a list of enemies of the autistic community

Post Reply New Topic

The thing is I haven't seen people use the term some neurotopicals.. and neurototypical is often used as a slur which is indeed bigoted.

I do not deny that there is discrimination against people who have ASD. Many people with various disabilities suffer through the same experiences.. and disability stigma does not help. It is a shame that some on WP are also no more tolerant of disabilities than neurotypicals as apparently seeing some forms of autism a disability would put me on the list. Why? Is having a disability something people should feel ashamed of?

"You are either with us or against us"?

I feel like this whole thread is just trying to suck people into hateful group think.

Yes.

I don't like the r-word myself and have called people when used but it is often used in ignorance than malice. When it is used in malice then it's a different ball game of course.

They don't need to slur autistics in order to satirise crazy religious bigots.

Think about your comments in terms of blaming the victims..

I don't find the Landover Baptist Church offensive. What would offend me is if satirists chose to self-censor.

As for ED, the point of the site is to shock and offend. If you just ignore them, then they have no power, but if you get riled up about them then you are playing right into their hands.

8: People who see Autism as nothing more than a disability.

Or people who see ANY disability nothing more than a disability.

We're making enemies lists now? Like Nixon?

Sometimes I think we don't have to look very far

Ok on the whole satire / parody thing.

One needs to be careful about what the target and the intent of the satire/parody actually is. This is not necessarily the object of the offensive remarks. For example satire sites like the land over baptists will say all sorts of blatantly racist, homophobic and sexist things. But this site is none of those things. Why? Because its actually taking the piss out of fundamentalist religious groups that are all of those things. In doing so it helps to highlight the lunacy of those groups and so actually serves to weaken those groups. So whilst a site like Land Over Baptists is full of the n word, blatently homophobic and sexist language it is actually firmly against all of those things. The intent of the content producers is to actually act against those bigotries.

Now with the satire / parody of autism we again need to look at the intent of the content. Is the content actually taking the piss out of autistic people OR is the actual target of the piss taking something else? In some of the sites I have seen the real target of the site is some group that does have bigot views of people with disabilities. The site is this highlighting those bigotries and bringing them to the attention of the wider public by satire. Basically the butt of the joke is the idiots that hold these bigoted views rather than autistic or other people with disabilities. What, in effect, these sites are doing is say "ohhh look at the stupid people who hold these bigoted view, arnt THEY a bunch of morons?".

Pretty much every site I have seen that takes the piss out of autistic people is of this nature. Autistic people are not the target. Some are targeting real hate groups, some are targeting the overly PC people in our society, some are taking the piss out of conservative groups, some are taking the piss out of religious groups but I have not actually seen one that is actually targeting autistic people. Now there may well be some sites like this out there on the interweb but to be honest they are few and far between. I'd be far more worried about sites like "Age of Autism" and the plethora of anti-vax sites that spead lies about autism. These spread real bigotry because they are not joke sites and they are essentially telling the world in all seriousness that autistic people are ill and need fixing. That's real bigotry and the target of that bigotry really is autistic people.

I agree with what evilreligion said!!

The worst sorts of people are the ones who genuinely believe they are doing good and helping people with Autism.

[quote]Or people who see ANY disability nothing more than a disability.[quote]

People who lump a vast range of conditions (ranging from entirely negative and debilitating illnesses to differences to the physical and mental norm) under the category of disability.

So, in reality.. are some people with HFA insisting we don't acknowledge the existence of those with very disabling autism because they make them look bad? Nice.

I don't see anything wrong with Riley's comment. People with disabilities are better off sticking together.

I guess what this debate really boils down to is a question of free speech.

Free speech and free expression is, in my opinion, of such value that it pretty much trumps everything else. This includes anyone's feelings. I don't care how offensive anything is censorship is never a valid response. Ever. I find hate speech laws incredibly problematic because someone is always going to be offended by something and then could make the case that pretty much anything is "hate speech". Its really dangerous and we have already see the religious zealots of various flavours use the term "hate speech" to try and censor those that criticise their religion.

Even though I despise all forms of bigotry I will still defend a bigots right to speak about their ideas. So that means I will defend the neo-nazi and the homophobes and the, indeed, the people who are bigoted against my son due to his autism. I don't like defending these peoples rights to free speech and it makes me sick to my stomach to be on "their side" but the alternative is censorship and that leads to a worse world all round. Free speech is just too important, its more important than my feelings and anyone elses for that matter. No one has the right not be offended, I'm sorry you just don't. Because as society in which you do is basically under the control of the thought police and that's just terrifying.

No. You focus on the parts of their condition that are disabling and are detrimental to their quality of life. I think all people on the autism spectrum should be a part of the autism rights movement, and I resent your implication that I don't believe this. What you seem to be insinuating is that Autism as a whole is a disability, when in reality it's a neurological divergence that can sometimes be disabling. If you see autism as a whole as a disability, then that implies that the whole of autism is something negative that needs to be cured or overcome. This excludes people on the spectrum who don't see it that way and plays into the hands of Autism Speaks and other curebie groups.

A friend of mine has a physical condition where his joints cause lots of pain and wear down easily. He's already had two hips replaced by the age of 25. It has an entirely negative impact on his life and he sees it as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a part of who he is. If someone came along with a cure for his condition, he would take it in a heartbeat. If someone came along offering a "cure" for my condition, I wouldn't take it. We both have differing goals, and it would be pointless putting us in the same category.


@evilreligion. Not only is it wrong to censor offensive remarks about people with autism, but campaigning against these things is a complete waste of energy, and a diversion from the real issues that face the autism community, and the wider world. I really wish this trend over the past two decades to censor "hate speech" would come to an end!.

I totally agree. It is, as you say, a complete waste of energy.

I have seen some with HFA say that severe autism with ID "doesn't count" as autism and that their ID is separate. This is not correct. The problem is the severe autism inhibits learning as the sensory overload is too much to deal with which does make the ID a result of the autism.

I resent that you have chosen to ignore where I have made a distinction between HFA and severe autism.

Ah the "curebies". There are some forms of autism that are so severe that the condition creates genuine and extreme suffering. I see nothing wrong with wanting to alleviate this and when autism is that severe it is not merely a neurological "divergence" as you suggest. I DO see something immoral when people actively campaign against treatments for severe autism.


I wouldn't expect you to accept a cure.. but I wouldn't agree you have a right to deny it's availability to others or advocate for it not to be researched. Some people may truly need it and I think it's unfair that real treatments may be denied because people want to treat it like a club.