• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

"Autistic" or "Person with Autism"?

When it came into common use, person-first language semed to be a positive step away from the medicalised model of disability and in that sense I couldn't ever take issue with person first terms.

Identity language seems to be its follow on stage, so in that spirit, to each their own preference.

Some days I experience the disordered ways of being more intensely, other days its a mixed bag and when life is kind "it's a difference".

If the levels existed when I was diagnosed with Aspergers I guess I would have been placed in Level 1, but in 10 years time perhaps it would be Level 2, and I could be glad of the distinction from an access to services perspective.
 
This is difficult stuff to process, and it's terribly easy to make the case either way depending on whom makes it and their underlying motives. I suspect we can never know his true motives for being involved with the Nazis. In some ways he could be considered little different to the majority who were simply cowed into submission for fear of themselves becoming one of the victims (something rather easy that happened a great deal there and then).

Just because he was an intellectual means little in matters like these. I choose to try and be open minded about his true nature (as we'll never really know) and just cherish the fact he at least brought the subject to the attention of others, whatever the reasons. Just as we would never have had the moon landings (and all that came out of them) without Werner Von Braun, but equally, he advanced the production of ballistic missiles and made thermonuclear weapons and global mass destruction possible, maybe even inevitable.

Trying to assign good and/or evil to people is never a productive thing in the end. We should just try to learn from what has gone on before, the good, and the bad, but it's only evidence based facts that matter when it comes to forming opinions (imho). Even his published material does not give a definite insight into the man himself, it tends to lend itself to an existing opinion.

Ergo, it was better in the end to remove his name from the condition.
Von Baun was another guy who never joined the Nazi party and had no use for Hitler. But ending up on Hitler's uncooperative list was not an attractive proposition. Being a person of some importance and being able to pursue his special interest was attractive, so he did what he did. As an American, he could have done exactly the same thing with a lot less anxiety.

The lack of Von Braun on their side did not prevent the Soviets from putting the first satellite into orbit or the first man into orbit. He didn't accelerate anything relative to nuclear weapons.
 
I still think they should rename milder versions of autism Social Communication Sensory Disorder (SCSD), a bit like how ADHD is named. I just think it sounds easier to tell people than saying that I have autism. It just doesn't feel right for me. It'll be like naming ADHD a Greek word for "energy" or something. Could be misleading and also embarrassing. I don't like having something that means "self". Sounds so isolating. But I don't like the Asperger's word either and I hate the way British people say it, with a J instead of a G. Say it right if you have to say it at all!
 
I have to say the word itself isn't the most attractive. Not many medical terms are, but it's pretty clunky and uninspiring isn't it? Not much zip or pizazz to it. Not something to put on the business card.
 
Whenever someone says "Asperger's" verbally, I sometimes flinch. If someone who doesn't know I have it mentions the word in a conversation I just pretend I've never heard of it but I still feel all cringy inside.

When I was a kid I used to hit adults if they said that word, not hard or anything, but just a sharp tap on the arm, if it was my mother or uncle. I'd just get really embarrassed and angry about it. Then I learnt that hitting people when they say that word just gives it away even more that I have it, plus some sort of inconsolable anger. The idea (for me) is to deny it, not let my actions make it obvious lol.
 
Von Baun was another guy who never joined the Nazi party and had no use for Hitler. But ending up on Hitler's uncooperative list was not an attractive proposition. Being a person of some importance and being able to pursue his special interest was attractive, so he did what he did. As an American, he could have done exactly the same thing with a lot less anxiety.

The lack of Von Braun on their side did not prevent the Soviets from putting the first satellite into orbit or the first man into orbit. He didn't accelerate anything relative to nuclear weapons.
I'm inclined to disagree a little on that, I think Von Braun was happy to embrace whoever would fund his interests. Also, Nazi member or not, he was deeply involved in weaponry development for the army. There were many scientists who fled Nazi Germany for a variety of reasons from not wishing to become a victim, to holding strong ethical reasons, and many other causes such as simply not getting research funding. But these things are hard to get to the truth of in the end, so opinions (of all sorts) tend to prevail.

I suspect he preferred not to be involved in weaponry development but his own obsession was more important to him than ethical considerations. Also, he was young and maybe naïve when he first started, and once he was 'in' getting out wouldn't have been so easy.

Also, although the Russians managed orbit sooner, the Von Braun lead American team ultimately achieved far more, and did it better. Instead of rushing[sic] they took more time and were more ambitious.
 
I really could not care less... I don't see any reason to use person first language... I figure we have described people in a particular way for a very long time, there really is no reason to change it. I understand that it may offend some people's sensibilities.. But I think that is just life sometimes.

I do a lot of things with cars... And engines in general. I once had somebody tell me that I could not use the word retarded... Well the problem is ignition timing is either advanced or retarded. I suppose one could call it advanced or behind but that would probably offend somebody else. The end of the day the context of the language is what is important, and of course getting ones ideas conveyed to other people in the most accurate way possible... Changing the language only serves to muddy that up
 
Maybe part of the problem is the adoption of medical terms for social use?
It's usually the case that these tend to take on different meanings, yet come from the same source (context again).
Maybe a new set of non diagnostic terms to use for social communications would help?
 
This chimes with my experience, it feels like a reclamation of common terms could be the most comfortable fit for me.
 
I understand that it may offend some people's sensibilities.
I have given up worrying about sensibilities. I won't use terminology that is generally accepted as being unacceptable... but there are way too many people out there looking for reasons to be offended. Otherwise, it gives the person claiming to be offended power over you.
 
Otherwise, it gives the person claiming to be offended power over you.
Anyone can choose to be offended about absolutely anything they can think of.
The apparently more and more popular idea that someone's personal opinion's count for anything much for anyone else unless they wish to be of an accord, be in a common group, is a deeply divisive and polarising attitude among many people.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion's, no-one has a right to impose them on others. Actions are what count, I could be the most racist person in the world, but as long as I never ever acted out on that, never actually discriminated against someone because of my opinion, then I have a right to hold that opinion however disgusting something like racism may be.

I hate the whole idea of 'being offended' for that reason, and as I get older I have less and less concern for other's sensitivities. Not to be rude for the sake of it, but not to kowtow to another's ideas because they say so. Everyone can ignore something bilious to them of it's just an opinion.

To get upset because someone out of 8+ billion humans didn't like what I said or wrote, or disagreed with me or my principal's is ridiculous, and visa versa.
 
Anyone can choose to be offended about absolutely anything they can think of.
The apparently more and more popular idea that someone's personal opinion's count for anything much for anyone else unless they wish to be of an accord, be in a common group, is a deeply divisive and polarising attitude among many people.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion's, no-one has a right to impose them on others. Actions are what count, I could be the most racist person in the world, but as long as I never ever acted out on that, never actually discriminated against someone because of my opinion, then I have a right to hold that opinion however disgusting something like racism may be.

I hate the whole idea of 'being offended' for that reason, and as I get older I have less and less concern for other's sensitivities. Not to be rude for the sake of it, but not to kowtow to another's ideas because they say so. Everyone can ignore something bilious to them of it's just an opinion.

To get upset because someone out of 8+ billion humans didn't like what I said or wrote, or disagreed with me or my principal's is ridiculous, and visa versa.

The up and coming generation is creating a situation that I'm following closely and with interest because it will either fail or succeed and to my knowledge has never been tried before on such a scale. Namely, expecting that the rest of the world not only recognize the individual, but place whatever each individual believes is subjectively important about themselves to be as important as what every other person thinks about themselves.

In other words, saying to "the world": "I'm an individual. I have my own unique beliefs, my own needs, my own desires, my own convictions, my own rubrics...my own reality that is unique to me. World, I don't want you to just acknowledge me, I want you to stop, listen to what's important to me and abide by my uniqueness."

I wonder if it will work.
 
All those people crying that out at the same time, I have to wonder, who will be listening, and will they be the one's who would actually accept that or just push their own belief's back at them?
I personally think individuality is ultimately about equality.
Maybe when intelligent machines run the world instead of humans, we may get some sort of equality, but I don't think humans as a species are capable ...
"My equality is more important than your equality!"
 
"From his teenage years, von Braun had held a keen interest in space flight, becoming involved in the German Society for Space Travel (VfR) in 1928. As a means of furthering his desire to build large and capable rockets, in late 1932 he went to work for the German army to develop liquid-fuel missiles. Based on his army-funded research on liquid-propellant rocketry, von Braun received a doctorate in physics on July 27, 1934, from the main university in Berlin. Von Braun was a member of an SS equestrian unit in 1933–34, joined the Nazi Party in 1937 and became a junior SS officer in 1940."

________________________________________________________________________________________

Oskar Schindler was a card-carrying Nazi as well. Though as in the case of any number of persons in the Third Reich, some felt an urge to be part of the system in order to further their own personal ambitions. I suspect the same could be said about Von Braun.

Ironically both men served in a capacity reflecting direct responsibility for the development of weapons used without restriction against both combatants and civilians.

Given other such personalities we could all bicker over, I see no point in arguing over the morals of who they really were or what they really believed. Especially given how in certain instances their technical knowledge and skills overruled them being indicted for war crimes, when they were put on the payroll as government employees. Whether those of the likes of Klaus Barbi or Wernher Von Braun.

Whether some choose to be offended in whole, in part or not at all.
 
Last edited:
I don't want you to just acknowledge me, I want you to stop, listen to what's important to me and abide by my uniqueness.
But there is little uniqueness. The general assumption is that if you can identify one political/social position of a person you can identify almost everything else about them. If you can't, it makes the person unpredictable and unreliable. Nobody abides by that.

It is really a desire that the world abide by the boxed set of values espoused by my social bubble. Accept my social bubble and me as a loyal part of it.
 
Given other such personalities we could all bicker over, I see no point in arguing over the morals of who they really were or what they really believed.
I have to say I can't really agree on that. I think it's enormously important to consider the morals of acts performed in questionable circumstance. I think any discouraging of the discussion of such things is how memories die of terrible things, and as those who experienced them die. we seem to suffer from forgetting the things we've condemned in the past, which can enable their return.
And I can't equate Barbie with Von Braun either, two very different cases which are not on the same scale of things.
We can't know what resided within their minds, but we do have their acts to measure them by.
 
I have to say I can't really agree on that. I think it's enormously important to consider the morals of acts performed in questionable circumstance. I think any discouraging of the discussion of such things is how memories die of terrible things, and as those who experienced them die. we seem to suffer from forgetting the things we've condemned in the past, which can enable their return.
And I can't equate Barbie with Von Braun either, two very different cases which are not on the same scale of things.
We can't know what resided within their minds, but we do have their acts to measure them by.

The short answer? Forget Barbie and Von Braun. Consider the morals of the regime which took them away from due process to perform as government assets. One succeeded and is remembered positively, while the other was prosecuted and imprisoned when his usefulness came to an end.

My point being that it's hard to seriously deal with any moral conclusions given such hypocrisy based only on expediency. And for some, their morals are weighted towards the power of the state, and not humanity per se. Which at times may prove to be far more problematic.

Though for a more detailed response, I'll respond through a PM.
 
Last edited:
I can't compare the two of them on that basis. One was inured into the society before the Nazi's system barely existed (as acknowledged with hindsight). At what point does a government become 'evil' (for want of a better term, and lacking the time it would take to discuss such complexities)? How do citizens respond to their own appraisal, when that appraisal is subject to many internal and external factors?

Even the Nazi's victims were often unable to see what the government represented, unable to comprehend, and never fled and ultimately died for it. Many joined the party out of fear, or earlier also in search of an alternative? The responsibility of the allies after WW1 and how they created the situation under which the Nazi's came to power?

It's far too complex and none of us experienced it (and even then experience is a small slice of 'reality') and to judge people of their morals is unhelpful and divisive.
This is why I said that someone's actions should be their point of judgement; to, for example, be a member of the party should not be a measure of someone's totality. And to in any way say Barbie's actions were comparable to Von Braun's and hence should not be examined is for me, denial of what happened and why. Maybe coming from German Jewish ancestry may make me a little biased in that area, my paternal Grandfather was one of those who saw clearly where things were going and succeeded in escaping with his family.

Personal morals of the people involved are undefinable, but their actions are still definable, and so judging the former is personal opinion, the latter is nearest we have to establishing facts.

And further on morals, lets not forget Barbie was actually recruited as an intelligence asset by the US (I'm pretty sure it was CIA or related) after fleeing to South America, how do the morals of those people who recruited him balance against those of Barbie himself?

It's all very difficult stuff to examine and rationalise, but to not question these things is a big mistake! How we question them is what matter's, but to skirt difficult issues because they are so contentious and hard to understand is enabling the next crop of such people.
 
I can't compare the two of them on that basis. One was inured into the society before the Nazi's system barely existed (as acknowledged with hindsight). At what point does a government become 'evil' (for want of a better term, and lacking the time it would take to discuss such complexities)? How do citizens respond to their own appraisal, when that appraisal is subject to many internal and external factors?

Even the Nazi's victims were often unable to see what the government represented, unable to comprehend, and never fled and ultimately died for it. Many joined the party out of fear, or earlier also in search of an alternative? The responsibility of the allies after WW1 and how they created the situation under which the Nazi's came to power?

It's far too complex and none of us experienced it (and even then experience is a small slice of 'reality') and to judge people of their morals is unhelpful and divisive.
This is why I said that someone's actions should be their point of judgement; to, for example, be a member of the party should not be a measure of someone's totality. And to in any way say Barbie's actions were comparable to Von Braun's and hence should not be examined is for me, denial of what happened and why. Maybe coming from German Jewish ancestry may make me a little biased in that area, my paternal Grandfather was one of those who saw clearly where things were going and succeeded in escaping with his family.

Personal morals of the people involved are undefinable, but their actions are still definable, and so judging the former is personal opinion, the latter is nearest we have to establishing facts.

And further on morals, lets not forget Barbie was actually recruited as an intelligence asset by the US (I'm pretty sure it was CIA or related) after fleeing to South America, how do the morals of those people who recruited him balance against those of Barbie himself?

It's all very difficult stuff to examine and rationalise, but to not question these things is a big mistake! How we question them is what matter's, but to skirt difficult issues because they are so contentious and hard to understand is enabling the next crop of such people.
Utilitarianism trumps idealism.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom