CraigOhMyEggo

Today's conventional wisdom is that both are spectrums. That means one person's experience with autism isn't another person's experience with autism, and one person's experience as a member of the LGBT can differ from another's.

However, that's what the whole point of the letters in the LGBT is. You could be a lesbian, asexual, aromantic, a lesbian who is aromantic, an asexual who is trans, and so on. Someone I know (who inspired me to ask this) has said they began to question why this isn't done regarding people with autism due to constantly seeing multiple people fight over things people do due to their autism because the people in the conflict don't understand each others' experiences but continue to use the label "autism".

One side would say "sorry, it's an autism habit."

"I have autism too, but you don't see me doing that."

"Maybe your autism isn't my autism."

"No, you're just using it as a crutch."

My friend responded to this by making a prototype for an autism equivalent to the LGBT system and says they no longer encourage the "umbrella term" in places like their servers because it has become a constant point of contention, with them maintaining their system is better even if it's currently faulty in some way.

But what's being asked is, why isn't this how it's done mainstream? Is there some kind of benefit to using the umbrella term "autism" that makes it superior/preferred to deconstructing it? Or has society just not thought too much about it?

Today's conventional wisdom is that both are spectrums. That means one person's experience with autism isn't another person's experience with autism, and one person's experience as a member of the LGBT can differ from another's.

However, that's what the whole point of the letters in the LGBT is. You could be a lesbian, asexual, aromantic, a lesbian who is aromantic, an asexual who is trans, and so on. Someone I know (who inspired me to ask this) has said they began to question why this isn't done regarding people with autism due to constantly seeing multiple people fight over things people do due to their autism because the people in the conflict don't understand each others' experiences but continue to use the label "autism".

One side would say "sorry, it's an autism habit."

"I have autism too, but you don't see me doing that."

"Maybe your autism isn't my autism."

"No, you're just using it as a crutch."

My friend responded to this by making a prototype for an autism equivalent to the LGBT system and says they no longer encourage the "umbrella term" in places like their servers because it has become a constant point of contention, with them maintaining their system is better even if it's currently faulty in some way.

But what's being asked is, why isn't this how it's done mainstream? Is there some kind of benefit to using the umbrella term "autism" that makes it superior/preferred to deconstructing it? Or has society just not thought too much about it?

A lot of the things we do on a daily or weekly basis have ways of doing them that can either be private or communal, some of these which we do not think to consider as having that characteristic.

For example, bathing in the Roman Empire used to be communal, but then Rome fell and citizens in the splinter countries began taking baths privately.

Receiving mail is another example. There are countries which don’t have mailboxes and everyone gets their mail at the post office in the PO boxes. It was the United States which pioneered the idea of the modern mail system, which is why we associate it as a private act.

There are activities as well which don’t have any history as jumping between one or the other that might benefit from it, for example I think towns might benefit if internet was free and freely accessible but only at the local library.

What’s a non-communal aspect of life you think should be communal?

A lot of the things we do on a daily or weekly basis have ways of doing them that can either be private or communal, some of these which we do not think to consider as having that characteristic.

For example, bathing in the Roman Empire used to be communal, but then Rome fell and citizens in the splinter countries began taking baths privately.

Receiving mail is another example. There are countries which don't have mailboxes and everyone gets their mail at the post office in the PO boxes. It was the United States which pioneered the idea of the modern mail system, which is why we associate it as a private act.

There are activities as well which don't have any history as jumping between one or the other that might benefit from it, for example I think towns might benefit if internet was free and freely accessible but only at the local library.

What's a non-communal aspect of life you think should be communal?

You might consider this a sequel to a past question I've had, except instead of teaching them how to be artists, it's teaching them how to be devout in whatever you follow. For the sake of respecting technicalities, the loosest definition of religion/ideology/politics will be used here, which is incidentally a definition where they have historically overlapped.

I have relatives who have mental challenges, and this question is inspired by my wonder all the time as someone who has lived much of his life in a very zealous religious community who has observed local missionaries (everyone is a missionary in this small town) try to get creative trying to teach the gospel to people who couldn't comprehend how an airplane works. Some of them have taken notes from psychologists and used toys inspired by the psychologists' usage of Mr. Potato Head toys to diagnose autism (not sure if they still do that), others have simplified the gospel into some extremely simplified analogies, made to fit the language model inside these individuals' minds, which both almost makes it resemble a cargo cult at times as the method used often has them using, for example, objects and their lack of object permanence as an allegory for prophets. So on and so forth. It's both fascinating and terrifying, but it begs my question when it comes to interspecies communication which is an interesting topic.

Suppose you absolutely had to do this, either for some consequentialist social reason or maybe for an experiment to see if adherence would be possible. What method would you perform?

You might consider this a sequel to a past question I've had, except instead of teaching them how to be artists, it's teaching them how to be devout in whatever you follow. For the sake of respecting technicalities, the loosest definition of religion/ideology/politics will be used here, which is incidentally a definition where they have historically overlapped.

I have relatives who have mental challenges, and this question is inspired by my wonder all the time as someone who has lived much of his life in a very zealous religious community who has observed local missionaries (everyone is a missionary in this small town) try to get creative trying to teach the gospel to people who couldn't comprehend how an airplane works. Some of them have taken notes from psychologists and used toys inspired by the psychologists' usage of Mr. Potato Head toys to diagnose autism (not sure if they still do that), others have simplified the gospel into some extremely simplified analogies, made to fit the language model inside these individuals' minds, which both almost makes it resemble a cargo cult at times as the method used often has them using, for example, objects and their lack of object permanence as an allegory for prophets. So on and so forth. It's both fascinating and terrifying, but it begs my question when it comes to interspecies communication which is an interesting topic.

Suppose you absolutely had to do this, either for some consequentialist social reason or maybe for an experiment to see if adherence would be possible. What method would you perform?

Even as someone who tends to play along with bans, this seems like a weird concept. I'm referring to those moments you walk into a club or a service one day and the people in charge say something along the lines of "you're banned from our establishment because we learned you're an artist that deals with controversial subject matter" or "we banned you because we heard that was you who engaged in those reckless activities that sent that one person to need care".

We barely are able to enforce the Hague convention, so it makes me wonder what the mindset is when people try to take this on, as outside your jurisdiction, something could potentially be of any kind of context, as rules, etiquette, and protocol can differ enough between clubs and services that it's almost as if the laws of physics can sometimes seem to differ.

One day, I witnessed a conversation between some rule enforcers and someone I know, and the suspicious rule enforcers asked why the individual so often likes to remain as low a profile as possible, and the individual responded "if I was as open about myself to everyone as everyone else is with each other, the amount of restrictions I'd have would quintuple due to the sheer amount of people who have grown a habit of hating me for no ethical reason whatsoever", which also drags the issue of openness into the conversation.

Or... or maybe I'm wrong and/or am missing something. What's your opinion on this practice? And what stands out to you as the last or most notable time this happened?

Even as someone who tends to play along with bans, this seems like a weird concept. I'm referring to those moments you walk into a club or a service one day and the people in charge say something along the lines of "you're banned from our establishment because we learned you're an artist that deals with controversial subject matter" or "we banned you because we heard that was you who engaged in those reckless activities that sent that one person to need care".

We barely are able to enforce the Hague convention, so it makes me wonder what the mindset is when people try to take this on, as outside your jurisdiction, something could potentially be of any kind of context, as rules, etiquette, and protocol can differ enough between clubs and services that it's almost as if the laws of physics can sometimes seem to differ.

One day, I witnessed a conversation between some rule enforcers and someone I know, and the suspicious rule enforcers asked why the individual so often likes to remain as low a profile as possible, and the individual responded "if I was as open about myself to everyone as everyone else is with each other, the amount of restrictions I'd have would quintuple due to the sheer amount of people who have grown a habit of hating me for no ethical reason whatsoever", which also drags the issue of openness into the conversation.

Or... or maybe I'm wrong and/or am missing something. What's your opinion on this practice? And what stands out to you as the last or most notable time this happened?

Was wondering this in celebration of the fact dolphins have officially been confirmed to have their own translatable proto-language, a longtime speculation we kind of already knew and which fulfills a friend's prophecy. It's common to train animals to perceive and perform art, and/or for them to already have a sense of what it is. Give an elephant a brush and a canvas and they'll paint glyphs of other elephants, chimps can draw avant-garde "masterpieces", and pigeons can even be trained to recognize the difference between good and bad art.

Dolphins surpass all of these animals in intelligence. But there's just one problem, they live underwater. And water tends to destroy most art mediums. Paper canvases shrivel, residue washes and floats away, hammers made for sculpting tend to strike softer, sculpting ice floats, fashion requires sources of fabric you can't get underwater, you get the idea. A dolphin's life is Murphy's Law for an artist. But for an artist, if there's a will, there's a way, and humans are known to challenge what we expect to be ways in which art can be created, such as with crop circles, Nazca lines, shadow art, and soap sculptures made from microwaving soap into molds. What improvised method/means of artform would you coach dolphins to do who want to be artists if you had to do so in some way?