port443 @ port443 @discuss.tchncs.de

Always listening...

---

Read more

Posts

4

Comments

8

Joined

6 mo. ago

Yes, but there's still the CLOUD Act

3. I think Thunderbird does that

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought he definitely wasn't one, I personally just think that this is one of those things that can't be 100% certain anymore, even if it may be 99%. Edit: I'd like to not discuss this any further, if you think this isn't one of those things that can't be certain I hope we could just agree to disagree.

That’s phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use “on the spectrum” is to purposely leave out the word autism.

subjective opinion vs objective fact.

“my interpretation is the only interpretation” viewpoint

I disagree with those, but I don't want to discuss them further because I think it leads nowhere. I posted this for takes from other people, people who disagree could convince me and than I wouldn't have to be annoyed by it's usage anymore and if everyone would agree I could reasonably ask from others to not talk about the spectrum. In any case I would not want to react in a hostile way, even if it annoys and offends me.

On the spectrum is technically correct as long as it can be implied from an earlier specification that it is about the meant spectrum. And even if it is technically correct, having a good reason for continuing with simply the spectrum would... make sense. If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don't) that would be a success. It's not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not. I am aware that people don't usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn't change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.

I am happy to have a non-xenophobic reason for understanding it's usage, but I disagree that it would be possible to not be xenophobic.

If you ask people, most of them will say they aren't, because they don't want to be, but in reality I think most of them are. If a black person is trying to break a lock, people will call the police, and if a white person is trying to break one they will be offered help. The most important thing is to be aware of it and minimize acting to it, not just by compensating for the xenophobia, but by making it impossible to act xenophobic in the first place (like with blind job application processes).

Saying it natural rather sounds as excuses for xenophobic people.

It's important that you bring this up and I hope that suggesting that xenophobia is natural to humans won't be perceived as an excuse for acting xenophobic to anyone.

either Asperger’s or autism

How I see it, there is no such thing as Asperger’s or autism; Asperger’s is a historical type of autism. In research ‘autism’ was sometimes used for specifically Kanner’s/‘classical autism’ so another term had to be used for the group of both when it became seen as one bigger spectrum: ASD. Hans Asperger himself used the term ‘autism’ as well however, referring to his patients, so ASD and autism are synonymous.

I agree with autism being considered a spectrum and with the ‘official’ name being ASD, but my post wasn’t about that. Rather, it was about people just talking about the spectrum and leaving the term ‘autism’ or ‘autistic’ completely out, which I think was pretty clear, but maybe it was not?

Another reason why I dislike it: there are other spectrum disorders. It seems weird to consider autism the spectrum only because it's the most widely known and it could also could cause confusion. This disadvantage also means that (if considered) there has to be more perceived advantage from other factors (like wanting to forcibly emphasize difference), making it more insulting.