Dehumanising Autistic Children: "like robots or chimpanzees"

Post Reply New Topic

It's a pity society doesn't appreciate that.

I don't care about society or what society thinks. I never have.

Dumbasses. Calling themselves scientists and equating Eukaryota with Automata.

^Try to be nice, please.

Um...I have to disagree to a certain extent. For instance, I think it's absolutely abhorrent when people I've never met want to come up and hug and kiss me when meeting. There are many other instances like that where I find it's very disturbing that the "norms" consider something so intrusive to be acceptable. They don't notice how uncomfortable I am. So, that's a bit of blindness on their part.

As for the "...immature, childish and strange behaviour" on our part...yep. Totally in agreement. When it comes to women I'm attracted to, I'm stuck at pulling the pigtails and dipping in the inkwell. The more I tease or harass, the more I like someone. I have no other way of expressing that. And, it's made plenty of people angry with me.

So, in that case, honesty, niceness and all is not solving that problem with my interactions.

I'll pass the buck on that back to the 'scientists' so arrogant they presume to understand the emotions of robots. I am being nice, by pointing out that these 'studies' not only denigrated millions, they corroded scientific Latin and forged meta-analyses on conjecture alone.

Robots aren't alive...How did they reach the conclusion that they have emotions?

Well it was mostly just a really poor simile on their part, not that that changes the fact that they even distorted their own field of study.

I can think of just ONE robot which remotely comes close to the perception & dexterity of a chimpanzee.

...Maybe I'
m " not quite emotional enough " .........

Will you stop telling people what to do?

The topic of this thread seems to have been hijacked and/or misunderstood by some.

I think the people who came up with that theory are a bunch of chimpanzees.

Not so much a theory as prejudicial attitude. I quoted that outrageous and ridiculous claim to show that dehumanising attitudes co-exist even in the "professional discussions of autism" amongst so-called "autistic experts". It's an example of how professional speakers sometimes use the cloak of "science" to spread their poisonous prejudice, which - fortunately - at least one writer challenged. The purpose of the thread was to learn of any other examples of challenging that poisonous prejudice which members might have come across, or had made themselves. (I know of Michelle Dawson's work).

Who? I'm think most of us here are self-aware enough to know when bunk science says we grow into machines. Some of us might have done so already in the basis ot this alienation alone, if that were even remotely possible.

Simple; these researchers obsessed so much about judging our heads they entirely forgot to define their perception of humanity as a control in the firat place.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that WP members aren't capable of recognising irrational prejudice even when it is dressed up in the rhetoric of science. I am appalled that it is dressed up in the rhetoric of science, even in these (so-called) enlightened times. Asserting that autistic children are like robots or chimpanzees is such blatant hate speech, and I would hope everyone here would instantly recognise it as hate speech. I am interested in any action taken to counter these examples 'professional' hate speech, acutely aware that it is part of the cultural framework in which we all must live. That doesn't mean we are powerless to challenge it or should mutely accept it.

I do think that autistic people grossly underestimate their potential for political power, or there would be more challenges to these examples of institutional-level hate speech which are abuses of privilege. I also think that only the action of autistic people can change the existing framework to end those abuses which are currently all too commonplace and unquestioned.