Saying NO to the "A" word

Post Reply New Topic

Seems to be perceived like so when others don't like debate and one has a strong style of communication. The problem is instead of reasonable discourse picking apart the matters some just don't want things understood. As if to protect a certain point of view. If you don't like what I say that means I got a huge ego because I speak intelligently. I could say your ego deflection is your ego in your view of my own. Just let's get to basic analysis and constructive discourse or move on.

Bullies typically make fun of and in general put others down. There is no reasonable debate in your and some others replies. Just emotional attacks from those that disagree. So I suggest to change the tact a bit because it's not productive and even harmful to a P.V. I think you might have some good points but I cannot acquire an understanding of them if this persists.

You should talk about attacking people. What thread do you want me to go to and quote what you have said?

I would like to point out that what you said to me made sense and involved no prattle whatsoever. Do you want to try that with others?

EDIT: Deleted ad hominem attack. Completely uncalled for.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 02 Apr 2011, 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I did not say I have low functioning autism nor speech problem in this time in my life and write much better then speaking. I have HFA like I've said time and time again. Personal attacks differ from ideological based persuasions. The technique has been used to find a middle ground. However continuation just like other online politicians do with the insults one after another and avoid the reasonable outlining of practicality to the matters. I'd very much like to find solutions to these social matters so that folks as a whole can focus on a collective progress universally in the autism community. For quality of life inclusion, opportunity, equality and all those sorts of things.

If you approach this topic in a kind way and without unnecessary zealous positivity which would be the exact opposite of the above quote we'd have reasonable balance. Let's be productive with this conversation and talk about the issue directly without other matters intruding upon it. Give it a go?

Nah, I really do not care about this topic. The fact is you bully people around and even personally attack them when they disagree with you or question your views. You have a known history of doing that. I just wanted to speak my mind about the hypocrisy of what you said earlier.

By the way, what has 'non-profit status' on your blog? Final question.

That's your interpretation and again unwillingness to bend in your perspective. When in a social circle someone has an unpopular point of view they themselves will be manipulated, harassed and all that sort of thing in order to protect that P.V. Pride is like that and I've experienced that. A little balance is needed is all and I think that has been achieved least from my perspective.

If I was bullying people I'd call them names, do like your doing with the put down and related. I can't bring myself to literally making fun of someone or purposely seeking to damage their emotional well being. The only compromise I make on that ethic is to indirectly persuade to protect the emotional well being of individuals of the opposite views who well have been bullied for years who support the cure modality. Parents, individuals with autism and at times professionals are called bigots, curebies, and so on.

So if the opportunity to come in the middle and talk about the issues is received by only a few then I think the old tacts need explanation that created the rift. You are simply not interested.

As for non-profit status are you speaking of the organization I head? No non-profit status will happen for 1-2 years as I oversee the directive and assure the bylaws protect self-advocacy say in the direction of the company as a matter of foundation. The special interest folks have not led past organizations to great achievements in the past so why should I let them take it over.

I do not have a blog that I know of.

It says blog on the Google search and the top.

Thank you for that clarification. I am done now.

EDIT: Underlined hyperlink.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 02 Apr 2011, 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I remember that. Yes a short while some time ago but I decided not to personalize the Pr campaign to much. An importance of social matters is needed but not directly comparatively. Segregation of disabled is entirely different then racial integration issues of the past. Strong leadership requires assertion but not manipulation in those assertions. ASAN for instance proclaimed segregation was an injustice to make available but it is not entirely because folks do choose adaptive settings. The true segregation happens as a result of a lack of opportunity to move beyond those circumstances and essentially institutionalizing opportunity and is not an issue of hatred but that of a lack of awareness combined with special interest conflicts of interest.

There have been direct comparisons on other blogs, websites and so on. The issue needs to be balanced, concise and a solution need come with it not just declaration of the problem. The use of the word segregation is a powerful insertion. So for the time being I've decided not to use it but use other approaches.

Well known to you, possibly - but that doesn't make it a global reality.
I have? Then show me where I "zealously asserted" my sexuality.

I deny both assertions - but I am certainly seeing signs of desperation when assertions based on nothing are getting thrown at me.

Are you actually denying my Autism now? Is that really what you're saying here?

Again with the loaded responses. You accuse me of not seeking balance simply because I am questioning your world view.

I don't like psychobabble because it is just that: babble. Look up the meaning of "babble" and you'll see what I mean.
I didn't call anything "crackers" - although I'll grant that you're maybe unfamiliar with my use of the word in the context in which it was used.
Here in the UK, when someone says "that's a cracker" it simply means that something is an outstanding example of its type. Eg. "Your new car is a cracker!" - meaning the car is exceptionally good.
This is entirely different to when it can also be used to state that something is silly or non-productive - as in "Her method of rescuing that cat was completely crackers", or when expressing an opinion (and generally perceived as jokey and non-serious, when this word is used) on someone's mental stability, as in: "He is crackers".

So, when I said ""identity based pathism"? What? Blimey Nathan, you can't half come up with some convoluted crackers! " I was saying that your use of this particular psychobabble phrase was an exceptionally good example (among many) of using some words which convey no meaning whatever.

To you, in this thread certainly - "constructive" simply means that what you say is accepted and discussed only within your own terms and according to your own agenda.
Show me where I have been "calling names", and where I've been putting you down.

No, you haven't. You've given your view that "The sayings autistic person, simply autistic in reference to someone and autistic man or autistic women is fundamentally disrespectful." and will now not show anything to demonstrate how this is so. You just keep repeating that it is so, yet won't answer the simple question "How is it so? What would that look like in real-world, everyday examples?" without resorting to more psychobabble and repetition.
Multiple repetitions of your assertion, intermingled with multiple repetitions of the word "choice" does not a framework make, old bean.

Which is precisely what I've been banging away at and trying to do.
The key word here is clarification, Nathan. Continually stating the same thing while wrapping it in yet more psychobabble has the reverse effect.

Cornflake must be my brother from another mother.

One of my criteria for whether something makes sense, is whether a Markovization of it also makes as much sense. In writing which is meaningful, markovizing it turns it into gibberish. In writing which is not meaningful, it is difficult or impossible to determine a difference.

I took the following snippet:

And pasted it here.

I got the following output:



I leave it to you to make your own conclusion.

To contrast, here is a snippet from the above wiki article on markov chains:



And here it is subjected to the same mutilation:

I am not sure why that the essential frameworks being so simple it must be made out to be so complex. Now I do not understand the self-perception altercation above about having autism or not. This issue of self-identification is a part of the core component of conflict in how autism is represented in society. I am asking you to enter the conversation in a way your not trying to conflict or use other political issues to your advantage when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I really do not want to spend the time to answer all of your replies because your making it far more complex then the original issue is. It is avoiding the original subject and I don't want to spend time on these other issues. It is like a feeling of boredom but not the same.

Let's take the topic a little bit further then the simple identity based rationality. Would it be ok to begin here?

The Autism Identity Complex

& Conflicts in cure awarenesses.

1. Originally the label was applied to someone to represent the adverse symptoms.

2. The label has been reinvented to be identity based and conflicts with treatment progress rights declared as cures.

3. To what advantage and disadvantage does someone who identifies with the label have by society embracing the cure idea.

4. How is someone effected emotionally by the cure idea and not only that but the label itself being about negatives originally.

5. The re-invention of autism by means of the rejection of the cure modality and affirmation of autism as an identity rather then strictly a disorder label in criterion.

6. What expectation of society is there that cure be rejected when individuals with autism who support cure for a condition are confronted by individuals that do not desire one and feel adverse to it and whom have obliged an identity association to the label.

If you do not like something said you can call it all sorts of things. Ultimately what your doing is demanding a certain view point or method of speaking. I see nothing wrong with it and was speaking in context to issues of concern in the link. I am sure you deem many things inferior to your specific methods of articulation, reasoning and preferred beliefs. My goal is to find a way to rationalize but your making no attempt.

Good question.

On Cornflake's profile it says he is diagnosed with Asperger's. Denying that someone has autism is the disability's form of Holocaust denial (Godwin's Law! Oh no, I lost!): it is one of the most despicable things you could do in advocacy. Especially if you are not a doctor and cannot give a second opinion.

I did not see you give a yes / no to that. At least you gave a convoluted answer (which happens to everyone but me). I ask you to give a simple yes / no to that question.

Let me explain something to you: I do not come here much to post. I am not really a politician or an advocate. But what I am is a soldier. Previously this week, I had to survive being called a Nazi apologist on THREE different threads. Cornflake might not realize it, but on another thread I had to school some guy on the fact that the BNP is indeed anti-Semitic. I have weathered a lot to stick to my opinion and give facts to defend myself just in this past week. I am the guy who found this link about you. Your tactics will not work on me.

Based on that link, you have a history of accusing people of not having autism. If you cannot give a simple yes / no to that question and give me some long, rambling answer, then I am going to assume based on precedent that answer is yes. If you say yes or I think yes, then that is definite defamation of character in the contest of this argument. If you cannot give a simple answer (which you can do based on talking to me), then I have advice for you: don't post here anymore. Not because I will follow you, but because it shows that you are no advocate but a coward for not answering one of the worst accusations stated here.

I have participated in only a few other chat places concerning autism in the past five years. Never intensely other then this forum. That group of the link you posted there primary yahoo forum I was just showing what I accomplished to see if others wanted to do similarly and was to just move on to share with others. I was met with one of the most horrific nasty social encounters I've ever had and treated in ways that no one has ever treated me socially. I was accused of being a fraud, that my mom went around town making people sorry for me, that I force people work as a state policy and so on with some the the most nasty emails from others of just pure hatred for what I have accomplished. I had no idea what those folks were talking about. They accused me of phoning them and I dont know there for number, emailing them and so on. Was total mellow drama hell bent on attacking everything I accomplished. None of it was true I was communicating by means of a forum and was asked by the moderated to privately message them and was cursed ate and hated more. They were some of the meanest people on the face of the planet as far as I am concerned and that's when I knew pride was a threat to compassionate inclusion.

All I am interested in is folks that are confirmed diagnosed as having autism. With the internet and the political issues of autism to me it's to risky to automatically believe people. Also I am kind of tired of the victim-hood bit in which just because someone does not believe a certain way they are Nazi's and a holocaust or some other junk. I think it's really bad news for others with autism because it's just redicilious and down right embarrassing.

Those kinds of folks need to be put in there place with proper open public debate and that is my challenge to them.

Someone that talks about autism advocacy to change perceptions and ideas is an advocate and an advocate is a kind of politician.

Last edited by ci on 02 Apr 2011, 7:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yes or No?

EDIT: I just showed that link as to my resume. All I care about (and all I am getting) is if you did or did not deny a person's autism.

Yes or no that you have autism? Science tells me I need proof and this is the internet where all sorts of falsehoods can be presented. Do you know that you have autism? If you do then yes. However like myself to be effective in advocacy especially online you got to have media articles or professionals prepared to confirm it. I got both.

This is not a 1+1=2 circumstance nor did I create the barriers that prevent authenticity online.

Yes or No? This is about what you said, not some scientific jargon. You know what you said and you know what you meant. I'm thinking yes a little more.

EDIT: I want one and only one word: yes or no.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 02 Apr 2011, 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.