This is the most important election of my life because I'm autistic

Post Reply New Topic

I wish my copays were just $30.

when trump gets in and kills working class healthcare, mebbe then the PTB will get the population culling they've been salivating for decades in anticipation of. but then who will do their dirty work for them then, unless the remaining middle class gets a big demotion.

This isn't simply directed fully at this post, but it is useful as an example of some of the misinformation being thrown around this election.

You seem to imply that the USA has had some type of degeneration as a whole, yet most statistics on average have improved (crime levels reducing etc.). This is not mutually exclusive with there being pockets you can isolate which have not shared in the improvements, like perhaps the area this poster lives in. Basing your image of the USA purely on isolated areas OR just the overall average statistics is fallacious.

College graduates last year had the highest employment rate of any level of education in addition to significant improvements in average pay. This misinformation in particular impelled me to reply specifically to this post because it literally could be harmful. Again this falls in line with painting a false picture of the USA, and these are not gritty complex issues... it is simple statistics.

Parts of my childhood were in a primarily black low income neighborhood. My mother moved to a better neighborhood and I guarantee you it had nothing to do with disobeying liberal ideology, but simply wanting to improve her families prospects. It is literally just the rational decision to make if it is possible to achieve and has nothing to do with political ideology. Believe it or not you can seek the best economical prospects you are capable of while still wanting the political machinations of your country to not leave behind those who are less fortunate.

Point here being it is highly disingenuous to try and claim legitimacy over others in the way you have done. Creating a straw-men of the opposition to invalidate their positions without having to put actual effort into addressing the grit of the issues. This disingenuous stance is bipartisan as are essentially all logical fallacies. That should be generally recognized to move political discussions in a remotely positive direction, but has to be stated before people put words into my mouth.

I would post sources and the statistics but there is zero point... it takes very little effort to search for sources which verify what I have said (or prove me wrong in certain respects, not claiming to be a diviner of truth). I will not throw my own effort into a black hole of apathy and arrogance for voters who are unwilling to put in their own efforts. At least not until it is proven to the contrary that there is a real discussion to be had since then the specifics will be relevant (almost never a satisfied condition in my experience) .

I find it surprising the amount of factual statements being thrown out on this forum thread without justifications in general. Seeing as how a common story among Aspergers self diagnoses involve rabid research of the topic, myself included. Nothing will be accomplished in a conversation if even basic facts are recklessly battered. And yes I am being hypocritical, hypocrisy doesn't invalidate a message. Well unless the message is that the messenger is not hypocritical.

Posting twice without any responses is typically considered bad forum etiquette. However my last post may have been a bit dour. I will iterate that I did not mean to demean everyone for expressing their thoughts on the matter, but plead that we should all try harder. So I will not be hypocritical this time and try to contribute in a positive fashion.

The discussion can be cleaner if it is more directed. Alex seems to express that the issue he had is the inherent modes of thinking implied by the differing ways the platforms of the parties addressed autism in their platforms. Or at the very least this is my interpretation after reading straight from the relevant part of the documents. He discusses beyond the platforms, but I want to pinpoint on the platforms.

For comparison I will begin with a controversial issue among those on the autism spectrum, Autism Speaks. The major gripe seems to be the intent of eradication behind the actions and words of those in the organization. I have not looked into this myself to know if this view of them is founded, but this has been prevalent enough that at the very least Autism Speaks has not marketed itself to those on the spectrum well. And at the worst they essentially demean the value of the lives of those on the autism spectrum. Or even somewhere in the middle have a bad case of representation bias, showing the most extreme cases of non-functioning autism and highly misrepresenting the Autism Spectrum to the detriment of public understanding.

At the core of this is the fact that Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder. You can not fully segregate who someone is from the implications of this label. And this is where I will acknowledge that there are some on the spectrum who would prefer a cure if it was possible. However for the rest on the spectrum it wouldn't matter if there was a cure. It would need to be administered at a very young age ( it seems safe to presume?) and the person that would have developed would have been a completely different person. This isn't helping someone on the Autism spectrum it is eliminating the autism spectrum and the entire possibility space of humans that the autism spectrum provides.

Arguments have been made that it could be far more valuable to amend society to be more manageable for those on the spectrum, even if you could eliminate this particular developmental disorder from ever happening in the first place. Hans Asperger was one of the first to reckon that "It seems that for success in science or art, a dash of autism is essential". I do not know if I would go that far, but it has become more common to recognize that those on the Autism Spectrum do not simply get a list of poor performance relative to the average in a set of skills, but also can have high performance in other sets of skills. Etc. etc. better more in depth explanations into this line of thinking are out there. I have not read the book, but I believe some of these ideas are explored more in depth with the book: NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity. Clinical Psychologist Tony Atwood who specializes in Asperger's Syndrome seems to be a representative of this view.

So I have presented two views of the disorder, one in which a person on the spectrum is viewed as defective and broken, with a need to be fixed into being normal. And one where a person on the spectrum is recognized as having problems in certain areas hand in hand with certain strengths for which some sort of intervention helps the person so they can reach their full potential ( and hopefully providing help for those on the spectrum, will reward a net-gain to society for the extra effort with the addition of neurological diversity). These views can be meddled together to some extent, but the important core difference is one view sees potential in a difference and the other view wants to eliminate it completely.

Neither platform directly falls in line with either of these views when directly talking about autism... as I said it can be muddled. Here is the full paragraph in which the National Democratic Platform 2016.

"Democrats believe that our country must make supporting the millions of individuals with autism
and those diagnosed in the future and their families a priority. We will conduct a nationwide
early screening outreach campaign to ensure that all children, and in particular children from
underserved backgrounds, can get screened for autism. We will expand services and support for
adults and individuals transitioning into adulthood, including employment and housing
assistance. And we will push states to require health insurance coverage for autism services in
private insurance plans as well as state marketplaces so that people with autism are not denied
care."

Ok... so don't touch on the positives of the spectrum, but clearly puts emphasis on at the very least helping those on the Autism spectrum even into adulthood. It neither reinforces a more positive view of the spectrum, but does not seem to be worded in a way to contradict it either.

"American medicine is poised to enter a new
era of technological advance. Federal and private
investment in basic and applied biomedical
research holds enormous promise, especially with
diseases and disorders like autism, Alzheimer’s,
and Parkinson’s. Just as we today take for granted
wonders that seemed impossible a few decades ago
— MRIs and CAT scans, robotic surgery, and in utero
treatment — patients a decade hence will have
care and treatment that will make much of today’s
medicine look primitive. Modern miracles involving
genetics, the immune system, cures for deadly
diseases, and more are in the research pipeline.
This is the consequence of marrying significant
investment, both public and private, with the world’s
best talent, a formula that has for a century given
the American people the world’s best healthcare.
We are determined that it should continue to do
so, especially as we confront new dangers like
Ebola, Zika, Chikungunya, and antibiotic-resistant
pathogens. "

The original point made by Alex still holds, but the things in this paragraph that are a better example of very bad implications for the platforms view of autism by indirect association would be with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's due to much closer proximity. Of course the entire paragraph is concerned with advancements in medical technology and the benefits it may provide in the future. So it is problematic that a pervasive developmental disorder for which at least some if not many with the condition would not actively take a cure if it was possible is listed with 5 other conditions in this section. Problem being you would be hard-pressed to find individuals with these 5 other conditions ( who are still cogent) that would insist on not taking a cure if it was possible. So the Republican Platform seemingly implies by association that we should eradicate the Autism Spectrum.

For comparison think the reactions of the mutants in Third X-men movie to the development of the cure. A mutant like Rogue who hurts anyone they touch consider the cure (powers give no benefit but massive detriments), while others are conflicted as to whether they would take the cure (powers set them apart from normal humans but do not directly detriment them and could be considered part of their identity), and those directly against the cure who see it as an attempt to exterminate mutants. I only mentions this because even though the x-men is suppose to parable racial issues in conception, the concepts of this movie and a cure are more apt for comparisons related to Autism.

I hate the labels of liberal and conservative, but if I was forced to identify with these labels that have way to much baggage to be useful... I would say I am very liberal. I believe that competition in the economy should be encouraged in most cases( this is bipartisan among moderates on both side), I believe in trying to maintain human decency ( this is bipartisan among moderates on both sides), I believe in mitigating useless regulation ( this is bipartisan among moderates on both sides), I believe that special interests should not be able to influence elections by indirectly and directly funding campaigns of politicians ( this is bipartisan among moderates on both sides, there was that Mcain-Feingold bill that was partially struck down after all ).

Such labels distract from the fact there is plenty of reasonable reforms and new laws that can get passed if partisanship wasn't optimal for the Congress. And vitriol thrown between party lines will only benefit the Speakers of the House and the Senate Majority Leaders, who due to the nature of the workings of government need strong partisanship to maintain centralized power. Imagine if it was possible to get an independent Speaker who could work across party bounds, and the public stopped letting themselves be caroled into extremes. Not going to go in detail, but there are systemic reasons for many bills being either fully supported by both parties or in most cases supported almost exclusively by the majority party. When there could be bills introduced that would gain moderate support across the board missing just both partisan fringes.

I will end this post to start another one which directly addresses Alex (whether he reads it or not :/). Straining forum etiquette even further, however this post has gone quite long as it is. The main point here is that we can address issues far more effectively with a bipartisan approach. I fully believe as a "very liberal" person that moderate republicans or even less moderate ones could be easily persuaded that the context they had around autism in their platform should be amended unless you approach them in a cloak of partisanship ( or even remotely seeming to). Misunderstanding of disabilities of all sorts especially mental conditions is a bipartisan issue, if you don't positively approach both sides you only close people off. I as a person on the Autism Spectrum (self diagnosed to be*) had many misunderstandings of autism for most my life. It was when it was pointed out that someone I knew had HFA that I researched for a more informed view, realizing I myself had gone undiagnosed.

I believe you have noble goals, and hopefully an open mind. By creating this website you are a public figure of sorts for the autistic community by creating a literal autistic community online. I do not know how much exposure you get... but it's safe to say it is far greater than most people on the Autism Spectrum. That imposes responsibility, whether you want it or not. I do not know you, or what you do with the rest of your life, or what you were thinking when you made the article. These are just my personnel observations of constructive criticism, I think there is a more productive way of advocating for the disabled than the route you took.

Reading your article leads me to believe you were acting as an advocate for the Autistic community and disabled people in general within the context of the article. If this is true you, cut yourself away from half of the United States with some of the negativity of the article. Even with someone like Trump who only believes in himself, you cannot take sides like this so definitively if you want to be an effective advocate . Instead you could focus on outreach that doesn't shun anyone at all, including those in the Autistic Community themselves who may be conservatively prone.

The United States is a Federal system with much of it's power and delegations left to the states to exercise, and even if the democrats win for the next 50 years nationally there will still be plenty of red states regardless with many citizens among them on the autistic spectrum who will be affected by policy decisions from republicans. I am appealing to practicality, but that should be of the highest importance for a highly focused advocate.

As far as I can tell you did attempt to walk a fine line of being semi nonpartisan, but your last paragraph clenches the fact that you failed in my eyes. “Acceptance and empowerment for all disabled people should be bipartisan goals. I hope going forward that the Republicans will learn that they cannot win national elections by acting with disregard and flagrant contempt for the 53 million Americans with disabilities. “ There are several things in the platform that do directly what you just said republicans do not do. Trump does not represent most republicans I know, they have common human decency. Attacking trump and especially republicans (a large group of people) so bluntly is counterproductive. You can't advocate for good policy decisions on a bipartisan basis with the huge exaggeration that republicans do nothing for those with disabilities.

It is far better to make sure that seeing value in the Autistic Spectrum is a bipartisan issue. You represented a more general variant of this relating to all with disabilities. But I am afraid your article could have taken a more positive bent without directly attacking Republicans and appealing directly to their own ideals from their own platform. And this isn't just me claiming it could be done I searched the republican platform to provide examples that could build bridges rather than chastise. You put effort into the article so I will provide effort in my response. In fact there was even a clause in the republican platform that was enabling those with disabilities with some positivity even better than the democratic platform. To be fair the democrats did it through example with their speeches at the convention even better by giving high achieving people with disabilities spotlights on a national stage as you acknowledged. The point isn't which party is better or which candidate is better. The point is the Republicans and their ideals are not completely contrary to being swayed in the area of disabilities. But telling them they do nothing when that is not true and they damn well know is the quickest way for them to close their ears.

Here is the example I speak of without the fumbling they did with autism.

"Persons with disabilities are nearly twice as likely to be self-employed as the general population. To encourage their entrepreneurship, it makes sense to include them in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) certification program, which opens up federal contracting for emerging businesses. Any restructuring of the tax code should consider ways in which companies can benefit from the talent and energy of their disabled employees. ".

They highlighted a positive aspect of the disabled community. This does not sound like it would come out of a person who would be unwilling to change their imaging problems with Autism. There is a reason Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. are among the highest pantheon of veneration among democratic societies. They faced physically hostile political opposition without reciprocation. They knew active hostility would only reinforce the opposition against them.

Here is a quote where they directly support neuro-diversity in their own way. By being anti abortion but the implication is not that many steps away, if anything their almost zero exceptions for abortion could be viewed from a certain point of view as being too pro-diversity to the point of not ending life early when it will be overshadowed by major unrecoverable universally disdained conditions.

"We call on Congress to ban sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities, discrimination in its most lethal form. "

Another positive example which can help explain why their placement of Autism was not well thought out even with their ideals if they had an informed view of it. As I said I am reluctantly self identified as “very liberal” in an earlier post . But when we need to convince opposition what could be more effective than appealing to their own sentiments in a positive manner.

Trump will come and go... the parties and their membership are much more robust (at least historically Trump is no Republican except in name), it is not worth throwing away possible positive influence.  “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I think the arc can be shortened when communities maintain positive communications ESPECIALLY with those who are less in agreement.

I apologize for hogging so much screen space. I try to be succinct, but clearly am not disposed for such a skill. This is just my viewpoint on this discussion, hopefully I am not coming across as arrogant (which I have been informed is a common occurrence in my speech).

^^^hiya FnC welcome to WP

Or a bit long.

Yeah I couldn't be bothered to read it, it was too long.

I try to give long posts a chance but my frontal lobes fall asleep before I reach the end more often than not. sorry.

I never knew that. Not that I've done it much, but it was nice to think that it wouldn't be badly received if I did. I think I'm going to ignore that rule.

mee too.

This doesn't really affect me as I live in Canada. I also feel for those of you under the border. There doesn't seem to be much of a choice for you to choose from.

one candidate and party is clearly a much less harmful choice than the other, at least for aspies like myself.

saying not to post twice because it is "bad forum etiquette" then posting twice.. Is just Hypocrisy. If that is true Then I guess I have horrible forum etiquette. I'm really bad at forming full fledged thoughts. I tend to make losts of small post than one Large posts. Though again This is autism forum where monologuing is common. That is just a word wall though.. I'm just saying if your going to rant about that. At least have proper

Quote:

forum etiquette

.

Probably being the only one, in this discussion who Bothered to read that it reads much like my essays really persuasive yet, they never seem to end.. Oh, by the Way you can consider me having "bad forum etiquette" , But Neither do I care or does it make a difference. You can either take or leave what I'm saying. It had a lot of good points, but was Lacking context. Your, we're only Citing and explaining, though You were not expressing your Opinons, on the Subject... I do that to though, so I can't really criticize.

I'm a foreigner living in the USA. I'm hoping that someone else is going to jump out of a cake and yell "Surprise! These were just joke candidates for the sake of entertainment. Vote for me instead!" Otherwise I at least have the option of going to a different country.