• Replies 77 replies
  • Subscribers 28 subscribers
  • Views 12591 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

AS people, please can you help me?

classic codger

I am trying, with great difficulty, to understand something. I could really use your help with this, it's literaly taken me over (you know the one) and I need the thinking of others. Call it an intervention!

Before I begin, please can I ask you to look over the following article?;

nymag.com/.../

I have seen many posts from NT parents about 'treatment' for AS.

The question I have asked myself is, 'if I could go back and be changed into an NT by 'treatment', would I choose it?'

My firm answer is 'No'. I am the sum total of a life spent as an AS person. I can't change my past, so my best option is to use the learning that is  'the sum of who I am' to help others if I can, and especially for the next generation. If any of you think that I can be helpful and supportive, understanding and insightful, fine. If you think the opposite, also fine and I am sorry that I wasn't helpful. I do what everyone does - the best I can.

I'm an egalitarian by instinct. I will state my thoughts and opinions, but they are mine alone. When I read other people's posts, I assume the right to agree or disagree, and simply expect the same fairness back.

Thank you for listening this far, and now I've come to my taxing absorption.

I read this post under the title Stem cell treatment for autism: 'Has anyone undergone stem cell treatment for autism?'

I responded with '

This is my personal opinion. I don't argue my personal opinions, just for them.

How about 'tretament' for being NT? Their capacity for being the most illogical, spiteful, self-destructive creature on this planet leaves me staggered. I pity the poor creatures and their lack of insight, but what can you do? No-one is researching 'treatment' for them, because they collectively agree that their unsanity is 'normal'.

The inmates are running the asylum.

Now, I thought that I was humourously disparaging the idea of 'treating' people just because they are different. It is my belief that most people will be able to see that I have reiterated the concepts of the same thing as the poster, with our roles reversed. Here's your mirror, as it were.
I just discovered that I got moderated for this post . Apparently, I should watch my language. A particular word picked out is asylum because it is derrogatory towards past attitudes to mental health (?).
I am totaly confused. I don't know why 'mental health' is being brought into it. Given the various current uses of the word 'asylum' I don't know how it becomes offensive, even in context, 'the inmates are running the asylum' is a common concept and has been the root idea behind several award winning books, plays and films, yet it appears that some ignoramus doesn't like it. And apparently, I'm supposed to know this and understand it in their particular case. Que?
Please, any insights will do. Sooner or later one of you will say something that will help me get a grip on this. You know the one where the more you try, the more you're shaking your head, you're laughing bleakly, you don't know whether to be angry, offended, confused, puch drunk, weakened, disempowered, desperate to understand, shocked, fed up with mods public messages yet again, privacy invaded, and a whole bunch more, and because you can't choose one, you have them all at once instead. That's where I am right now.
Phew! Bit of a maze. Ariadne, the thread!
Parents
  • Former Member
    Former Member

    Internet forums are not obliged to publish everything that members want to post. If they published everything then they would open themselves up to all sorts of legal actions (libel, Equality Act, etc etc). Nobody has a right to force NAS to take these liabilities on so they reserve the right to moderate any submission. The Guardian have their Comment Is Free sections and you will frequently see that submissions are moderated in accordance with their rules. The Guardian is proud of its liberal ethos and yet it does not allow a complete free for all.

    One person't moderation is another persons censorship but we are subject to the rules of the forum and the laws of the land so there are limits to free speech.

    I am passionate about getting better treatment and care for autistic people but that does not mean that I have any obligation to defend everything that an autistic person does. I cannot rely on CC's unconditional support for everything I say and similarly he cannot rely on my unconditional support. We can express ourselves as long as we are not offensive to others even if they are doing things that we might disagree with. Treating or trying to cure someone's autism is their prerogative. They are trying to do something to benefit a disabled person and we should be very careful about attacking someone for doing that. I suspect that such an attack might fall foul of the same Equality Act that affords me, and others on the forum, protection from attack.

    Even the UK parliament has rules and the speaker regularly rules on questions of unparliamentary language. Perhaps we should follow their example?

Reply
  • Former Member
    Former Member

    Internet forums are not obliged to publish everything that members want to post. If they published everything then they would open themselves up to all sorts of legal actions (libel, Equality Act, etc etc). Nobody has a right to force NAS to take these liabilities on so they reserve the right to moderate any submission. The Guardian have their Comment Is Free sections and you will frequently see that submissions are moderated in accordance with their rules. The Guardian is proud of its liberal ethos and yet it does not allow a complete free for all.

    One person't moderation is another persons censorship but we are subject to the rules of the forum and the laws of the land so there are limits to free speech.

    I am passionate about getting better treatment and care for autistic people but that does not mean that I have any obligation to defend everything that an autistic person does. I cannot rely on CC's unconditional support for everything I say and similarly he cannot rely on my unconditional support. We can express ourselves as long as we are not offensive to others even if they are doing things that we might disagree with. Treating or trying to cure someone's autism is their prerogative. They are trying to do something to benefit a disabled person and we should be very careful about attacking someone for doing that. I suspect that such an attack might fall foul of the same Equality Act that affords me, and others on the forum, protection from attack.

    Even the UK parliament has rules and the speaker regularly rules on questions of unparliamentary language. Perhaps we should follow their example?

Children
No Data