Congress declares "war" on autism [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

10th December 2008, 14:38

The problem is that it looks like "anti-autism" groups are behind the proposals, and that it is from a "curing autism" perspective. I mean, if everyone were autistic, no one would speak about curing it. Its like trying to cure red hair, or dark skin.

Duh, that's because red hair or dark skin isn't an illness or disorder, autism is.

Are you even being serious? "It's like trying to cure cancer!"

And those "anti-autism" groups you talk about as if they are some kind of neo-nazis are actually groups dedicated to raising awareness of the disorder and funding research in order to find a cure for it:

We are dedicated to funding global biomedical research into the causes, prevention, treatments, and cure for autism; to raising public awareness about autism and its effects on individuals, families, and society; and to bringing hope to all who deal with the hardships of this disorder. We are committed to raising the funds necessary to support these goals.

Autism Speaks aims to bring the autism community together as one strong voice to urge the government and private sector to listen to our concerns and take action to address this urgent global health crisis. It is our firm belief that, working together, we will find the missing pieces of the puzzle.

You are seriously taking the PC liberal line to ridiculous proportions; "There's nothing wrong with having a disorder/disease! If you want to fund research to find cures for them you are oppressing the people who have the disorder because you're implying there's something wrong with having a disorder/disease in the first place! People who have disorders/diseases don't care about cures!"

That is actually the complete opposite of what is the case. Yes, obviously "there's nothing wrong with having a disorder/disease" in terms of functioning in society, everyone should be treated equal, but in terms of the individual there's a whole fucking lot wrong with it.

People who have disorders/diseases don't just want to be accepted for who they are, but also have something done about it.

Cult of Reason

10th December 2008, 21:05

It's just that red hair or dark skin don't tend to have 'symptom's' with the potential to resrict an individuals hapiness.
I don't find the term 'cure' offensive and was intested in why it would be considered so.

The nature of autism is such that it greatly affects an individual's personality. For example, some people with Aspergers develop deep interests in certain subjects, whether it is molecular structure, test cricket or indeed Leftist politics. This is a main feature of Aspergers (I believe is it part of the diagnostic criteria). Imagine we then "cure" someone of their Aspergers. What does that mean? Would they lose their deep interests in certain things? Would they lose the capacity to concentrate so well on them?

That is a drastic change to someone's personality, and that is before we even consider adjusting to the change after "treatment".

I don't know about you, but I do not want my personality changed. Then, there is also the neurodiversity argument.

Re: high-functioning autism, who is it who defines it as a disorder/disease? Psychologists, likely almost all neurotypical. I do not view myself as diseased. I am not overly sociable, I often miss social cues and I can concentrate fo ages on things that interest me... OH WOE IS ME! How can I cope with having disadvantages to go with my advantages? Halp, I need a koor!

How many autistic members are there of these "anti-autism" groups? I would be surprised if there were many. The "autism community" could mean anything, and in this case I expect that it refers to those around the autistics, not the autistics themselves.

Led Zeppelin

10th December 2008, 21:09

If you don't want a cure and don't care about having a disorder that's your problem, don't project it to other people who have a disease/disorder and do want a cure.

And there are more autistic members in those organizations than, well, you, who is just one person, so if you want to go with the identity politics argument you still lose.

Besides, that article was talking mostly about ways to prevent autism and "curing it" in that manner.

Cult of Reason

10th December 2008, 21:15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_rights

One person? Come again?

Led Zeppelin

11th December 2008, 08:08

Since those in the autism rights movement see autism as a natural human variation and not a disorder, they are opposed to attempts to eliminate autism. In particular, there is opposition to prenatal genetic testing of autism in unborn fetuses, which some believe might be possible in the future (see Heritability of autism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism)). Some worry that this can prevent autistic people from being born.

Well what do you know, there are more loons out there than just one.

I consider cancer to be a natural human variation and am opposed to having it cured. If there are ways to genetically test for cancer in unborn children I would be opposed to it because it would prevent people with cancer from existing.

I consider manic-depression to be a natural human variation...

I consider schizophrenia to be a natural human variation...

Etc. etc. etc.

Well, as I said;

If you don't want a cure and don't care about having a disorder that's your problem, don't project it to other people who have a disease/disorder and do want a cure.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th December 2008, 10:50

Are there any cancer, manic-depression and schizophrenic's rights groups out there?

I haven't heard of any.

butterfly

11th December 2008, 13:43

Yes but they usually have religious connotations

Led Zeppelin

11th December 2008, 14:16

Are there any cancer, manic-depression and schizophrenic's rights groups out there?

I haven't heard of any.

Yes there are actually.

But what's your point? There are a lot of AIDS right groups, does that mean that people with AIDS don't want a cure?

Jazzratt

11th December 2008, 15:20

But what's your point? There are a lot of AIDS right groups, does that mean that people with AIDS don't want a cure?

Wow. Just wow. Being autistic is like having AIDS now? What the fuck is your problem?

If you have absolutely no idea why people who are happy as they are find this kind of paternalistic shit incredibly creepy then I suggest you read this (http://isnt.autistics.org/). It's a satire that reverses the situation and shows exactly why your position is insidious.

Led Zeppelin

11th December 2008, 15:24

Wow. Just wow. Being autistic is like having AIDS now? What the fuck is your problem?

No, it's not. Or do you think it is? Wow. Just wow. What the fuck is your problem, huh?

If you have absolutely no idea why people who are happy as they are find this kind of paternalistic shit incredibly creepy then I suggest you read this (http://isnt.autistics.org/). It's a satire that reverses the situation and shows exactly why your position is insidious.

I don't really care enough about you or your position to read the links you post.

Autism is a disorder, if you don't want to consider it as such, then good for you. If other people do consider it as such and want to make sure that their kids don't have it or that perhaps they can be cured of it, then that's good too, and a lot more logical.

If you want to attack those people as being "anti-autism fascists" then you're just stupid.

By the way, I'm going to move this thread to Sciences and Environment so that other people can reply as well, if the OP doesn't mind.

11th December 2008, 15:44

This has got to be the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen. The liberal condescension is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Are you people seriously against the treatment of autism because it's "discriminatory"? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

black magick hustla

11th December 2008, 15:59

:shrugs: who defines it as a disorder. it certainly is linked to a different structure of the brain, but autistic people are probably the ones that churn physics theorems like crazy. psychology is a sham

black magick hustla

11th December 2008, 16:00

well idk if its FULL BLOWN autism. i think people are concerned with aspies here

Jazzratt

11th December 2008, 16:03

This has got to be the most ridiculous thread I've ever seen. The liberal condescension is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

You're right, there are a lot of condescending NT's on this thread. "We know what's best for the auties" crap.

Are you people seriously against the treatment of autism because it's "discriminatory"? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

TO be fair the "you people" you're having a go at are non-NTs themselves.

11th December 2008, 16:21

"We know what's best for the auties" crap.

Uh, that's exactly what you're arguing.

jake williams

11th December 2008, 16:46

11th December 2008, 16:49

The important point is that there are a substantial number of individuals which are neurally atypical and don't want to change it. There are not a substantial number of individuals with AIDS who are opposed to curing AIDS. There would be another question raised if autistic individuals were somehow dangerous for society, but they're not.

Well sure, but just because someone that's autistic doesn't want to change it doesn't mean that they should shove their opinion down everyone else's throats, which is what is going on here.

And besides, the people that are opposed to this bill are even opposing research, which is completely insane.

Jazzratt

11th December 2008, 17:01

Uh, that's exactly what you're arguing.

No. I'm not the one starting patronising "wars" based on the assumption that people on the autistic spectrum have absolutely no agency and are simply poor victims of some horrendous disease. I'm not the one who is arguing that people on the autistic spectrum should be forced to accept "cures" because it's what NTs are most comfortable with.

You can ram your neurochauvanism up your arse.

Led Zeppelin

11th December 2008, 17:11

No one said anything about forcing people to take a cure, on the contrary:

If you don't want a cure and don't care about having a disorder that's your problem, don't project it to other people who have a disease/disorder and do want a cure.

Demogorgon

11th December 2008, 17:18

That is a two year old article.

Anyway some of the behaviour here is just absurd, what precisely is wrong with looking for a cure? I myself have ASD with mild Aspergers and not so mild Dispraxia and for me I don't exactly need a cure because it manifests itself in little more than lack of organisation and eccentric behaviour. For some people though it seriously inhibits them and if a cure were to become available it would be an excellent thing.

Autism gives people a different perspective of course because it alters the way the brain works, for people like me it is pretty minor and just makes me focus heavily on certain things, but for others it can lead to difficulty seeing the world accurately and leading to confusion (as an aside, I notice that virtually all the technocrats here claim to have autism...). Moreover for some it can lead to social impairment and difficulty relating to people. Again anything that treats that has to be good.

And that is before we even start on the fact that mental illness is much higher amongst autistic people.

jake williams

11th December 2008, 17:25

Well I think even if there's no "cure forcing" many autistic people believe that the value laden description of fundamental aspects of their personality - and again, aspects that are not especially harmful to others - as a "disease" is uncomfortable.

Module

11th December 2008, 18:01

Aspergers may not be a 'disorder', but I certainly think that Autism is. Below average IQ, impaired social abilities, impaired a lot of things, apparently. I think that is definitely something that we should want to reduce.

benhur

11th December 2008, 18:03

Led Zeppelin

11th December 2008, 19:16

As a guy with AS, I find this deeply offensive.:( They make it sound like we're freaks in need of a cure. And the comparison to diseases is ridiculous. Cancer is a disease. AIDS is a disease. Autism is a condition. It's not fair to compare the two.

I wasn't comparing the two, that would be absurd.

I was simply pointing out that research into diseases, which AIDS and cancer are, and psychological disorders, which autism is, should be funded so that a cure can be found for them, or at least so that we'll know more about it.

If the people who have those diseases/disorders don't want the cure, they don't have to take it. But to suggest that increased funding for research equals a form of discrimination is just idiotic.

I myself suffered from some medical conditions, I wouldn't "feel like a freak" if I heard about increased funding to find cures for them. On the contrary, I'd be fucking glad about it because I can finally get rid of the condition. This is very often a problem because the government prefers to fund research for common disorders/diseases because there'd be a lot of money in the cure, since a lot of people suffer from it.

Disorders and diseases which are uncommon are not funded as heavily and therefore finding a cure for them is much harder, and trust me, it's frustrating as hell to know that the government isn't funding research because "not enough people have the same disease as you" (a doctor literally told me this).

piet11111

11th December 2008, 21:23

i have to take the side of the neuro-typicals here in many cases autism actually is a debilitating condition that makes people a prisoner of their own mind. (just think of that boy in mercury rising)

clearly if a "cure" is possible to prevent such extreme forms of autism that should be something we should be in favor of.
and if a cure can not be found we and the public would atleast gain a better understanding of what it is that makes us different.

(as an aside, I notice that virtually all the technocrats here claim to have autism...)

probably because autistic people tend to favor order over chaos (i know i do) and technocracy is a very orderly system that can serve as the (currently) best potential model for a communist society.

Killfacer

11th December 2008, 21:40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_rights

One person? Come again?

This may sound rude and probably is but i want to know. Do you wish you had been born without autism?

If you are fine with it then fair enough, although other people with autism may disagree.

If your not then surely you should agree with this.

Dimentio

11th December 2008, 21:45

The majority of people with autism are high-functioning.

I happen to be engaged because I have had an aspie girlfriend.

To say at least: I would prefer if my kids were gifted with asperger's syndrome.

Dean

11th December 2008, 23:00

Autism is a pathology which carries very real deficiencies. There are, of course, positive traits that come about with many cases.

While a "war on autism" is certainly hysterical language, I don't think that there is any targeted discrimination here. Autism-interest groups want to help reduce the negative effects that come about from the disorder by encouraging certain treatments in children and group therapy, as I understand it. I don't know of any repressive or discriminatory tactics against autistic people present in such groups, but if anybody does have that information I'd be very interested to see it.

I think the notion some people have is of disease - identity. Society has att'd stigma to Autism as it is a well-known disorder. Nevertheless, just as a "war on depression" is not anti-depressed people, a "war on autism" isn't logically anti-autistic people.

Ultimately, I think some people here are very paranoid about psychologists. I have experienced this in my personal life - some people go so far as to say "psychology doesn't exist." This is ridiculous, of course: the mind does exist and as a material system it has material dynamics which can be studied. Maybe people are afraid of psychologists "telling them what to think" or otherwise manipulating people. I will submit that much of the counseling, social work and psychiatric field centers on changing the individual to sit in society. But at the same time, my own fiance is a social worker in a jail who openly tells the inmates that the system has failed them. And counselers in the past have exemplified these humanist attitudes with me as well, as well as a number of theorists.

The fact seems clear to me. Most groups are offering treatment for children and help for adults - not forcing adults into anything. There is nothing wrong with trying to help people with known pathologies who seek that help out, particularly when they struggle with the disorder. I don't see anyone doing otherwise here, and evne if a number of groups are, those leftists here who promote mental health are certainly not trying to force anything on anyone.

The notion that "mental health" is subjective or authoritarian is a bourgeois-liberal attitude. Mental health is an individual-based phenomenon; only if an individual actively seeks out or otherwise personally works toward healthier attitudes can they achieve it. It is based primarily in the free, productive activity of the human being him/herself. Clearly, those who oppose attempts to offer psychiatric help are paranoid anti-socials who value privation above socialization.

Dimentio

11th December 2008, 23:27

My personal opinion out of dealing with people is that people with high-functioning autism (aspergers) are often very rational and intelligent people. Most of them could handle their own life rather well. It is presumptious of society to patronise people because of "social defiencies" which do not affect their ability to function in relation to society.

If 85-90% of people had aspergers, they would not appear as abnormities.

People with aspergers, from my experience of interacting with them, are not disabled, just different. Many of their abilities, like the ability to intensely focus on one subject, are needed in an advanced society.

Cult of Reason

12th December 2008, 01:39

This may sound rude and probably is but i want to know. Do you wish you had been born without autism?

If you are fine with it then fair enough, although other people with autism may disagree.

If your not then surely you should agree with this.

No, I do not wish "I" had been born without autism. As far as I am concerned,

"me" - autism (high-functioning) =/= "me"

IIRC, research has shown that autism has significant effect upon brain structure. It is a deeply integrated part of someone's personality. In my experience, those non-NTs in this thread mostly tend to get INT(P or J) whenever the Jungian personality types test comes up in Chit Chat. This correlation is no coincidence. Incidentally, there are those who prefer to be refered to as being "an autistic person" rather than "a person with autism" (which goes well with "a person with cancer":rolleyes:), for exactly this reason

Furthermore my (high-functioning; for those with IQs under 70 this is a different matter (though they are a minority)) autism does not cause me direct pain. Yes, I may be shambolically organised, and I may fail at catching social cues some of the time, but these are not unmanageable in the slightest. I also get trade-offs for these disadvantages. The worst thing about autism is the attitudes and actions of other people (and I think they have improved a lot, in the UK at least).

For low-functioning people this is a different matter, but, as I said, they are a minority (a 22% minority of those diagnosed, IIRC), but a minority that is foremost in the minds when people think of autism. It would be a grave mistake, I think, for the two groups (low and high) to be conflated, especially conflating the low with the whole, since they are the minority. Talking about "curing" autism (whatever that would mean; aversion therapy has been tried in the past) in such general terms is bound to be interpreted as threatening, as is the idea of using genetic tests for autism in order to stop any being born, another way of saying "the slow eradication of autistic people as a group".

Led Zeppelin

12th December 2008, 05:58

To say at least: I would prefer if my kids were gifted with asperger's syndrome.

If 85-90% of people had aspergers, they would not appear as abnormities.

People with aspergers, from my experience of interacting with them, are not disabled, just different. Many of their abilities, like the ability to intensely focus on one subject, are needed in an advanced society.

I foresee a great and wonderful future for the NET if you just put this in your programme: "We want everyone to have autism/aspergers, it is good for you and we need it for an advanced society".

No offense but you sound like a cult.

Sean

12th December 2008, 09:12

If 85-90% of people had aspergers, they would not appear as abnormities.That arguement holds true for any difference including 90% of the population having bumholes for eyes.

I foresee a great and wonderful future for the NET if you just put this in your programme: "We want everyone to have autism/aspergers, it is good for you and we need it for an advanced society".

No offense but you sound like a cult.
Nah, I don't think anyone in this thread has set sail for Aspergia (http://www.aspergianpride.com/blog/aspergian-heritage/) yet!

I'd just like to clarify, is anyone partaking in this thread on the defence medically diagnosed or self-diagnosed, because self-diagnosed (http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1725) is a different kettle of fish (I ranted about this on IRC yesterday, probably less cruelly than that link). However, for real autistics, the higher functioning end of the scale are, with proper care and support able to be productive in society. I believe there is a place for everyone and that an advanced society can accomodate disabilities, and it is a disability, such as autism. I think screening for and vaccinating against autism would be akin to aborting all but the cream of the human race and eugenics is a fucked up path. The problem of course is that "advanced" only applies to a certain part of the world.

Demogorgon

12th December 2008, 09:40

I foresee a great and wonderful future for the NET if you just put this in your programme: "We want everyone to have autism/aspergers, it is good for you and we need it for an advanced society".

No offense but you sound like a cult.
:lol: It is really a case of "if everyone thought like us".

The trouble with technocracy is that it is obviously not going to appeal because "normal" people can see its flaws quite regularly, and I hasten to add, most autistic people probably can too.

The trouble with autism and the like is that it can lead to people becoming socially isolated and as a result autistic people can start to form strange and unrealistic views, technocracy for instance.

Of course, I should emphasise that not all autism is a crippling or even necessarily bad thing, as I say I have mild Asperger's and have been pretty lucky in that I have very little social impairment and my condition is mostly characterised by becoming very obsessed with my hobbies and taking great interest in things other people might find rather dull. Being at the extremely high functioning end, I would say I am simply different rather than impaired, being unable to do certain things "normal" people can but being able to do other things more readily.

People with stronger autism are not so lucky and if any cure can be found it would be an excellent thing.

By the by, it is probably to the benefit of society that a small number of people have high functioning Autism or Asperger's simply because such people are good at focussing in on very specific areas of interest and scientific developments and similar are aided by that kind of attitude. However stronger autism is a simple impairment and it would be excellent if an effective treatment could be found.

And I certainly wouldn't advocate seeking more people to have Asperger's.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th December 2008, 10:43

I foresee a great and wonderful future for the NET if you just put this in your programme: "We want everyone to have autism/aspergers, it is good for you and we need it for an advanced society".

No offense but you sound like a cult.

He didn't say that everyone should have Asperger's, you dishonest little shit, he said if the majority population had it then it wouldn't be considered abnormal.

Those are two entirely different statements. Can you spot the difference?

The trouble with technocracy is that it is obviously not going to appeal because "normal" people can see its flaws quite regularly, and I hasten to add, most autistic people probably can too.

The trouble with autism and the like is that it can lead to people becoming socially isolated and as a result autistic people can start to form strange and unrealistic views, technocracy for instance.

Absolutely contemptible. First, drag technocracy into a discussion about which it had nothing to do with in the first place. Make asides to (but don't actually point out, because that would actually constitute a relevant argument) so-called "flaws" and then to further marginalise the target by including other autistics in this nebulous but assumedly large group of "normal" people who don't like technocracy (because as we all know, facts and the validity of ideas are decided by popularity, or at least one person's assessment of that popularity).

Then write an extremely condescending and patronising paragraph accusing technocrats of being socially isolated, resulting in the funny ideas they have.

And the well is successfully poisoned!

I don't know what motivates you to make such posts but you should seriously look at yourself before judging others, who you know fuck-all about.

Demogorgon

12th December 2008, 10:58

I love this, every time it is pointed out that most people see a flaw in something, there comes along the completely obvious fact that popularity does not determine truth when it is not relevant. I did not say technocracy is wrong because it is not popular but pointed out that anybody with normal cognitive patterns can see it as absurd. When an outlook requires people to not have normal reasoning patterns in order to accept it, you know there is a problem.

And as for flaws in technocracy, I have been over it many times. It is just science fiction, anybody with an even cursory understanding of economics can see that it bears no relevance whatsoever on economic concerns.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th December 2008, 11:34

And as for flaws in technocracy, I have been over it many times. It is just science fiction, anybody with an even cursory understanding of economics can see that it bears no relevance whatsoever on economic concerns.

If you don't think it's worth debating, why do you keep bringing it up in unrelated threads?

Rascolnikova

12th December 2008, 12:03

First:

Most of the controversy here comes from language.

Presently, extremely high functioning autism--which technically includes Aspergers Syndrome and some Pervasive Developmental Disorder--is called autism. Extremely low functioning autism, including people who never learn to speak and must have intensive care their whole lives, is also called autism.

Autism Speaks uses statistics for the prevalence of all disorders which are called autism and imagery of the very low functioning. It consistently links these things as a crutch for it's PR efforts. The majority of the autistic population (http://www.wrongplanet.net/article365.html) is being abused by this organization. It is hard enough to carry around a diagnosis, and a disorder, of this kind and maintain any sort of competent image without being trailed by images of violent and catatonic children.

This practice becomes particularly offensive when materials like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMMwG7RrFQ) are used. "Autism everyday" made a big splash because it insinuates that one is better off dead than autistic; for most autistics, this either isn't true or wouldn't be if society were less alienating and discriminatory.

Certainly low functioning autism should be the subject of medical research and development. . . but without the dishonest and destructive hype.

Second:

I almost certainly have Aspergers. I was lucky enough to be raised in a large autistic family; all of us have some of the traits, some stronger than others. Only a few of us have had reason to seek diagnosis, but I think any of us could get an AS or PDD diagnosis from a shitty enough shrink very easily. "Extremely high functioning" is one the best compliment I've ever gotten from a professional psychologist.

Is it an impairment? Almost certainly. The worst part is that I don't know what I'm missing; it's like I can tell there are holes in my perception at times, and I can only guess at what's there. I don't enjoy things a lot of other people seem to enjoy, like most gatherings that involve more than two or three strangers; I have trouble with sensory overload. I can't always tell what people are actually saying, and they get frustrated because I'm obviously smart in other ways and they think it's on purpose.

Despite this, I get along--and to change the things about me that are autistic would be to deeply alter my nature and identity. The fact that I am less able in some ways does not justify eradicating me.

Lastly,

Adapting to these lesser abilities has caused me to develop skills that I find rare and useful. When I do understand social interaction, I can usually articulate the details of it with insight and analytical detail that amazes my neurotypical friends. Surviving socially at such disadvantage has lead to toughness and empathy simultaneous with an analytical approach.

Different does not mean unable to contribute substantive value.

"Curing" stupidity would be a far better use of resources.

Demogorgon

12th December 2008, 12:05

If you don't think it's worth debating, why do you keep bringing it up in unrelated threads?
I think it is worth debating in that it is necessary to discourage people from wasting their time on it. And I brought it up in passing here because I thought it was amusing that seemingly all the technocrats had autism.

Dimentio

12th December 2008, 12:49

I think it is worth debating in that it is necessary to discourage people from wasting their time on it. And I brought it up in passing here because I thought it was amusing that seemingly all the technocrats had autism.

Well, good luck with that wonderful monetary-based planned economy then XD

As for the records, I do not have aspergers.

butterfly

12th December 2008, 13:09

I thought it was amusing that seemingly all the technocrats had autism.
I find the fact that you'd dismiss ones ideas based on an irrelevant medical condition, describing it as 'amusing', highly condescending and crude.

Jazzratt

12th December 2008, 13:16

I think it is worth debating in that it is necessary to discourage people from wasting their time on it. And I brought it up in passing here because I thought it was amusing that seemingly all the technocrats had autism.

Yes it's hilarious. Maybe next time you begin a stupid and unreasoning vendetta against a group you can point out what race, sexuality or gender are attracted to it and call that "amusing" with the heavy implication that it invalidates the theory. Arsehole.

Demogorgon

12th December 2008, 13:50

I find the fact that you'd dismiss ones ideas based on an irrelevant medical condition, describing it as 'amusing', highly condescending and crude.
And why is it condescending? Did I not mention I had the same condition? The fact is that autism does lead to a different form of thinking than is normal and therefore can lead to people drawing strange conclusions. The fact that it is the norm amongst technocrats is telling.

Demogorgon

12th December 2008, 13:53

Yes it's hilarious. Maybe next time you begin a stupid and unreasoning vendetta against a group you can point out what race, sexuality or gender are attracted to it and call that "amusing" with the heavy implication that it invalidates the theory. Arsehole.
I did not say it invalidates the theory. The fact that it makes no sense at all as anybody who understands economics can tell you invalidates it, not the characteristics of the followers. But the fact it only seems to appeal to people who do not have standard methods of thinking is extremely telling.

Led Zeppelin

12th December 2008, 13:53

He didn't say that everyone should have Asperger's

Obviously you can't read, perhaps you should put your glasses on or buy new ones? If that doesn't work then I suggest going back to school to learn reading comprehension:

People with aspergers, from my experience of interacting with them, are not disabled, just different. Many of their abilities, like the ability to intensely focus on one subject, are needed in an advanced society.

Also, you should be getting a warning for your flame soon, so I hope you have fun with that.

And as for flaws in technocracy, I have been over it many times. It is just science fiction, anybody with an even cursory understanding of economics can see that it bears no relevance whatsoever on economic concerns.

Of course, but you should know that that excludes Jazzratt, NoXion, Cult of Reason and Serpent.

Bilan

12th December 2008, 13:53

This has really turned into a shit fight...

Anyway, I think perhaps the way this is carried out - the wording, in particular - gives off a patronizing sentiment towards people with autism, but I don't think actively trying to understand the cause of autism, and even the cure for it, is necessarily a bad thing.

I mean, you can't force someone to be cured of it, but there's no reason why that cure shouldn't be available to them; and being able to find that cure requires research into it.

As far as I know (I could be wrong here), people don't truly understand that much about autism at all.
I worked at a school for Austistic children 2 years ago as part of a 'work placement' thing and I mean, some of them had severe social deficiencies (that was a rather extreme case, and if I remember correctly, complimented by other factors), but most were rather lovely.
I remember one had this amazing ear for music - you could play any thing, and he could just tell you every single note used in it! It was incredible.
Those kids were lovely. :)
/rant

Sean

12th December 2008, 14:01

I mean, you can't force someone to be cured of it, but there's no reason why that cure shouldn't be available to them; and being able to find that cure requires research into it.
The cure for autism would most likely come in the form of screening or vaccination for it in the womb, I don't expect anyone to give people with autism an antiaustism magic bullet. So while you can't force people to not be autistic, you can wipe out all future autistic children which to me smacks more of eugenics than it does curing anything.

Le LibÃ©rer

12th December 2008, 14:04

He didn't say that everyone should have Asperger's, you dishonest little shit, he said if the majority population had it then it wouldn't be considered abnormal.

Flaming here is totally unnecessary and counter productive, consider this a warning.

I think it is worth debating in that it is necessary to discourage people from wasting their time on it. And I brought it up in passing here because I thought it was amusing that seemingly all the technocrats had autism. This has got to the one of the most prejudicial posts in this thread and a wrong assumption at that.

butterfly

12th December 2008, 14:07

And why is it condescending? Did I not mention I had the same condition? The fact is that autism does lead to a different form of thinking than is normal and therefore can lead to people drawing strange conclusions. The fact that it is the norm amongst technocrats is telling.
All non-NNT's have a different way of thinking, in fact many people not diagnosed with a condition have a different way of thinking, that's a fairly decent proportion of the population, I don't think a corellation between ideas out of the status quo and NNT thought should be drawn.

synthesis

12th December 2008, 14:48

Let's take a step back and think about this like psychologists. Conditions associated with altered brain structure are only considered "disorders" when they begin to interfere with everyday life.

If I had to draw an analogy, I'd equate it with being bipolar; it's a shitty analogy, but it's better than AIDS, cancer, or "neurotypical disorder" - and yes, I realize that's a satire.

Many bipolar people would balk at some kind of "war on bipolar disorder," and see it as an attempt to change their inherent human character, but for those bipolar people whose condition interferes with their daily lives, the idea of a "cure" might be very appealing.

If autism does not interfere with your everyday life to the degree that you want it all to just go away, then I agree, you have the right to tell people to fuck off. But it also might be wise to remember that it does have the capacity to interfere with daily life - i.e., become a disorder - and there ought to be a treatment for people who want it.

Rascolnikova

12th December 2008, 15:13

I think perhaps the way this is carried out - the wording, in particular - gives off a patronizing sentiment towards people with autism, but I don't think actively trying to understand the cause of autism, and even the cure for it, is necessarily a bad thing.

I mean, you can't force someone to be cured of it, but there's no reason why that cure shouldn't be available to them; and being able to find that cure requires research into it.

The trouble is, Autism Speaks, arguably, isn't really tying to understand autism. It isn't inclusive of autistic people; it's a coalition of low functioning children's parents. Most autistic people are high functioning adults. Leaving aside the fact that it's fucking audacious for an organization with no autistic people in it's leadership structure to call itself "Autism Speaks," the policies it represents genuinely run counter to what many autistic people want and need. In fact they seem to have a sort of no-platformist policy when it comes to actual autistic people. (http://www.wrongplanet.net/article371.html)

I'm sure many of you can *cough,* remember, what it's like to be a teenager; at least in the US, it involves essentially adult faculties and a minimum of rights. PDD and AS can extend that into adulthood; many parents will take an autism diagnosis as an indication that their children can never be competent to live their own lives. Through this method, many who would eventually do very well on their own--if given support, encouragement, and information through a multi-stage process--basically end up rotting for years.

Imagine not being able to trust your own readings of social cues. Now imagine that the primary people you rely on to teach you this crucial skill have no patience or understanding of how you experience the world. They think telling you once should be enough; they think you should understand the fact that you've gone around hurting people's feelings, and that if you care about this fact you should simply stop. Imagine that your understanding of everyone else's opinion of you is arbitrated through such a filter.

In a sense, Autism Speaks represents a magnification of this phenomenon. They promote a public image of autism that emphasizes disability to the extreme, and ignore or detract from the actual needs of the the majority of the autistic population, which run high into patience, respect, clear explanations of the ordinary, and acceptance.

Possibly Autism Speaks, by getting funding towards a cure, does accomplish something good. However, besides the bigotry inherent in it's organizational setup, it's approach to solving the problems of autism is probably harmful. "Cure" ultimately is not about helping us cope with the world as we are, but rather about making us something different; something better, they say, something not broken. Besides the troubling eugenics undertones and the fact that many are legitimately afraid they will be forced into it (after all, autistic people couldn't possibly be competent to decide for themselves), this approach neglects the better options. The things that will help auties have more tools to cope with the world without destroying who they are, like the computer and/or sign-language based communications therapies, or face and expression recognition training, are not called cures; they are therapies or treatments.

As far as I know (I could be wrong here), people don't truly understand that much about autism at all.
I worked at a school for Austistic children 2 years ago as part of a 'work placement' thing and I mean, some of them had severe social deficiencies (that was a rather extreme case, and if I remember correctly, complimented by other factors), but most were rather lovely.
I remember one had this amazing ear for music - you could play any thing, and he could just tell you every single note used in it! It was incredible.
Those kids were lovely. :)
/rant

:)

Thank you for that.

12th December 2008, 18:57

The cure for autism would most likely come in the form of screening or vaccination for it in the womb, I don't expect anyone to give people with autism an antiaustism magic bullet. So while you can't force people to not be autistic, you can wipe out all future autistic children which to me smacks more of eugenics than it does curing anything.

Vaccination is a form of eugenics; what's your point? Are vaccinations now bad?

Sean

12th December 2008, 19:42

Vaccination is a form of eugenics; what's your point? Are vaccinations now bad?That depends on whether its a vaccination against a terrible disorder where living is a burden on the person, their family and community or something which isn't that big a deal at all. The question is where does autism, given its many different degrees of severity, stand? If there is a vaccination that differentiates between the severe cases and those which basically amount to nothing more than a personality trait, go for it.
You seem to be equating all forms of austism to polio and smallpox in your devilishly cunning trap. I question vaccination of one thing and I am therefore against all vaccination. I see what you did there.:rolleyes:

Dimentio

12th December 2008, 22:38

Let me reiterate my position.

Firstly, that I am saying that I see something as desirable, is not in any way implying that I want it to be an official policy.

I might for example dislike to fuck just for fun, but I do not feel any desire to ban people from doing so.

I might for example dislike to drive cars and prefer to travel collectively, but I do not feel any desire to ban all cars.

I might for example dislike conservatism, but that does not correspond to an urge to punish conservatives just for being conservatives.

This is a reply to Demogorgon's confused rant about me wanting to turn kids into aspies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I want to discuss the idea about curing autism.

I would be the first one, to want to introduce genetic therapy to save autistic kids in a catatonic state from being catatonic and apathic. I want all human beings to be able to reach their highest potential.

The problem with Autism Speaks, is that they also are counting for people who have asperger's syndrome. That said, people who are able to make informed decisions, think for themselves and make their own lives work.

I think that people with asperger's should not coed into thinking there is anything wrong with them, but that their trait is a personality variation. By lumping them together with human beings who have real and incapacitating disabilities, we are saying to those people that they are not "full human beings" and need care and sheltering more than to feel integrated.

No one should feel forced to be as everyone else as long as that person does not want to do that. The left has a great story of standing up for disadvantaged people.

For women.
For ethnic minorities.
For gays and lesbians.

I think that we must learn to tolerate neurologically different people, and to demand that society also holds a place for them, rather than to demand that they should view their own personality as a disability, that they should leave the definition power over their interpretation of reality into the hands of others.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The debate about technocracy should be discussed in another form than this. Preferably here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/energy-accounting-t96899/index.html?p=1308637#post1308637).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Demogorgon is efficiently saying is that if a lot of aspies are attracted to a particular group, they act not of rational class interests, or of a sense of responsibility, but because their minds are "skewed" in some form.

I think the implications of this are obvious.

Aspies cannot lead. They cannot philosophise. They cannot act.

Demogorgon is efficiently declaring aspies as not responsible for themselves.

As for the records. I know that a lot of the transhumanists and technocrats here are aspies. They are a minority of the total amount of aspies on revleft, which as far as I'll see is a significant number.

I think most of them are very good members, and contributors to this site. All three of the aspies who are self-professed technocrats and transhumanists are also moderators.

Of course, there are also aspies who have misbehaved and been thrown out of the CC.

Neither the fact that three aspies are promoted to moderators, or that one has been taken away from the CC, is an inclination about asperger's syndrome. When a person acts, it is not the neurological structure of the brain which is acting, but the conciousness. At least that is the accepted viewpoint.

Since NET does not register whether or not its members are of any different neurological type, we have not sufficient data. As far as I'll know, the NET members are a diverse crowd. The only problem is that we have very few female members, but that is starting to change now. :)

Vanguard1917

13th December 2008, 01:47

No one should feel forced to be as everyone else as long as that person does not want to do that. The left has a great story of standing up for disadvantaged people.

For women.
For ethnic minorities.
For gays and lesbians.

I think that we must learn to tolerate neurologically different people, and to demand that society also holds a place for them, rather than to demand that they should view their own personality as a disability, that they should leave the definition power over their interpretation of reality into the hands of others.

Being a woman, an ethnic minority or gay is not a medical condition.

If autism is a medical condition, surely we should not be celebrating it and concentrating on trying to create funky little cultural identities around it (e.g. your 'neurologically different people'), but seek to treat it and cure it - i.e. eradicate it.

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 03:55

Being a woman, an ethnic minority or gay is not a medical condition.

If autism is a medical condition, surely we should not be celebrating it and concentrating on trying to create funky little cultural identities around it (e.g. your 'neurologically different people'), but seek to treat it and cure it - i.e. eradicate it.

If being a woman weren't a medical condition, it wouldn't matter that medical research was all done on men until quite recently. People have medical differences; some of them should be celebrated. Some of them quite naturally lead to "funky little cultural identities"--as any "funky little group" sitting around dishing about the discrimination they've encountered or the peculiarities of their medical status will attest.
:rolleyes:

Vanguard1917

13th December 2008, 04:26

If being a woman weren't a medical condition

Being a woman is not a medical condition (i.e. an illness), though, is it? At least not on its own.

People have medical differences; some of them should be celebrated.

So, some medical conditions -- in the case of autism, "a severe disorder of brain function marked by problems with social contact, intelligence and language, together with ritualistic or compulsive behavior and bizarre responses to the environment" (link (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/autism))-- should be celebrated as good things?

That makes sense to you how?

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 04:33

What Demogorgon is efficiently saying is that if a lot of aspies are attracted to a particular group, they act not of rational class interests, or of a sense of responsibility, but because their minds are "skewed" in some form.

I think the implications of this are obvious.

Aspies cannot lead. They cannot philosophise. They cannot act.

Demogorgon is efficiently declaring aspies as not responsible for themselves.

I disagree.

The nature of autism entails thinking differently. That does not mean thinking worse. Some of the autistic ways of thinking differently are statistically predictable. To point this out is not to suggest inferior thought.

It's been suggested by a number of trained professionals that a lot of the best and most innovative technical and theoretical thinkers in history have been on the autistic spectrum, and while it's hard to be conclusive, it's clear that at least some traits were there. Lets have a glance at the history of Physics-

Einstein:
intense fascination with light from an early age, narrow intense interest in a few subject areas that lead him to study and obsess over those things to the exclusion of basically all other activity. This is well documented--and one of the central diagnostic criteria for Aspergers. We also have decent evidence of the other central diagnostic criteria, horrid social skills. Most of his professors hated him; after he finished his PhD, he was unable to use the standard social network method to get a job for quite a long time, and eventually succeeded only because his father went around begging on his behalf. Two marriages failed exhaustively and publicly, and even at the height of his popularity and fame he was known as much for eccentricity as genius and held closely to a few close friends. Spent the last four decades of his life relentlessly working on unified field theory, which the rest of physics does and did see as absurd.

Newton:
Started taking notes and running experiments on physical phenomenon as a child; lifelong, neglected his landholdings in favor of his two obsessions, biblical numerology and science. Profound social impairment, with only a handful of friendly relationships and probably no romantic ones over a long life; he was also a brutal career competitor and all around ass.

Galileo:
Would never have been imprisoned if he hadn't gone around insulting everyone for forty years.

All of these people had though processes that tended in a similar direction. . . . like Demagorgon is saying the aspies of revleft do.

synthesis

13th December 2008, 04:50

Being a woman, an ethnic minority or gay is not a medical condition.

I hate to point this out, because I feel like you already know this, but homosexuality was considered a medical condition for quite awhile in this last century, and some people still regard it as such.

It would seem to me that part of their struggle was/is intended to change people's minds about the subject.

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 05:00

Being a woman is not a medical condition (i.e. an illness), though, is it? At least not on its own.

Womanhood is a biological state of existence; so is autism.

So, some medical conditions -- in the case of autism, "a severe disorder of brain function marked by problems with social contact, intelligence and language, together with ritualistic or compulsive behavior and bizarre responses to the environment" (link (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/autism))-- should be celebrated as good things?

That makes sense to you how?I don't agree with the people who identify all things that are currently defined as autism as being severe disorders--and I think we have substantial things to gain by allowing milder disorders to remain in society and diversify our modes of perception and thought.

Being a woman means it's harder for me to lift heavy objects. In general, if humanity is to continue, a lot of women have to spend significant time being pregnant, which can entail substantial physical disability and enormous physical and emotional pain.

I'm still not interested in curing womanhood; I'm interested in curing sexism. I would be happy to see innovations that make pregnancy, menstruation, and childbirth easier or even unnecessary, but I'd want it approached from that angle--not from the angle of hysterectomy or gene therapy, or, as in China and India, eugenics.

Also, that definition you linked is self contradictory; if you scroll down, in the descriptive paragraphs it says that "there can be a full spectrum of symptoms, which range from mild to severe." I also find it untrustworthy because it emphasizes language impairement, even though Aspergers, definitely an autistic spectrum disorder, is often characterized by "hyperfluency" with language. Lastly, as a dictionary, it not include such obvious errors as incorrect use of the masculine pronoun.

This thread belongs in discrimination, btw.

Vanguard1917

13th December 2008, 05:05

I hate to point this out, because I feel like you already know this, but homosexuality was considered a medical condition for quite awhile in this last century, and some people still regard it as such.

It would seem to me that part of their struggle was/is intended to change people's minds about the subject.

Yes, but we insist, and medical science agrees, that homosexuality is not an illness.

The obvious point is that, if autism is indeed a medical condition (which is how medical science currently views it), then we need to ultimatly eradicate it, along with all other medical disorders -- not celebrate it as part of "human diversity" or some kind of cultural identity.

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 05:17

Yes, but we insist, and medical science agrees, that homosexuality is not an illness.

The obvious point is that, if autism is indeed a medical condition (which is how medical science currently views it), then we need to ultimatly eradicate it, along with all other medical disorders -- not celebrate it as part of "human diversity" or some kind of cultural identity.

Please be precise; medical condition can mean lots of things that aren't illness or disorder. Good health is an example of what sort of medical condition someone would be in. The use of the phrase to refer only to illness is colloquial and imprecise.

It is also important to note that this isn't a question of cultural identity; it's a question, literally, of accepting diverse processes of thought. Sometimes those ways of thinking are disadvantageous, but they are essential to the nature of those who hold them.

Not to sound overly humble, but I'm one of the most logical, articulate, and honest people I know. How can you promise me I could be "cured" without loosing who I am? Why are you in a position to make the judgment on my behalf of whether the positive traits of my autistic neurology are less than the negative ones?

I find it very offensive that you want me not to exist.

Vanguard1917

13th December 2008, 05:21

Womanhood is a biological state of existence; so is autism.

You're trying to blur the distintinction between to different things. From the point of view of medicine being a woman is not a medical disorder, but being autistic is.

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 05:23

You're trying to blur the distintinction between to different things. From the point of view of medicine being a woman is not a medical disorder, but being autistic is.

From the point of view of medicine in Nazi Germany being Jewish was a medical disorder. Medicine isn't always right.

Edit to avoid double post: It's also offensive for you to label this as an issue of "cultural identity." My experience in a large autistic family is very unique, and incredibly fortunate for me; I have maybe one sister who is neurotypical out of the eight of us. I don't know anyone outside my immediate family who has had that sort of experience--the closest is a friend whose family has two PDD kids and everybody else has ADD, but their mom is NT and very judgmental, which makes life quite difficult for her autistic kids.

In my family we all need lots of help with certain things, but by and large we try to give that help to each other. Because of this, I think, we are not a drain on society--for example, between the eight of us we have four formal autistic spectrum diagnoses, six post-graduate degrees, and five full time workers. Most autistic people, however, experience profound isolation, and lack of understanding and resources. As a population subset we are in no position to form ourselves a quirky little subculture; gay people may be one in ten, we are no more than one in 75. Discrimination against our neurology stops many from reaching their potential and is of substantial detriment to society.

Vanguard1917

13th December 2008, 05:33

Please be precise; medical condition can mean lots of things that aren't illness or disorder. Good health is an example of what sort of medical condition someone would be in. The use of the phrase to refer only to illness is colloquial and imprecise.

By medical condition i am referring to a medical disorder.

It is also important to note that this isn't a question of cultural identity; it's a question, literally, of accepting diverse processes of thought. Sometimes those ways of thinking are disadvantageous, but they are essential to the nature of those who hold them.

I'm not a doctor or a medical science expert. My point is merely that medical conditions are there to be cured, not celebrated. If autism is indeed a debilitating medical illness, we should try to find way to treat and eventually cure it.

Not to sound overly humble, but I'm one of the most logical, articulate, and honest people I know. How can you promise me I could be "cured" without loosing who I am? Why are you in a position to make the judgment on my behalf of whether the positive traits of my autistic neurology are less than the negative ones?

As with any condition, whether or not you want treatment is your call. Why should the option of receiving treatment not exist?

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 05:46

As with any condition, whether or not you want treatment is your call. Why should the option of receiving treatment not exist?

I've agreed that treatments for autism are a good thing. You're the one who has said autism ought to be eradicated.

Also, the question of who gets to decide for themselves is a very serious one, as is the question of autonomy for high functioning autistic individuals in general.

Revy

13th December 2008, 08:27

When's the last time somebody died from being autistic? I've never heard of such a thing. There are more serious conditions right now. Congress should be funding stem cell research.

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 08:30

When's the last time somebody died from being autistic? I've never heard of such a thing. There are more serious conditions right now. Congress should be funding stem cell research.

Arguably conditions that destroy quality of life at least as important as conditions that kill.

black magick hustla

13th December 2008, 09:13

most psychological medical conditions are BS. Before, "disturbed" people like Bakunin and Marx, tried to foment revolution, now they call them crazy and make them pop pills.:rolleyes:

Led Zeppelin

13th December 2008, 09:27

most psychological medical conditions are BS. Before, "disturbed" people like Bakunin and Marx, tried to foment revolution, now they call them crazy and make them pop pills.:rolleyes:

Can you please stop trolling your psycho-babble?

We already know that you consider psychological disorders to be "BS", you already said that in your previous post, it's irrelevant to keep repeating the same thing, especially since it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

If you want to believe that no psychological disorders exist and people are just "different", which causes some of them to torture and kill others for fun, or be depressed most of the time, have extreme mood-swings, etc. all of which has been scientific demonstrated to be related to chemical imbalances or other physical causes, then go ahead, but don't expect any serious person to take you seriously.

Sean

13th December 2008, 09:33

The perfect examples of the above being Oppositional Defiant Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder) diagnosis in kids, Conduct Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorder) for youth and then Anitsocial Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder) when your 18+. I think many people have fallen into one or two of those disorders perhaps not as severe cases where you simply cannot look after yourself and become a danger to the public. Should we vaccinate against questioning authority or "Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations" should the ability arise?

Rascolnikova

13th December 2008, 09:44

Demogorgon

13th December 2008, 10:15

Dimentio

13th December 2008, 11:51

I don't know whether or not you have eaten mushrooms or if you simply are taking the shit. In the last part of my extensive reply to you, I adressed just that question.

NET has had several successful lectures at Umeå University and one at Ljubljana University. We have members who are workers, students and university doctors, and yes economists.

You are claiming that all NET members, that all technocrats, are non-neurotypical, without any proof at all.

Have you made any statistical survey on the amount of members of Technocracy Incorporated, the Venus Project, or the Network of European Technocrats?

You sound like revleft is the only place where technocracy is present, ignoring the established technocratic websites like;

http://en.technocracynet.eu
http://www.technocracy.ca

The technocratic movement, while small, is a very vibrant and diverse community. And it is quickly gaining steam. NET has just existed for two years, and with zero resources at all, we have still recruited people in several universities in several continents.

Here is my original reply, and as you could see, I did adress the issue.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1308667&postcount=63

By the way, here is another thread, which I have started about technocratic economics, Energy Accounting.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/energy-accounting-t96899/index.html?p=1308637#post1308637

Jazzratt

13th December 2008, 14:00

The statement is not a comment about Asperger's but rather pointing out that technocracy is simply incapable of attracting people with normal cognitive patterns and that itself is enough to sink it.

1) That's simply untrue Serpent & Ulster Socialist are NTs, for example.

2) Even if it were true it wouldn't be "enough to sink it" it would be an example of how you're so fucking intellectually bankrupt you have to reduce yourself to ad hominem attacks.

It is utterly absurd to claim that I am saying that people with Asperger's cannot take the lead in things, because plainly we can and often do, but the litmus test for whether we are achieving anything worthwhile or simply off on a wild flight on fancy is whether our positions make any sense to other people. Technocracy doesn't make sense to anybody apart from those with a combination of non-standard cognitive patterns and no knowledge of economics.

You're an idiot throwing out wild assertions. I have no idea if you're doing this because you get a big chubby for trolling or if you have actually remained wilfully ignorant throughout all the inhumanly patient explanations of technocracy you have been offered.

Now you can deliberately misinterpret me until the cows come home and claim I am prejudiced against myself or you can actually address the point you are scared to touch. Why do you think technocracy has no appeal at all to people with normal cognitive patterns?

If that's the question you want answered the answer is simple:
It has an appeal with NTs and many of the members are NTs so stop being a dishonest little cockheap.

Vanguard1917

13th December 2008, 14:28

Demogorgon

13th December 2008, 16:24

1) That's simply untrue Serpent & Ulster Socialist are NTs, for example.

2) Even if it were true it wouldn't be "enough to sink it" it would be an example of how you're so fucking intellectually bankrupt you have to reduce yourself to ad hominem attacks.

You can accuse me of ad hominen attacks over and over if that makes you feel better, but I have not made a single one. I would only have done that if I said technocracy was wrong because of it rather narrow appeal, I didn't. Rather I said too things, firstly that its hopelessly niche appeal was indicative of its problems and secondly that you have little to no hope of ever convincing more than the tiniest fraction of people, and when it comes to political causes that is the crucial factor. Unless your plan for implementation is coup d'etat followed by dictatorship, which given you other political views would not surprise me incidentally, it will never happen, even if by some miniscule chance it was a valid theory.

You're an idiot throwing out wild assertions. I have no idea if you're doing this because you get a big chubby for trolling or if you have actually remained wilfully ignorant throughout all the inhumanly patient explanations of technocracy you have been offered.

You can offer all the explanations you like but it will not change the fact that it is nothing more than a silly fantasy, if you want to apply any of your views to anything practical, right a sci-fi novel. The fact is that energy accounting has no economic validity and when the talk of robots starts, that is when the laughter begins.

And that is not to forget that the whole premise is based on the notion that our capacity to produce exceeds our capacity to consume, which it plainly doesn't.

I am sorry if all of this is upsetting to you. I realise when you convince yourself of the truth of some great theory, it hurts when it is mocked, esecially when you think it is so obvious. But right now, to the outside observer, you look like a scientologist who is in a hissy fit because he is being confronted with the fact that none of his beliefs are true.

Dimentio

13th December 2008, 16:26

What robots? O.O

Demogorgon

13th December 2008, 16:30

What robots? O.O
There are certain members of your group who inform us from time to time that the solution to various problems is to have robots do all the work for us. Ulster Socialist is one such example. If memory serves I have seen Jazzratt make such claims also.

Dimentio

13th December 2008, 16:37

Demogorgon

13th December 2008, 16:57

While automated machinery has made huge progress, technocracy is possible without so much automatisation. It is only that, that automatisation is preferable in most social systems were resources are distributed collectively, unless you find some moral values that people should toil in hard labor.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/energy-accounting-t96899/index.html?p=1308637#post1308637

Btw, here you could discuss the issue.

Production becomes more capital intensive all the time anyway. In capitalism (except in the mid-twentieth century) it means that workers produce more in the same time and in socialism it can mean either the aforementioned or workers producing the same in less time, or some point in between as happens to be decided upon. Nobody, Capitalist or Communist disputes the worth of this, primitivists excepted, except where the automation has greater long term costs than short term benefits.

All that is completely without controversy. What does get ridiculous is when claims are made that we can simply solve all our problems by having robots produce everything so we never have to do any work and having more than we could ever consume. Were it that easy we would likely have already done that.

Your position is a bit more reasonable of course, I have either seen you argue, or else read it in one of your links that we should aim for a fifteen hour week as a good starting point. That is fair enough, but at the same time it would lead to limited production. I have argued elsewhere on many occasions that capitalism forces people to work more than necessary. An argument I frequently bring up in this regard is the fact that the United States could have produced in 1998 exactly what it produced in 1948 in almost exactly half the time it took back then. If we presume that the working week was forty hours on average back then, that means an average week of twenty hours would have been possible in 1998 and a bit less again now, that seems to go in the direction of what you want, but remember that would only allow for 1948 outputs, which I daresay you wouldn't support returning too. There needs to be some sort of trade off. It seems to me that technocrats want to have their cake and eat it here when it simply isn't possible.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th December 2008, 16:57

You can accuse me of ad hominen attacks over and over if that makes you feel better, but I have not made a single one. I would only have done that if I said technocracy was wrong because of it rather narrow appeal, I didn't. Rather I said too things, firstly that its hopelessly niche appeal was indicative of its problems

A hopelessly vague statement that could applied to any small group with socio-political aims.

and secondly that you have little to no hope of ever convincing more than the tiniest fraction of people, and when it comes to political causes that is the crucial factor.That's a value judgement on your part. To which I say: We shall see.

Unless your plan for implementation is coup d'etat followed by dictatorship, which given you other political views would not surprise me incidentally,Don't be ridiculous. We know as well as you do that you can't force people to be free.

it will never happen, even if by some miniscule chance it was a valid theory.He hopes fervently.

You can offer all the explanations you like but it will not change the fact that it is nothing more than a silly fantasy, if you want to apply any of your views to anything practical, right a sci-fi novel.In other words, nothing we say will convince you. Truly, it is the mark of a sensible and rational person to go "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU SCI-FI NERDS LALALA", I think not.

The fact is that energy accounting has no economic validity and when the talk of robots starts, that is when the laughter begins.That's because to you, a robot is a do-anything miracle machine, rather than a catch-all term for various different specialised machines that form an important part of high-tech manufacturing that it is in real life.

This is quite apart from the fact that complete automation is not necessary to implement Energy Accounting.

And that is not to forget that the whole premise is based on the notion that our capacity to produce exceeds our capacity to consume, which it plainly doesn't.Really? Show your working.

I am sorry if all of this is upsetting to you. I realise when you convince yourself of the truth of some great theory, it hurts when it is mocked, esecially when you think it is so obvious.I see you are still keeping to the odious and arrogant practice of telling us what we think. You're not a mind-reader, so it would help you greatly if you stopped acting like someone who is.

And you can also stop with the insincere "apologies", since you don't mean a word of it and it simply serves as a passive-aggressive way for you to stick the knife in.

But right now, to the outside observer, you look like a scientologist who is in a hissy fit because he is being confronted with the fact that none of his beliefs are true.And you look like a fundie Christian telling an atheist what they believe.

But then, you've always had a soft spot for theological bullshit, haven't you?

Dimentio

13th December 2008, 17:20

Production becomes more capital intensive all the time anyway. In capitalism (except in the mid-twentieth century) it means that workers produce more in the same time and in socialism it can mean either the aforementioned or workers producing the same in less time, or some point in between as happens to be decided upon. Nobody, Capitalist or Communist disputes the worth of this, primitivists excepted, except where the automation has greater long term costs than short term benefits.

All that is completely without controversy. What does get ridiculous is when claims are made that we can simply solve all our problems by having robots produce everything so we never have to do any work and having more than we could ever consume. Were it that easy we would likely have already done that.

Your position is a bit more reasonable of course, I have either seen you argue, or else read it in one of your links that we should aim for a fifteen hour week as a good starting point. That is fair enough, but at the same time it would lead to limited production. I have argued elsewhere on many occasions that capitalism forces people to work more than necessary. An argument I frequently bring up in this regard is the fact that the United States could have produced in 1998 exactly what it produced in 1948 in almost exactly half the time it took back then. If we presume that the working week was forty hours on average back then, that means an average week of twenty hours would have been possible in 1998 and a bit less again now, that seems to go in the direction of what you want, but remember that would only allow for 1948 outputs, which I daresay you wouldn't support returning too. There needs to be some sort of trade off. It seems to me that technocrats want to have their cake and eat it here when it simply isn't possible.

The thing with a technate is that it must contain enough resource diversity to uphold a full production chain. All components of the machinery and infrastructure needed for it to work, or at least much of it, needs to be produced within the borders of the technate.

Of course, we could barter natural resources from the technate to the outside world.

That is why we technocrats do not advocate the turning of nation-states into technates, but of bigger territories into technates. That is very hard to achieve, but by struggling for it, and organise in supranational organisations, we could start building the framework for an eventual transition.

Demogorgon

13th December 2008, 17:37

Really? Show your working.Probably no more than a few thousand people in the world have access to more than they can consume. If we really have the productive capacity to apply that to over six billion people, where is it?

And you look like a fundie Christian telling an atheist what they believe.

But then, you've always had a soft spot for theological bullshit, haven't you?
I am tolerant of others views yes. However I will still disagree with people and as your arguments are based on no more than blind leaps of faith I find a lot to disagree with you about.

At least Serpent knows something about what you he is talking about and can construct an argument, you merely combine vague utopian desires with foul-mouthed vitriol. Who do you hope to convince?

Anyway to Serpent, I have explained the flaws on Energy Accounting in the thread you directed me too, feel free to address me there.

Dimentio

13th December 2008, 18:01

Thank you. :)

I urge everyone who wants to know more about modern technocracy and its progress to visit http://en.technocracynet.eu

Sean

13th December 2008, 18:03

Thank you. :)

I urge everyone who wants to know more about modern technocracy and its progress to visit http://en.technocracynet.euI checked it out this morning, I was all set to read an article and then spotted the dreaded phrase "a convention will be taking place on second life". Gotta say, you've lost me on that alone.

Dimentio

13th December 2008, 18:10

Hahahahahaha xd

Dean

13th December 2008, 18:21

Demogorgon, it's not fair to say that adherants to an ideology are "autistic."

First off, you have to consider what our current society is like. It is fundamentally disassociative in a lot of the same ways as the technocrat system is expressed. There is a dramatic shift from social relations to commodity relations as a point of reference, and that is exhibited fiercely on this site. Notably, Serpent (and perhaps NoXion) have this attitude, as well as people like Vanguard1917.This is certainly a deficiency which is autistic, but not in the clinical sense.

It is critical to differentiate between pathological / clinical autism and generalized autism. The former is a very specific departure from standard human patterns. Generalized autism is a more theoretical notion that could be applied to technocracy, though it is not a clear application nor a very fair one in the context. As others have pointed out, it is not a fair or relevant criticism to an ideology. Nevertheless, both notions of autism are characterized by deficiencies, even if those deficiencies do not outweigh the positive characteristics that accompany them.

I don't see anything in technocracy which makes it intrinsically disassociative except in regards to labor and the relationship to production (I'm not talking about mechanization, either). I would say that rhetoriclally, some of the technocrats here have displayed remarkably anti-social attitudes. In the case of Serpent, I would say his attitude about Obama's racism and his defence of his "white trash" comment exemplify this.

I would say that it seems certaint that technocracy, as it is expressed here, is quite autistic in the generalized sense. But fundamentally, there isn't really much substance. Coming to this site, I was shocked to see "technocracy" used in a positive light. I know now that the technocrat political movement is not ill-intentioned, but the result doesn't seem very far from the social control and tool-worship that I have been wary of in the past. The sissue seems basically one of having versus being.

But technocracy doesn't have a lot to it, frankly. Most of the disassociative attitudes I see Serpent express don't seem like NET or Technocract positions, but his own prejudice. Furthermore, the expression of Communism here is also very autistic. I think it is a grave error to put your faith in technological evolution as opposed to the evolution of human society; ultimately, it is ceding of human power to tools. But we have to face the fact that movements like communism, technocracy, and especially libertarianism all have anti-social expressions, and in the case of libertarianism, are fundamentally autistic.

As a side note,
I'd like to express my own personal experiences with autism. As a child, 5 of my close friends were diagnosed clinically Autistic or as having Asperger's. All of them were wonderful people, and their Autism ranged from extreme cases in which they repeated sentences and expressed severe learning difficulties, to cases of tourettes in congruence with autism, to cases where they just expressed the social and moral ignorance which is standard. None of them had many friends, and some of them were very troubled socially. In fact, I'm just realizing that none of them expressed more than rudimentary political attiudes. Now, I'm talking about people who at the age of 22 started teaching chemistry at VCU (uni), or who "know more than 95% of people about analytical physics" (in the words of his professor), and who got very high marks in drama and was considered one of the best actors at his High School.

It is undeniable that there are negative traits. J. had almost no friends and hardly understands people, though he's gotten better. S. has dropped out of three different semesters at Uni because he can't stay focused on his studies. A. is extremely paranoid of humans, particularly afraid of being touched. T. hasn't been able to get grounded in society at all - at 23, he is still at home.

Anybody who tells me that they are just "different" is dismissing all their struggles, and it simply offends me that someone would think that as a society, we shouldn't do whatever we can to help them. I remeber when I was young, going to a pro-IDEA rally with my mom and the mother of two aforementioned kids. One of my fondest memories of my mom is her constant battle to help get me and Joffe a decent education, and I remember all the fualts at school - the mentally handicapped people got 5 broken or antiquated computers to meet the quota, the teachers simply didn't teach them (I would know because I spent a year helping tutor them and the teachers were doing nothing the whole time). But the real problem here is that, in the absense of a social recognition of these mental deficiencies, these kids will continue to be cast aside.

In regards to the technocrats - NoXion, Jazzratt, Serpent - I would certainly say that a number of their characteristics seem autistic. But when I compare them to my own experiences, they are not very dramatic, and in most cases are not anything remarkable. It's one thing to describe the attitudes as autistic, but to describe the specific person that way is just crossing bounds I don't think we need to. Such diagnoses should be done privately in the context of a productive, sensitive conversation if they are done at all.

Demogorgon

13th December 2008, 18:27

Thank you Dean, I have said elsewhere and I will say it here as well that my comments earlier were not justified. I took a feud with two idiots and turned it into a bigger fight where I said certain things that in hindsight I should not have.

However I certainly did not mean to say that the technocrats were autistic based on their behaviour, though they clearly have aspects of that, but was noting the fact that most of them claim to have it themselves.

I of course have no shortage of bad things to say about technocracy, but I should acknowledge again, so that I be fair, that the stupidity of Noxion and Jazzratt is not indicative of all technocrats and many of their more odious opinions are not related to technocracy either.

So I apologise for some of the things I said.

Dimentio

13th December 2008, 19:56

What our discussion about Obama was, was whether or not he was a racist or a pragmatic.

It is probably moot, but I will start a thread about it in the near future, as I feel it should be adressed here.

A politician who wants to become the leader of a country where people eat dogs or are arranging beast fights on large arenas, should not hug an animal rights activist. That is my comment from now.

As for generalised autism, I think the comment is rather inhumane towards autists.

I also know some autists, most of them aspies.

T, who I had a relationship with, was fine as long as no one brought up her syndrome.

H is very funny and intelligent, although a political reactionary in some senses.

J is learning to programme and very popular.

To my experience, most aspies have their biggest problems when they are growing up and are in their teens. From 20 and onward, if helped correctly, they will turn out quite normal.

Thus, I must state that to jump a wide and diverse category of people together by giving them personality traits assumingly tied to a social system or a system of government is quite preposterous. It would be like tying together fascism with ADHD.

Revolution 9

13th December 2008, 20:09

Congress needs to declare a war on Congress. They could totally replace taxes with the Pay-Per-View revenue from that thing. :cool:

piet11111

13th December 2008, 22:42

it seems some here are unaware that capitalism currently is no longer capable of expanding the means of production simply because they lack the market for it (more accurately they would run out of customers with the money to pay for products)

for capitalism to expand production would mean that they undercut profitability.
however in a post-capitalist society the profit motivation is gone and production capacity can be expanded to provide enough for everyone.

even demogorgon can see how modern agricultural technology being spread through afrika would allow them to produce enough to provide for themselves.
but obviously its not happening because no profit is to be made that way.

i haven't been able yet to study technocracy but i assume that its a mode of production that makes the development of the means of production and economic equality a priority.
and as a communist that is exactly what i consider to be important.
especially if technocracy is going to go for automation as much as possible because i for one want to work as little as possible.

Wanted Man

19th December 2008, 21:40

"War on autism" is hysterical, and some of the "cure autism now" clearly have more sinister interests than just helping out their immediate relatives. Still, if a cure becomes available, and people want to use it, or prevent their children from having autism, that should be fine.

The "aspie rights" people in this thread are mostly angry about the discourse ("war on autism") and some of the weird organisations involved, but they don't seem to care much about reality. I haven't been convinced that simply funding research for a possible cure for autism is "bad".

Rascolnikova

20th December 2008, 08:42

"War on autism" is hysterical, and some of the "cure autism now" clearly have more sinister interests than just helping out their immediate relatives.

What leads you to this conclusion?

Being desperate to make life livable for yourself as the parent of a low functioning autie isn't sinister. Exploiting, to this end, the very different and very real struggle of the larger portion of the autistic population isn't sinister either--just selfish.

Still, if a cure becomes available, and people want to use it, or prevent their children from having autism, that should be fine.

The "aspie rights" people in this thread are mostly angry about the discourse ("war on autism") and some of the weird organisations involved, but they don't seem to care much about reality. I haven't been convinced that simply funding research for a possible cure for autism is "bad".I'm sorry--what? Who said autism research is bad--or, I'm sorry, "bad"? And how on earth do you get to saying we don't care about reality?

did you read

The majority of the autistic population (http://www.wrongplanet.net/article365.html) is being abused by this organization. It is hard enough to carry around a diagnosis, and a disorder, of this kind and maintain any sort of competent image without being trailed by images of violent and catatonic children.

This practice becomes particularly offensive when materials like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMMwG7RrFQ) are used. "Autism everyday" made a big splash because it insinuates that one is better off dead than autistic; for most autistics, this either isn't true or wouldn't be if society were less alienating and discriminatory.

Certainly low functioning autism should be the subject of medical research and development. . . but without the dishonest and destructive hype.

When you say "some of the weird organizations involved," who exactly are you talking about besides autism speaks? It's one weird organization, and if I'm not mistaken it's the largest "autism advocacy" group in the world. There's a reason they've managed to get their agenda through congress, and their image of autism out into wide public awareness.