4 ms·

Autism does not only describe people "who don't fit", but also people who would die without someone else caring for them. A society that doesn't regard such peo

by chr1 7y ago

Autism does not only describe people "who don't fit", but also people who would die without someone else caring for them. A society that doesn't regard such people as defective, and doesn't try to help them (when they agree), is simply lying to itself.

gugagore 7y ago
I think you lack compassion in your wording. We have evolved as social creatures, and we care for each other. We depend on each other in millions of ways, in millions of varieties. I would bet you too would die, or have died, without some care at key points in your life. It takes a village to raise a child. I argue it takes one to keep a human alive and healthy too. One piece of content in favor of my point: https://youtu.be/n3Xv_g3g-mA https://youtu.be/n3Xv_g3g-mA There's no need for people to be able to survive without care. And yes my society values individualism, but we should be able to critique it, and ask where that emerges from.
- krageon 7y ago
  > There's no need for people to be able to survive without care. There is no need, but there should be the option. If we can provide that option to people that want it we should be allowed to. Just because someone feels that it infringes on their core identity does not mean someone else should not be treated for something they feel is a defect. Saying that this needs to be possible is not a lack of compassion, it is the most compassionate choice.
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    > Saying that this needs to be possible is not a lack of compassion, it is the most compassionate choice. Pardon my cynicism, but I have no faith in the "compassion" of "normal people". Not when I've spent my whole life being told that I'm defective and need to be fixed. You might not want to force people into treatment, but my experience suggests that you're part of a small, sane minority.
  - gugagore 7y ago
    You're not responding to this thread. The conversation isn't about people being allowed to feel defective and seek treatment. Read again: > . A society that doesn't regard such people as defective, and doesn't try to help them (when they agree), is simply lying to itself.
    - krageon 7y ago
      I believe that I was responding to you when you implied that sentence (among others) was without compassion. If you have a specific grievance with what I said that doesn't involve something I was quite literally responding to we can discuss that.
      - gugagore 7y ago
        The part that isn't compassionate is the part that insists we label certain people as defective. Your response is about people having the right to label themselves defective. If you argue that it's compassionate to allow people to live the lives they want to live, that's beautiful and I agree. I am arguing it's NOT compassionate to insist that certain people are defective, especially regardless of how they feel about their own lives. I mean, the word "defective" alone, c'mon.
        chr1 7y ago
        The crispr treatment in the article is not simply a way to remove the gene causing some forms of autism, it is also a method to add that same gene. The fact that we are talking only about using it to remove autism shows that everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages and therefore are defects. The problem with autism is that many different things are grouped under the same term and some of them are not that disadvantageous.
        gugagore 7y ago
        > everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages and therefore are defects No, not everyone knows that. I feel quite humbled by my experience meeting people with "defects", who are proud of their "defects", would not choose to remove their "defects", actively seek out relationships with other "defective" people, and have formed a cultural identity around their "defect", to the extent that they hope their own kids are also "defective", maybe not to the strength that other people hope their kids aren't defective, but at least express a preference. I hold it as a fundamental, nowadays, that I cannot decide what is and is not defective for other people, especially strangers, and especially people who themselves actively say "I'm not defective!". I rather focus on concrete harm to figure out how to exist in the world, for myself and for others. I think it does harm to the world to approach all disabilities from a mindset that is focused on "defectiveness". I will take my lead from other people with the relevant disabilities. "Nothing about us without us" is a powerful slogan that guides me to do so. I don't know whether you identify with any "defective" or defect-adjacent subgroup (since you talk about all the different things that grouped under autism), but I know for sure not everyone is. And so not "everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages". When I try to drill down on what that really means (how would you even determine how to weigh the advantages and disadvantages?), the whole endeavor seems divorced from individual realities and pointless.

by chr1 7y ago

gugagore 7y ago

I think you lack compassion in your wording. We have evolved as social creatures, and we care for each other. We depend on each other in millions of ways, in millions of varieties. I would bet you too would die, or have died, without some care at key points in your life. It takes a village to raise a child. I argue it takes one to keep a human alive and healthy too. One piece of content in favor of my point: https://youtu.be/n3Xv_g3g-mA https://youtu.be/n3Xv_g3g-mA There's no need for people to be able to survive without care. And yes my society values individualism, but we should be able to critique it, and ask where that emerges from.

krageon 7y ago
> There's no need for people to be able to survive without care. There is no need, but there should be the option. If we can provide that option to people that want it we should be allowed to. Just because someone feels that it infringes on their core identity does not mean someone else should not be treated for something they feel is a defect. Saying that this needs to be possible is not a lack of compassion, it is the most compassionate choice.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  > Saying that this needs to be possible is not a lack of compassion, it is the most compassionate choice. Pardon my cynicism, but I have no faith in the "compassion" of "normal people". Not when I've spent my whole life being told that I'm defective and need to be fixed. You might not want to force people into treatment, but my experience suggests that you're part of a small, sane minority.
- gugagore 7y ago
  You're not responding to this thread. The conversation isn't about people being allowed to feel defective and seek treatment. Read again: > . A society that doesn't regard such people as defective, and doesn't try to help them (when they agree), is simply lying to itself.
  - krageon 7y ago
    I believe that I was responding to you when you implied that sentence (among others) was without compassion. If you have a specific grievance with what I said that doesn't involve something I was quite literally responding to we can discuss that.
    - gugagore 7y ago
      The part that isn't compassionate is the part that insists we label certain people as defective. Your response is about people having the right to label themselves defective. If you argue that it's compassionate to allow people to live the lives they want to live, that's beautiful and I agree. I am arguing it's NOT compassionate to insist that certain people are defective, especially regardless of how they feel about their own lives. I mean, the word "defective" alone, c'mon.
      - chr1 7y ago
        The crispr treatment in the article is not simply a way to remove the gene causing some forms of autism, it is also a method to add that same gene. The fact that we are talking only about using it to remove autism shows that everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages and therefore are defects. The problem with autism is that many different things are grouped under the same term and some of them are not that disadvantageous.
        gugagore 7y ago
        > everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages and therefore are defects No, not everyone knows that. I feel quite humbled by my experience meeting people with "defects", who are proud of their "defects", would not choose to remove their "defects", actively seek out relationships with other "defective" people, and have formed a cultural identity around their "defect", to the extent that they hope their own kids are also "defective", maybe not to the strength that other people hope their kids aren't defective, but at least express a preference. I hold it as a fundamental, nowadays, that I cannot decide what is and is not defective for other people, especially strangers, and especially people who themselves actively say "I'm not defective!". I rather focus on concrete harm to figure out how to exist in the world, for myself and for others. I think it does harm to the world to approach all disabilities from a mindset that is focused on "defectiveness". I will take my lead from other people with the relevant disabilities. "Nothing about us without us" is a powerful slogan that guides me to do so. I don't know whether you identify with any "defective" or defect-adjacent subgroup (since you talk about all the different things that grouped under autism), but I know for sure not everyone is. And so not "everyone knows that some forms of autism give much more disadvantages than advantages". When I try to drill down on what that really means (how would you even determine how to weigh the advantages and disadvantages?), the whole endeavor seems divorced from individual realities and pointless.