3 ms·

"Autist" has this sort of duality to it best demonstrated by wallstreetbets culture, where an "Autist" is somebody who will either lose all their money or get w

"Autist" has this sort of duality to it best demonstrated by wallstreetbets culture, where an "Autist" is somebody who will either lose all their money or get wealthy beyond compare. An object of mockery yet an object of admiration, an Elon Musk figure. Simply stigmatizing whatever words people decide to use in a mean way isn't a real solution to any problem. I resist sacrificing the word "Autist" to the god of the euphemism treadmill because it's the noun form of "Autistic" and is two syllables. If we stigmatize that word we won't address the actual stigma but we will be forced to resort to more pained and awkward language.

spacemanmatt 5y ago
It is the most common term I hear from people who "call out" autism disingenuously. It's not about the words or the stigma, it's about the assholes and not repeating their abuse by reusing their words.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  >It's not about the words... it's about... their words. Feels somewhat contradictory. In terms of abuse, stigmatizing the word "Autist" won't prevent abuse, it will enable it. Language that expresses negative feelings about a group of people will always exist, all one can do is have influence over the exact language that is used in that expression and the context in which people use certain language. Censorship doesn't stop abuse, it changes how abuse is expressed. In this situation, if we censor "autist", people will still probably continue to use the word, but use it in private more often, and it will become more of a pure slur. People who use the word "Autist" also use "Autistic" as in "Autistic screeching" as a slur/backhanded compliment (And autistic is truly uncensorable) with a very similar connotation, so by stigmatizing "Autist" and giving it a more severe connotation consequently, you are actually increasing peoples ability to more fluently express their distaste of autistics by making the word "Autist" more distinct from "Autistic". Increasing peoples ability to express their distaste for autism more easily is the opposite of what censorship ought to aim to do.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    Ever notice how black people can rap and sing about the N word, and say it to each other with at least 5 different meanings communicated just with verbal inflection, but it has exactly one meaning when a white person says it to a black person?

spacemanmatt 5y ago

It is the most common term I hear from people who "call out" autism disingenuously. It's not about the words or the stigma, it's about the assholes and not repeating their abuse by reusing their words.

faeriechangling 5y ago
>It's not about the words... it's about... their words. Feels somewhat contradictory. In terms of abuse, stigmatizing the word "Autist" won't prevent abuse, it will enable it. Language that expresses negative feelings about a group of people will always exist, all one can do is have influence over the exact language that is used in that expression and the context in which people use certain language. Censorship doesn't stop abuse, it changes how abuse is expressed. In this situation, if we censor "autist", people will still probably continue to use the word, but use it in private more often, and it will become more of a pure slur. People who use the word "Autist" also use "Autistic" as in "Autistic screeching" as a slur/backhanded compliment (And autistic is truly uncensorable) with a very similar connotation, so by stigmatizing "Autist" and giving it a more severe connotation consequently, you are actually increasing peoples ability to more fluently express their distaste of autistics by making the word "Autist" more distinct from "Autistic". Increasing peoples ability to express their distaste for autism more easily is the opposite of what censorship ought to aim to do.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  Ever notice how black people can rap and sing about the N word, and say it to each other with at least 5 different meanings communicated just with verbal inflection, but it has exactly one meaning when a white person says it to a black person?