I'm autistic, involved in autistic self-advocacy, and have met numerous autistic self-advocates and autism experts. What you are claiming is false and deeply offensive.
The split between jocks (physically competent), communications-oriented people (what is usually oversimplified into 'right-hemisphere/left-hand' skills* competent) and nerds (what is usually oversimplified into 'left-hemisphere/right-hand' skills** competent) seemed to be pretty prominent both in school and at the uni. While there is some overlap between nerds and the spectrum, I wouldn't say that there's an '=' sign in there. But the non-nerds seeing themselves as the norm and the nerds as those people with abnormal neural wiring that makes them engage in cryptic stuff instead of 'more human' interests has been there when I went to school, it's been there when I went to uni, it's been there on my previous job, and occasionally I see glimpses of it on my current job (but it's way less obvious now because for once at least half the office is nerdy to an appreciable extent).
I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. I made no claims about who does or does not suffer from structural oppression. I mere pointed a trend where discourse dunking on privledged groups can be used to mask problematic beliefs even as it spreads them. If I were willing to reach a little further I'd extend that to "we shouldn't condone the categorical othering of any group no matter how privileged, because it always ends up reinforcing problematic shit."
First of al, please define "progressive discourse." Some examples of this would be nice, too.
Second, pls explain what the actual symptoms associated with ASD are and how they related to the above.
That post said:
I'm feeding nothing and you're the one making false equivalences. My position is as followed. The discourse of othering vaguely defined privileged groups allow problematic views to spread under the cover of social justice. Therefor we should be less willing to other people and less willing to make uncharitable assumptions about people who object to othering language. If object to that then object to it but don't put words in my mouth and try to link me to arguments I haven't made.
Which you still haven't proven is happening as you're claiming and you're doing by attacking disadvantaged groups. Like always a problem claimed to be afflicting the privileged is actually just a negative side effect of the system that keeps their privilege intact.
We may be talking about different things. I'm talking about the double standard between "Humanities make you human, everyone must be perfect at them to earn the title; technical skills are really hard and anyone failing them should be given some slack" in school.
> nerdity got mainstreamed
...and therefor not only is it totally acceptable but something the social justice movement should encourage?
You completely ignored the other part of what I said.
Oh dear how gauche of me making arguments which are "already addressed". Clearly then no one should any cause to complain about ableism/fat-shaming/ect within the social justice for all time since it's "already addressed". It hilarious how I need to provide citations but you can just wave things aside with an unsourced "already addressed". Also whataboutism is when you bring up an unrelated bad thing in order to deflect criticism, sort of like what you did in you second reply to me. IT does not mean any mention of bad things when you think it's inappropriate, please consider not debating in bad faith in the future.
Let's get real for a second. When someone says "I don't believe this problematic thing happens show me your citations" have you even seen them to actually change their position? We've all seen neckbeard/brony/fedora guy/ect caricatures. If people look at that stuff and say nope nothing ableist or otherwise problematic here it's beyond me to change their mind.
I'd like to hope no one is going to defend or deny that. Indeed that we all recognize that the neckbeard caricature is bad is the basis for my argument.
Who am I arguing against? Apparently no one because you clearly don't understand the topic of argument enough to contradict me much less create a working counter-argument. I've tried restating my position like five times on just this page I'm not doing it again, if you're not going to respond to my actual words then don't bother responding.
