5 ms·
> What does "white washed form of eugenics" mean? Legitimately curious! Having the underlying intention of eugenics, but not outright saying "my true goals are
by s5300 5y ago
> What does "white washed form of eugenics" mean? Legitimately curious!
Having the underlying intention of eugenics, but not outright saying "my true goals are eugenics"
In his example, Autism Speaks - it is fairly well known amongst autistic people/those on a neurodivergent spectrum/those who truly love/accept their autistic children/autistic people in general, that the organization, at it's head and with a majority of those who identify as members of it, are really people who are frustrated/unhappy/mad and/or absolutely terrible at coping with the fact that they had an autistic child & otherwise wish they'd have never been born. Their goal is not to accept autistic people as who they are or try to push for the general public (or perhaps "their agenda being") to accept them as who they are, but to outright eliminate the existence of what we know as Autism as a whole, which can politely be called "curing"
A more simple yet slightly less correct by "proper definitions" idea of what this entails is "being an asshole, but really, truly, wanting people to not think/be able to go "hey you're an asshole""
It's sort of like the Susan G. Komen charity, and as hard to explain as to why they're actually really fucking bad organizations to the average person - most people over the age of, say 15-20(?) likely think of Susan G. Komen foundation when they think of Breast Cancer or vice versa. The fact of the matter is, which can be easily seen on "charity rating websites" that document the entirety of various charities financial reports (legally attainable to the public per US law I believe, or something close to that) among a few other things, that Susan G. Komen doesn't actually do much for Breast Cancer at all from a funding/research/finding a cure perspective, but is entirely a financial grift for those at the helm of it. There are many, many better Breast Cancer awareness charities to donate to, but the average person will just think Susan G. Komen, and unknowingly put their money right into the pocket of grifters. It's been a very well known thing... for many years now, and legally they've gotten away with it by maintaining that they're simply "an awareness organization" - and, one could go on to argue many things about whether or not that could be legitimate and the money they're funneling to themselves is "earned/not malicious" for far too long.
tl:dr Susan G. Komen people are a bunch of dicks, but you won't know that if you don't look into it, so most people will probably think badly of you if you say "Susan G. Komen are a bunch of dicks" , just as somebody may think badly of you if you say "Autism Speaks are a bunch of dicks"
Hope this helps, and hope I don't upset too many people with this.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago> Their goal is not to accept autistic people as who they are or try to push for the general public (or perhaps "their agenda being") to accept them as who they are, but to outright eliminate the existence of what we know as Autism as a whole, which can politely be called "curing" Yes. It's a mental disorder. You can try sweettalking what it is, but mild versions of autism are already insanely disruptive, both to the parents, but also to all other children and people that are forced to interact with them, for example in a classroom setting, where any autistic kid will take more than their fair share of the teacher's attention. But god forbid if you have a child with low-functioning or severe autism. You might as well give up all plans you had for the foreseeable future.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago> for example in a classroom setting, where any autistic kid will take more than their fair share of the teacher's attention. Ah yes, the classroom environment, where children are not treated like people. Woe betide somebody objects to that! “Mental disorder” – how is that defined? Saying “mental disorders are bad, autism is a mental disorder, therefore autism is bad” is the non-central fallacy, so obviously you must have a better argument (and I just can't see it). But remember: homosexuality used to be considered a “mental disorder”, as did women wanting the vote (I'm not joking!). I posit: “mental disorder” is just a word for people who diverge from what society considers typical (or, cynically, acceptable) variation in what people are like. Some of that variation is bad, I won't argue with that. Most of that variation is absolutely fine. The way society is means that any atypical variation is bad, because society punishes it. If not for that punishment, much variation would be a non-issue.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago> Ah yes, the classroom environment, where children are not treated like people. Woe betide somebody objects to that! They don't object. They throw tantrums because they didn't get a 2 week advance warning of something happening. > “Mental disorder” – how is that defined? DSM-V: a syndrome characterized by *clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior* that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are bad by definition. Psychologists don't put behaviours in their diagnostic manuals for nothing. Autism is in there for a reason. At its mild end it's a hurdle. At its severe end it's absolutely debilitating for the sufferer and their entire network. > I posit: “mental disorder” is just a word for people who diverge from what society considers typical (or, cynically, acceptable) variation in what people are like. Some of that variation is bad, I won't argue with that. Most of that variation is absolutely fine. I suggest you go read through the DSM. A major criterium for each mental illness is that the personis hampered in their function by it.