Delete thread

Post Reply New Topic

It is possible it is in response to the posters of other nations here complaining about a lack of freedom. This poster may be deflecting and even indirectly supporting the issue of democracy progress by polarizing the issue by making fundamental freedoms into a kind of manurer as if we can't think for ourselves or even add a complex notion to the autism political dynamic as a whole in some ways to deflect the more embarrassing aspects though remote in possibility. The autism politics can be used for other things as well, potentially in the sublime and the behavior can be used as a platform for suggestion. Some may be aware of this but I am just guessing here and if they are it would kind of be common sense as people with ASD come from different nations. As I said to another poster in so many words I am uncertain of the subjective context given the unique dynamics as it could really cause unknown behavior. This is not my specialty and I am sorry to say not my interest though that may seem selfish. There is a subconscious fear perhaps that more rigid political frameworks will see the autism politics as a threat and ban autism sites within their borders such as China.

I was hesitant to say this but I figured it was quite clear anyways and not much harm done.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDRA3XFfDr4[/youtube]

So basically, you just covered gay liberation in Sociology 101 and decided that it would also work if you just replaced "gay" with "autistic", while ignoring that not everyone with autism/a mental disorder is as high-functioning as you. Being gay just means that you enjoy having sex with people of your own gender. Autism (and other mental disorders, for that matter), OTOH, is not as simple as "I just have a different mind." Not everyone is high-functioning.

Also, your post was the epitome of tl;dr.

Are you talking to me or the original poster? If toward me this subject I have never even thought about sexual orientation but general political dynamics in context to autism politics but then outside of U.S boarders. Mostly I was having fun with the subject but I do not see how what your saying applies to the topic if in context to me.

Further elaborate if needed.

Here is an assumption of the context.

The autism politics is like an onion of many layers. Each layer is a simple fact of it's macro self-advocacy histology even if not long ago but each layer in projection is in dynamic with other layers in static manifestions in present time of potential. I do not function within the layers but am an observer and not really utilizing and on purpose the layers of the histological movement as what can be perceived of it when I speak and advocate. I hope you can understand this in context to my advocacy which is inventing a whole new onion of my own to share with others.

I was talking to the OP. A lot of hir rhetoric sounds a lot like rehashed gay liberation text, except with a find/replace.

Also, your onion analogy is too jargon-y. I'm allergic to jargon.

For the abstract learners the onion would be good but not for you.

People here are a waste of time

you disagree with them and they call you mentally ill

no chance of a real conversation

mods delete thread please

Last edited by neoFoucault on 27 Jan 2011, 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OK. The problem is your speaking of so many differing contexts and the issues are highly subjective and in so many ways that one could endlessly analyse the subject and find strategy to resolve the issues. I just got to find the absolute. This issue is a different strategy in public relations perhaps if I understand your modality which I don't think I am in whole. One that might reflect least in part another one I've gone ahead and rejected. It just wouldn't be wise to explain any further detail. Just know I don't really find your intents if I perceive them correct of malice but if I am understanding it correctly the approach is of the least likely to succeed in scenario.

The socio-political dynamics for example in my small area is greatly different then what exist where you live. I cannot contribute further to this conversation but wish you well. Also with regard to America it's a melting pot of race, ideology and in general idea. An outsiders view of things might seem weird but Awareness of these issues is created on purpose to correct them and from the media and otherwise as a freedom. In other countries this sort of thing is punished.

Nathan

Your OP sounded almost word-for-word like gay liberation texts, except with "gay" replaced with "autistic." It's like you read the texts, but you failed to understand that being gay isn't the same as being autistic.



Except being gay, black, or a woman does not affect your functioning in the same way that being mentally ill or autistic does. Also, should sociopaths be enabled? What about people who genuinely believe that they are a Civil War general and that this is the 1800s?



While some "functioning" is societally enabled, other people are objectively low-functioning.

The issues vary a lot, they'd require a lot of modifications point by point, but there is an underlying single cause of all the problems, which is authoritarianism. The willingness to replace a disciplinary frame with a welfare or human rights or difference-affirming frame would have a big effect in making possible a resolution of all the particular issues, which is currently blocked by a lack of political will and by a belief that all such concerns are trumped by disciplinary concerns. I think you're failing to see the big picture because its effects are segmented.



Well it isn't, and actually is drawn rather more from postcolonial and anti-racist theory, but I think all liberation movements look very much alike in many ways, because they are all counterposing a frame emphasising the right to be different (and its entailments in terms of enablement, tolerance, welfare, human rights) to a frame based on authoritarianism and discipline.



You seem to have failed to appreciate the lesson of the “social model of disability”. Social functioning is an effect of the provision or absence of enabling contexts. Also, being for example a slave has a big effect on someone's social functioning. So does being a woman, if the woman happens to live in a society where rape is common, contraception is not used, and having a child precludes working.



I've heard one case of a person considered low-functioning because s/he was unable to learn to speak or to use braille. After many years, they discovered this person could write, and they were instantly reclassified as high-functioning.

There is no such thing as an “objective” use of a concept. All concepts are socially constructed. Any anthropologist could tell you that things aren't objectively blue for example, they're blue in relation to a particular way of classifying colours, which varies by culture. This is doubly the case with a concept such as “functioning” which is by definition relative – it can only be observed in particular social contexts. When people say “low-functioning” they seem to mean one of three things: it's a metaphor for “socially unintegrated”; or, it refers to particular combinations of sensory hypo/hypersensitivities or bodily control problems which are particularly difficult for existing institutions to handle; or, it refers to a combination of autism with “low intelligence” (which raises a whole other issue of whether “intelligence” really exists). It's better to be precise, because once we're precise, it becomes clear that the difference in issues is a difference in degree: a need for more enablement, or of a different kind, and not an issue qualitatively different from those facing other groups.

In any case, all of this has precisely zero relevance to my original argument. High- or low-functioning, objectively or subjectively classified as such, the risks are much the same – and if anything worsen the worse one 'functions'.



The second part of this statement is a media-driven stereotypical representation of experiences of schizophrenia which shows a clear misunderstanding of the issues involved. Quite probably the person who “believes” such things is doing so because they have experienced them in a dream or similar, and is not conceptually distinguishing between orders of experience. Either that or it's an allegory/metaphor which has not been marked as such. It's well-documented in anti-psychiatry that schizophrenic people can be enabled, they can live a free and happy life not subject to repressive control, but as with many situations, it requires certain elements of an enabling context, in particular, the ability of enablers to communicate with schizophrenics on something like their own level, and the articulation of flows into constructive combinations.

As to sociopaths. Conceivably, yes. I don't know the exact issues around sociopathy, which is a very recent label stolen by psychiatry from crime fiction, but if it's an actual psychological difference, it needs to be recognised as entailing a right to difference. It's a less straightforward question that autistic liberation however, because, whereas realising autistic liberation forwards the creation of an enabling context in general, enabling certain of the tendencies deemed sociopathic would create a less enabling context for other groups (if it's true they seek to dominate others). It might also be asked if current unjust settings actually do enable or even privilege sociopaths, to the extent that enablement of other groups actually entails disempowering sociopaths to some degree. Most likely they shouldn't be put in power over others, much as a blind person shouldn't be left to operate a bulldozer, and attempts should be made to nudge them away from particularly harmful courses, but I don't think we can create entire categories and say “these people are bad and shouldn't have rights”, people are what they are, and once we introduce the mechanism of judging difference as inferior, it's a slippery slope to disaster. I think if there's another Auschwitz, the most likely form it will take is the extermination of people deemed sociopathic, on pre-emptive risk management grounds. Also, it is widely accepted that certain species of animals which are dangerous to humans (e.g. rhinos and elephants) should be protected, even though in some cases (rhinos) they are so aggressive as to attack anything that comes within a certain distance of them. I also have suspicions as to whether sociopathy is actually anything but the Jungian shadow produced by an internal gesture of 'splitting' by NT's, i.e. it's a catch-all for all the NT traits which NT people aren't proud of. In which case, the question would be how to get NT's to be less judgemental of themselves and to work more constructively with their 'dark sides'.

I'm also concerned about how authoritarian personalities should be handled, since to my mind they're the most dangerous type around. My suspicion is that, since they prefer to live in highly secure, repressive environments, and since they act quite happily (if inhumanely) with one another, it would be quite possible, once they realised they could no longer impose their vision on the whole of humanity, to persuade most of them to live in some kind of institution, self-governing amongst themselves (though obviously with their usual hierarchies). But this might have to be enabled by bringing in supplies from outside, so they don't have to go out into the less-regulated world. I also strongly suspect, however, that authoritarianism is not an inherent difference but rather, is socially caused, and therefore, that removing the institutions which make people authoritarian would effectively cause it to wither away.

No shiite. I'd rather watch paint dry.

This video sums up Autism Advocacy Liberalism originating from the U.K that spread to the United States as if like the Beatles but here in America we got our own bands.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez8aMrDd4mw[/youtube]

I really wanted to share this video with you. I think it's important to share perceptives of diversity. I think you will find this video and others will find this video enlightening.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKAW96N-Vms&feature=fvst[/youtube]

ive never voted democrat actualy,voted republican in every election.however i have not voted in about 10 years,i have not thought either party has had the answer.we need another ronald reagan,is sara palin the next ronald reagan i dont know.she has inspired the blue collar concervative vote,but to win she will need to inspire the wall street conservatives and carry some of the democratic vote.that was reagan secret to success was getting longtime democrats to vote for him.im worried about her refinement,using riflescope cross hairs to map out election strategy.without realizing how nervious city people can be about guns,even if she meant no harm.im not sure what the future of american politics holds at this point.im aware the republicans dont offer as many services for the disabled,but liberal social policy causes more problems in the longrun

No, what I was saying is that it looked like you found a prior gay liberation text, and just did a find/replace on every instance of "gay."



I agree about the slave and woman part. However, disability is not solely a societal construct.



1. Intelligence does exist. It's been abused in the past, but some people are smarter than others.
2. Have you spent any time around ret*d or severely autistic people?



I understand that not all schizophrenics are of the "I'm Jesus" variety. I was using someone I read about as an example. His delusions were affecting him to the point where his functioning was impaired.

I think that medicating schizophrenics should be a choice made by the person (if they're of legal age), but if their illness is affecting them to the point where their functioning is impaired, then it is a problem and they should not be enabled. It's the same with fetishes: If it's affecting your life to the point where your functioning is impaired and you're pissing everyone off, then you do have a problem.



While most people's understanding of sociopathy comes from movies or Dexter reruns, it is a real condition.



Even if the current power structures were disestablished, people would still be authoritarian. Some people are just as*holes. It's part of human nature.



FYI, I'm gay. You seriously don't think I'm well-aware of the Adam and Eve s**t from both sides? I brought up the gay liberation stuff because the OP's post was exactly like other gay liberation stuff I've read.



Trust me, you weren't missing a thing, unless you really like w*k, jargon, and rehashed queer/anti-racist/feminist theory.

First, I already know I'm not missing anything important to me. I think I made that pretty clear already.

Second, I find your terminology, "w*k, jargon, and rehashed queer/anti-racist/feminist theory," HIGHLY offensive.

Don't presume you have ANY idea where I stand on these issues. I haven''t stated my stance. And I won't, because I have no desire whatsoever to entangle myself in your toxic rhetoric.

That kind of crap gets no support from me.

I have a problem with people who don't listen. You would realize that if you were listening.

Anyway, I'm done here. This entire conversation holds no value for me.

What? I was just saying that his posts read exactly like past theory that I've read, except with a find/replace. Everything he has said has been said before, and better.