Is Anyone Here 100% Or Close To 100% Autistic?

Post Reply New Topic

@EzraS I love lt. Not quite as much as 1960's music, which is unmatched, but boy does lt come close. I love disco. I don't care what anyone says, disco rules. Old school hip-hop has a certain charm, but lt's hard to get into when lt's from before 1984. Plus, hard to find. New wave is cool, like Cars & Video Killed The Radio Star. I'm not big on rock, but 70's soft rock has a certain charm. I can listen to Never Can Say Goodbye by Gloria Gaynor all day. Best 70's song ever. Techno started at that time, but was still experimental, kinda hard to get into. And 70's reggae also rules.

The song “Pop Muzik” probably bought Techno into the mainstream in ‘79.

“Rappers Delight” was the first rap song that received considerable airplay on mainstream radio stations, also in ‘79.

No Walkmans yet—until ‘80. People still carried heavy boomboxes on their shoulders then.

That doesn't make much sense. A great deal of what you write doesn't. You seem to have a very troubled mind and I think you should seek out a therapist if that's possible. Most of what has gone wrong in this thread and why it's been so lengthy is because of your problems, not anyone elses. Most everyone in this thread is torn between trying to help you because you appear to be quite messed up and concluding that you are just a troll.



Usenet took off in 1993 with what is called "Eternal September" when AOL made it available to all it's users. It went from only a few people with the right skills and tech being able to access it to just about everyone. Also it was accessible through MSN's WebTV. It expanded even further with people being able to access it without a standard news reader via Deja Vu. Deja Vu went on to become Google. What's left of an active Usenet and its archives can easily be accessed through Google Groups. I like going back in time and reading my dad's posts to Usenet.

Sweet. I usually find that people who were around love the 70's, but lt's not very popular as a retro decade for whatever reason. Whenever I see a list by decade, the 70's is either left out or there's some snarky comment included.

Yeah, lt came out in '77 (9/11 of all days, spooky), but you're right, lt didn't get popular for another two years. Even then, lt wasn't really huge 'till 1982 I think. But I don't really like the newer designs. I have the '79 Slim model. Yeah, people mainly played arcade games, as 2600 ports were infamously poor, Pac Man being the grand example. I actually have Pac Man & E.T. funnily enough. Just to be able to say I have the worst games ever, that destroyed the whole industry. I don't think they're that bad though. Mario's Time Machine is way worse, I would say.

I didn't know that. I do know that the 1978 Halloween VHS tape is super rare. I had lt as a kid, but no longer, sadly.

Wow, imagine paying $2,000 for a format that would be considerred crappy today. Interesting in hindsight. I never owned Betamax, but I know a lot of fans say lt has better quality than VHS, despite being a year older. I remember Al Bundy had one on Married... With Children & insisted lt was better.

Yeah, Windows 95 was huge, that was My foray into computers. I prefer 98, but there's no doubt that 95 changed the game. I have an old computer somewhere that I used as a kid that runs 3.x (2 before that), so 95 is a big step up.



Yup. I always thought lt'd be cool to use the ARPANET since you can't today & there's no footage of anyone using lt, save for maybe brief scenes in certain movies at the time.

Typewriters should make a comeback. I have one somewhere in storage. Rotary phones were interesting, but annoyingly slow. I had to use one from 1962 before I got a cell phone, so I got firsthand experience with what many people used to complain about. I actually still have lt today & use lt as a decoration.

"No Walkmans yet—until ‘80. People still carried heavy boomboxes on their shoulders then.". '79, actually, though I'm sure they weren't popular yet. The 80's tend to take credit for 70's inventions.

@EzraS It was conceived & created in 1979, but released in 1980. So lt's technically 70's, but I wouldn't be able to use lt untill the 1980's. It connected to the ARPANET at this time anyway, so lt would make more sense to use that.

Right it was conceived in 1979 and publicly established in 1980 at the University of North Carolina and Duke University.

While bullying being accepted and non recognition, and warehousing “mental defectives” in institutions was bad for autistics, “free range” parenting was good for many in that it gave the kids freedom to find out through trail and error what worked and what did not work for them.

At the end of the 70s and 80s I got into New Wave. What appealed to me was the quirky sound and presentation, love of new technology. The New Wave station WLIR’s slogan was “Dare to be Different”. If would not surprise me if a decent amount of new wave musicians were autistic.

Until such time as we have the ability to do a post mortem neuro exam it is impossible to retro diagnose.

I do not object to saying that one suspects these historical figures were autistic. I did something similar in the thread above. My objection is to blanket statements that these people were autistic.

As far as who has been the most responsible for innovation while I think that a higher percentage of autistics and people with autistic traits are innovators then the general population I think it is less of a percentage than you do. But it is all speculation.

In a purely autistic world would there have been the collaboration that would have lead to the gradual advancement of society ?

It seems to me that both ND and NT bring assets and deficits . The debate shouldn't be about how much one is better than the other. The debate should be how to maximise the strengths of both to create a better society.

Talk of Aspie or neurotypical supremacy just leads us down an intellectual cul de sac .

Thank you. I am not interested so much in "a better society" without a better culture to match and must disagree on the point that society exists to serve individuals, not the individual to serve the society. But I agree wholly with you on the fact that talk of someone's supposed supremacy is not helpful.

We can't gatekeep existence.

I'm much more of a collectivist than an individualist . A society that's better for all , rather than a society designed to benefit a few , should be the aim .

That's true. Not everything was better. I'd still be willing to take the risk though.



Point taken in for consideration. I'm sure the fact that I'm autistic can make Me somewhat biased & I have also allotted for a slight error margin, so we'll assume the reality to be a bit less extreme than I have suggested thus far.

I agree wholeheartedly. My example was only to isolate the generalized differences between neurotypical progress & autistic progress. I am not aiming for a world that only benefits autists, because that would be nothing but a role reversal. The world would still suck in that scenario, but the autists wouldn't know, as we'd be the priviledged ones. Indeed, both have deficits & assets. An entirely autistic world would be lacking in some areas. Nature doesn't create obsolescence. Everything old in nature becomes new again. Without bacteria, we wouldn't be able to digest properly. Without trees, we'd have no air. Without cows, we'd have no milk, cheese or beef. NT's still have a role to play in the universe. But lt's a new role, one of cooperation. We need more influential autists, but in order for that to be possible, we need to change society. A society that is biased toward NT's & against autists hurts both & benefits neither.

That's just the turn that the conversation took. People are still stuck on the idea that someone could be superior to them. Rather than fretting over the evolutionary hierarchy, we should be considerring how this superiority benefits everyone, while the current system only seeks to benefit those in power. We can continue to let sociopaths rule over us, which has been terribly inefficient & is actually reversing progress. Or we can give autists the chance to prove they can better serve us. We have nothing to lose, so why not try for a utopian society? Almost any risk is worth lt for that.

If this is a matter of evolution, then one should expect that society will naturally evolve into that paradigm.

@EzraS Humans are a part of nature. Certain humans pushing society in the right direction is still the result of evolution. When Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, that was evolution. Society & intellect are both results of evolution. Things are more complex now than millennia ago. An individual dinosaur had no power to change dinosaurs for the better, that took a lot of time. For humans, every decade there is a tiny bit of evolution going on. We create lt.

As for paradigms, you are assuming that evolution affects everyone equally. Only a few reptiles went on to evolve into birds, the rest stayed reptiles. Evolution is not moving to make all neurotypicals autists over time. There will always be neurotypicals. Some will certainly evolve into autists, but most won't. And the same goes for autists.

I don't quite get how having cognitive impairments and hypersensitivity that leads to sensory overload meltdowns and shutdowns, is the next step in human evolution.