Stop with the Autism Supremacy!

Post Reply New Topic

What I'm tryng to get at is in the person to person and culture sense a disorder of any kind is not always important in all context. A person that has a depression disorder may want others to understand that they may become depressed and a person whom autism is applied to may want another person to realize some things about them. That to know a person however as intellectually different, developmentally disabled and so on is a kind of limiting way of understanding a person. When people are understood in the personable ways the negativity people are diagnosed with to have accommodation do not entirely define whom and what they are. When someone calls me autistic it's calling me a disorder (like calling someone a disease which others don't like) rather then seeing first the person I am regardless of some disorder label applied to help me.

I am not sure why your response is that way. I'm speaking about disorder labels and the identity affiliation. It's gone off topic a bit but still point being made is the more autism is transformed into an identity the more a subjective world-view might be altered by making hyper-relevant the negativity associated with the label and ones own unique self. Merely as an awareness mechanism the autistic identity once developed can alter world-views by merging the idea of autism as a broad concept toward the interpersonal or simply internal thought processes of an individual and his or her identity rather then simply something as in a concept applied to someone and made less internally associated with identity. More or less it's been used for politics namely abortion and has created hardship when individuals have been manipulated to think for biased political reasons they are worthless human beings. They they have been used to conflict with treatment rights advancements manifesting a world-view that at times implies more personable interpretations then intended such as for instance I am a puzzle verses autism is a puzzle which reflects merely some aspects comprised within individuals vs. the whole self. Unto a more complex and rare nature the puzzle had been transformed in some psychical manifestations as akin to and the same as Nazi symbolology in archetypal association in the psyche.

I am not sure if you are into this advanced material yet. Yet the bottom line is autism to me is simply a label applied to help me. I choose not to focus much on negatives and believe this has helped me achieve success. To me the label is both a good thing and bad thing which has created disruptions in some peoples lives.

Well yes that is the balance and individualized coping mechanisms. One must be realistic with themselves too.

Sweetleaf:
Look, I can't control what other people here say, but just because I like my neurology doesn't mean I hate anyone else's. To me, that's like equating feminism to manhating, or saying that marching in a gay pride parade means you think being straight is wrong. Honestly, I don't know why you're feeling that level of outrage over this.
By the way, when people are calling you autistic or depressive, they of course do not mean you are only someone who is autistic/depressive. But these labels are often used casually to distinguish you from others who do not have these same conditions, while the others may be labelled in less limiting ways- for example, "Sam the creative, Sarah the hilarious, Sid the autistic." Mentally, many people- including most of us- do this type of characterization all the time. The problem is that first of all, we know that imaginary Sid is many things in addition to autistic- he may also be creative or hilarious. But we will not know this, because his epithet relates to his neurology, not his personality. Also, since many people consider autism a disability, the reference to it and only it encourages most people to look at Sid as someone to be protected, taught, sympathized with, or cured. This will not happen with imaginary Sarah or Sam, because their descriptions are not disabilities in the same way that autism is considered to be. By the way, in case you were curious, the relationship of Sid with the world because of his label is called "I-it," by philosopher Martin Buber. Sid ceases to be considered a person by much of the world and becomes unequal, an object, considered passive. Sam and Sarah, meanwhile, have an "I-You" relationship- both are considered active and equal partners in their relationship to each other and the world.
"But I prove myself competent and equal every day; this wouldn't happen to me," you say. But in fact, it has probably happened several times already. This is the kind of thing people do unconsciously. Once people see you through the framework of a label, it's hard for you to change their minds based on their empirical observation of your behavior. Like autism, that's part of human evolution.

Mr. Leaf you are very hard on yourself.