do you like autism supremacy?

Post Reply New Topic

I am an autistic supremacist and i made a website to correctly represent autism. i was wondering if anyone else agrees with my opinions.

link to site: http://autism-supremacy.webs.com/

No.

I think the idea that any people are born superior to other's is incorrect, autism in an advantage in some area's, not in others.

very interesting.i dont think im autistic supremist but a very interesting website.there is a certain amount of truth behind the societal evolution of the autistic personality

*FACEPALM*

God, not this crap again!

I don't think that any one way of thinking or type of person is superior to another; to be completely honest, those who believe one is superior over the other are wrong. That thought pattern more than anything is why we have so many problems in this world. Autism and Asperger's do have advantages over NTs, but in the same capacity, being NT has its advantages over having Autism or Asperger's.

I am all for an independent aspergian state, considering there are tens of millions of people with aspergers, if that qualifies as supremacism.

Being autistic is an okay way to be. Not being autistic is an okay way to be. Being a rat or a bat or a gnat or a sponge or an elephant or an amoeba are okay ways to be. If there were a superior way, there would be only that one way, and not the billions of different ways you can see around you.

So being a Haast's Eagle is not an okay way to be?
The entire process of evolution and natural selection is based on superiority.

No. It's as bad as being a white supremacist, an anti-Semite, etc, in the sense that it's saying one is better than the other. Aren't we supposed to be eradicating this train of thought?

Edit: Plus, bench-marking humanity at 1800 for "specialization" is as ignorant as saying human transport started with the car (in reference to the blog linked.) Did you know that "humans" have been around for millions of years? Our species (Homo Sapiens) has been around for about 250,000. That's not even enough time to develop different races. That's right. There is no such thing as race, as there is more variation within the "races" than between them. I'm not saying there is no room in society for autism. I'm happy to see more autistic involvement that ever before in the modern times (Can't say for much else. Honestly, wish I could.) I just don't think it's a natural evolution of the species specifically in the direction of autistics. Due to medical science among other factors, including cultural values, there is *probably* more genetic variation than ever before. This is very healthy, in a way, as a more various gene pool makes a biologically stronger people against disease and stuff. Society, however, is ever-changing. Cultures come and go all the time in startling variety. So, tell me, how can one person be better than another? Many different cultures have their view. I think it's morally unhealthy, considering the direction cultures have gone before, and scientifically unfounded, you know, considering what we know about genetics and biology.

If I am bashing your head with the blunt end of my point, it's my tendency. (EDit again: I came off as too angry at the last sentence, so it's gone.)

Well, it was, for quite some time probably. Now it's a dead way to be...



That's superiority in very specific contexts. Being better AT something, doing a very specific thing better than a competitor doing that same thing. Obviously there's no "best animal", "best microbe" or "best gene".

Please stop spouting this nonsense. It is demonstrably evident that races exist, and claiming otherwise is just politically correct hogwash.

If races do not exist, our genes would be identical, no? In the study "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association", scientists were given genetic samples from 3,636 subjects. The subjects identified which major racial group they belonged to (White, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic), but the scientists were not given this data. Then, using only their genes, the scientists grouped them into the four groups. Only 5 people were incorrectly grouped, that is only 0.14% were not matched up with the racial group they personally identified with.

Not only can you tell a person's race from their genes, you can tell their race from their skeletal structure, and this was used in solving crimes.

Your data regarding the age of Homo Sapiens is incorrect too, modern homosapiens have existed for less than 100,000 years. This does nothing to disprove race disparity: Domestic dogs diverged from wolves around 15,000 years ago, and in that time have evolved into the myriad breeds of dog you see today, ranging from huge mastiffs to tiny chihauhas.

1. Forensic anthropology is the one branch of anthropology that actually finds use of "race," because skeletal structure is used to solve crimes. This is where the debate of race begins. For example, skeletal people do believe in race, whereas people who examine blood don't, because there is no good way to identify a person by blood. And, if you were to cite sickle-cell anemia, the stereotypically "black" disease, not that you would, just sayin', the trait pretty much exists anywhere malaria does, including the Mediterranean, India, Africa, etc. I'm using it as an example to illustrate my point. Which is a narrow example, so I'll broaden it by saying that traits are pan-populations. Traits go beyond just Africa, or Europe. More like, nature kind of decides. Perhaps I should have explained myself better in the first place. Me, I like genetics, so I guess I take the genetic perspective. ... And I did. I read this article: Nature: Genetic variation, classification, and 'race' (<-- link) which pretty much illustrated your point about the major races being genetically identifiable unto themselves, except for the non-major "races," where the lines are statistically blurry. The article discusses the fact of geographic structure playing a part, although there really is only a little genetic difference between the four major races.
However:

It's not politically correct hogwash. I am not exactly a politically correct person. Also, your logic is flawed. Race is the only thing that accounts for genetic diversity? What about neurodiversity? (Just a friendly jab.)

2. On this point, actually, I suppose we're both wrong. The earliest Homo Sapien fossil was estimated to be 195,000 years old. Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm The oldest ones have been found in east Africa. Homo Sapiens are decided over 100,000 years old, though.

3. Both dogs and wolves are Canus lupus. They share the same genus and species. So, that's wrong, they are the same species, even in 15,000 years. If you bred a mastiff and a chihuahua, you'd get another dog. I don't want to try.

Last edited by jamesongerbil on 09 May 2011, 12:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

As this is a very delicate subject, everybody stop the name calling and keep things civil if you want this discussion to continue.

I meant "jerk" in jest. Really. Sarcasm doesn't translate well online. I'm illustrating my lack of political correctness...nevermind, I'll edit. Yes, Burzum, I called you a jerk, but I meant nothing by it. Thanks for calling me out so I could fact check. Edit: "You're logic is flawed" is something I enjoy quoting from Star Trek: Voyager. Just so there are no misconceptions for my intent to insult, which there is none. That doesn't often translate at all.

Humans aren't successful and dominating the globe because of the presence of one type of person. It is the interaction of the many different types of people. The strengths of one type make up for the weaknesses of others, with all groups supporting each other like this.

Individually Autism seems to be a weakness and in many cases makes life harder for the individual. On the general level there are some advantages autism can bring, that help the human race as a whole.

Pro guns is silly, guns don't kill people, people do. That is a matter for a different thread though.

OP: you aren't better than anyone, just different. *ALL* people have strengths *AND* weaknesses, including you.