 cents.

Yeah, just before I read your edit, I edited the OP and removed that as a possible suggested alternative. The difference I can see between those conditions and autism is that autism is essentially entirely neurological and pervasive, in that it affects more than one aspect of perception etc. Blindness, being deaf and all that typically only refer to that one difference alone, and are not varying spectrum disorders.



A disability is a significant difference in ability from a scientific norm, so the term has to exist. There are plenty of 'neurotypical' individuals in the world whom have their struggles, 'disabilities' etc. While this may sound as if I'm disagreeing, I'm not (I'm just giving you change for your 2 cents), I do know the essence of what you're saying, so don't worry.

While I don't wish to comment more on the 'Us vs Them', it will no doubt be seen in another post eventually, so yes, it would be nice if it could stop.



That rounds off to 5 cents in my country.

I have a hard time coming up with anyone in my old social circles who 'had it all together' in terms of mental health. Most people I've gotten to know beyond the superficial hi-and-bye, have some kind of complex or at least a minor quirk that gives them some trouble. There's pathological liars, borderliners, hypochondriacs, OCD folks in denial, folks with attachment issues, the list goes on and on. I've never been to a single house that's sitcom-perfect.

And I say, let the ignorant 'us vs. them' posts continue. Better that they vent that, so that other people might counter it with intelligent reasoning, and the person in question might come to new insights and wisen up about it.

1. I completely agree. I also have never met anyone that is 'sitcom-perfect'. I believe that is (at least it relates to) the notion Ezra was trying to convey.

2. I suppose that can work, though from my experience the disinclination to consider such reasoning is a common cause of them submitting those posts in the first place.

I changed the title.

To me the term "--typical" basically says that something is referred as the most ?typical? or ?average? case. To me it is clear that in its conceptual nature the term is an abstraction. These abstractions with their connotations can be the basis of discrimination, but not having the right to use them can as similarly allow discrimination to happen. If you want to talk about wheelchair accessibility, you have to refer to the majority somehow, e.g. as able-bodied, for their perspective is the basis of stairs and curbs as similarly as the social structures and conventions are based on the needs and attributes of the ?socially typicals?.

Many of those who are very concerned for the ?neurotypicals? still gladly refer to autism as a disability, and thus use another and very similar label. To me someone who has a different way of thinking and different strengths might seem pretty disabled, even if they aren?t conceptually referred in our society that way. My co-workers at work might seem a bit ?thinking disabled? at times , but still for some reason I am not allowed to use the term disabled in reference to a feature or ?lack? of theirs (to make it clear, I have no need for that in reality). So it seems disability is a term that foremost serves soci(et)al purposes than works as a neutral term referring to a lack in ability. And whose perspective by the way defines ability and thus disability? These terms can have some serving, but also very discriminating purposes, as the history has proven.

In my opinion discrimination seems to work generally with inverse ways and it doesn?t necessarily have anything to do with the terms, but with how and when they are used or not used. From these uses the words gather their connotations. For example in true encounters between people I have noticed another inverse, often unconscious, phenomenon. People say things like: All [insert a minority here that has taken the form of a common scapegoat, like jews] are [insert a negative attribute here] but hey, I don?t mean you [insert a jew], you are different! They have to somehow force the reality into their narrow conceptual and psychological picture, and that is of course an exception that makes their rule!

I don't see any reason why you should take it that way. Sometimes I'm just too tired to write out much of a response and I don't know if you noticed but I quite frequently just quote other people and write "this" because it's easier for me. I appreciate that you have higher expectations of me than that but honestly there is no way I can live up to it. I just don't have the energy for it.

Why don't we just purge members from our site with whatever issues the OP listed?
We must purge anyone who gives us a bad reputation.

If we started purging, we would become like Stalin.

Purging reeks of totalitarianism.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 14 Jun 2014, 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The main idea, maybe not for Norny--I am not sure---but for me is that it is harmful to the autistic people who are thinking this way, It is a very limited and limiting way of thinking which further conditions the mind, and imo amplifies the misery people are already experiencing. Yes, it is understandable why some people might think this way, sure, but this is kind of beside the point, though maybe worth mentioning..