Would you be happy to accept MAP as a form of neurodiversity (that may be our only option)

[TheHamilplexOfficial]

I would be very against this. Probably because I'm against the very concept of neuro-diversity as well.

im confused as to what you mean by this

[bnkywuv]

Another person who's heard of James! I'd say yes under our current cultural understanding of the term. For bonobos it's natural.

[bnkywuv]

I would be very against this. Probably because I'm against the very concept of neuro-diversity as well.

I'm curious. Why is that? How would you describe differences among people? Would you come up with a different term for it?

[RoosterDance]

im confused as to what you mean by this

I'm curious. Why is that? How would you describe differences among people? Would you come up with a different term for it?

When I hear talk of neurodiversity, all I see is yet another arbitrarily defined line to divide people with. Except this one isn't even well defined. How do you even measure neurodiversity? Answer: you don't. Someone just decides who's in that group and who isn't.

I would not come up with a different term for it. The very act of doing so is what encourages people to see those in the other group as non-people. Or as some sort of aberration that needs to be corrected.

I would describe the differences in people by saying that people are just naturally different, in ways that go far beyond simple things like skin color or what they like to eat. All too often, people underestimate the extent of natural human diversity and this is a more concrete manifestation of that underestimation. The idea of the neurotypical, the belief that there is some standard that most people neatly fit into, is a myth. It's not accurate and, furthermore, it's too simple.

Life, and especially the people in it, are too complex to be explained by such simple binaries.

[TheHamilplexOfficial]

im confused as to what you mean by this

I'm curious. Why is that? How would you describe differences among people? Would you come up with a different term for it?

When I hear talk of neurodiversity, all I see is yet another arbitrarily defined line to divide people with. Except this one isn't even well defined. How do you even measure neurodiversity? Answer: you don't. Someone just decides who's in that group and who isn't.

I would not come up with a different term for it. The very act of doing so is what encourages people to see those in the other group as non-people. Or as some sort of aberration that needs to be corrected.

I would describe the differences in people by saying that people are just naturally different, in ways that go far beyond simple things like skin color or what they like to eat. All too often, people underestimate the extent of natural human diversity and this is a more concrete manifestation of that underestimation. The idea of the neurotypical, the belief that there is some standard that most people neatly fit into, is a myth. It's not accurate and, furthermore, it's too simple.

Life, and especially the people in it, are too complex to be explained by such simple binaries.

ohhhhhhhhhh i see what u mean yea

[Bookshelf]

Maybe as a stepping stone but personally I wouldn't accept it forever. This idea that it's not normal, when apparently the governments and LEA's of this world go on about how it's a pandemic in society with maps everywhere you look. Well which is it? If there are so many maps among us then isn't that kind of what normal means?

It's so abnormal that they have to repeatedly convince every little community to stop doing it. Practically every time a historical western government found a new community (tribe, country, etc), they were more than likely doing it, and they had to be convinced to stop. Unless they repeatedly pump out propaganda in local communities, the amount of people doing it and accepting it creeps up.

Just goes to show how abnormal it is, that without intervention it's everywhere. /s

[OnionPetal]

[...] Unless they repeatedly pump out propaganda in local communities, the amount of people doing it and accepting it creeps up. [...]

I very much agree. It's a type of social engineering that has to be propped up to stay standing.

That said, society's attitude is also a product of manufactured hysteria. Fortunately, with all the insane prosecutions for fiction lately, I think we're seeing peak hysteria. It only goes downhill from here, as the lifestyle of hysteria shows patterns of increasing counter-evidence, normalisastion, scepticism, and fatigue, as the hysteria declines. But the institutions will fight hard to prop it up, although inevitably they will start to lose mainstream public support.

[CantChainTheSpirit]

It's so abnormal that they have to repeatedly convince every little community to stop doing it. Practically every time a historical western government found a new community (tribe, country, etc), they were more than likely doing it, and they had to be convinced to stop. Unless they repeatedly pump out propaganda in local communities, the amount of people doing it and accepting it creeps up.

Just goes to show how abnormal it is, that without intervention it's everywhere. /s

Very well said. It's imperialism, not nature.