Quote from daily mail

I was reading an article in the daily mail today about an autistic adult and came across this piece of information.

Any comments???

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people with autism have trouble with social, emotional and communication skills that usually develop before the age of three and last throughout a person’s life. 

Specific signs of autism include: 

  • Reactions to smell, taste, look, feel or sound are unusual
  • Difficulty adapting to changes in routine
  • Unable to repeat or echo what is said to them
  • Difficulty expressing desires using words or motions
  • Unable to discuss their own feelings or other people’s
  • Difficulty with acts of affection like hugging
  • Prefer to be alone and avoid eye contact
  • Difficulty relating to other people
  • Unable to point at objects or look at objects when others point to them

'Autistic people aren't scary or vicious or aggressive, they can be vulnerable people and are totally entitled to have their part in society and be represented,' she said.

Parents
  • The article I'm referring to is here.  

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6462919/Mum-slams-Tube-passengers-ignored-autistic-son.html

    Where a mother complains how her adult Autistic son was ignored on the London underground when he became separated from his carer.

    What caught my eye was the newspaper explaining to it's readers what autism was.  By quoting the centres for disease control and infection.

    Are they suggesting that Autism is a disease/ infection that needs controlling?  Frowning2

  • No, the CDC perform some of the role that NICE perform in the UK. They have handy reference materials that the Mail hacks can cut and paste to bulk out their word count. 

  • Sorry just saw your explanation of why they used cdc. Surely NHS or nas would have had plenty of info available though . 

  • we now have an ignorant, child-like population that is easy to rile-up and point towards a target - just like it was in 1930s Germany.

    People are conditioned to react rather than analyse and prioritise. There's also the fact that people cannot deviate a decision outside of the ideologies that they subscribe to. People will prefer to appear moral by voicing an "opinion", which most of the time is a cookie cutter mantra, rather than actually acting upon something. It's more about appearances than actual action.

    Include the Guardian as well as the more establishment broadsheets. You get pretty good coverage then. 

    The Guardian is as establishment as the Daily Mail. It's all reactionary spin. Another Pavlovian bell for the people who subscribe to the massive amount of cultural doctrine that it's demographic is aimed at.

    If you use social media, make sure you follow a few people you fundamentally disagree with.

    This is very true. In general it's good to have people around who disagree with you over things. It keeps you out of an echo chamber, and it stops you being over-sensitive to other people's opinions. I don't need to totally disengage with someone because we have a difference of view over a few things.

    Reuters is one of the best places to get news. First for most stories. Very little bias. Most of the rags buy their stories from either them or AP. The real stories anyway. If I'm really concerned or interested about something I read there I will look more into it.

    Another publication that is interesting is FT. If you read between the lines, and know who owns what, and who's trading certain things, you begin to see where the trends are headed.

  • I stopped getting papers several years ago.  I get The Week now, which gives a really good digest of the week's news - and it's balanced by giving reports from across the spectrum of news media - left-wing, right-wing, broadsheets, red tops, TV and foreign media.

  • I dip into multiple newspaper publications each morning. Independent, Guardian, Daily Mail (for their positive approach to women (sic)) and The Times 

Reply Children
No Data