@happyborg But what are the consequences?
Autism is definitely a disorder, even if I as a high-functioning autist am only just recently realising how much it disables me.
@light I don't accept that #autism is always a disorder. Anything in extreme is regarded as a disorder, but that is still only a perspective based on assumption.
What is un-disordered? Any answer is based in context and creates the answer.
Autism is a classification. Personally I think autistic characteristics tend to be healthy, whereas what people accept as "normal" are often unhealthy characteristics.'
@happyborg I didn't mean to say it's always a disorder.
But it's definitely not fascism to characterise a disability (even if it's only a disability in certain contexts) as an illness.
The left really needs to stop characterising everything they don't like as "fascism". That's how we got into this mess with Trumpism IMHO.
@light When a fascist starts making these kinds of claim it is fascism. You may not think Trump is a fascist.
@happyborg Trump is definitely authoritarian and xenophobic.
In that context is calling autism an illness worse than when other people do it?
Please explain. And define "fascism".
@light Context is always important, so yes it is different because with fascism, you identify it by knowing where it leads. Trump is taking a calculated step towards eugenics and if you don't want the next step, and the next, it has to be resisted.
If someone simply believes what he said, they are wrong based on the science. If they say it knowing where he is leading, they are fascist and pushing for fascism.
So who says it and why determines whether or not it is fascism.
@happyborg You haven't defined what you mean by "fascism" (and "eugenics").
This step is important, otherwise we can't communicate.
I agree with Richard Dawkins that liberal "eugenics" is much more ethical than Hitlerian eugenics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eugenics/#ArguForLibeEuge
@happyborg
Quote from link:
Advocates of liberal or new eugenics agree that past eugenic practices were morally wrong and should not be repeated. However, they contend that the use of current reprogenetic technologies does not share any of the morally impermissible features of such past eugenic programs (Silver 1997; Agar 2004; Harris 2007; Savulescu and Kahane 2009). They argue that current practices do not involve the morally troubling characteristics of their historical predecessors. First, reprogenetic technologies and practices are individual in nature rather than state-sponsored. The intended benefit of any reprogenetic intervention is individual/private welfare (that of the child-to-be or of the family), rather than the welfare of the state. Second, they are premised on individual liberty, the freedom of parents to choose according to their own values and conceptions of the good life. The state does not mandate contraception, sterilization, prenatal testing, abortion, or any other form of eugenic intervention (note: there are potential exceptions in which judges or states have offered long-term contraception such as Norplant as a condition of probation related to a criminal offense or for the continued provision of welfare, see e.g., Dresser 1996). Rather, it allows individuals to choose among a range of alternatives. Third, recognizing that individual parents will often desire different things for their offspring, current reprogenetic technologies and practices presume value pluralism. This means allowing others to choose in ways that we ourselves would not, in the interest of preserving a liberal society that is neutral about conceptions of the good. The aim of a liberal eugenic program is to expand reproductive choices for individuals, in contrast to the historical eugenic programs that clearly cut off reproductive options for many.
