Page 6 of 7 [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,086

02 Aug 2020, 11:30 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
Your almost Rainmanesque in the knowledge you bring to threads,are you sure you are neurotypical?


LOL! thanks VS...Kraftie also thinks I have autistic traits (I probably do) but its not my place to give myself a diagnosis when in reality I seem to be cruising through life without any discernable neurological or behavioural issues.

I am, however, deeply connected to people on this forum.

The regulars here are like a "brains trust"



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,086

02 Aug 2020, 11:34 pm

CockneyRebel wrote:
Jordan Peterson is unwilling to accept anyone who's different from himself. I take everything that he says with a grain of salt.


JP is fairly authentic to being himself so tends to not hold back when arguing with people he disagrees with. It does come across as being hostile but I have watched him a few times and it's just the way he comes across, his personality.



spencerg
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 2
Location: Utah

26 Nov 2020, 4:42 pm

Hey guys. I'm newly diagnosed, and new to WrongPlanet. I just wanted to put in my two cents.
Now I think this would apply to almost all of these identities that people have--not just ones related to neurodiversity.
I think it would be more healthy if we were to think of our communities more like departments, rather than like tribes, gangs, teams, etc.
So autists could figuratively be like the IT Department of humanity. We could develop an environment and tools specific to our needs and strengths, just like an IT Department would do. And we can have diplomats who speak the languages of the people outside the group, who can negotiate on our behalf and plead the case of why they need us, which is just like how a successful IT manager always has to convince executives why they need particular IT projects and services for the company to function.



Throwawayacccounts
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 2 Dec 2020
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 23

04 Dec 2020, 1:21 am

carlos55 wrote:
I wonder if many advocates have themselves considered the potential danger of trying to create a “group identity”?

I wonder if “autistic guilt” for our burden on society will ever come about?


I doubt it. The fact is I've seen it a few times where people try to push for disability rights, but we and many others get lost in it if you don't have a wheelchair or other major problem which in 2 seconds someone can see.

I kind of blame the modern work culture to be a major problem. Many report working a normal 80 hour a week to 100+ at times. And it's more and more common to hear 80 hours being the normal. Along with this, people are now working maybe 3 to 8 jobs in their 1 with the same exact pay. Basically, by the time anything comes around they are already brain dead. If not, then they are extremely worried about living paycheck to paycheck and what if they lose their job.

I mean I could be wrong, but at most I've seen autistic groups that go out there (runs, marches, etc) it being 100% about autistic kids and not adults. And then in papers and what not, it tends to not be about high functioning and it focuses on the extreme. So even then many of us that is going to be on here will be not included. So we are out of luck when it comes to that.

carlos55 wrote:
As a group would we take to the streets to defend ourselves?

Do most autistic people some of whom are societies most vulnerable able to put up a defense against this?



I could imagine autistic people hitting the streets and that turning out good. Like some can, and some should IMO. But I think a good number of us will get overwhelmed pretty quickly.

Even still, I can't see it ending well. Like I can see it being called the march of the retards. At the end of the day, I believe what will actually help us is by changing the minds of governments. Getting society to accept us and to hire us. This might happen at some point. But there is far less governments out there than companies. Even getting a 3rd of companies to change their hiring practices, how they treat us on the job, and so on. This will be impossible IMO. But getting governments to give us UBI or something close to it due to our high unemployment rate. That might be a step in the right direction. At least then some of us will be able to start moving forward on our own at which point.

So I don't think there is much risk on our end.

BTW BLM and many others, they have agendas behind them. If you look at the leaders and what they stand for, they don't stand for the name. In fact, this has been proven many many times. There was a group out in Boston that aim to get rid of black on black violence. They used the CDC model and treated violence as a virus. Like if I beat up your friend, then you come over my people, and my people will go after more, and so on (as example). Well it turned out to work. By finding out about violence through the cops and word of mouth. They were able to send people over to both sides to get them to TALK IT OUT. This actually made some of the most dangerous streets in the area into some of the most peaceful ones. Simply by getting ahead of it before it spread like a virus, and giving people the tools to simply talk it out in a peaceful manner. Well, the group went to BLM leaders asking for them to spread this (keep in mind that group is black run). And BLM decline and said something about it not being the focus of the group. Around this time people were finding out the heads were really supporting the removal of private property, and they believe cops only job is to protect private property. A few other terrorist groups went with this hand to hand like Antifa in their core believes.



Like unless if you have autistic lives manner go out and it's about something 100% different. Then I seriously doubt you will see us in the identity political wars. At least in a positive way. Like I've already seen some blogs get hijack by that. Where the blog is about how autistic people could be treated better, but then they hijack it with BLM or LGBT and make it not about us but about the other causes.




But to be honest, I wouldn't doubt the bulk of us just doesn't care anymore to fight it. That we are just here for the ride and we are waiting for our day to get off this ride we call life. That or waiting for that lucky day we aren't worried about being homeless or whatever.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,361
Location: New York City (Queens)

10 Dec 2020, 12:49 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
This is what the phrase "Check your privilege" is about. This is 2020 and many important things happen not by official authorities but on social media.


I'm not sure how it's a problem to tell people who haven't lived an experience to listen to those who have when they describe their experience.

Then just tell people to listen to people who have the experience instead of the hostile accusatory expression "Check Your privilege". Personal example. A few years ago you had a bunch of people in comment sections demanding people on the spectrum describe themselves as a "person with autism" because they claimed "autistic" is offensive. When that happened I could have told them to Check their neurotypical privilege. What I did was inform them I likely have 60+more years experience of being autistic then they do so my opinion of what is offensive to me carries more weight than theirs. I made it centrally about them and me not centrally the groups we were born into. I never got any response that I can recall. Many others used similar tactics. That demand rarely happens anymore. The conversation stays related to the video or blog people are commenting on. If we all told them to check their privilege or just used the phrase "privilege" my guess is the person first - identity first flame wars would still be going on because instead of getting to the point we would have offended them.

I agree with your approach, at least when talking to people who are neither left-wing activists nor HASS academics. When talking to people in the latter categories, there would be no problem with using a term like "neurotypical privilege."

I think the problem with today's popular use of the term "privilege" may be that it's a recent oversimplified popularization of jargon that has been used both in academia (e.g. by sociologists) and by leftist political activists (primarily within their own groups or in literature aimed at fellow activists) for decades. (I first encountered the term "privilege," as in "white privilege," "heterosexual privilege," etc., way back around 1981 or so.)

As used in a social science context, the term "privilege" is nuanced, e.g. it is understood that most people are privileged in some ways, but disadvantaged in other ways. However, to people unfamiliar with the nuances, it can all-too-easily lead to oversimplified us-vs.-them thinking, and it can sound accusatory even if not intended that way.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Related what I also never do is demand they use "autistic". I let them use "person with autism" to their heart's content while I use "autistic" to my heart's content. I will only get offended and react if they demand I use person-first language.

For us at least, that's a reasonable approach, and I agree. (I would also joke about people with person-first language-ism vs. adjectivistic people.) But I wouldn't generalize that to a prescription for other disadvantaged minority groups (e.g. racial/ethnic minorities).


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- My life as one of the many belatedly-diagnosed autistic older people.
- Queens groups on Meetup.com.


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,361
Location: New York City (Queens)

10 Dec 2020, 3:10 pm

Throwawayacccounts wrote:
I mean I could be wrong, but at most I've seen autistic groups that go out there (runs, marches, etc) it being 100% about autistic kids and not adults. And then in papers and what not, it tends to not be about high functioning and it focuses on the extreme. So even then many of us that is going to be on here will be not included. So we are out of luck when it comes to that.

Those are "autism parents" groups, not "autistic" groups.

Throwawayacccounts wrote:
I could imagine autistic people hitting the streets and that turning out good. Like some can, and some should IMO. But I think a good number of us will get overwhelmed pretty quickly.

Even still, I can't see it ending well. Like I can see it being called the march of the retards.

I don't see "hitting the streets" as a very useful tactic for us, at least for the most part (although it would be good for some of us to participate in larger disability rights marches, which already exist).

In my opinion, the main thing we need to do is to build our own community. (See my article Longterm visions for the autistic community.)

Throwawayacccounts wrote:
At the end of the day, I believe what will actually help us is by changing the minds of governments.

In order to "change the minds of governments," you need to have either (1) lots of money or (2) a well-organized pressure group rooted in a well-organized community. That's one of the reasons why we need to build a much bigger and better-organized community than now exists.

Throwawayacccounts wrote:
Getting society to accept us and to hire us. This might happen at some point. But there is far less governments out there than companies. Even getting a 3rd of companies to change their hiring practices, how they treat us on the job, and so on.

Organizing our community will help a lot with this. See Autistic Workers Project.

Throwawayacccounts wrote:
...

There was a group out in Boston that aim to get rid of black on black violence. They used the CDC model and treated violence as a virus. Like if I beat up your friend, then you come over my people, and my people will go after more, and so on (as example). Well it turned out to work. By finding out about violence through the cops and word of mouth. They were able to send people over to both sides to get them to TALK IT OUT. This actually made some of the most dangerous streets in the area into some of the most peaceful ones. Simply by getting ahead of it before it spread like a virus, and giving people the tools to simply talk it out in a peaceful manner. Well, the group went to BLM leaders asking for them to spread this (keep in mind that group is black run). And BLM decline and said something about it not being the focus of the group.

I see nothing wrong here. Violence within a community and violence by cops against a community are distinct sets of problems that would naturally be addressed by distinct groups.

Throwawayacccounts wrote:
Around this time people were finding out the heads were really supporting the removal of private property, and they believe cops only job is to protect private property.

Marxists have a long history of being over-represented among the founders and leaders of social reform groups of various kinds, including Black civil rights groups. That's because, in Marxist theory, one of the pre-conditions for a genuine socialist revolution is for the working class to be organized, both as labor unions and as a variety of egalitarian reform groups. So, Marxists are strongly motivated to build social reform groups.

Even though I disagree with the longterm goal of socialist revolution (I favor a mixed economy), this does not, in itself, invalidate the reforms called for by the reform groups, nor does it invalidate the reform groups themselves, as long as the groups focus on the reforms and not on calling for a socialist revolution (which obviously isn't going to happen anytime in the near future anyway). And I'd much rather deal with a group led by Marxists (whose ultimate goal is equality) than with a group led by the likes of, for example, Louis Farrakhan, who teaches a truly anti-white and generally bigoted black nationalist ideology.

I do have other issues with the Black Lives Matter movement, as I've discussed elsewhere. (I don't think "defunding the police" is the solution to police violence.)


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- My life as one of the many belatedly-diagnosed autistic older people.
- Queens groups on Meetup.com.


Last edited by Mona Pereth on 10 Dec 2020, 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: uk

10 Dec 2020, 3:18 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
bee33 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The way it is often used is to say you are white, you are privileged, your opinion is worthless. That might not have been the original intent of the concept when it was conceived but that is how it has been effectively used. And yes guilt tripping is a part of the weaponization of the concept.

Used that way by whom? Just because some annoying person says something annoying and wrongheaded, that doesn't make it a thing or point of view that is being used in a particular way. I'm not aware of anyone who has credibility or a platform, like a well-known activist or author or professor or journalist, who has used the concept of white privilege in the way that you describe.

This is what the phrase "Check your privilege" is about. This is 2020 and many important things happen not by official authorities but on social media.


I'm not sure how it's a problem to tell people who haven't lived an experience to listen to those who have when they describe their experience.

Then just tell people to listen to people who have the experience instead of the hostile accusatory expression "Check Your privilege". Personal example. A few years ago you had a bunch of people in comment sections demanding people on the spectrum describe themselves as a "person with autism" because they claimed "autistic" is offensive. When that happened I could have told them to Check their neurotypical privilege. What I did was inform them I likely have 60+more years experience of being autistic then they do so my opinion of what is offensive to me carries more weight than theirs. I made it centrally about them and me not centrally the groups we were born into. I never got any response that I can recall. Many others used similar tactics. That demand rarely happens anymore. The conversation stays related to the video or blog people are commenting on. If we all told them to check their privilege or just used the phrase "privilege" my guess is the person first - identity first flame wars would still be going on because instead of getting to the point we would have offended them.

Related what I also never do is demand they use "autistic". I let them use "person with autism" to their heart's content while I use "autistic" to my heart's content. I will only get offended and react if they demand I use person-first language.


Strange i always thought it was the other way round with advocates preferring "autistic" to "person with autism".

To be honest neither bothers me, there`s too many little hitlers trying to boss everyone about.

Good on you for standing up to them



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,361
Location: New York City (Queens)

10 Dec 2020, 3:59 pm

carlos55 wrote:
Strange i always thought it was the other way round with advocates preferring "autistic" to "person with autism".

Various parents' groups used to push "person with autism." Probably some still do.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- My life as one of the many belatedly-diagnosed autistic older people.
- Queens groups on Meetup.com.


ChiefEspatier
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 29 Dec 2020
Posts: 10

31 Dec 2020, 2:16 pm

CockneyRebel wrote:
Jordan Peterson is unwilling to accept anyone who's different from himself. I take everything that he says with a grain of salt.


I honestly think it's quite the opposite, he's more aware than most people, of what real diversity looks like.

As in he's a scientist who literally studies the differences between people.

His whole political movement revolves around the premise that certain people are trying to steam role over neurological differences.

He's a neurodiversity advocate if there was ever was one.

You cannot understate that, I mean you truly cannot.

He's not arguing liberals should bugger off and die, he's arguing that liberals should quite picking on neurological conservatives.



carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: uk

01 Jan 2021, 3:37 pm

He`s never really discussed neurodiversity and only briefly spoke about the symptoms of autism and Temple Grandin in one of his lectures for 3 minutes.

He`s basically against the Marxist view of splitting human beings into over simplistic groups which allows greater control and manipulation from societal elite, which is a view I agree with.

We used to view all people as human beings and aspire to judge on character like M L king emphasises, but now too many people want to create tribes that are played off against each other causing more societal division.

Meanwhile those at the top carry-on stealing, manipulating and controlling while they laugh all the way to the bank as the peasants fight each other rather than question those above.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,090
Location: New Jersey, USA

01 Jan 2021, 3:56 pm

carlos55 wrote:
Meanwhile those at the top carry-on stealing, manipulating and controlling while they laugh all the way to the bank as the peasants fight each other rather than question those above.


Bingo!



Whale_Tuune
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 571
Location: Narnia

01 Jan 2021, 7:16 pm

I think there are a lot of good ideas on here, and you guys probably know where I stand by now on identity politics. This might be influenced by my being a university student, but I frequently perceive that terms like "Neurotypical Privilege" and "Autistic Pride" seem very attractive to certain left-wing, activist students, who rarely take the time to really digest any of the disagreements and nuances surrounding the conversation. That has led to aggravating situations where people are unwilling to accept my lack of social insight, hyperfixation, and unusual mannerisms, but totally vocal about "neurodiversity rights" and all that jazz. Identity politics with regards to something like Autism can be counterproductive in situations where that "identity" is not well-defined and not easily apparent. It turns into rather vapid virtue signalling, which is pretty infuriating to encounter if you happen to be part of a labeled group that others are virtue signalling about.

Still, I think it's fine to keep having conversations on this topic. I'm just waiting to see more difficult questions like how to handle the real social disconnections that come with Autism be addressed with nuance and complexity, and not pseudo-intellectual virtue signalling that ultimately gets us nowhere.

Edit: Perhaps I will be able to articulate my anxieties surrounding the ASD diagnosis more clearly here.

There is some real utility to an ASD diagnosis when treated as what it is: a fuzzy, subjective way of identifying some people with certain deficits and figuring out policies and practices that might help them. Mona_Pereth's Workers Project seems fine, and I do like to vent and discuss things on WrongPlanet. The diagnosis is a general, vague arrow that points towards a crowd of people who may have some experiences like yours, which can be helpful. Hence, the diagnosis may be useful in research, community building, and organizing.

What it is not (and what many Autism Speaks reps and Neurodiversity advocates alike treat it like it is) is some well-defined, distinct manner of functioning that can easily be classified, identified, and accommodated (or cured).

So, discussions that bring together some people with certain deficits using the label in part is fine. What concerns me is that I know that outside of these discussions, educational and other policymakers seem to generally expect and want a student, worker, or anyone else to have an obvious "Autism" label, complete with a full and well-defined understanding of what "Autism" is, before moving ahead with offering that person accommodations.

I also see this in the social realm. I've seen people genuinely asking "how can I help Autistic people?" (either seeing us as disabled, diseased, or a minority group of some sort) but I very rarely see people simply asking "how can I help people who are a bit awkward/come across as tone-deaf/are slightly weird/have strong, fixated interests/have certain sensory sensitivities/talk to themselves/stim?" They seem expect that all Autistic people walk around with easily visible diagnoses, which we certainly don't.

There seems to be much less sympathy for a normal, socially tone deaf person (who is expected to learn by themselves how not to offend others) than an "Autistic" person (who must be accommodated because "they can't help their disability.") I'm not super convinced that possessing an Autism diagnosis makes one more exempt from learning how to socialize in a sensitive way, because I am aware of how subjective the diagnostic process tends to be. For all we know, average-socially-tone-deaf person may also have some wiring in their brain that impacts their social behavior. That's kind of how brains work, no? I have an Autism diagnosis, but very few people around me are aware of this (it's not exactly a casual conversation starter) and I frequently come across as a socially insensitive person regardless of whether or not the person knows that I am "Autistic."

This disconnect is a problem, in my opinion. Most people, be they policymakers or social justice advocates, tend to think very much in terms of fixed, discrete identity groups that must first be identified as "different" and "underprivileged", then accommodated. I've discussed in the past why I think that in some instances, this way of thinking is actually counterproductive to helping people on the spectrum. We are certainly not an easy to identify, discrete group of people. It would be most beneficial for many working Auties/Aspies if the atmosphere we lived and worked in didn't require us to identify ourselves as "Autistic", as counterintuitive as that may be.

And Mona_Pereth, I am currently a poor college student lacking in resources to help with the concept of Autistic workspaces, but I do believe that this is a viable road to go down. What I really want is for my big questions about how to define "Autism" and reconcile Autism activism with the subjectivity of the diagnosis itself to really be discussed, and for broader advocates to be aware of these discussions instead of parroting off virtue signalling babble that accomplishes little to nothing.

PS: (As a sidenote, there is actually a growing trend in leftist circles to "cancel" anyone who accidentally makes a misstep, which very much impacts those of us with low social intuition, be we "Autistic" or not. I have no idea how to bring this up as a problem without coming across as insensitive to PoC or LGBT groups that deal with microaggressions. It's something that I agonize over constantly. Is cancel culture "ableist" or am I just insensitive? :T)


_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 603
Location: uk

02 Jan 2021, 3:14 pm

Whale_Tuune wrote:
I think there are a lot of good ideas on here, and you guys probably know where I stand by now on identity politics. This might be influenced by my being a university student, but I frequently perceive that terms like "Neurotypical Privilege" and "Autistic Pride" seem very attractive to certain left-wing, activist students, who rarely take the time to really digest any of the disagreements and nuances surrounding the conversation. That has led to aggravating situations where people are unwilling to accept my lack of social insight, hyperfixation, and unusual mannerisms, but totally vocal about "neurodiversity rights" and all that jazz. Identity politics with regards to something like Autism can be counterproductive in situations where that "identity" is not well-defined and not easily apparent. It turns into rather vapid virtue signalling, which is pretty infuriating to encounter if you happen to be part of a labeled group that others are virtue signalling about.

Still, I think it's fine to keep having conversations on this topic. I'm just waiting to see more difficult questions like how to handle the real social disconnections that come with Autism be addressed with nuance and complexity, and not pseudo-intellectual virtue signalling that ultimately gets us nowhere.

Edit: Perhaps I will be able to articulate my anxieties surrounding the ASD diagnosis more clearly here.

There is some real utility to an ASD diagnosis when treated as what it is: a fuzzy, subjective way of identifying some people with certain deficits and figuring out policies and practices that might help them. Mona_Pereth's Workers Project seems fine, and I do like to vent and discuss things on WrongPlanet. The diagnosis is a general, vague arrow that points towards a crowd of people who may have some experiences like yours, which can be helpful. Hence, the diagnosis may be useful in research, community building, and organizing.

What it is not (and what many Autism Speaks reps and Neurodiversity advocates alike treat it like it is) is some well-defined, distinct manner of functioning that can easily be classified, identified, and accommodated (or cured).

So, discussions that bring together some people with certain deficits using the label in part is fine. What concerns me is that I know that outside of these discussions, educational and other policymakers seem to generally expect and want a student, worker, or anyone else to have an obvious "Autism" label, complete with a full and well-defined understanding of what "Autism" is, before moving ahead with offering that person accommodations.

I also see this in the social realm. I've seen people genuinely asking "how can I help Autistic people?" (either seeing us as disabled, diseased, or a minority group of some sort) but I very rarely see people simply asking "how can I help people who are a bit awkward/come across as tone-deaf/are slightly weird/have strong, fixated interests/have certain sensory sensitivities/talk to themselves/stim?" They seem expect that all Autistic people walk around with easily visible diagnoses, which we certainly don't.

There seems to be much less sympathy for a normal, socially tone deaf person (who is expected to learn by themselves how not to offend others) than an "Autistic" person (who must be accommodated because "they can't help their disability.") I'm not super convinced that possessing an Autism diagnosis makes one more exempt from learning how to socialize in a sensitive way, because I am aware of how subjective the diagnostic process tends to be. For all we know, average-socially-tone-deaf person may also have some wiring in their brain that impacts their social behavior. That's kind of how brains work, no? I have an Autism diagnosis, but very few people around me are aware of this (it's not exactly a casual conversation starter) and I frequently come across as a socially insensitive person regardless of whether or not the person knows that I am "Autistic."

This disconnect is a problem, in my opinion. Most people, be they policymakers or social justice advocates, tend to think very much in terms of fixed, discrete identity groups that must first be identified as "different" and "underprivileged", then accommodated. I've discussed in the past why I think that in some instances, this way of thinking is actually counterproductive to helping people on the spectrum. We are certainly not an easy to identify, discrete group of people. It would be most beneficial for many working Auties/Aspies if the atmosphere we lived and worked in didn't require us to identify ourselves as "Autistic", as counterintuitive as that may be.

And Mona_Pereth, I am currently a poor college student lacking in resources to help with the concept of Autistic workspaces, but I do believe that this is a viable road to go down. What I really want is for my big questions about how to define "Autism" and reconcile Autism activism with the subjectivity of the diagnosis itself to really be discussed, and for broader advocates to be aware of these discussions instead of parroting off virtue signalling babble that accomplishes little to nothing.

PS: (As a sidenote, there is actually a growing trend in leftist circles to "cancel" anyone who accidentally makes a misstep, which very much impacts those of us with low social intuition, be we "Autistic" or not. I have no idea how to bring this up as a problem without coming across as insensitive to PoC or LGBT groups that deal with microaggressions. It's something that I agonize over constantly. Is cancel culture "ableist" or am I just insensitive? :T)


The woke culture doesn’t really work well with autism or many other brain disorders like Tourette’s for example, as we lack the social awareness to self-check our behaviour. If many Neurotypical people put a step wrong in a cancel culture environment god help someone autistic trying to navigate through it.

Unless everyone wears a badge advertising the fact their autistic which let’s face it most hf aspies don’t. I don’t see these NT SJW types of people giving anyone a free pass to “offend”, more likely they would love to jump at the chance of self-righteous virtue signalling to “cancel” the guilty party, as you found out yourself with your class members in college whale_tuune.

Your question about the the vague understanding on what autism actually is brings me back to the original point I made about autistic guilt. One dangerous area in the future is us being associated with crime or the types of offences that scare people.

As ASD is a spectrum there is no clear boundary of where mild ASD ends. In the future with improvements in biology & genetics that may change.

28% of serial killers had ASD (see link) so what of the other 72%?, were they NT? even though nearly all had traits associated with ASD, like no friends, loaners, obsessive behaviour to name a few. The same with high school shooters, stalkers and other types of criminals the public like to call “scarry weirdos”.

What if in the future all these types of behaviours are understood by science to be ASD related, how will the public react to that? Will we still receive the same public acceptance?

Im apprehensive at the thought of many jumping in to a autism identity or any identity associated with negative behaviour / outcome it can so quickly be used against us.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8914000305



theprisoner
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2021
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 252

15 Jan 2021, 10:34 am

Identity politics seems to be divide and conquer mindgames being played out in the public arena, as it always has, only now its reached a crescendo point in world history.
While, "Autistic Guilt" to me, sounds like that feeling you get when you're first diagnosed with a neurological disorder that pretty much says your whole life is fkd and doomed to failure, and there's nothing you can do about it (short of painstakling rewiring your brain to 'adapt better to society ) .


_________________
AQ: 27 IQ:131 DNA:XY
Sum, ergo cogito, cogito, ergo sum.
The map is not the territory.
History is a set of lies agreed upon.
Think for yourself and question authority.


FiruthiDragovic
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

Joined: 12 Jan 2021
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 21

16 Jan 2021, 7:34 am

I've tried to follow identity politics in the past. Frankly, what I've noticed is it relies almost 100% on incomplete information.

That, in and of itself, makes it incompatible with me. I find myself fairly paralyzed if I try to act without full information (and spend a good chunk of off-time trying to GET said information) and the belligerence I tend to see out of identity-politics practitioners turns me off.


Regarding group identities and "autistic guilt"? I've felt too much of this "burden" stuff to care anymore and I consider there to be a massive difference between "owning up to aspects of the self" and "identifying with a group label". Own up to your own hindrances.


Oh, and Whale_Tuune? The idea of cancel culture being ableist is... actually something I've heard before, and something I also suspect myself. Cancel culture seems to be reliant on incomplete information as well, and... I'm going to have the audacity to say that the groups dealing with microaggressions have dealt with enough larger traumas in the past that they're seeing suspicion in every statement. The best analogy I have for this is that it looks an awful lot like cases of PTSD hypervigilance to me.



Whale_Tuune
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 571
Location: Narnia

16 Jan 2021, 11:48 am

Quote:
I'm going to have the audacity to say that the groups dealing with microaggressions have dealt with enough larger traumas in the past that they're seeing suspicion in every statement. The best analogy I have for this is that it looks an awful lot like cases of PTSD hypervigilance to me.


I agree with that. Obviously, you can imagine how it would sound incredibly condescending to tell someone that they are overreacting and seeing microaggressions where they do not exist, because of past trauma. I mean, I imagine that this is often the case, because we as people are terrific at jumping to conclusions, but it's not something that someone who has been through so much wants to hear when they believe that they're going through it again. :T


_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)


cron