General Autism Discussion

I have a terrible sense of smell, so IDK what this is all about.

Pheremones don't work on a conscious level. So, you (as in your executive function) might be thoroughly convinced you may's well have a headcold when it comes to, e.g. wine tasting. But, your microbiome, hypothalamus, occipital lobes and temporal lobes are likely quietly responding to scents you even don't know are there.

Our brain is wired to have us pay more attention to visual data, so the effectiveness of our other senses is easy to underestimate. We may not be dogs, but our noses are not decorative.

Even when their linings are damaged.

edited 30th Nov '17 12:24:01 PM by Euodiachloris

How many drugs do you have to be on to come up with that study?

I suspect a deadline for a proposal and waaaasy too much caffeine.

Well, lets not draw too many conclusions from a single study.

Yup. I'm not going to rule out nasal opposites day as a thing (it makes too much sense — 'scuse pun), but I'm going to hold off on the the whole autism connection. It might or might not be: but, they were looking for something and found it in that context. Prussian blue and quinine research...

Because... I suspect it's more complicated than that. Sensory perception and processing are tricksome beasts with many, many loops.

edited 30th Nov '17 2:10:57 PM by Euodiachloris

In the Aspie Troper Discord (link in my sig), 6 people expressed interest in a "movie night", where we'd watch The Accountant in a chatroom, and talk about the movie and its portrayal of autism in the process. The movie, btw, is about an assassin on the autism spectrum who also happens to be an accountant as his day job. It has its aspects I really like, and its aspects that some people find problematic.

Anyway, the idea is to watch the movie and chat about it.

When I mentioned this to the guy who runs the Troper Coven movie group (link to the thread here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13456679170A21340100&page=783 ), he asked me, why not just invite everyone to his group and have his group host the movie?

After chatting on the Aspie Troper Discord channel, it ultimately seemed like Saturday, December 9, at 8pm US Eastern time was the time that worked out for the most people. The Synchtube/Cytube Troper Coven will host the movie (I'm a moderator there), and we can jump in. Anyone is able to join at any time. Even if you were unaware of the movie night because you weren't in the Discord channel, you can still join.

A couple things.

The website the movie will be hosted at is here: https://cytu.be/r/TroperCoven - Anyone can hop in and watch whatever is being shown. At any time, even when they're not hosting our movie night.

The movie will run off of Google Drive, and a plugin is needed in order to be able to view it. You must get the plugin here: https://cytu.be/google_drive_userscript

EDIT: Because of the movie's length, it will instead be starting at 7:30pm US Eastern Time, and again, it's still on Saturday, December 9.

Remember, anyone is allowed to join even if you never mentioned it ahead of time. Stop on in next weekend and check it out!

edited 2nd Dec '17 10:57:03 AM by BonsaiForest

In the Discord, someone brought up the idea that a lot of the time, some people attribute autistic people's interests, personality traits, and so on, to autism itself. Like, "Yeah, you like computers because you're autistic." Or "You're good at this but bad at that because you're autistic."

And yet, considering how many opposites exist in autism, is this totally fair?

Autism is a complex series of conditions, which includes people as diverse as Temple Grandin, John Elder Robison, Stephen Wiltshire and Carly Fleischmann. These four people are quite different from each other. (I was originally going to use fictional examples, like Rain Man and Sam from Atypical, but I think these four examples are more different from each other, as they include two nonverbal people, two women, two men, three white people, and one black person.)

While autism comes with many traits, I think that maybe we should start looking at people more as individuals with individual preferences. It kinda robs people of the ability to be accepted as full human beings, with full agency and control, to be told, "You only think this way because you're autistic!" when maybe the person thinks this way because they thought it out and came to that conclusion on their own. Autism may have played some role, but it is not the end-all or the be-all.

What do you folks think?

I realize it can be controversial to talk about what characteristics can be attributed specifically to autism, which can be attributed to personality, which can be attributed to how personality and autism traits combine together, and so on. But I think it may be a discussion worth having, as long as we respect each other's differences of opinion, and realize that people don't want to have their personalities reduced to a list of "symptoms". (Which is a point that was made in the book Neurotribes, whose author complained about how autism traits were always portrayed negatively by doctors.)

For example, I love rain and thunderstorms. Is it because of autism? Is it because of light sensitivity (e.g. sunlight is very bright to me and makes colors appear washed out)? Is it because I think rain is pretty and thunderstorms are awesome to watch and listen to? My brothers also like thunderstorms, so it's not just me!

edited 4th Dec '17 9:24:45 PM by BonsaiForest

It is completely unfair. It's like saying "All Asians are good at math" or "Black people are naturally better at sports" or "Women are crazy drivers".

The way I see it, there are some traits that are very common among various autistics/aspies(but by no means universal), but other than those, everyone has their own different traits and are unique and different from each other. Or maybe they do have the same trait, but acquired it through different cases.

By all means, however, correct me if I'm wrong.

edited 5th Dec '17 10:22:05 AM by Minmus

People who say stuff like that objectively no idea what they're talking about. I once saw someone claim that liking trains means you have autism and I wanted to beat his ass unconscious.

I think it can cut both ways.

There are people, mostly of the variety who use "autism" as an insult, who act like having any stereotypical trait makes one autistic, and then they use that to insult the person. Which sucks.

What may be more insidious, though, is when people attribute all aspects of a person's personality or interests, to their autism. Like being really into video games, thinking inclement weather is pretty, being against strict gender roles, for instance. All things I have seen some people associate with autism, or some autistics themselves associate with their own autism (particularly on Wrong Planet).

The reason that is a problem is because it means that autistics who are treated that way are essentially being told that their personality and hobbies exist solely due to a disability, while also subtly implying that anyone who is not autistic and has these traits, only has them because of a disability. It means these traits can be ignored or treated as a bad thing. And autistics are often treated as if they are not intelligent or as if they're naive. So once a person shows these traits, autistic or not, it could result in that person suddenly being treated as if their thoughts don't matter.

And believe me, I've noticed that, for instance, people who want to win an argument, or who fight over power, absolutely will use any weapon at their disposal. If a person who brings up a valid argument in a meeting is autistic, and autism is incorrectly perceived as incompetence, then that person can end up ignored, even if they're the only one who's right. (And I've heard stories of that happening.)

I hope this all made sense. I typed it on my phone, where the small viewing area makes it harder to correct mistakes and rephrase things.

McDonald's fires man with autism for shaky hands. It appears to have no effect on his ability to do his job, either.

Really emphasizing the bolded part here. They talked to his grandmother, not him. As if he can't make decisions on his own. That's just plain awful.

You know, I've never had fond feelings for Mc Donalds, but this doesn't make me feel any fonder. On the other hand, they still receive weekly death threats and shotguns in the face for Mc Nuggets or what-have-you, so maybe that's punishment enough.

Seriously though, what the fuck? I've got a younger brother with the same condition who works at Target, and he has never been 'let go' for shakey hands or acting like a thirteen year old or anything else. It's insane. And stupid. But mostly insane. When being 'normal' becomes more important than doing your job, you really need to reconsider your priorities.

I might be surprised if this was anywhere but McDonald's.

Here's the statement the branch released in response to the accusations:

Here's the article I got it from:

McDonald’s Faces Lawsuit For Allegedly Firing Man With Autism For ‘Shaky’ Hands

They're basically claiming "some of our best friends are disabled" and "we totally never fired the guy, he's just a lazy no-show!"

edited 7th Dec '17 5:45:19 PM by M84

I suppose one could say, given that they never told the guy he was fired and just told his grandma, they technically never directly fired him. From a certain point of view.

Or maybe they told his grandma that he didn't fit in and encouraged her to tell him not to come back "for his own good" without actually firing him. That way, when he no-showed for a few days they could terminate him on those grounds.

Which is worse since that it is some sneaky manipulative bullshit right there.

edited 7th Dec '17 5:56:26 PM by M84

This is the sort of bullshit that those of us who aren't able to 'blend in' have to deal with. Even those who can (like me,) still had to put up with it before we learned how. Hell, even when you can, it can still be awkward sometimes. Not being exactly normal — not making perfect eye contact, not saying what you're 'supposed' to say, even using words and phrases that sound 'off' — if it doesn't fit exactly within their preconceived definition of how 'normal' people should act, they'll still be a bit put off, even if you tell them you're on the spectrum. And that's when you can actually blend in.

So yeah, I am in full support of sueing Mc Donalds till the cows come home. Because that is not something anyone should have to go through.

edited 7th Dec '17 6:41:25 PM by kkhohoho

The thing is, if they did what I think they did (see my above post), then technically they didn't fire him. And unless the grandmother recorded them telling her her grandson shouldn't come back to work...

...Let's just hope it doesn't come to that.

I'm just saying that if I were an ableist asshole who didn't want someone with shaky hands working for me regardless of how well he's doing his job, I wouldn't be stupid enough to directly outright fire him and put it on record.

Instead, I'd put on a friendly face and approach the guy's grandma. I'd act like a concerned manager who is just looking out for her little boy. I'd tell her he's not fitting in, he's struggling with the job, the customers are being too demanding of him, and that it would really be in everyone's best interests if he just stopped coming in to work.

Then, after the guy understandably assumes he was officially terminated and spends a few days getting over the shock before finally deciding to sue, I'd act all innocent and point out that I never actually fired him. I'd spin it as if he's just a lazy no-show freeloader who is playing a disability card so he can sue me for a payoff.

As despicably logical as that is, it's still built on the assumption that Mc Donalds has a brain larger than a Mc Nugget. Which is somewhat doubtful.

edited 7th Dec '17 6:34:03 PM by kkhohoho

Don't underestimate Mc Donald's legal team. If the manager wasn't a complete idiot and the records support his version of events, the legal team could very easily spin things in their favor.

Just look at the aftermath of the spilled coffee lawsuit. Sure, she won the case, but Mc Donald's lawyers successfully demonized her (and by extension a lot of future lawsuits).

...Hm.

In that case, I guess we'll just have to hope for the best. What else are we supposed to do?