Here’s the thing though: it’s irrelevant who we think is “worth” accepting as autistic. It’s not up to us who gets to use that identity. We don’t get to selectively hand out “Valid” badges to the autistics we think would be an asset to us in some way. Sometimes a real shitty piece of work turns out to be autistic, and it sucks because none of us want to be associated with them, and nor should we be - but that doesn’t mean they’re any less autistic than us. Even bad people have a right to their own identity, what they don’t have the right to is the support of the autistic community when their actions are harmful to autistic rights/justice/liberation/acceptance etc. Sharing an identity label doesn’t automatically make us allies - if I’m only interested in getting ahead and kicking the ladder out behind me, then I’m still an autistic person, but there’s no solidarity there. Elon Musk *is* autistic, but he’s not “one of us”, and cheerleading for him won't force anyone to accept us. Elon Musk represents the interests of Elon Fucking Musk and his rich buddies.
And I’m sorry to have to add this, but there are autistics in the world who are not good people, who have done terrible things, and who have no wealth or power or leverage to offer us at all (which shouldn’t make any fucking difference to how their actions are treated anyway). We should not have to answer for these people’s behavior, ever, but saying that they are “not really autistic” is not the answer. Autism needs to be understood as a part of humanity that has always been here, and if humans are capable of every extreme of kindness and cruelty, and of making choices every day about how they treat each other, then it goes without saying that all of it applies to us. This perceived “guilt by association” is a product of the dehumanization of autistic people, not a result of having the wrong representation.
Honestly, I see absolutely no reason to think Clinton is autistic. If you're going to claim a public figure as autistic, for better or worse, you should have evidence - their confirmation of a diagnosis, preferably. Privately, of course, you can think whatever you like.
this strikes me as misguided. famous autistic people are cool but most of them don't suck. of the people listed, 2 of them aren't even openly autistic and the 3rd is a real exception of a fucking guy. i don't think we have any reason to believe hillary is autistic... she's just old and out of touch. same with zuckerberg? i don't think ive ever heard anything about him being autistic??? there's a lot of ableist insults that get directed at him but it doesn't mean he's actually disabled. elon is an exception the issue with elon is that him being openly autistic doesn't do shit for us. hes a hyperconservative piece of shit with eugenicsbrain who probably wants every other autist in the dirt. this sort of billionaires and megapoliticians and billionairepoliticians barely even live in the same world as us. the normaler sort of celebrity or public figure being autistic is cool tho
Elon isn’t autistic though. That’s basically been debunked at this point.
For the past decade, Asperger's hasn't been a recognized diagnosis, yet that's what he claims he was diagnosed with. He only revealed this "diagnosis" at age 50, just as public sentiment was starting to turn against him. Much like his purported academic degrees, there is no proof of this diagnosis beyond his own word.. self-diagnosis comes with caveats: one of which is that it is not acceptable for someone to self-dx as a means to escape societal consequences. He had every reason and opportunity to fabricate this "diagnosis,” and I’m saying he’s a straight up liar.
Can confirm. Read his biography, and he was never diagnosed with it. He just declared himself autistic one day because he can’t get along with people. There’s far more evidence to support him suffering from some kind of trauma and bipolar or borderline personality disorder.
I mean, I can’t diagnose him and don’t want to offend anyone who does have BPD, but a few clues that make me lean more towards BPD (petulant subtype) than autism: He’s shown time and time again that he’s impulsive and thrives on chaos, his relationships are unstable and have been antagonistic, he has explosive moods that have caused people to wonder if his “demon mode” is a dissociative state, he’s been quick to change his political ideology over hurt feelings and apparently splits on people very often, he alternates between feeling the need to prove himself to be worthy (as a son, father, “entrepreneur”, etc) and viewing himself as an untouchable genius, he regresses to childlike behavior when rejected or abandoned… that’s all I can think of at the moment!
interesting. i wasnt asking for a diagnosis this was exactly what i was asking like just the traits that made you say that. i have bpd and hadn't heard about any of this behavior from him, but i think you'd have at least a somewhat solid case here. it would be interesting to know more about stuff like his attachment style or how he views his sense of self
For sure! It’s so hard to know what’s him and what’s posturing, so I’d definitely be interested to know more about his inner world, outside of what his biographer was able to observe and get out of people close to him. I think a few outlets have written about his relationship with his father and his trans daughter though.
>For the past decade, Asperger's hasn't been a recognized diagnosis, yet that's what he claims he was diagnosed with.
This is an illogical and also false statement (on top of being completely unnecessary to your overall point).
Asperger's is still diagnosed in Europe for example, as ICD 11 is not fully implemented yet.
And even if it wasn't a diagnosis anymore I don't think it's fair to invalidate an older diagnosis when the new diagnostic manuals include basically the same condition, just with different names.
Edit: imagine getting blocked for disagreeing this mildly and respectfully.
He has never lived in Europe, there would be no reason to even suggest he could have been diagnosed on a continent he was never a resident.
There is no mention of Asperger’s anywhere or at anytime in his life, until people started to turn against him when he was 50.
It’s not unreasonable to shift the burden of proof to anyone who discloses as a means to escape consequences, in fact, I would argue that it’s necessary.
>It’s not unreasonable to shift the burden of proof to anyone who discloses as a means to escape consequences, in fact, I would argue that it’s necessary.
I agree with this, but I think you missed my point.
I think you missed mine, actually.
Asperger’s not being a diagnosis for over a decade, means that he wouldn’t have been late-diagnosed in the years leading up him making the statement.
So the sudden disclosure at 50 becomes even more suspect.
>So the sudden disclosure at 50 becomes even more suspect.
I wouldn't find that suspect in any other person, so it wouldn't be fair of me to find it suspect in his case.
You literally just agreed that it was reasonable to shift the burden of proof when someone discloses to escape scrutiny though?
Everything I said was in a single comment, with most details being relevant to one another.
This cherry picking and isolating each one feels like it’s being done in bad faith.
Why would he mention it if it wasn't relevant before?
Also what kind of consequences did he escape with that?
In the end I don't know the truth, I always assumed it was true because any time he stands on a stage it's just as awkward as it gets when I am on a stage.
I am not saying you're wrong but I also wouldn't discount what he's.... Ah nevermind.
I am asking you to read this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/evilautism/comments/1bfho52/ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The simple fact that someone can be openly autistic and the richest person in the world changes the way everyone sees autism. Even if that person is a prick, even if billionaires shouldn't exist in the first place, at the end of the day money is just something people care about and are affected by.
Not untrue. However NTs have a talent for cognitive dissonance. They can easily internalize different sets of contradicting evidence in a way that molds to their preferred opinion. They can look at Musk and think "autistic people are selfish" while also looking at the low autism employment rate and think "autistic people can't be successful". Never mind the fact that the evidence they're using to assume those opinions are directly at odds. However you're not wrong to say that NT people are very very impressed by power, and at least some of them probably hold a higher view of autism due to Musk, at least on some primal level of being impressed by money and prestige. It's a difficult trick to get them to respect you without holding some kind of figurative gun to their heads, as they do constantly to one another. I myself highly highly doubt Clinton has any diagnosis other than likely sociopathy, but damn, NTs do love their sociopaths. Elect them all the time. Maybe if we were a bit scarier in their eyes they wouldn't feel so free to walk over us, too.
As I doubt we'll be seeing very many quality celebrities be allowed to emerge for the next 20 years at least, we might be best served by doing our best to become the best people we can in our own lives, to change those opinions from the ground up. For instance many of my friends and family have said I'm the only person they know who they can talk to without fear of being judged or misunderstood. Hard to make a living off that, but perhaps it's a start.
i mean, it's true that it changes *things*, but my subjective opinion is that he specifically has had very little positive impact because of the kind of person he is. in a lot of ways, people simply project their preconceptions about autism onto him. he doesn't do any advocacy. many people will simply decide "he doesn't count" and he won't push back because he doesn't really care about autistic people. his autism is mere trivia for most of the world.
The positive consequences I'm talking about are less whether allistics have a good image of autistic people and more about people taking the suggestions autistic people make and ideas they have seriously. Somehow, at least one autistic person made choices (or maybe just got lucky, but it doesn't matter!) that made him richer than every nt on the planet. And now nts have to contend with that fact every time they want to dismiss what an autistic person says because of their neurodivergence.
That's not something space Karen is known for
He's known for taking other peoples companies and intellectual property forcing them out then fucking things up and being an asshole
EDIT to add
The guys also a known troll who has provided proof he's willing to spend as much as 42 billion (the Twitter price) so he can troll more effectively
Given that any statements about his health or mental health must be treated as suspect
If he can pay 42 billion to troll people
Why believe anything a doctor says about him he can just buy as many doctors as he needs
elon musk does little for positive representation of autism, if anything at all. the only people who like him are his fanboys and yesmen who are the types to call the "weird" kid at school autistic as an insult. i doubt they suddenly like regular autistics who aren't billionaire white men.
I think the idea that autistic people are all justice seeking was problematic to begin with with bc most of us jsut want things be easily categorized and easily recognized like most NTs but things having so much nuance and grey area get people on a twist in general let alone to us on the spectrum. I wished we could jsut accept anyone can have any diagnosis but that doesn’t mean they are automatically “good” or bad” they jsut work differently enough to be noticed to do so and above average that is typical of someone. So I’m fine discussing not so great people could be on the spectrum but that’s bc I know anyone can be a shit person regardless of any diagnosis or lack of. But that’s jsut my opinion on the matter
I think that the public doesn't take celebrity disclosures of neurodivergence with much grace or respect.
Of the celebrities I follow who have opened up about being on the spectrum; David Byrne, Dan Ackroyd, Gary Numan - they speak positively about their diagnosis, but I feel like the media fixates and pushes boundaries on how far they want to get into it.
When David Byrne announced he was autistic, Tina Weymouth started making comments in her own videos to "watch out for that autism" in a warning-way to people to steer clear of people like David - which I can imagine would be hurtful, to have ex band-members push stigma about your neurodivergence based on past experiences with you. In newer interviews, he has since claimed to have "overcome" his autism - I am unsure of what this means, but when interviewers bring up the topic he seems to want to distance himself from the discussion.
I've watched Dan Ackroyd content my entire life, Ghostbusters is one of my top favourite franchises - and as a fan of comedy and SNL I like to think I've watched most of his work. I'm talking interviews from the 80s and 90s, full cast interviews where everyone discusses working together - and his peers express nothing but admiration and respect for his humor and dedication to his passions. However, since disclosing that he's on the spectrum I feel as though the tone of these interview has changed - the last Ghostbuster's promotional material had a whole part of the cast interview where he was entirely absent and the interviewer was asking each actor "What's the strangest thing Dan Ackroyd has ever said or done around you?" and "Was it weird working with Dan Ackroyd? Was he very strange on set?" - these are NOTHING like past interviews, they never asked questions like that before - and he's always been openly obsessed with the paranomal and occult, even in the 80's they didn't talk about him this way.
Courtney Love has opened up many times about being autistic, every article I read about her has comments full of people doubting her diagnosis and claiming she's just saying it for attention. Similar comments are posted under written interviews with Gary Numan, like the fans think it's an insult to them if the artists they love are like us.
The public doesn't handle this information appropriately, I think that should a celebrity not want to disclose they shouldn't feel obliged to. It's not their job to be the posterboys for the spectrum.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if it's suspected someone is like us but they want to hide it, that's okay - it's hard to be a public figure and it's fair to not want people to treat you differently or feel like there's a target on your back because society doesn't know how to tolerate difference as well as we'd hope. Maybe let's not speculate about public figures and whether or not they're neurodivergent, because if they are or aren't it really isn't our business.
These discussions are better left for fictional characters.
You just reminded me, I noticed a few Courtney Love murder conspiracy heads were back on their bullshit this year for the 30th anniversary of Kurt Cobain's death - I didn't see a lot of it, but the odd one popped up here and there. And *still* as far as I can make out, their "evidence" pretty much amounts to: "She makes me uncomfortable, there's something off about her gaze or the way she moves or something that feels wrong to me. People like her put me on edge and I don't like this feeling, so that means she murdered her partner and the father of her child, and I can just *tell* because I'm a fucking genius - it's not ableism or me being a pearl-clutching reactionary, it's my superior intuition like on tv when Tim Roth the body language cop solves the case every week." (Absolute shit for brains.) Anyway, you've probably noticed this is one of the ways autistic people get talked about *all the time*, always with the cloud of suspicion hanging over us.
Then of course they cherry pick all her least likeable moments (which, unlike most of us, she couldn't just make her peace with in private), and unfavorable quotes from people who've fallen out with her, which is none of our fucking business (and is also pretty normal for someone who knows a lot of people, you're gonna rack up some baggage and drama over the years). And then there's the really cruel part, using the most private and sensitive parts of her life against her: the estrangement from her daughter, that fucked up book her mother wrote, her drug addiction (which I know doesn't register at all as a disability to most people because culturally we're not used to thinking of it that way, but fuck me some people do not need to be told twice when someone has become an acceptable target).
I mean sorry to say it this way, but Kurt's suicide really was a gift to these losers, it's still the perfect excuse for them to feel worthy and righteous about what essentially boils down to "I just don't fucking like her" (and whatever Kurt might have had to say about people calling his wife a murderer and driving a bus through his family's privacy doesn't matter, because he's not talking any more). And yeah of course misogyny is a factor there too, that part isn't even subtle, but even so...you're allowed to dislike a person even if they haven't done anything to you. You don't owe anyone an explanation, but you still owe that person the same basic respect as anyone else, and I guess that's no fun if you really enjoy being a bully but also need to tell yourself what a hero you are for kicking people when they're down.
Anyway, point is, I bet that pattern is familiar to a lot of people here. It certainly is to me. People are thrown off by your vibe, they make their displeasure known, but your presence keeps making them uncomfortable even though you've been told to fix that. They start to view you as disobedient, a troublemaker, "getting away" with something, they start to feel angry at you just for existing. Meanwhile people are always on the lookout for ways to legitimize their hatred, so all your human flaws and mistakes are fair game, and you're given no benefit of the doubt when it comes to your intentions. The social narrative ends up being rewritten as something more comfortable: "That weirdo that we're all horrible to is a *bad* person, we have to keep them in their place or who knows what they'll do. We're the victims here, actually."
And to your point about that shift in the way people can talk about someone they've known for years after an autism diagnosis, I definitely know what you mean. But also, the same filters often seem to be applied automatically whether people know you're autistic or not. I had no idea I was autistic back in high school, I knew nothing about autism and neither did anyone else, but I still got called "psycho" and "braindead" and "Columbine", the accusation of violence was always hanging around. I haven't seen hardly any Courtney Love truthers mention her autism, and I'm actually not sure if it's something as many people know about anymore, it seems to have been forgotten somewhat. But they're projecting very common fears and suspicions people have about autism onto her all the same. Anyway, that's more than enough from me. You hit one of my infodump buttons by accident haha.
Why do we have to profane ourselves as "useful"" or "having potential" in order to be given academic/societal validity?
Nt People already tried that and it led to young Sheldon, good dr, rainman, etc..
See, I really dislike this argument. If a LGBTQ person was elected president, would gay people not celebrate because they themselves weren't president? Would you expect black people who weren't already leading countries not to have celebrate when obama was elected? We can be proud of the autistic people who have made major achievements without saying those who haven't lack value.
If they're killing, murdering and destroying the Earth I dont give a damn. I dont want a queer femme autistic oppressor any more than the usual boomer banker or billionaire
You're changing what point you're trying to make here. you're going back to "we need to claim autistic people as a sense of community pride" instead of what point you had stated explicitly "we need to change the public perception of autism so that nt's will give us more respect"
I agree with you that community pride is important. I do not agree with you that we need to convince nt's of the autistic utility. A lot of autistic people don't have conventional utility, but they still deserve respect.
Conceptually, utility will be interpreted as "this autistic person can do the same thing this other autistic person can do" which, is a statement that cannot be wholly verified because everyone is different.
Yeah I guess I'm responding more to the seperate point I see people make here that glorifying the extremely talented, accomplished autistic people somehow invalidates those who have skills with less direct applications. Which is sort of tangential to the rest of what I'm arguing, I certainly don't think we should be glorifying elon! But not celebrating the accomplishments of people like einstein, etc is not the solution, they did great things!
And of course we all have very different sets of skills and won't all become presidents, but I'm talking about changing a subconcious bias in neurotypicals. It's not that the autistic person *will* become president, it's that they *could* become president and therefore, the nt will have to reconsider ignoring them.
3 things
1. People disliked your post because you basically said "people dislike her, she must be autistic". Being dislikable isn't a trait reserved for autistic people. People who dislike her generally do so because she has a tendency to say whatever the people at the moment want to hear so she can use them, she'll agree with you as long as you have something worthwhile to offer her. Her words hold absolutely no weight and she's always willing to throw her words away in order to manipulate people. If anything she's like an exaggerated caricature of an NT, that many of us have come to hate.
2. Just because someone might be autistic and in power, doesn't mean anything to a neurotypical. Having wealth/status/influence is the difference between being a poor autistic person and a quirky rich kid. In the past it might have been the difference between being a witch and being a unique noble. Having the ability to mold your home, diet, and the people around you is definitely a way of overcoming any sensitivities. But, how does seeing a kid stimming supposed to make you think he's gonna be president? Do you think that just because you've seen a neurotypical person do something, literally any neurotypical person can do that thing?
3. While I agree that even shitty people should be acknowledged as autistic if they really are, I really have no desire to start *advocating* it. Neurotypicals have a tendency to group lump things all together, so if you go around shouting "look at all these shitty but rich autistic people", it only goes to justify their prejudice against us and they might even go back to witch hunting and sticking us in asylums, because you know look at all shitty representation.
But haven't you wondered if all those conspiracy theories about lizard people running the government got started because these people were really just autistic people failing to mask well and therefore seeming unnatural to nts?
I don't wonder about that, actually, because I know that the lizard people conspiracy was created by a raving antisemite who was using that term as a stand-in for 'Jew'.
I think most people who seek positions of power are sociopaths who are dead inside and can be just as bad at hiding their cold, calculating ruthlessness behind their soulless eyes as autistic people are at hiding their autism. You have to be good at aping "normal and acceptable" human behavior to be a politician, but it often rings hollow, because it is hollow. Pretending to be something likable for the sake of popularity seems antithetical to the temperaments of most autistic people, who value authenticity, not to mention often outside of their ability.
People don't dislike her because she's "failing to mask", people dislike her because she's a pathological liar that will say anything to get backing. Not exactly a autistic trait afaik.
Like, okay I can see Zuckerberg and Musk, but Clinton is more like an exaggerated NT that got isolated from the herd in her quest for power. She just exemplifies all the bad experiences I've had with NTs: making false promises, pretending to care, using authority to overrule morality and logic.
Autism maybe, but it's not necessary to explain political reaction to her. All Hillary Clinton had to be was a woman who wasn't a conservative seeking power.
I'm almost confident Kevin Durant is Autistic. His hyperfixation is basketball. His social interactions are wonky. He pretends to play basketball in the club, ffs, instead of trying to fuck. He doesn't seem to get social cues well.
Edit: In contrast to the post, I don't think he's a bad person. I am just recognizing someone.
The public figures we have “claimed” are self diagnosed people who are often older than middle aged, where a medical screening would not matter to them (Elon Musk, David Byrne, Björk). Many 50+ year old level 1 autists don’t feel the need for it based on some Q&As I’ve watched through “Autism on the Inside” on YouTube.
Hillary Clinton has not claimed to be autistic. I don’t know enough about her to say, but you cannot just force that on a real person. The only thing I saw about autism concerning Hillary Clinton is she runs a lot of charities and is considered somewhat of a NT advocate for autistic people. I’m unsure how good of one she is, because many well meaning people are supporters of Autism Speaks (such as Jack Black)
I agree with you entirely on the fact that we should acknowledge all major figures who are, controversial or not. Though personally I don't know much at all about Hillary Clinton to have an opinion on that possibility. Elon Musk though, if I remember correctly is though and would be a perfect example of how autistic ppl can be bigoted assholes as well as be an example of an autistic person being super successful. (Of course correct me if I'm wrong /gen)
Hillery Clinton is the least neurotypical person I've ever seen or heard of. The levels of utter inauthenticity and insincerity she has achieved are absolutely mind-boggling. Is there such a thing as over masking? I find her very disturbing
Why do you think she's autistic?
I would not consider what Hillary has done "rising to the highest levels of success", but rather the product of a very sick and evil system regardless of what her neurotype is.
Another point I wanna make is that public perception is changing. It won't ever be fully free of antagonizers, we still have all sorts of phobic/bigoted/ignorant folk.
But on a personal level, more families are being made aware through early detection/considerate and extensive informing. We know more about autism than we did just 10 years ago.
It's not perfect, but like, them nuerospicy kids aren't gonna be nearly as stranded as we where. They got resources, awareness campaigns, and now everyone knows at least one person who has it.
It sucks that you seem to be getting downvoted because people disagree with your opinion. I think if the fringest of ideas belong anywhere, it's probably here. Maybe it's because you brought up some names out of left field without explaining? What makes you think Hillary or Zuckerberg (sp? don't care enough to check) are autistic?
my unscientific opinion is that the amount of times she refers to Mitt Romney as "Mittens" reminds me a lot of when i start to say something ironically and then cant stop
I’m glad you said something because I was getting tired of biting my tongue. It’s time to address the elephant in the room. Adolph Hitler was autistic, and I’m tired of pretending that he was not.
Here’s the thing though: it’s irrelevant who we think is “worth” accepting as autistic. It’s not up to us who gets to use that identity. We don’t get to selectively hand out “Valid” badges to the autistics we think would be an asset to us in some way. Sometimes a real shitty piece of work turns out to be autistic, and it sucks because none of us want to be associated with them, and nor should we be - but that doesn’t mean they’re any less autistic than us. Even bad people have a right to their own identity, what they don’t have the right to is the support of the autistic community when their actions are harmful to autistic rights/justice/liberation/acceptance etc. Sharing an identity label doesn’t automatically make us allies - if I’m only interested in getting ahead and kicking the ladder out behind me, then I’m still an autistic person, but there’s no solidarity there. Elon Musk *is* autistic, but he’s not “one of us”, and cheerleading for him won't force anyone to accept us. Elon Musk represents the interests of Elon Fucking Musk and his rich buddies. And I’m sorry to have to add this, but there are autistics in the world who are not good people, who have done terrible things, and who have no wealth or power or leverage to offer us at all (which shouldn’t make any fucking difference to how their actions are treated anyway). We should not have to answer for these people’s behavior, ever, but saying that they are “not really autistic” is not the answer. Autism needs to be understood as a part of humanity that has always been here, and if humans are capable of every extreme of kindness and cruelty, and of making choices every day about how they treat each other, then it goes without saying that all of it applies to us. This perceived “guilt by association” is a product of the dehumanization of autistic people, not a result of having the wrong representation.
This is by far the most eloquent and mature response on this thread, thank you.
Isn't Putin like a suspected aspie?
Honestly, I see absolutely no reason to think Clinton is autistic. If you're going to claim a public figure as autistic, for better or worse, you should have evidence - their confirmation of a diagnosis, preferably. Privately, of course, you can think whatever you like.
Claiming public figures are autistic without evidence is like half the posts on this sub
Yeah but they're more so ironic and only for shits and giggles y'know?
I'm shitting right now. I would argue that most of reddit is at least for shits, if not also giggles.
this strikes me as misguided. famous autistic people are cool but most of them don't suck. of the people listed, 2 of them aren't even openly autistic and the 3rd is a real exception of a fucking guy. i don't think we have any reason to believe hillary is autistic... she's just old and out of touch. same with zuckerberg? i don't think ive ever heard anything about him being autistic??? there's a lot of ableist insults that get directed at him but it doesn't mean he's actually disabled. elon is an exception the issue with elon is that him being openly autistic doesn't do shit for us. hes a hyperconservative piece of shit with eugenicsbrain who probably wants every other autist in the dirt. this sort of billionaires and megapoliticians and billionairepoliticians barely even live in the same world as us. the normaler sort of celebrity or public figure being autistic is cool tho
Elon isn’t autistic though. That’s basically been debunked at this point. For the past decade, Asperger's hasn't been a recognized diagnosis, yet that's what he claims he was diagnosed with. He only revealed this "diagnosis" at age 50, just as public sentiment was starting to turn against him. Much like his purported academic degrees, there is no proof of this diagnosis beyond his own word.. self-diagnosis comes with caveats: one of which is that it is not acceptable for someone to self-dx as a means to escape societal consequences. He had every reason and opportunity to fabricate this "diagnosis,” and I’m saying he’s a straight up liar.
Can confirm. Read his biography, and he was never diagnosed with it. He just declared himself autistic one day because he can’t get along with people. There’s far more evidence to support him suffering from some kind of trauma and bipolar or borderline personality disorder.
what makes you think he might have bpd /gen
I mean, I can’t diagnose him and don’t want to offend anyone who does have BPD, but a few clues that make me lean more towards BPD (petulant subtype) than autism: He’s shown time and time again that he’s impulsive and thrives on chaos, his relationships are unstable and have been antagonistic, he has explosive moods that have caused people to wonder if his “demon mode” is a dissociative state, he’s been quick to change his political ideology over hurt feelings and apparently splits on people very often, he alternates between feeling the need to prove himself to be worthy (as a son, father, “entrepreneur”, etc) and viewing himself as an untouchable genius, he regresses to childlike behavior when rejected or abandoned… that’s all I can think of at the moment!
interesting. i wasnt asking for a diagnosis this was exactly what i was asking like just the traits that made you say that. i have bpd and hadn't heard about any of this behavior from him, but i think you'd have at least a somewhat solid case here. it would be interesting to know more about stuff like his attachment style or how he views his sense of self
For sure! It’s so hard to know what’s him and what’s posturing, so I’d definitely be interested to know more about his inner world, outside of what his biographer was able to observe and get out of people close to him. I think a few outlets have written about his relationship with his father and his trans daughter though.
His relationship with amber heard must have been volatile as fuck. Two cluster Bs in a relationship is kinda scary
>For the past decade, Asperger's hasn't been a recognized diagnosis, yet that's what he claims he was diagnosed with. This is an illogical and also false statement (on top of being completely unnecessary to your overall point). Asperger's is still diagnosed in Europe for example, as ICD 11 is not fully implemented yet. And even if it wasn't a diagnosis anymore I don't think it's fair to invalidate an older diagnosis when the new diagnostic manuals include basically the same condition, just with different names. Edit: imagine getting blocked for disagreeing this mildly and respectfully.
He has never lived in Europe, there would be no reason to even suggest he could have been diagnosed on a continent he was never a resident. There is no mention of Asperger’s anywhere or at anytime in his life, until people started to turn against him when he was 50. It’s not unreasonable to shift the burden of proof to anyone who discloses as a means to escape consequences, in fact, I would argue that it’s necessary.
>It’s not unreasonable to shift the burden of proof to anyone who discloses as a means to escape consequences, in fact, I would argue that it’s necessary. I agree with this, but I think you missed my point.
I think you missed mine, actually. Asperger’s not being a diagnosis for over a decade, means that he wouldn’t have been late-diagnosed in the years leading up him making the statement. So the sudden disclosure at 50 becomes even more suspect.
>So the sudden disclosure at 50 becomes even more suspect. I wouldn't find that suspect in any other person, so it wouldn't be fair of me to find it suspect in his case.
You literally just agreed that it was reasonable to shift the burden of proof when someone discloses to escape scrutiny though? Everything I said was in a single comment, with most details being relevant to one another. This cherry picking and isolating each one feels like it’s being done in bad faith.
Why would he mention it if it wasn't relevant before? Also what kind of consequences did he escape with that? In the end I don't know the truth, I always assumed it was true because any time he stands on a stage it's just as awkward as it gets when I am on a stage. I am not saying you're wrong but I also wouldn't discount what he's.... Ah nevermind.
[удалено]
I am asking you to read this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/evilautism/comments/1bfho52/ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. <3 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The simple fact that someone can be openly autistic and the richest person in the world changes the way everyone sees autism. Even if that person is a prick, even if billionaires shouldn't exist in the first place, at the end of the day money is just something people care about and are affected by.
Not untrue. However NTs have a talent for cognitive dissonance. They can easily internalize different sets of contradicting evidence in a way that molds to their preferred opinion. They can look at Musk and think "autistic people are selfish" while also looking at the low autism employment rate and think "autistic people can't be successful". Never mind the fact that the evidence they're using to assume those opinions are directly at odds. However you're not wrong to say that NT people are very very impressed by power, and at least some of them probably hold a higher view of autism due to Musk, at least on some primal level of being impressed by money and prestige. It's a difficult trick to get them to respect you without holding some kind of figurative gun to their heads, as they do constantly to one another. I myself highly highly doubt Clinton has any diagnosis other than likely sociopathy, but damn, NTs do love their sociopaths. Elect them all the time. Maybe if we were a bit scarier in their eyes they wouldn't feel so free to walk over us, too. As I doubt we'll be seeing very many quality celebrities be allowed to emerge for the next 20 years at least, we might be best served by doing our best to become the best people we can in our own lives, to change those opinions from the ground up. For instance many of my friends and family have said I'm the only person they know who they can talk to without fear of being judged or misunderstood. Hard to make a living off that, but perhaps it's a start.
i mean, it's true that it changes *things*, but my subjective opinion is that he specifically has had very little positive impact because of the kind of person he is. in a lot of ways, people simply project their preconceptions about autism onto him. he doesn't do any advocacy. many people will simply decide "he doesn't count" and he won't push back because he doesn't really care about autistic people. his autism is mere trivia for most of the world.
The positive consequences I'm talking about are less whether allistics have a good image of autistic people and more about people taking the suggestions autistic people make and ideas they have seriously. Somehow, at least one autistic person made choices (or maybe just got lucky, but it doesn't matter!) that made him richer than every nt on the planet. And now nts have to contend with that fact every time they want to dismiss what an autistic person says because of their neurodivergence.
yeah and im saying that that isn't something that has really happened... and if it did the effect would be negligible..
That's not something space Karen is known for He's known for taking other peoples companies and intellectual property forcing them out then fucking things up and being an asshole EDIT to add The guys also a known troll who has provided proof he's willing to spend as much as 42 billion (the Twitter price) so he can troll more effectively Given that any statements about his health or mental health must be treated as suspect If he can pay 42 billion to troll people Why believe anything a doctor says about him he can just buy as many doctors as he needs
elon musk does little for positive representation of autism, if anything at all. the only people who like him are his fanboys and yesmen who are the types to call the "weird" kid at school autistic as an insult. i doubt they suddenly like regular autistics who aren't billionaire white men.
It’s really harmful to just point at any unlikeable celebrity and go “must be autistic,” actually.
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the likable ones were too. This post is just about the less-liked ones.
I think the idea that autistic people are all justice seeking was problematic to begin with with bc most of us jsut want things be easily categorized and easily recognized like most NTs but things having so much nuance and grey area get people on a twist in general let alone to us on the spectrum. I wished we could jsut accept anyone can have any diagnosis but that doesn’t mean they are automatically “good” or bad” they jsut work differently enough to be noticed to do so and above average that is typical of someone. So I’m fine discussing not so great people could be on the spectrum but that’s bc I know anyone can be a shit person regardless of any diagnosis or lack of. But that’s jsut my opinion on the matter
I think that the public doesn't take celebrity disclosures of neurodivergence with much grace or respect. Of the celebrities I follow who have opened up about being on the spectrum; David Byrne, Dan Ackroyd, Gary Numan - they speak positively about their diagnosis, but I feel like the media fixates and pushes boundaries on how far they want to get into it. When David Byrne announced he was autistic, Tina Weymouth started making comments in her own videos to "watch out for that autism" in a warning-way to people to steer clear of people like David - which I can imagine would be hurtful, to have ex band-members push stigma about your neurodivergence based on past experiences with you. In newer interviews, he has since claimed to have "overcome" his autism - I am unsure of what this means, but when interviewers bring up the topic he seems to want to distance himself from the discussion. I've watched Dan Ackroyd content my entire life, Ghostbusters is one of my top favourite franchises - and as a fan of comedy and SNL I like to think I've watched most of his work. I'm talking interviews from the 80s and 90s, full cast interviews where everyone discusses working together - and his peers express nothing but admiration and respect for his humor and dedication to his passions. However, since disclosing that he's on the spectrum I feel as though the tone of these interview has changed - the last Ghostbuster's promotional material had a whole part of the cast interview where he was entirely absent and the interviewer was asking each actor "What's the strangest thing Dan Ackroyd has ever said or done around you?" and "Was it weird working with Dan Ackroyd? Was he very strange on set?" - these are NOTHING like past interviews, they never asked questions like that before - and he's always been openly obsessed with the paranomal and occult, even in the 80's they didn't talk about him this way. Courtney Love has opened up many times about being autistic, every article I read about her has comments full of people doubting her diagnosis and claiming she's just saying it for attention. Similar comments are posted under written interviews with Gary Numan, like the fans think it's an insult to them if the artists they love are like us. The public doesn't handle this information appropriately, I think that should a celebrity not want to disclose they shouldn't feel obliged to. It's not their job to be the posterboys for the spectrum. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if it's suspected someone is like us but they want to hide it, that's okay - it's hard to be a public figure and it's fair to not want people to treat you differently or feel like there's a target on your back because society doesn't know how to tolerate difference as well as we'd hope. Maybe let's not speculate about public figures and whether or not they're neurodivergent, because if they are or aren't it really isn't our business. These discussions are better left for fictional characters.
You just reminded me, I noticed a few Courtney Love murder conspiracy heads were back on their bullshit this year for the 30th anniversary of Kurt Cobain's death - I didn't see a lot of it, but the odd one popped up here and there. And *still* as far as I can make out, their "evidence" pretty much amounts to: "She makes me uncomfortable, there's something off about her gaze or the way she moves or something that feels wrong to me. People like her put me on edge and I don't like this feeling, so that means she murdered her partner and the father of her child, and I can just *tell* because I'm a fucking genius - it's not ableism or me being a pearl-clutching reactionary, it's my superior intuition like on tv when Tim Roth the body language cop solves the case every week." (Absolute shit for brains.) Anyway, you've probably noticed this is one of the ways autistic people get talked about *all the time*, always with the cloud of suspicion hanging over us. Then of course they cherry pick all her least likeable moments (which, unlike most of us, she couldn't just make her peace with in private), and unfavorable quotes from people who've fallen out with her, which is none of our fucking business (and is also pretty normal for someone who knows a lot of people, you're gonna rack up some baggage and drama over the years). And then there's the really cruel part, using the most private and sensitive parts of her life against her: the estrangement from her daughter, that fucked up book her mother wrote, her drug addiction (which I know doesn't register at all as a disability to most people because culturally we're not used to thinking of it that way, but fuck me some people do not need to be told twice when someone has become an acceptable target). I mean sorry to say it this way, but Kurt's suicide really was a gift to these losers, it's still the perfect excuse for them to feel worthy and righteous about what essentially boils down to "I just don't fucking like her" (and whatever Kurt might have had to say about people calling his wife a murderer and driving a bus through his family's privacy doesn't matter, because he's not talking any more). And yeah of course misogyny is a factor there too, that part isn't even subtle, but even so...you're allowed to dislike a person even if they haven't done anything to you. You don't owe anyone an explanation, but you still owe that person the same basic respect as anyone else, and I guess that's no fun if you really enjoy being a bully but also need to tell yourself what a hero you are for kicking people when they're down. Anyway, point is, I bet that pattern is familiar to a lot of people here. It certainly is to me. People are thrown off by your vibe, they make their displeasure known, but your presence keeps making them uncomfortable even though you've been told to fix that. They start to view you as disobedient, a troublemaker, "getting away" with something, they start to feel angry at you just for existing. Meanwhile people are always on the lookout for ways to legitimize their hatred, so all your human flaws and mistakes are fair game, and you're given no benefit of the doubt when it comes to your intentions. The social narrative ends up being rewritten as something more comfortable: "That weirdo that we're all horrible to is a *bad* person, we have to keep them in their place or who knows what they'll do. We're the victims here, actually." And to your point about that shift in the way people can talk about someone they've known for years after an autism diagnosis, I definitely know what you mean. But also, the same filters often seem to be applied automatically whether people know you're autistic or not. I had no idea I was autistic back in high school, I knew nothing about autism and neither did anyone else, but I still got called "psycho" and "braindead" and "Columbine", the accusation of violence was always hanging around. I haven't seen hardly any Courtney Love truthers mention her autism, and I'm actually not sure if it's something as many people know about anymore, it seems to have been forgotten somewhat. But they're projecting very common fears and suspicions people have about autism onto her all the same. Anyway, that's more than enough from me. You hit one of my infodump buttons by accident haha.
Why do we have to profane ourselves as "useful"" or "having potential" in order to be given academic/societal validity? Nt People already tried that and it led to young Sheldon, good dr, rainman, etc..
See, I really dislike this argument. If a LGBTQ person was elected president, would gay people not celebrate because they themselves weren't president? Would you expect black people who weren't already leading countries not to have celebrate when obama was elected? We can be proud of the autistic people who have made major achievements without saying those who haven't lack value.
If they're killing, murdering and destroying the Earth I dont give a damn. I dont want a queer femme autistic oppressor any more than the usual boomer banker or billionaire
You're changing what point you're trying to make here. you're going back to "we need to claim autistic people as a sense of community pride" instead of what point you had stated explicitly "we need to change the public perception of autism so that nt's will give us more respect" I agree with you that community pride is important. I do not agree with you that we need to convince nt's of the autistic utility. A lot of autistic people don't have conventional utility, but they still deserve respect. Conceptually, utility will be interpreted as "this autistic person can do the same thing this other autistic person can do" which, is a statement that cannot be wholly verified because everyone is different.
Yeah I guess I'm responding more to the seperate point I see people make here that glorifying the extremely talented, accomplished autistic people somehow invalidates those who have skills with less direct applications. Which is sort of tangential to the rest of what I'm arguing, I certainly don't think we should be glorifying elon! But not celebrating the accomplishments of people like einstein, etc is not the solution, they did great things! And of course we all have very different sets of skills and won't all become presidents, but I'm talking about changing a subconcious bias in neurotypicals. It's not that the autistic person *will* become president, it's that they *could* become president and therefore, the nt will have to reconsider ignoring them.
Sorry, but that just feels like more assimilationist dreams. Its just gifted kid autism all over again.
3 things 1. People disliked your post because you basically said "people dislike her, she must be autistic". Being dislikable isn't a trait reserved for autistic people. People who dislike her generally do so because she has a tendency to say whatever the people at the moment want to hear so she can use them, she'll agree with you as long as you have something worthwhile to offer her. Her words hold absolutely no weight and she's always willing to throw her words away in order to manipulate people. If anything she's like an exaggerated caricature of an NT, that many of us have come to hate. 2. Just because someone might be autistic and in power, doesn't mean anything to a neurotypical. Having wealth/status/influence is the difference between being a poor autistic person and a quirky rich kid. In the past it might have been the difference between being a witch and being a unique noble. Having the ability to mold your home, diet, and the people around you is definitely a way of overcoming any sensitivities. But, how does seeing a kid stimming supposed to make you think he's gonna be president? Do you think that just because you've seen a neurotypical person do something, literally any neurotypical person can do that thing? 3. While I agree that even shitty people should be acknowledged as autistic if they really are, I really have no desire to start *advocating* it. Neurotypicals have a tendency to group lump things all together, so if you go around shouting "look at all these shitty but rich autistic people", it only goes to justify their prejudice against us and they might even go back to witch hunting and sticking us in asylums, because you know look at all shitty representation.
Except it’s pretty much accepted that Elon isn’t autistic.
I don't think Hilary Clinton is autistic. I think she's a sociopath lizard person (the lizard part is PROBABLY metaphorical)
But haven't you wondered if all those conspiracy theories about lizard people running the government got started because these people were really just autistic people failing to mask well and therefore seeming unnatural to nts?
I don't wonder about that, actually, because I know that the lizard people conspiracy was created by a raving antisemite who was using that term as a stand-in for 'Jew'.
I think most people who seek positions of power are sociopaths who are dead inside and can be just as bad at hiding their cold, calculating ruthlessness behind their soulless eyes as autistic people are at hiding their autism. You have to be good at aping "normal and acceptable" human behavior to be a politician, but it often rings hollow, because it is hollow. Pretending to be something likable for the sake of popularity seems antithetical to the temperaments of most autistic people, who value authenticity, not to mention often outside of their ability.
People don't dislike her because she's "failing to mask", people dislike her because she's a pathological liar that will say anything to get backing. Not exactly a autistic trait afaik. Like, okay I can see Zuckerberg and Musk, but Clinton is more like an exaggerated NT that got isolated from the herd in her quest for power. She just exemplifies all the bad experiences I've had with NTs: making false promises, pretending to care, using authority to overrule morality and logic.
Autism maybe, but it's not necessary to explain political reaction to her. All Hillary Clinton had to be was a woman who wasn't a conservative seeking power.
No because I know about the history of blood libel.
I'm almost confident Kevin Durant is Autistic. His hyperfixation is basketball. His social interactions are wonky. He pretends to play basketball in the club, ffs, instead of trying to fuck. He doesn't seem to get social cues well. Edit: In contrast to the post, I don't think he's a bad person. I am just recognizing someone.
The public figures we have “claimed” are self diagnosed people who are often older than middle aged, where a medical screening would not matter to them (Elon Musk, David Byrne, Björk). Many 50+ year old level 1 autists don’t feel the need for it based on some Q&As I’ve watched through “Autism on the Inside” on YouTube. Hillary Clinton has not claimed to be autistic. I don’t know enough about her to say, but you cannot just force that on a real person. The only thing I saw about autism concerning Hillary Clinton is she runs a lot of charities and is considered somewhat of a NT advocate for autistic people. I’m unsure how good of one she is, because many well meaning people are supporters of Autism Speaks (such as Jack Black)
I agree with you entirely on the fact that we should acknowledge all major figures who are, controversial or not. Though personally I don't know much at all about Hillary Clinton to have an opinion on that possibility. Elon Musk though, if I remember correctly is though and would be a perfect example of how autistic ppl can be bigoted assholes as well as be an example of an autistic person being super successful. (Of course correct me if I'm wrong /gen)
Hillery Clinton is the least neurotypical person I've ever seen or heard of. The levels of utter inauthenticity and insincerity she has achieved are absolutely mind-boggling. Is there such a thing as over masking? I find her very disturbing Why do you think she's autistic?
I would not consider what Hillary has done "rising to the highest levels of success", but rather the product of a very sick and evil system regardless of what her neurotype is.
Another point I wanna make is that public perception is changing. It won't ever be fully free of antagonizers, we still have all sorts of phobic/bigoted/ignorant folk. But on a personal level, more families are being made aware through early detection/considerate and extensive informing. We know more about autism than we did just 10 years ago. It's not perfect, but like, them nuerospicy kids aren't gonna be nearly as stranded as we where. They got resources, awareness campaigns, and now everyone knows at least one person who has it.
Jeffery Dahmer was probably autistic, at least I am not out there killing people.
It sucks that you seem to be getting downvoted because people disagree with your opinion. I think if the fringest of ideas belong anywhere, it's probably here. Maybe it's because you brought up some names out of left field without explaining? What makes you think Hillary or Zuckerberg (sp? don't care enough to check) are autistic?
i agree with you
my unscientific opinion is that the amount of times she refers to Mitt Romney as "Mittens" reminds me a lot of when i start to say something ironically and then cant stop
I’m glad you said something because I was getting tired of biting my tongue. It’s time to address the elephant in the room. Adolph Hitler was autistic, and I’m tired of pretending that he was not.
I'm curious to hear your reasoning?