From now on, I am going to abbreviate Disability scoop as [ds].

Here's something I thought people on here would like.  http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2012/03/2...ment-14338

The comments section has the usual "that's great for aspies" type stuff, although the article only mentions "autism."  

I love it when researchers prove us right.

This should be placed in the Hall of Epic...

You sure you're allowed to copy the whole article? I think you made more than just quoting.

I agree up to the part about it being labeled "abnormal psychology".

At roughly 1% of the world's population, I'd say that qualifies as abnormal. I choose to embrace it.

Despite the number of people who find it righteous and holy to express their lack of concern for such drastic transformations of our legal system, the attempts in my country to criminalize a post like this were badly set back by the closures of wikipedia and other sites.  

The only person who can stop me from posting like this is Gareth (through himself or his deputies who have never expressed any problem with this that I know of).  

It's not like I'm claiming this as a school paper of mine.

This post was last modified: 03-25-2012 07:51 AM by Lang.

And Gareth has made his views on copying material like this known. The only problems I would see are the author or publisher coming after you.

This post was last modified: 03-25-2012 08:15 AM by d_olson27.

My country is still limited by law in terms of how that can be managed (thank the gods)

It's your choice how much stigma you want on whatever 'label' you take on. Everyone has their own, unique gripe with political and social labeling. Most of what I read about them (including posts from Bloke/Rossco) suggest they have dehumanizing effect on the targets of said 'labels'. My opinion on labels is and always will be "I could give a sh--!". Concern for dehumanization and the humanitarian morality that goes with said concern is a rather low priority, for me.

I still don't necessarily care to be thought of as "abnormal" simply because I lack aptitude in socialization and can't organize my thoughts as easily as others (being too focused on one interest at a given time, and whatnot) OR because I have difficulty with making eye contact with strangers.

That might have something to do with many of these "censorship" bills will likely never seeg the light of day by the time it would have become codified law -too many corporate political sponsors are wringing their fists against such anti-free-market nonsense. The HR 374 is different in terms of 'liberty lost' that it does outlaw protest on government-owned property, but does so by legally preying on the negative image of OWS and other... unsavory protests of America's past. (Yippies, for example)*

I suppose it might also be a case of no one save for a select few wingnuts and sophomoric "student activists" wanting to read/hear about class warfare and "the ruling class" in the 21st century**.

Activism's all about conveying one's ideas effectively and knowing one's own audience. If a person fails to make a positive impression, they don't sway anyone's mind and may actually provoke enmity and opposition from people who might have otherwise been 'undecided' with the political stances you represent. That is basic social promotion 101. No, that doesn't stop activists from wanting to "preach to the quire", which is to say that many people prefer to discuss things with people who already agree with them.

*Believe it or not, folks, I have nothing against civilly obedient protests. I doubt this surprises people on AFF who can debate and remain modestly respectful about it, but it bears repeating.

**Yeah, someone here opened the floodgates on snarky commentary and personal criticism, again. They also derailed their own thread with "nonsequitur".

I see it more along the lines of re-purposing the word and turning it into a positive. I've had some success with things like that in the past.

It's just the name of their Journal. I don't think that everything that gets mentioned there is per se "abnormal".

You could use your own words, and add a quote, which would have been sufficient, as the link to the original site can be followed easily.
I - as an author - would hate it to find my work copied and pasted in extenso somewhere else. What hinders your re-wording of the content of that article? Apart from laziness ...
Happily, I'm not your country, and no prosecutor either.

This post was last modified: 03-25-2012 07:28 PM by Shnoing.

ConLang is crediting the author and linking to the original version of the article. I don't see a problem.

Typing someone's work up and posting it online would be breach of copyright (unless you had their permission). Providing a link to something that's already on-line isn't.

'Abnormal' doesn't just mean not common-place. It means outside the bounds of accepted norms. I think most of us here would be within those norms, albeit displaying non-standard traits.