Saying NO to the "A" word

Post Reply New Topic

I AM AUTISTIC!! !

What would you rather be called? ret*d? That's what people used to call me.

This post was made for a specific set of reasons.

* The use of words such as the difference between saying "he has autism" vs. "That's an autistic man" for instance. Where I live it is highly disrespectfull to call someone or refer to them by a disorder label first.

* Personal life decisions and respect. If someone does not want to be called a disorder label they shouldn't be in accordance with common sense political correctness. Even if it enhances awareness somehow the right to dignity for instance within governmental funded circles supersedes in this context the right to awareness methods that in-dignify per say which is subjective based upon perspective.

* You will notice Autism Speaks for instance does not commonly say a disorder label and then the individual such as autistic individual but rather individual with autism. Whereas in political circles known for abortion issues they demand disorder first language or else it is insulting according to their version of socio-cultural politics. Effectively making autism the disorder label more so attached to the psychological self-identity thus effecting more potentially the self-esteem by means of heightened social and emotional sensitivities toward the autism label and the self identity image.

* Ultimately the "a" word itself and the image of it in society is the pride advocacy plight. My proposition due to the complexity of the issue is to drop the "a" word because the right to dignity of a disorder label and the self-image does not supersede the right to treatment pursuits, cures and the disorder aspects in awareness required to achieve social services priorities politically, accommodations and entitlement recognitions.

Meow!

Oh I'm sorry I only speak dog

Woof

Growl..

Excellent point. I am autistic. I am an autistic individual. The fact that Autism Speaks does not understand that just reinforces my conviction that they are a seriously misguided organisation.

As to your poll options.. I have no idea what they mean. Too many negatives. Are you still beating your wife?

It has been explained several time. Some people don't want to understand for "political reasons".

And onto personal attacks and vindictiveness in an otherwise friendly and intellectual conversation. If pride could only respect how others think and feel long enough to not resort to negative social assumptions and social confrontation to get it's way we'd have friendly discourse but friendly and reasonable do not promote radical enough to get attention. I do not have a wife and do not beat people up. I have no criminal history or behavioral notes of physical aggression in the "system" which is very much part of my life by means of social services on a day to day bases.

I have no need to defend myself from quite obvious bull and recommend a different tact should you want to force your views in my life. My methodology has held intact individual rights, respectability and countered the most obvious political intrusions into the autism political sphere and has protected essential quality of life in philosophy. It's all about individual choices and those that do not respect individual choices tend to resort to indignities and falsehoods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Yes a fallacy intended to induce conflict in an otherwise friendly conversation. Some would call that troll but growing up in a military family and moving all around I have gotten used to the idea of freedom. So I don't tend to want to say it's an illegal social activity and rid it but rather confront it constructively.

I may not like what you have to say but I'd defend your right to say it even though it's intending to harm me. I also don't believe in slander laws. You are free to call me the devil, a wife beater and whatever else. Just know I'm quite smart and can overcome the nonsense with ease.

Yor poll question, and response options are:

Do you respect the right not to be called Autistic?

• Yes - Each Individual Should Choose Identity priority and reference.
  
• No - Stigmatize freely for political reasons and without respect to personal choice.

This is a prime example of a loaded question.

By giving a "Yes" answer, one is approving of some vague concept of personal choice.

By giving a "No" answer, one is saying that autism is a stigma, that to br recognised as such is somehow political and is also some sort of affront to personal choice.

I am not political. My personal choice is to be honest. I have a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. I am autistic.

The term "autistic" was originally applied to individuals that were profoundly effected. However it was originally just "autistic disorder". My personal perspective is one chooses to be stigmatized more often if they choose to identity with autism the disorder label openly. Once a person accepts the idea that they have an identity of autism akin to their name or associate in identity to autism in general and seek to end stigma it is more so self-inflicted emotionally. Albeit depending on context and subject one individuals indignity is another's truth and can be said as an indignity against another individuals truth should a truth not be allowed in asscociation to the autism label's image.

I will provide a brief example of the topic.

Individuals with autism can be prone to isolation more often then individuals without autism and can suffer from depression as a result.

Example reply to fact: There must be something else wrong with the person who just happens to have autism if they suffer from depression.

Somehow to some there is a stigma associated with having autism and depression as well as isolation which can be perceived unacceptable to notions of superiority of innate traits.

Again and as explained the right to dignity and the autism label when assigned by self or others as an identity association does not supersede fact, subjective truth nor the pursuit of treatment to remedy the disability. Any form of advocacy is political and self-advocacy is advocacy. The governing conflict resides from most obvious origins and any function in advocacy which seeks to dictate or else it's a bigotry for instance that autism is not a disability is extraordinarily political. The autism politics have become something of extraordinary complexity but is quite easy to map out yet due to agenda's have become mutually very difficult to resolve.

I don't think he was directing it at you; When I first read it I thought he was, but the Wiki definition just shows that statement about wife beating as one that a person can't answer without incriminating themselves as doing bad behavior, and trying to give an understanding that the statement is analogous to the second poll question.

In your poll either one votes option one which is a reasonable non-self incriminating statement or option two which states that a person should freely stigmatize someone else. I doubt anyone would have voted no if you had left it as a yes or no question.

Of course that was your perogative in making the poll and people are still responding to the topic, mostly to let you know they don't agree with the way the poll was worded. I don't think the majority of people that responded were wrong in seeing a problem there.

Chances are some of the people voted no just because they found the second poll question offensive because it was worded in a way that presupposes that if someone doesn't answer yes to question one they are guilty of stigmatizing someone which is normally considered as bad behavior.

With an anonymous poll people are likely to skew the results when they don't see reasonable poll options; a better option is for them not to answer the poll, but some will just vote no as an opposition to the way it was worded, regardless of how they really feel.

But, as far as keeping a topic going a controversy is a great way to do it, if it had been just a yes or no questions most people would probably of voted yes, there probably would have been little or no dissent, and the poll would have drifted into the distance along time ago.

It's really hard though, to know what a person will take as offensive as at times, unless they let you know. Someone could call a person autistic and offend them while they could call another person autistic and it wouldn't be offensive to that person. Either way it wouldn't necessarily mean they were intentionally not respecting or stigmatizing the person that didn't like it when someone called them Autistic.

It's like a nickname or a birth name. You meet someone and call them by their birth name and they say please call me the nickname instead; once you find out what they want to be identified with most people comply and respect that individual's request on the way they want to be identified.

When you called them by their real name you certainly weren't trying to stigmatize or disrespect them. It comes down to effective communication between two people, for people to maintain the descriptive identity. that they see fit for themselves.

I think, though, in most first person personal interactions people use real names instead descriptive labels. More often a descriptive label is used when a group of two or more people are talking about someone outside of the conversation. However, if it is overheard by the person it is directed at, it can easily be taken as offensive by that person.

Just like when somone says that skinny guy or that long haired guy etc. Particularly when the persons name is not known; a person picks whatever it is that they feel distinguishes them from others in an area where they are at; and sometimes it is a condition, or a disability, like the guy that is missing a leg, or the lady that was in a wheelchair.

Not necessarily an attempt there to disrespect or stigmatize someone; it is clear to everyone they are in a wheel chair or have one leg, it is just an objective distinguishing factor when identifying someone when a person or group of people don't all know the person by name.

At first I thought the individual that responded to you was intentionally disrespecting you; you took it that way as well, at first, I think from your response.

But I think his intent was to provide further understanding why some people felt the same way about the second poll question, as you and I initially felt when we saw the statement about wife beating.

His method got an immediate response from you, in much the same way that your second poll question has gotten responses from others.

Yes the intent of the poll was to provoke thought about issues and not accuse someone of a horrible crime. There is a big difference between autism politics and domestic violence in which a man beats a female. I have found that what I wish to achieved has been achieved with the topic. It's not a scientific poll and many polls exists which seemingly oppose other peoples views that are arranged similarly. Just happened to be provocative in a way that would incite conversation relevantly. Think outside of the box tactics instead of the same old conversation.

Here is what I'm working on now. Fascinating socio-political dynamics.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt161026.html

No. The poll attempted to prevent thought and provoke a knee-jerk reaction.

Both are thoughts. You didn't like the poll simply because you don't agree with my perspective. I'm not the one accusing you of being a wife beater which was the one and true knee and so on. You are welcome to not participate in the conversation or even more so what is welcome is constructive participation without inciting derogatory conflict.

Personally I have no need emotionally to self-label, self-identify centrally nor re-define much of autism for my own purposes. One being centered on the autism label and the self is a certain global bias toward the image of autism. Much like there are biases with concern to other issues of importance.

I think it's best to be persistently subjective but also realize autism as a label is a disability under the law. Though it could be said it is a difference which would also be true the disability classification is needed for other priorities such as quality of life. The right to dignity does not supersede the right to representation which mandates and qualifies individuals for social services under the law for example. Based on my perspective I'd very much not like to focus on the disability so saying no to the original stigma I call the "A" word is important.

I don't doubt that was your intent, but the problem with poll question #2, judging from the posts seemed to overwhelm the conversation, as it is still doing.

Stigmatizing can result in someones death, in a different way than domestic violence does; stigmatizing someone at times can be an equally dangerous method of hurting someone else.

The word "stigmatizing" and the suggestion that Autistic people should be intentionally stigmatized elicits an emotional response just as strong in some as when they hear about domestic violence. For those that have felt the impact of being stigmatized much of their life the idea that they would freely stigmatize others can be seen as particularly offensive, even if that was not your intention.

I don't think anyone has put it in to these words, but when they saw that they might have thought how dare he suggest that I am going to freely stigmatize someone if I don't agree with poll question #1. From the posts it is evident that it made quite a few people angry more than it produced productive thought.

If your intention was limited to gaining a response, it continues to be very effective. I did try to add some information on the real topic at hand about labels and respect, but many have just come to express an issue with the wording of the poll.

But, unfortunately, even if you wanted to, the poll questions can't be changed once they are put in, so we are stuck with the "S" word which in itself the way it is used here, I think unintentionally, can be seen as more stigmatizing than the "A" word.

I think what you propose is in fact a preexisting social deli-ma toward a problem that has been chronic. The dignity issue is apparent and has been used for political reasons and in ways that can also result in death, neglect and related should the truth not be allowed. The solution to preserve quality of life emotionally and adaptively given your concern and my entry into the more overall concern is not making autism the disability label a big part of someones personal life. There is a damage with labeling but there is also a much greater damage when someone is not labeled and whom needs social services in daily life for instance. To me if I take your reply and rationalize it to what extent does the emotional stability of an individual who can otherwise independently function and whom chooses to self-identify for political reasons supersede that of the cronic needs of someone who requires the awareness of autism to be rather blunt and attention gathering to entice the needed supports. It's not a perfect world but I recommend a combination of social reform with concern to dignity and it's well being and that of the truth and it's required awareness.

What you propose and the reality of autism as it is will always be an imperfect balancing act between quality of life for reasons of innate functional limitations and that of the quality of life of self-image.One that can be easily manipulated, used and injected with agenda's from mainstream politics which I will keep to generalized beyond that of the obvious abortion issue at this point. There is no resolution least from what I can do myself other then what I can suggest which is counseling intervention for anyone finding themselves so very focused on autism and relevant perspectives that they may become a risk to themselves and even others as death threats have happened.

It's quite an unfortunate complexity here but I will again suggest people in their personal lives who are upset at the autism concept just simply say no to the "A" word. Be yourself. Autism is not an entire person like Mr. Autism and so on. It's just a label describing disability people need help with.