"Suffers from Asperger's Syndrome"

Post Reply New Topic

I've been wanting to make one of my own about how messed up Autism Speaks is.

This just brings it back to square one.... because Asperger's ITSELF does not disable people in all cases either. Yet people still discriminate, and look at both of these examples as "bad" or "unacceptable".

Yes, exactly. "Suffers from" is negative, "gifted with" is positive, but autism is both, it's neutral. So I'd say I'm autistic, diagnosed with Asperger's.

John broke his legs, he will now be physically impaired for his life, he will need lifelong assistance now, he suffers from broken legs, but John strongly disagrees, he says he does not suffer, he is happy, and more still- it's not a disorder because it gives advantage to, he can now play wheelchair basketball

Jill is Schizophrenic, she is mentally impaired, she see's things that aren't there and can't trust people, she will most likely be institutionalised or commit suicide, but she does not suffer, because the things she see's has allowed her to produce beautiful works of art inspired by her delusions.

I am autistic, I am emotionally impaired, I do not understand other people or the things they do and I can't understand socialising properly, my difficulties have caused me severe chronic anxiety and insomnia, but I do not suffer, because I can play pieces of classical music on the piano very quickly after just listening to them, and I can duplicate images I see on paper quickly and remember the episode number and season of every star trek episode.


And finally
Holly is an NT, she is appropriate, well adjusted and regular - she'll live a full and satisfying life, she will never change the world with a groundbreaking new way of looking at things, she wont produce brilliant art or science or poetry, because my friends, no brilliant scientist or artist was ever mentally stable, the crazies change the world.

That was great, Phonic

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

- Myth Busters

Utter rubbish. The average aspie is not a brilliant artist, scientist or poet and neither is the average NT. NT's are more likely to be all three though as they aren't burderned by dysfunction and/ or mental illness.

Why would people want to do this? Are we rationalists or fantasist's?

I think Phonic's post, taken in its entirety, speaks to the idea that "normalcy" is something to be aspired to. Of course, not all Aspies are going to change the world and there are clearly exceptional NTs in great numbers, but the whole idea of average is based on the average NT life. An average Aspie is still a square peg in a round hole suffering from (or at least dealing with) a variety of issues.

I'm not trying to argue anything other than my preference for a neutral stance on random inclusions of peoples mental make-up in articles rather than one which tells the reader to pity the subject. "John is an aspie" is fine "John suffers from Asperger's Syndrome" offends me, I'm not very keen on "John has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome" either as it sounds very negative. I don't tell NT people that they suffer from ret*d memory syndrome because I can beat them in tests from one night of revision do I? And I don't pity them for it either. Like I said I do have problems but I am not defined by them and I don't need generic derogatory terms following me around all my life. I now realise that this is the way in which NT people communicate, they tell each other how to think and they make up random phrases without thinking about the actual meaning of them, I would prefer just the facts whereas NTs like to be told how those facts should make them feel and act accordingly, I don't know if this makes it better or worse.

I think he was trying to make a point. So some everyone says people suffer because of their mental illnesses or conditions they have. But people with them may feel they don't suffer because they are happy the way they are and the fact what their disability has given them in a positive way despite the roadblocks they face and the challenges.

Some people have managed to be positive about their conditions and look at the positives for it so they end up saying they don't suffer from it. Or if they avoid certain situations that trigger their condition, they may also say they don't suffer from it.

Nice strawman argument there, bub.

So, they also have problems but are not defined by them?

Usually when people use that phrase, they don't literally mean that the person is in constant pain and agony from their condition. They just mean that the condition is in some way detrimental to normal functioning.

I think you folks are missing my point here by focusing on my upbeat ending to by short analogy.

"Holly is suffering from a lack of obsessional interest, and I suffer from obsessional interest." consider that statement
everyone is blessed and cursed with how they're born, NT or not.

It sounds like you're talking about intelligence rather than autism there.

It's possible to be a genius or be gifted at something like art or music and not be autistic. To give a couple examples - Steven Hawking and Michio Kaku.