Well This is Depressing

Post Reply New Topic

I've been reading recently about this idiot Michael Savage character, a radio talk-show host who, a while back, made some intolerably unconscionable remarks about the autism community, stating that, "In 99% of cases, autism is just a bratty kid who hasn't been told to cut the act." That statement alone was enough to make my blood boil. What gave that man, who obviously knew less than nothing about autism, the right to spout such ignorant and unnecessarily unkind things? That wasn't even the worst part though; most of the comments at the bottom of the news page I was reading the story from agreed with Savage, claiming that autism is absurdly overdiagnosed for the sake of parents trying to get benefits. People don't seem to realise just how rare it is for people with autism to get disability handouts, and from what I understand, a parent getting free government money because their child has it is almost unheard of, and even when they do, the amout they get is utterly pitifully small in comparison to the amount they spend on therapies and interventions for their autistic child. Frankly, I don't care, I'm in a serious rage over the abominable ignorance that predominates over so many NT's. Why do they have to be so cruel to us all the time? We don't get on radio news programs and talk about how they're all losers who are faking their good social skills to gain attention from people. Most of them have no idea how hard it is for us, and they find slandering us to be so freaking easy. I'm furious right now and need to go do something more constructive than let my self-injurious borderline meltdown behaviour continue.

Mr. Savage has the rights to have his own opinions and to express them, whether or not they have any basis in fact - just like you do!

You would likely have a better chance of changing his mind about Autism if you learned more about him.

"About Michael Savage"

If you succeed in shutting him up, then your own Freedom of Speech may be jeopardized, as well.

I have a good response to that: because there even though they are NT in a sense, they're also just as flawed. It makes no difference being in the minority other than it boasts the ignorance of those who haven't studied Autism and also taken sociology. This is more of a social issue, it's a response to our competitive and toxic mindsets. In a sense he's taking a different approach to a well worn issue, so props to him for trying to swim against the current but he's not a scientist. He's a media commenter who has probably not even backed up his loaded beliefs.

Oh, and "... this idiot Michael Savage ..." holds a master’s degree in medical botany and a second in medical anthropology. Additionally, he earned his PhD. from the University of California at Berkeley in epidemiology and nutrition sciences.

He seems to at least have enough of a medical background to lend credence to his claims.

Are you referring to the July 2008 comments made by Mr. Savage? It is my understanding that he attempted to make amends, and several of his advertisers pulled out as well.

It was 5 years ago in any event.

You might agree with his political views, Fnord, but I don't know how you can possibly defend his remarks on autism.

Surely you don't agree that autism is caused by bad parenting and that children ought to be told the following from this quote...????

“They don’t have a father around to tell them, ‘Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.’ ”

P.S. Savage's degrees aren't in a psychology field, and he hasn't studied autism in the depth needed to claim it's a bunk diagnosis. Just because he's a scientist doesn't mean he knows anything about ASDs and children with them.

It doesn't matter how long ago it was; there have been many terrible things done throughout history that we are still resentful of and which must never be repeated or forgotten. Am I comparing this issue to them? No, not in severity, that would be overzealous, however my point is that time and a tepid apology do not erase the memory of wrongs committed against a people.

Unlike some media personalities and organizations, Mr. Savage (and his broadcaster) attempted to make amends. Holding it against him, 5 years later, does not appear to be a productive use of effort.

I'm going to make the assumption that you're a US citizen (if not, ignore this next part). In November 2012, comments were made an official congressional hearing on autism that in some respects may have been worse than Mr. Savage's comments, in that they disregarded representatives of the Neurodiversity movement, and were the result of deliberate questioning. To the best of my knowledge, no amends were offered. I would advance the idea that reaching out to elected officials on that would be more productive than comments made by Mr. Savage 5 years ago.

People don't seem to realise that freedom, regardless of what it may be about, speech, voting, work, whatever, can never be unlimited in a single individual, because there are points at which one person expressing his freedom is in fact encroaching on the freedom of another. For example, the societal rule in this country that says we don't go around being cruel and intolerant of other races is designed to protect the freedom from prejudice that minorities deserve, however it simultaneously encroaches on the freedom of the majority race, because it is dictating what they can and cannot say and do, in this case, behave in a particular way to a minority race. Don't you see? We cannot all have unlimited freedom of speech because then the freedom of others would be stifling our own, and vice versa. I am of the opinion that deliberately ruining the reputation of a minority culture (in this case autistics and their families) by encouraging people to believe that they are all frauds and attention seekers, while having no knowledge of the matter being discussed is the equivalent of slander, which, if I'm not mistaken, in this country is a crime.

I really don't get the defense of that guy either. Seems to me that instead of expressing opinion, he made statements of 'fact'. Basically saying x+y=autism. What he said was a blatant untruth, not an opinion. And as far as free speech goes: Just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you necessarily SHOULD.

Radio talk show hosts are paid to get people buzzing, irate, stimulated & opinionated. Choosing a minority to abuse usually plays to the cheap seats. No sense arguing w/ a vending machine, just take your tokens elsewhere. Every time you do something constructive & intelligent, you bring the status quo up, long strategy no doubt but it's the only way to prevail. Evolution is sure a thankless task.

I've heard him on the radio before and don't listen to him any more. I can't stand his hatred and intolerance.

Michael Savage was horribly wrong. Had he directed his comments towards ADD, it'd of been a different story. I know a person in real life who seems to pretend to be hyperactive for attention. He is also stupid though. Anyways; an ADD diagnosis should only be given to people who's ability to pay attention is not the result of low cognitive abilities. For instance I don't think someone with Intellectual Disability should be diagnosed with it.

Had he directed his comments toward ADHD, they would be equally false and equally inflammatory. You've already demonstrated your profound ignorance of ADHD in one thread (claiming that it is nothing more than personality traits not worthy of a diagnosis), so you really shouldn't keep bringing it up.

Also, what makes you think that this person is being hyperactive for attention? Hyperactivity tends to bring fairly negative attention and often includes rather tangible social impairments. So what exactly does this person get out of it? I know several people who are diagnosed with ADHD who have often been accused of "doing it for attention" among other things. What this tells me is not that people with ADHD act that way for attention or fake it or whatever, but that most people are fairly ignorant as to the realities that ADHD represents, and would rather blame people for their symptoms than extend simple understanding and compassion.

Also, ADHD can be diagnosed along with intellectual disability as long as the symptoms that could be ADHD are not caused by other factors - this is empirically validated and in the DSM-5.

As long as not every ID person in existence is diagnosed with ADD then I'm fine with it. I'm still sketchy about attention deficit disorders because being hyper is such a common trait that distinguishing naturally hyper people from attention deficit disorder people is a difficult task.

Also during my special day class escapades, I knew of a morbidly obese kid who seemed to have intellectual disability(I didn't confirm it but he had difficulty doing elementary level math, spelling) and he was diagnosed with ADD. He does have problems with attention but it's caused by his ID. Disclaimer: I feel like a piece of %%%% for bringing up a real life person.

Perhaps it would be helpful to look up the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. They go a bit beyond "must be hyper." And people with ADHD are naturally hyper. That's half of the symptom list right there.

Of course, these symptoms must also cause substantial impairments.

I do not understand why you are focusing so much on ID here. I have never heard of excessive ADHD diagnosis among children with ID.



His weight is utterly irrelevant. And how can you know his symptoms are caused by his ID? And even if they are, what if the diagnosis and the treatment are actually helping him?