Hacker News Reader

Comment by erdos4d | Hacker News Reader

> There is a massive contingent of people that HATE autistic people and feel like it's something to be "fixed". A lot of them frame that hate as helping.

I suspect this has something to do with the fact that many of these have grown up in environments where you are good at technical stuff or you are less than those who are (i.e. the US). They know that many autists will straight smoke their ass in all things STEM and they deeply resent being dealt a losing hand to those "weirdos". Others are just straight up sadists/abusers. The more I hear stories like this, the more I believe the courts practically seek out these sick fucks to be "caregivers" and such. Something is pathologically wrong with this entire area of society.

View on HN

There was this popular kid in my senior year of high school. Class clown, well dressed, one of the star athletes. We'd been friends in 7th grade but he'd apparently forgotten and didn't talk to me. I was occasionally fodder for his loud jokes in front of the whole class, although the gay kid got it a lot worse than I did.

One day I was fixing one of the computers in the office and he happened by. Nobody was around. He saw what I was doing and apropos of nothing he launched into something like, "You know, this place doesn't matter. Nothing here is real. Out there, a few years from now, you'll be in college, or working for fucking Microsoft or some shit. You know where I'll be? I'll be driving a forklift or changing somebody's oil if I'm lucky." No jokes. No smile.

Well? Was he right?

The suspense is terrible, I hope it lasts.

I left it out because I struggled with how to say it and still don’t know the right way to tell it. I did become a software developer, and I did greatly enjoy my time at Microsoft. It wasn’t happily ever after, but at least it was happily until it wasn’t. He died 15 years later of a brain injury he sustained in a car accident that occurred around the same time we had that encounter. Just awful luck, having nothing to do with anything. I totaled my first car too, only difference was I didn’t hit my head the same way.

Except he is wrong. It is very real.

> the more I believe the courts practically seek out these sick fucks to be "caregivers" and such

I suspect its worse than that. I suspect courts don't care if the caregiver is a sick fuck, because the sick fuck is offering to fix the problem of a disabled person existing with needs.

The courts just want someone other than the state to take care of the problem.

That's mostly it.

"autist" is generally regarded as derogatory, BTW.

Whatever. My brother and I are both autists and its our favorite term, because it's funny. I gauge the general level of respect from the context.

You're welcome to it, of course. Doesn't change the way it's received by most of us!

I retract the “whatever” part. I shouldn’t have been rude.

So, what is the latest term from the euphemism treadmill, then?

We can’t decide between ‘autistic person’ and ‘person with autism’ but I gather the former is in the lead. Will get back to you after we sort it at the next AutistiCon.

I think there's is a schism on that point between self-advocating Autistics and Parents of Autistics with more severe issues. The former is indeed in the lead however.

Ok, I wasn't saying it's a tired euphemism. I was saying it's a mean slur used by bigots. I don't totally understand your challenge to provide the latest term, honestly. Are you trying to cast me as the language police?

> I was saying it's a mean slur used by bigots. […] Are you trying to cast me as the language police?

What, exactly, does the language police do differently from what you did?

I don't know what the language police would do. I'm just asking what it makes you, if you use the language of bigots unironically.

We all use the language of bigots; viz. English.

There isn't any non-bigoted English, eh? That's not the kind of argument that inspires me to continue honestly.

You almost got it. The point is that is no bigoted language, only bigoted people and bigoted intentions. Mere use of words and languages can not, by itself, be bigoted. You can reasonably infer intention and a person’s character by their word choices, but you can’t call a normal person using a word a bigot merely for using a word which also bigots use.

I prefer 'redditor'.

I self apply and I also use sperg only on myself. Hell, I use the r word self applied if I'm with friends... if I'm with people that might be offended though I call myself "advanced" but I just imagine the finger quotes and tap them with my feet a little bit splay and quiet twice but I think frequently people miss the timing of the joke and slur.

But if someone compares me to anyone from Big Bang Theory I go off on a rant until they are glazed over about how I'm not trying to diminish the atrocities of slavery or how wrong minstrel shows are but also this is for sure "nerd face" and then wait... just wait... for way later in the party and say bazinga.

Just kidding with the bazinga thing. I'd never say that. It disgusts me.

I suspect "sperg" will get eaten by the euphemism treadmill long before "Autist" ever will be just because the concept of "Aspergers" is medically passe and it's namesake is a rather disagreeable fascist who was perfectly willing to send off any autistic he did not deem worthy off to get murdered by the Nazis amongst other issues and the ones he did deem worthy he considered to be psychopaths.

"Autist" has this sort of duality to it best demonstrated by wallstreetbets culture, where an "Autist" is somebody who will either lose all their money or get wealthy beyond compare. An object of mockery yet an object of admiration, an Elon Musk figure.

Simply stigmatizing whatever words people decide to use in a mean way isn't a real solution to any problem. I resist sacrificing the word "Autist" to the god of the euphemism treadmill because it's the noun form of "Autistic" and is two syllables. If we stigmatize that word we won't address the actual stigma but we will be forced to resort to more pained and awkward language.

It is the most common term I hear from people who "call out" autism disingenuously. It's not about the words or the stigma, it's about the assholes and not repeating their abuse by reusing their words.

>It's not about the words... it's about... their words.

Feels somewhat contradictory.

In terms of abuse, stigmatizing the word "Autist" won't prevent abuse, it will enable it.

Language that expresses negative feelings about a group of people will always exist, all one can do is have influence over the exact language that is used in that expression and the context in which people use certain language. Censorship doesn't stop abuse, it changes how abuse is expressed. In this situation, if we censor "autist", people will still probably continue to use the word, but use it in private more often, and it will become more of a pure slur. People who use the word "Autist" also use "Autistic" as in "Autistic screeching" as a slur/backhanded compliment (And autistic is truly uncensorable) with a very similar connotation, so by stigmatizing "Autist" and giving it a more severe connotation consequently, you are actually increasing peoples ability to more fluently express their distaste of autistics by making the word "Autist" more distinct from "Autistic". Increasing peoples ability to express their distaste for autism more easily is the opposite of what censorship ought to aim to do.

Ever notice how black people can rap and sing about the N word, and say it to each other with at least 5 different meanings communicated just with verbal inflection, but it has exactly one meaning when a white person says it to a black person?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com