MN and their approach to autism

[HypocrisyHere]

I have attached two screenshots. One showing the two threads I’m watching, the other the deletion message from the first watched thread which was deleted.

The subjects of the two threads are

(1) Any ‘positive’ autism stories?
(2) Married to someone with Asperger’s: support thread 5

My confusion is that the first was deleted because “the title was not in spirit of the site” Yet thread 2 - which has (IMO) a deeply offensive as it implies all people with Asperger’s are a problem in a relationship (leaving aside the ghastly ableism within the thread) is absolutely fine?

Thread 1 was from a concerned parent who may have used clunky wording but was looking for support - yet she has been deleted. Thread 2 is for concerned partners who can blame every poor behaviour of their partners on autism and that’s all fine?

As an autistic person this makes no sense to me at all and highlights not only ableism within MNHQ but also a deeply inconsistent approach to moderation?

(Have name changed as I’m a coward)

@HerRoyalHappiness

I always say that I am not disabled by my condition but by society's attitude toward my condition. I like that. If society was more accepting and accessible to everyone with disabilities the world would be a much better place.

It’s challenging because, as we can see from this thread, language matters. However, people have differing perspectives. Some people clearly identify more with the social model of disability than others. I think the main thing is that we are all respectful of how other people feel. I know some people who are offended if referred to as ‘autistic’ whereas others identify strongly with this.

YADNBU OP. I think the second thread is dreadful.

@BlankTimes

“ Should differentiation be based on care and support needs?”

No, probably more. Good point!
Just my view, the social worker in me. I do need to look a little wider. Appreciate your thoughts.

For me personally one of the biggest things would be to make online communication more normal. I hate phone calls, and having to speak to someone on the phone for my pip assessment left me distressed, exhausted and tearful.
Making forms more clearly understood is another big one, especially for benefits. People with all sorts of disabilities struggle with the forms for claiming benefits and we shouldn't have to get support from people like citizens advice to be able to fill them in.
Having routines be understood, so I don't have (none emergency) appointments and such dripped on me last minute. (To be fair my care coordinator and my therapist are really good with this. They both stick to a specific day and time and always give me lots of notice if something needs to change. We need more people like them in the world)
Less sarcasm. Just in general. If society would just say what they mean and mean what they say life would be much simpler.
I have a lot of physical needs too, so for me more accessible places, more elevators, automatic doors where possible (trying to open a door to a cafe while maneuvering a wheelchair in is a nightmare) or even just having the door propped open so I can live a more independent life (not that I'm able to go new places alone, but even so, I don't want to have to rely on my carer all of the time. I want to do things independently, like get into a shop or cafe)

I always say that I am not disabled by my condition but by society's attitude toward my condition.

I find this trite deeply unhelpful nonsense

Perhaps I should respect my DS's autism and just let DS walk out in front of a car when he so chooses... I'm not sure how a dentist can guess my silent DS needs greater painkillers just by improving his attitude to autism. If you could tell the whole world to shut up today ExDP would have found the whole world a whole lot easier.

If you are not disabled by your autism that is great, but your experience is not universal. My DS is absolutely can be, many of the DC I know of all kinds of functioning are.

Although i do definitely agree all those things in the second thread would be wonderful. DS would have a much improved quality of life. They wouldn't actually improve his disability

Post not thread!!

@HerRoyalHappiness Less sarcasm might be an improvement in accessibility to you, but it would lessen quality of life for others to be restricted in their range of linguistic expression. People who are already very restricted.

Prime example of the difficulty in balancing needs.

In fairness I only said the world would be a better place not that people wouldn't still be disabled. We can make the world easier for people though so surely we should strive ti do that. I'm aware it won't solve everything. If it was up to me I'd practically be a hermit. Away from all people and noise. Unfortunately I can't do that so the next best thing is to make it easier for me to live in society.

innocenta I'm not sure how it would lessen anyone's quality of life. I dont understand why people meed to be told lies that aren't really lies because its said in a specific tone of voice. What is the point in that?

@HerRoyalHappiness

I always say that I am not disabled by my condition but by society's attitude toward my condition. I like that. If society was more accepting and accessible to everyone with disabilities the world would be a much better place.

There is some truth in the social model of disability, for sure, but it's not the whole story. No changes in society can fix my body (including my brain) or make it anything other than very, very difficult and painful to live in. Now, can society add a further degree of impediment? Yes, absolutely! And access is incredibly important. But a fully social model just doesn't reflect the reality for many disabled people / people with disabilities.

@HerRoyalHappiness

For me personally one of the biggest things would be to make online communication more normal. I hate phone calls, and having to speak to someone on the phone for my pip assessment left me distressed, exhausted and tearful. Making forms more clearly understood is another big one, especially for benefits. People with all sorts of disabilities struggle with the forms for claiming benefits and we shouldn't have to get support from people like citizens advice to be able to fill them in. Having routines be understood, so I don't have (none emergency) appointments and such dripped on me last minute. (To be fair my care coordinator and my therapist are really good with this. They both stick to a specific day and time and always give me lots of notice if something needs to change. We need more people like them in the world) Less sarcasm. Just in general. If society would just say what they mean and mean what they say life would be much simpler. I have a lot of physical needs too, so for me more accessible places, more elevators, automatic doors where possible (trying to open a door to a cafe while maneuvering a wheelchair in is a nightmare) or even just having the door propped open so I can live a more independent life (not that I'm able to go new places alone, but even so, I don't want to have to rely on my carer all of the time. I want to do things independently, like get into a shop or cafe)

Thank you for detailing what would be helpful to you. I think most of those would be so helpful for many people and they are so achievable if there was a will to do it. The sarcasm point would not be for me, I love the nuances and subtlety of some commutation styles - but in professional settings totally agree!

@HerRoyalHappiness

innocenta I'm not sure how it would lessen anyone's quality of life. I dont understand why people meed to be told lies that aren't really lies because its said in a specific tone of voice. What is the point in that?

It would lessen people's QoL to be restricted in speech. It would lessen mine to not be allowed to be playful, arch, etc. To be restricted to only factual / 'truthful' speech would be horrendous for me.

I'm already very severely disabled. For me this would be the opposite of improved accessibility.

I am, in fact, informing you directly in a non sarcastic way!

I never claimed its fully social. Just said the world would be a better place.
Making life easier for those woth disabilities doesn't take away the disabilities, but it does make life easier. So why wouldn't we do that? Why is society as a whole so reluctant to change?

@HerRoyalHappiness

I never claimed its fully social. Just said the world would be a better place. Making life easier for those woth disabilities doesn't take away the disabilities, but it does make life easier. So why wouldn't we do that? Why is society as a whole so reluctant to change?

You quoted someone who invoked the social model; that's all I was responding to. If you don't fully adhere to that, then that's great!

It would lessen mine to not be allowed to be playful, arch, etc. To be restricted to only factual / 'truthful' speech would be horrendous for me

But surely you can be playful without beating around the Bush and telling lies? Surely you see the difference in having a laugh and a joke where its very obvious, to sarcasm where someone is just being nasty.

@HerRoyalHappiness

innocenta I'm not sure how it would lessen anyone's quality of life. I dont understand why people meed to be told lies that aren't really lies because its said in a specific tone of voice. What is the point in that?

It would remove some colour from life. I remember laughing when watching “Yes minister” or “Blackadder”. I love when my wittier friends engage in a bit if verbal sparring. It makes me feel alive. All things in moderation though - there is a time and a place but I’d hate to lose it altogether.

@HerRoyalHappiness

the-art-of-autism.com/understanding-the-spectrum-a-comic-strip-explanation/ this is what the autism spectrum is. Its not high to low, autistic to neurotypical. Its individual to each and every person with autism. The word autism or autistic encompasses everything. We don't need other qualifiers as we should be treated as individual, not as a subset if high or low functioning people.

You don't get to decide what terms others use. That goes against fundamental principles of disability rights and social justice. You absolutely have the right to reject functioning labels for yourself, and to advocate against them! I wholeheartedly support you in doing so and I acknowledge the issues with such terminology. But no one has the right to say categorically that terms in current usage by others in the same broad group should not be used by those who choose to use them about themselves. That's controlling.

@HerRoyalHappiness

It would lessen mine to not be allowed to be playful, arch, etc. To be restricted to only factual / 'truthful' speech would be horrendous for me

But surely you can be playful without beating around the Bush and telling lies? Surely you see the difference in having a laugh and a joke where its very obvious, to sarcasm where someone is just being nasty.

Why do you think anyone has the right - or should have the right - to coerce the language others use? (Beyond legal and situational restrictions like incitement to violence, avoidance of slurs, etc.)

I find that very problematic.

You have specified plain speaking, and I have plainly told you this would lessen my QoL - are you accusing me of lying? I'm just sharing my honest reaction to your suggestion, as part of pointing out how what seems like an access benefit can affect others negatively.

I'm telling you I don't understand. Sarcasm is nasty. Sarcasm isn't wit or humour, it's nastiness. There's a difference between the two and I don't know why you'd want to keep nastiness in the world.

@HerRoyalHappiness I'm generally fairly direct. The occasions where I fanny about dropping subtle hints or beat around the bush are rare, and don't come naturally. I am however sarcastic, and have no intention of changing that even if I could. Partly that's just how I am, partly it's because adhd means I often say things without stopping to think about them.

I can rein it in, but it's an effort, and one I reserve for occasions and individuals when it's vitally important. But I'm not going to fundamentally change myself and increase my own difficulties just because you, or anyone else don't get it. I don't expect autistic people to put aside eg a need for advance warning because I personally don't see any need for it and it interferes with my impulsiveness. Nor would I presume to attach motives such as being nasty to anyone that has a conflicting communication style to my own as you have.

Fwiw one of the people with the dryest, most sarcastic sense of wit I know is autistic, and I certainly don't think it would make his life easier if one of the few social areas he feels confident in was suddenly off limits.

I also don't believe it's just about asd, or adhd or any other condition or situation where sarcasm might play a specific role. Lots of people benefit from it, and I don't think it's fair to say they shouldn't in general to make life easier for others.

@Innocenta has made it perfectly clear in the past what she thinks of people with autism.

As I said I'm not on about wit or humour. I'm on about when people are just nasty. The "noooo you don't say" with sigh and an eye roll. That's sarcasm. And there's just no need to do it unless you're being mean to someone.

Sarcasm can be funny. It isn't always nasty. But even when it is nasty... sometimes, it's fine to be nasty. It's okay to be nasty about, say, politicians who've told lies or behaved terribly badly. Or people who've abused you.

Again - it's not just about what you like and don't like. I think you'd be perfectly reasonable in asking your own friends not to use sarcasm to you. I don't think you're wrong to want to limit something you find distressing, in your own life. But it's extending that to people in general - everyone - that I take issue with.

I think this reflects on society as a whole.

Autism is challenging because it means people do not conform to societal expectations. They either do not reach these expectations or exceed them. Both of these outcomes are seen as problematic by many. Because societal expectations and conventions are only flexible within very narrow parameters. People like to be able to predict what people will do, how they will feel. It upholds the status quo. Parents are given advice, teachers know what to teach, curriculums devised etc based on expectations.

So if a person is neuro-diverse they need a label so society can be warned they don't conform to expectations. There is a certain trade off in being allowed permission not to conform, since society's infrastructure relies on people being predictable. So they are singled out as. 'Other'.

However, there is an evolutionary function in being non conforming. Sometimes society itself needs adjustment. People need to become more agile and resilient to change.