Saying NO to the "A" word

Post Reply New Topic

There is possibility either way especially when people saying they have autism go up against progress. I cannot denote someone has autism or not. However I would very much enjoy for them to be confirmed and then socially confront them and the type of ideology. I would encourage it and long for it.

I would very much hope they do not have autism as well. It's not a good thing when one self-advocate must confront other self-advocates in ways that are needed. The ideology is extraordinarily destructive.

One last time: I want one word - yes or no? Did you accuse someone of not having autism? One word. About your opinion.

It is not a yes or no. If someone can be confirmed then yes otherwise it's scientifically and logically a maybe. I've learned not to take things at face value because if someone is to trusting then delusion and risk can happen. I would love for those people to be confirmed, for them to be invited here and a moderator made to understand it's a special circumstance of all hell is going to break loose in a specific post.

So it is a yes.

Blame reality and folks just not being psychic. Your text on a screen to me bucko. Maybe one day we can all hook up into a mind mainframe but then you really got to be worried about the idea of mind viruses. I do not see why people as well are so sensitive. It's easy to be confirmed as an advocate.

Also I'm not an autism expert.

The complexity comes only through attempting to unravel your forest of psychobabble; nothing more.

I believe I was quite clear with what I quoted from you about this, and was also quite clear with my related question.
Will you now answer it?

But this is the funny thing: when I read "self-identification" as used by you it's related to "part of the core component of conflict in how autism is represented in society".
In everyday life - and including implied or specific references to Autism - it simply refers in a general way to someone's awareness of themselves.

In other words, I know fairly well who I am - and I should point out that I have more experience with this than you'll ever have.
I am 'Autistic man' and 'man with Autism' and I am not in the slightest bit bothered by any of these words or their ordering.
You are hanging your whole premise on word order, and you're attempting to inflate this into something of earth-shattering importance.
As I said earlier, the title of this thread indicates that clearly.

I am asking you to explain, to demonstrate, to show me how the things you are campaigning about on this "A" word, this word you want people to stop using, actually show up in real life.
I'd like to see how the use of 'autistic man' is fundamentally disrespectful.

Your continually telling me that it is fundamentally disrespectful says nothing at all. It lends no weight whatever to your core argument.

Nathan, it was you who raised these "other political issues" - both as issues at all and as having some sort of unclear political overtones.

That you continue to claim this is the case after my specific and detailed denials and repeated requests for evidence from you of these things is really, well, umm I don't know what it is - but I do know you are appearing now to be deliberately distorting what I've said.

I'd be reasonably content if you'd answer the questions in my last couple of posts.
You appear to have made some fairly serious allegations and I want to give you the chance to explain or retract them.
Continuing to ignore them is not acceptable, Nathan.

These "other issues", as you rather dismissively term them, are the result of questions resulting from your, thus far, weakly supported assertions that "The sayings autistic person, simply autistic in reference to someone and autistic man or autistic women is fundamentally disrespectful."
I am merely seeking believable, everyday evidence but I keep getting thickets of psychobabble.

Agreed. It's a harmless and useful label like 'red brick' or 'big dog'.

And there you go again with the babble. I have no idea what this means.

You see? You see how this is all getting progressively longer yet conveying diminishing meaning?

"treatment progress rights declared as cures"
"society embracing the cure idea"
"How is someone effected emotionally by the cure idea"
"The re-invention of autism by means of the rejection of the cure modality"

How is it that such a simple thing about word order being disrespectful can shoot off on multiple parallel tangents involving nebulous concepts such as these?

I'll answer only a little bit of your reply and would like to impress to you that further extreme length replies taking everything personally and bringing up personal matters such as being gay to change the conversion which is a known comparative political issue in autism politics will not entice me to reply to you in-depth. I have a certain focus and the more you get personal about it the more I simply don't want to take the long amounts of time to reply to the issues your distracting the topic from. As the O.P I had a very narrow focus on this issue of identity and autism and also how it manifest in society. Another poster wanted the psycho-babble which I joke becuase people that are not interested in it just like I'm not interested in your continued derailment of this post just won't bother with it and even trash it. Your showing me a bit of disrespect and I'm choosing not to show you respect to reply to the very long winded banter.


Quote:
Now I do not understand the self-perception altercation above about having autism or not.
I believe I was quite clear with what I quoted from you about this, and was also quite clear with my related question.
Will you now answer it?

Do you have autism? This is not for me to determine, not something I can say for sure and if the label is very important to you in this unique circumstance I am not sure why. It's way off topic.

My, you've changed over the years.

I generally find that the best way of communicating oneself clearly is to state one's opinion in a single sentence. The shorter the sentence, and the shorter the words, the more clearly this opinion has been stated.

The issue at hand is how the word "autism" is disrespectful. One can have many opinions on this, and all of them can be stated in many different ways. Some of these ways are better than others at communicating just what is it one believes.

Saying:

lends itself far more readily to clear communication than saying:

Yes came from years of experience related to composting manure.

If something is not understood I'd really appreciate a simple question rather then notions of inferiority which over the years I've learned to just reject. I tend to want to compile things in very rationalistic understandings and in ways that allow for an understanding of why do people think those ways. I want to understand the emotions and the relating dynamics of these social circumstances in very logical ways.

For instance a subjective individual if found of fact.

1. Individual is labeled.

2. individual feels inferior and or defective as a result.

3. individual socially rebels saying he or she is perfect already and to accept them.

How is Cornflake derailing this thread?

Basically I am just not interested in it. It's extremely annoying to me. My goal is a rationalistic framework of both possibilities and when certain social facts are portrayed probability of proper interpretation. I'd like to understand why people would like to identify with the label and when they do the psychological complex theoretically as to why they oppose a cure for adverse symptoms. It is my theory that sometimes self-esteem is a major part of it and as well as experiences in society of rejection when applicable and that cure is the ultimate form of perceived rejection of self by self and from society. Also other political issues such as prenatal testing and a sublime or self-perceived ethical obligation to define autism as simply a difference as a form of preservation of developing life in potential to be aborted. It is a very interesting concern and I believe the issue should be open for discussion for scientific reasons.

I think in my case I'm just confused.

I don't see how the interpretation can be anything other than the currently accepted DSM diagnostic criteria.



I can understand, but doesn't it make more sense to ask about those experiences common to all?



Opposing difference is a choice, is it not? I would presume that this opposition is also within a rationalistic framework.



I think they identify with the psychological complex on a theoretical basis due to the difference within their rationalistic framework for the proper interpretation of this rejection. Or am I wrong?

... damn,ci... I think I'd like to see that wicked sense of humor a bit more often...

That's a complete distortion and you know it.

I used the terms black guy, Welsh guy, Indonesian guy, Autistic guy in various examples, and in a later attempt at further illustration I included the phrase "And of course it would be wrong to indicate someone in this way because they happened to be Autistic, in just the same way as if they were gay."
Later I used 'gay' again in the phrase "Seems the most obvious thing to do irrespective of his being Autistic, green, bald or gay."
Later still (with reference to your statement about seeing difference as defect) I said "Equally applicable to being gay, too."

Your response following these uses consisted of (in part) the following dismissive statement: "I reviewed your reply and unless you going to accept that autism is different then the psychosocial issue of being gay and accept autism is a disorder (...)"

Nathan, that is entirely your own invention and I responded with this: "I don't think I like this dismissive tone and I'm well aware of the differences between being Autistic and being gay, thanks. I happen to have first-hand experience in both."

Since then, you've continually attempted to invent the case that I've been using my sexuality as some sort of leverage.
You could just as easily have chosen from my other examples used in an identical context - such as 'black guy', 'Welsh guy', 'Indonesian guy', 'Autistic guy', 'green', 'bald' - yet you choose to fixate on just one one word of the many equally applicable and inflate it out of all context to push your own agenda.
It's a crude diversionary technique and it isn't going to work.

You made the following statement:I responded with "Are you actually denying my Autism now? Is that really what you're saying here?"
You said in response "This is not for me to determine, not something I can say for sure" - which is the answer to a question I didn't ask.

I asked if you were denying my Autism, and the way in which you are avoiding answering that specific question is becoming a clear answer in itself.