3 ms·

The hardest part for me is understanding the difference between legitimate diagnoses and people who use it as a sort of veneer for antisocial behavior.

by 23B1 2y ago

93po 2y ago
i mean the point of language is to communicate, saying "i have autism" is usually done to give context to someone's behavior or how to interact with them (though obviously autism is very different person to person). i think this is a tricky conversation because someone could argue the "stolen valor" of autism might cause issues when someone says they have autism, but doesn't, and then the person interacting with them uses it as a learning experience in how to interact with autistic people in the future. however i'm not really sure this holds up as a decent argument, because as it's said all the time and i said earlier, you can't make assumptions about how to interact best with any given person who has autism. you have to ask, "is there anything i can do to make you comfortable or help?", if it's appropriate to do so, and see what they in particular need.
nullc 2y ago
Your two groups aren't mutually exclusionary. It's possible to have a legitimate diagnosis and also to abuse that diagnosis to attempt to excuse anti-social behavior. I point this out because at the end of the day a person's diagnosis is for them-- hopefully it helps them get the support they need to have a more successful life. For the rest of us we just need to deal with behavior we will or won't accept. We should try to afford people some tolerance, diagnosis or not. But ultimately if someone is unwilling or unable to behave in an acceptable way then we won't continue interacting with them. This can happen via a venue rejecting misbehaving participants, or it can happen by behaving participants rejecting a venue that has failed to regulate the conduct of its other participants.

The hardest part for me is understanding the difference between legitimate diagnoses and people who use it as a sort of veneer for antisocial behavior.

by 23B1 2y ago

The hardest part for me is understanding the difference between legitimate diagnoses and people who use it as a sort of veneer for antisocial behavior.

93po 2y ago

i mean the point of language is to communicate, saying "i have autism" is usually done to give context to someone's behavior or how to interact with them (though obviously autism is very different person to person). i think this is a tricky conversation because someone could argue the "stolen valor" of autism might cause issues when someone says they have autism, but doesn't, and then the person interacting with them uses it as a learning experience in how to interact with autistic people in the future. however i'm not really sure this holds up as a decent argument, because as it's said all the time and i said earlier, you can't make assumptions about how to interact best with any given person who has autism. you have to ask, "is there anything i can do to make you comfortable or help?", if it's appropriate to do so, and see what they in particular need.

nullc 2y ago

Your two groups aren't mutually exclusionary. It's possible to have a legitimate diagnosis and also to abuse that diagnosis to attempt to excuse anti-social behavior. I point this out because at the end of the day a person's diagnosis is for them-- hopefully it helps them get the support they need to have a more successful life. For the rest of us we just need to deal with behavior we will or won't accept. We should try to afford people some tolerance, diagnosis or not. But ultimately if someone is unwilling or unable to behave in an acceptable way then we won't continue interacting with them. This can happen via a venue rejecting misbehaving participants, or it can happen by behaving participants rejecting a venue that has failed to regulate the conduct of its other participants.