Should the neurodiversity movement switch to extremists ways

Post Reply New Topic

I think the title is pretty self-explanatory...You are free to voice your opinion...

I disapprove of the choices in this poll. They do not reflect the full spectrum of possible opinions.

I say we should not resort to violence because it would be wrong. Questions of efficacy are second to questions of morality. Besides, violence against whom? We're attacking an ingrained prejudice, not a group of people. And anyway, how would that avoid causing further negative stereotypes?

This is the dumbest crap I've ever heard of.

And I never understood what the neurodiversity movement means when their fighting for their rights? Autistics have just as many rights as anyone else; yes there are prejudices that need to be fought against, but autistics are NOT second class citizens. And I think the movement is extreme enough as it is. Bordering on nutty almost.

We have the same rights as everybody else. We just don't get the same respect, as everybody else.

I think that violent action is a very bad idea, the neurodiversity movement should remain non-violent. I think that if a mob of AS bombers or gunmen went after anyone who has crossed the ASD community then it would harm our interests very greatly.

However I see nothing wrong with taking some actions such as looking for methods of using the legal system to close down some of the neurobigots. If you find out that a neurobigot is in breach of criminal law then make a point of reporting them. For example if a quack medical worker is "treating" autism with snakeoil / chelation / goodness knows what else and does not have the right license (or has breached their license) then write to the medical authority and try to get them into hot water.

I think that if a quack gets into trouble with the medical board then it will do some good.

Non-violence, if entered into in depth
means confronting our own internal
conflicts and thus seeking change from
the inside- out as opposed to
seeking change through more mainstreme
political means.

After many years in the peace movement
I have learned that our only embracing
our own personal shadow canwe authentically
clain to be agents of real change.

violence gets results........but such results
take years to mend.

Well, I don't know about what other people have gone through, but a lot of the time, we are refused the right to an education because it seems that society doesn't want to accomodate for our educational needs. It's weird that most schools have support for learning disorders and know f**k all about autism spectrum disorders. I'm one of the few people that was lucky enough to get that support at school- not many people get that help. It's as if we're not worthy of this support, but a frivolous war is.

If you have looked around this site, you'll see plenty of examples of autistic people being denied their rights and treated like second class citizens (not just from members of the site). Also, lets face it - do you really think most people in the world actually care about our rights? Whether you like it or not, attitudes need to be changed and that has to be done by establishing that people with disabilities are just regular people. One way to do this is through a movement, like the Neurodiversity movement.

You are right, however, that most of the problem is attitude and not necessarily rights. With that being said, it's still a major problem which causes people to live in fear.

Don't be stupid, what kind of question is this? Of course they shouldn't turn extremist.

Don't call me stupid.I just wanted to see what were your opinions.By myself,I think we should keep the nonviolent way.But when I was talking about fighting for our rights,I was more talking about fighting the discrimination and the prejudices...

Sorry if I explained it badly...

it didn't work for ghandi... he died.

understandable you thought differently. it is a common misconception...

Ghandi's words never died, he was murdered because of intolerance and prejudice, I sort of thought some of us were above this nonsense, but going out and doing
terrorist acts on the NT world would only shows us in a bad light, how do you want the rest of the world to see us, as a threat to be locked away, or as an asset that
benefits the world around them, I would rather show others that we have something to offer the world other then getting all spazztic, flipping out then going on a
rampage hurting others because we don't get our way, that's not what supposedly intelligent logical people do.

so you see that it didn't work for ghandi.

you can't win the way he would have liked to. unfortunately and sadly. the world just doesn't work that way.

so intelligent logical people maybe could renew the definitions of extremism, terrorism and violence... isn't being an aspie synonym with seeing things differently?

the hypochondriacs of the the world didn't come to rule the world either, although they tried. but their international congress on strategy kept being canceled. due to illness...

and doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity, according to einstein.

so maybe a new way would help...

its good to see that people like you are in the minority

don't take it seriously...

My opinion is that you seem angry since you have chosen "no" as a first option, forgot to put spaces between the punctuation signs and used a strong punctuation indicating violence.

The man who shot Ghandi was a hardline hindu who thought that Ghandi (also a hindu) was failing in his duties as a hindu by failing to have a super hard line on muslims. It was also related to the creation of Pakistan.