A claim that I have often seen used to derail an argument centered around liberation is that true and complete liberation would include the liberty of those who have unjustly (and within an unjust incentive program) bought, traded, or were born into an advantageous position to begin with.
To assert such a thing with the claim that "this is democracy" is ridiculous. However, it is seen as having merit and often is used effectively.
Our ability to reason is directly influenced by the price we must pay to assert our beliefs. This is in no way pulling down the top or redistributing resources or advantage. The reason it's not doing those things is because the justification for this claim is based on the false premise that incentive programs are either simply less than being accessible to everyone or that there aren't enough people taking advantage of the incentives that are available to them.
As long as the system isn't working for the majority of people, those in positions of advantage have no truly justified claim that anyone would choose to include themselves to an oppressed minority category with more status than the one they're in or because they are at the bottom of the status ladder with in their current categorization and another would serve them better. Also, no truly justified claim can be made that one minority is attaining more resources than another until the scarcity that is claimed as the reason for all categories not being provided for has been proven. Besides that and more importantly if people truly have faith in humanity, they wouldn't be claiming that the current opportunities given to the majority of people are adequate and that this large population of people are a necessary evil that should be left alone to annihilate their own kind and decrease the surplus population.
If the ideal of fairness is allowed to cross the boundary where giving people the right to speak and having their views acknowledged and validated is then only evaluated by how much acceptance the view generates among those who are already in positions of power and advantage, that ideal of fairness has crossed into the zone of not only being less fair, but is being completely unfair.
No one is chasing a label that has been excluded in an effort to then become in some way included. Instead it is the exclusion that blinds the exclusionary groups to any kinds of pure and honorable motivations and causes that those whom they exclude may secure for themselves.
The truth is that such ideals have gone beyond this level of lacking inclusion to that of being exclusive and actually creating disincentives for people to move beyond their (what is often a well guarded and predetermined) station in life rather than being simply ideals that are expressed randomly and thoughtlessly.
Due to the way the label of autism is being used at this point in time, people are more aware of how such traits and disabilities are viewed within our culture. At times, and in certain circumstances people have been quite blatant and open about what they intensely disliked about autistic characteristics, and they have callously expressed this view among their common unified platform to belittle and bully the autistic population by using other terms than autistic to describe us.
Our difficulty with communicating in a world that has been designed without our many of assets and deficits being considered is now being used as a catalyst for dangerous therapies and treatments that are very abusive. Speaking out against these therapies cannot be limited to those who have typical and standard methods of doing so. This cycle defies logic and reason. For lack of a better word, I would call this quackery.
For those autistics who can and do back up their reasoning by typical standards, I see them as being attacked sometimes and those attacks have been justified by the "fair treatment" claim that critical judgment must be given to all so that the best for all autistics can be identified and used. For those who do this important research with autistics well being as the priority, I applaud their efforts and will support them anyway that I can. I will not however have their reputation tarnished by the fact that my claims are supported with less scientific evidence and acceptable standards of research.
All research is NOT conducted with honorable goals and those goals need to be clear so the outcomes can be judged accordingly. Those with honorable motivations are due their voice and they often find themselves as having to defend that right with more vigor among those that (to me) seem more interested in the argument itself and in their own self interest than in how the evidence can be used in the most ethical way. However, this is just a view from when and where it doesn't count . My support will also be tempered so that I won't have them be resented by my description of justice in a way that (in the eyes of others) makes the rewards they deservedly earned, less valued.
My assertions do not come from someone who is professional or even educated. What I present is nothing more than the chaotic ramblings that could be told to you by anyone who has been in the system of "treatment" I've described for the thinking impaired. That system I'm referring to is the one that treats autistics, the learning disabled, the behaviorally impaired, and those who are considered psychological and psychiatric invalids. The truth of the matter is, as a group (and as individuals generally) we don't talk or express ourselves openly.
There are those among us who are illiterate, those of us who have extreme communication difficulties, those of us who have no access to asserting our views, and many of us have no incentives in place for those views to be heard. However, the number one reason I believe that we aren't talking is because no one is interested in listening. Maybe that needs to change. Maybe it's reasonable to believe that it should change.
Comments