I think we dont have to change using the word autistic, but reclaim it as our own. So it stands for somehting positive, to be proud of. Some of the words used to describe other minorites, for instance the word gay, has been reclaimed and used in a positive sense without shame, from how it was originally used in the past. I think we can do this with autistic, aspergers, aspie, autie, our attitude and lack of shame about who we are can make a big difference. We can get the message out there, we are not defeated yet. We do not have to be elitist to be proud of ourselves, we have that right. Autistic pride can be ours.
all it takes is people standing up in public and claiming their pride in being autistic. i've recently started to move away from the term aspie and refer to myself as autistic more and more simply because there seems to be this "aspie=not autistic, but similar" idea. So i have autistic pride, not just aspie pride. One thing i've noticed about autism is impaired development: people with LFA given the chance can develop HFA/AS. But in order for this to happen people must accept that an autistic will be autistic for life - there is no way to rewire an autistic brain and make it NT. ABA programs have attempted this, but they're actually doing the equivalent of training a cat to wag it's tail and calling it a dog.
when we start having autistic pride parades, then we know we have won. in fact, that's not a bad idea.....
yay, a fellow Nietzsche fan.
about art:
art cannot be a solution to the problem of language acting like a tyrant because although it can be used to express concepts, it cannot be used in normal everyday communication. the artist makes a statement, but he does not engage in a conversation.
at some point i should get to work on some anti-art poetry
i have a saying: art is dead
nothing original is being expressed anymore
the quality of the art is not what i am questioning. there are some musical geniuses for example around today, but they are writing songs based on the same themes and not saying anything new/original.
there are some excellent "drawers" (i know it's not a word, but to distinguish from the term "artists" which could include all art forms) around, the example you gave of Raeth: he has a lot of talent, but can you show me some of his work that is more then just a very high-quality picture/drawing?
art is an original expression
that's why i say art is dead
drawing is an artform, but that doesn't mean all drawings are great art. great drawings but not automatically great art
explain what the original concept is?
what message is being given which has never been given before?
the message is what the original artist intends (that's what i was referring to)
examples of art being dead:
the music industry today (look at the charts)
films with common themes/concepts
basically: cliches are not art
and themes are recycled far too often
the same basic themes are always there, truely original art would have original themes.
for example: i know this is a cliche but a lot of pop music nowadays is on the subject of relationships.
i've always wanted to do performance art, and if i get the confidence to do it my first ever piece will be all about democracy and why it doesn't exist in the real world.
kinda reminds me of the whole "creation is an act of will thing"
(ask me about that one)
Personally I like the way some homosexuals reclaimed the words that were thrown at them as insults, showing that they are not unaware of the things that people say about them, but in defiance they still have a sense of humour. My body language probably said "I couldn't care less" when someone once called me a reptile.
recently i've been using the term "higher-functioning autistic" in a proud way, perhaps we need more of this.
with regards to art and conversation:
everyday we communicate using language, we cannot communicate using art for practical reasons. imagine for example standing in a shop talking to the shopkeeper and trying to communicate using art instead of language.
language can be very precise whereas art is often more open to interpratation.
i think the term LFA is required because there is a higher risk of retardation in autistics (and therefore we need a name to distuingish between retarded individuals and higher-functioning individuals)
we already know that autism is an inherited trait and therefore is mostl likely genetic - we just don't know exactly which genes yet.
As soon as the genes are known eugenics will happen. why?
because autism is already viewed as a negative thing - finding the genes will enable them to screen. who cares about the origins? if they can remove this "disability" from the population then they'll do it.
only thing that can stop this from happening is educating the public - and that is a duty for all of us.
for your species ladys and gentleman, for your species...
anbuend:
autism is a very wide spectrum, and so there is a need to distinguish between LFA (which can be grown out of to become HFA, but it still is very much a disability) and HFA
regarding your first comment davixen:
the term duty in the context in which i used it was meant to be motivitional, not a suggestion that people MUST do it.
telling people they have a duty is like living under a dictatorship something we're fighting against right now.
well, telling people they have a duty in a motivonal way isn't like a dictatorship. i was not forcing people.
regarding your second comment:
i don't believe that people should be forced into diagnosis either, though they should be educated of the advantages it is still their choice.
as for accepting certain ideals: well, if you don't accept the ideals of AFF you are still welcome to come here and offer an opposing view. but we will defend our views too in a rational manner. if you ever discover anything different from that here please contact me.