Are leftists the biggest hypocrites towards autistic issues?

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's more of a norm on the left than it is for the right, the dishonesty and mean-spirited rhetoric.
And further towards socialism direction tends to be the long-term trajectory of the Democrats interests and the left's parties in general.

Genuinely conservative right-wing viewpoints are irrelevant in the culture climate today.

On a practical level, the policies most likely to benefit autists would be something along the lines of universal health care (including mental health of course) and any sort of assistance in living, be it food stamps or some potential UBI in the future. A lot of people on the spectrum depend on disability benefits as well. Section 8 housing, etc.

These sorts of proposals, and the defense of preexisting social benefits, are most likely to emerge because of political influence from the left upon the establishment.

I think this sort of economic representation is more important in terms of actually improving the lives of autists.

Depends what you mean by leftists. The ordinary people I used to live among were decidedly leftist, quite radically so, and they made me feel very welcome because for them, social inclusion was a way of life. They also leaned towards anarchism, nihilism and hippie ideology, and weren't expecting anything great from the UK Labour Party, which I think was wise.

But that's just my personal experience of ordinary leftists. I've no idea about the US Democrat Party, I would guess they're a group of politicians who are mostly posing as left-wingers but are only leftist in comparison to the Republicans. No doubt they will trot out all kinds of politically-correct dogma, but I doubt they're particularly committed to it. I knew one or two disabled people during the Obama years, but I didn't notice the benefits people being particularly fair or compassionate to them. Generally speaking it was a matter of forcing the bureaucrats to pay up by hiring a no-win, no-fee lawyer.

In the UK, as far as I can see, the official "left" (Labour Party) has done little for the underprivileged and has just played its own game. I think about half of them are indistinguishable from Tories. Blair just carried on privatising the public services. During the final days of that government they were talking about how to cut the benefits bill, without even wondering what was going to happen to the claimants if they did that. They were putting out this idea that everybody who can work should work, with a view to deeming disabled people fit for work and stopping their benefits, but of course they had no plans to force the idle rich to flip burgers, no plans to outlaw living off an unearned income, just a wish to cut public spending and reduce progressive taxation. Inequality got worse, and Blair just said "that just means the rich are getting comparatively richer and that doesn't matter as long as the poor are also getting richer" - maybe they were before the credit crunch, but that brought the poor back down with a bang, and the differentials continued to rise.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the US "Leftists" you're talking about were hypocrites as well. That Clinton woman looked like she was pretty wealthy. Politicians always seem to do pretty well out of the system. I didn't see any left-wing achievements from Obama like fair dismissal laws or truly affordable healthcare. Even the UK has those, though not for much longer if current trends continue.

I appreciate this loss of patience with politically correct speech. I think there's a genuine element in it to try to get a fairer society by means of altering the language to stop it channeling people into bigoted thinking, but taken to excess it gets cumbersome and oppressive. On a more practical level, Labour councils often used to restrict the height of the hedges and fences that residents could put up round their gardens, presumably in the belief that it was exclusionist to barricade yourself into your nice private property, but they didn't really protect residents from the destructive kids, drunks and burglars that their policy enabled. The way I see it, these governing bodies fail to represent the community or to listen to their concerns, it's very ivory tower. I think if we ever get a real leftist government things will look very different to what we've seen so far. My own view is that real socialism - which is basically just the ethos of fairness - has never been tried, and people see Stalin or Clinton and think that's what it's all about. Perhaps it only happens in small communities, and a city or a country is just too big to allow a truly representative democracy to happen.

I don't want their concern, it's only available if I can be co-opted and used in their struggle, so f**k em.

Is there any evidence that people on the spectrum would act as a reliable voting block?
It doesn't make any sense for a party to do what some posters are asking in return for votes if you can't depend on those votes. And how many votes are we talking about?