almandite's so-called rebuttal

Predictably, she says I misrepresent her, and refers to me as a troll. Anyone who calls them on their nonsense is somehow a troll. "Discussion" to them can't be anything other than agreement and reinforcement. I didn't make a post to counter her simply because she deletes my comments. If she and the other creeps won't let my responses be heard, I make even longer ones on my own territory so others can view. That's why I've written all of the posts I've done so far. I wondered if it would convince them to consider letting me comment on their place instead, as it wouldn't be as scathing. I just don't want to let their despotic bullshit go unchallenged. She then explains herself as if she's just writing her thoughts and considerations of things, as if she's not trying to prove points.

"It is a crime to be shocked by and proud of your students?" Why misrepresent what you're proud of and blow it out of proportion? If she's so proud, why won't she just act pleased with only what went well?
"Is it a crime to engage in armchair philosophy–armchair only because I haven’t finished my degree?" It should be expected to have some real reasoning for the expressed thoughts, and not have ridiculous conclusions that don't follow from the premises. But I've basically seen an attempt to make a point that many others with the same ploy are trying to make. The level of misconception caused by all of those trying to lie about what intelligence is, is something to be noticed and complained of.

"this is the internet. If you don’t like it, don’t read it" Got to be fucking kidding me! As if she doesn't tend to have many readers who consider her ideas seriously, isn't talking of a contentious issue, isn't trying to convince readers one way or the other about it, isn't one among a bunch of other similar characters who push the same agenda, and as if she isn't in contact with those other characters, even having them on her blogroll. She shouldn't try to dupe me into thinking that what she says has no potential effect on anyone, regarding issues that concern many.

Then she makes fun of me for having weak reading comprehension. If she likes to antagonize others based on their abilities, that completely disproves that she supposedly thinks impairments aren't misfortunate or problematic. She of course, is trying to backtrack what she said to protect her reputation after I explained her for what she is.
"I have never tried to argue that my students are not seriously impaired, or that language and communication are not important."
Bullshit!: "I’m not convinced that lacking language is the cruel blow it’s often thought of" Saying that belies that one thinks that language and communication are important. You can't talk the way she does of things and not be one who undermines the understanding of how problematic severe impairment is.
"Hardly. I am attempting to ascertain what, exactly, these “real professionals” are saying, and how that fits in with my experience." She should read up on it and act like she has done so.

Then she pathetically tries to refute my slamming her for saying: "Intelligence, if it means anything to me, is a light, a brightness behind someone’s eyes, a spark thrown off by the working gears of their mind."
with this: "What? No. No no no.
First of all, I am a homo homo sapiens, not vermin. But nice insult. It seems, to me, to signal the beginnings of ravings.
Secondly, I was, in the paragraph referenced, revering to common usages of the word “intelligence”. " Nothing was cleared up to her credit. Just showing that she can't handle my castigation or being called basically an asshole.

"This is not tantamount to calling my students gifted or nondisabled." I know she wouldn't just come out and say that, or simply try to convince others of exactly that. That doesn't mean she's not implicitly undermining the realization of how severe and devastating mental impairments are, through making sweeping statements using slight progress as examples.
"Take anything out of context" The context excuse is getting really old.
"Said it was morally repugnant to write someone off, to say that they are sub-human because of their intellect." No. Don't pretend you said things you didn't in an order you didn't. Saying someone lacks intelligence isn't the same as writing them off.

"I am more optimistic, more determined, than you. I see their futures differently. I don’t waste my time with horror and pity–I do something about it." Optimistic about what? What goal? You aren't determined to end the suffering. When have you asked them what they want you to be determined to do for them, how much they want in the long run? Where is their consent for you to see their futures in the way you do, and to talk of their futures in such a way? It's no skin off your nose if all that would benefit them isn't done.

"I see we have moved from personal attacks into sheer delusions. I am working to give these kids a self-determined life" The way you talk is detrimental to their self-determination. You don't represent them. The euphemistic talk you throw in is degrading. How are you acting in accord with their own conscious efforts and wishes in their own interests?
"and even harder for them" At least this is truthful. I think the much harder work of them should be compensated with a future of independence and prosperity, that isn't less than that of those who don't have to work anywhere near as hard.
"So yeah, I’ll celebrate the small victories" Why do you do it the way you do?

Privileged snots who tell fairy tales

This girl named Julia or whatever her name is, over at almandite.wordpress.com, has been talking of her experiences working in Lifeskills helping out mentally disabled children, among other things she talks of in which she gives off a facade of emotionally fragile thinking. Recently, she's been describing the slight progress a couple of the children that she works with have made, to try to basically prove that they and others aren't really cognitively disabled and that language abilities aren't necessary.

She admits she's rambling, yet expects to be seriously considered in her attempt to contradict what real professionals know and have proven about what intelligence is. Then this little vermin claims that intelligence is a brightness behind someone's eyes and shit like that. Like we should just be delighted and heartwarmed when hearing a sweet, hysterically emotional statement such as that. Fuck that shit, and fuck her! Then she claims it's morally repugnant to say someone lacks intelligence. Where does this hysterically senseless college prima donna get off talking such phony shit of those who have such bleak and limited futures? Nobody living prominently would dare be expected to go on in such a deprived status that would be the subject of such euphemistic bullshit!

She seems to just like her maternalisic relationship with the children she works with, who are out of any position to compete with her. I bet she likes the idea that there are some who wouldn't have an easy time standing up to her. She can pat on the head those who she wants to perceive as helpless who she wants to remain helpless, and correspondingly pat herself on the back. I refuse to ignore the controlling mindset of hers. I hate that she doesn't consider the contrast between her own fortuntate mental strength and the large lack thereof in those who she patronizes. She and others just love having what so many others don't have, and keeping it for themselves. Someone who has a gifted IQ saying that intelligence isn't important or even meaningful. Who does she think she's fooling? I'd like to see this hog give up her IQ points and then say it's alright to be cognitively disabled!

The "downtrodden" undermining the downtrodden

I just can't keep ignoring Kowalski's affront to real mentally disabled people who really have to deal with getting services from one's government due to really needing them. She's been implying lately that she is really impaired, partly by claiming that she needs government benefits and even a caregiver from the government to visit her, while what she writes about herself belies any such need. She was complaining that her caregiver hasn't visited in a while and that she needs help applying for benefits. And now she claims she has a cleaner. I bet she doesn't consider how ironic it is that she complains of living in a nanny state, while the goals she moans in favor of would leave real disabled autistics permanently beholden to and dependent on the same kind of nanny states she mentions.

She knows it would appear extra brutal and mean if she railed against the need of cure of the truly disabled on the spectrum, if she was known to others as someone who isn't impaired and is highly capable. I can still tell what a monster she is. If only she didn't portray herself as a downtrodden and unfortunate member of some underclass, I wonder how she would bolster her credibility to talk so much about issues of mental disability, especially of her nonsensical incessant application of banal identity politics to autism. There isn't much else to see in what she writes besides ableism this, ableist that, amongst other drivel she rants about. Why should she be considered as being serious with real disabilty issues while she rants on so much about unrelated issues?

This liar even claimed that successful autistics are all throughout the spectrum, due to perseveration, as if nobody on the spectrum is deprived of the mental resources needed to produce success. From that, one would likely conclude that unsuccessful ones just need to keep at what they're trying to do and to try harder, and that highly successful ones just succeeded due to persistence and not due to starting out with a high amount of potential which they didn't work for. I think the ones with impairments have struggled enough. This woman is extremely disgusting to me. I hope there aren't too many out there who are convinced by her distortions, as that would prevent true progress.

Phil Gluyas resents disabled autistics

Phil Gluyas is at it again contradicting things I say on the blog he uses to bash me, doing so using no sense at all. He tried to defend the conclusions made from the currently useless UK study I complained about, by saying that the autistics in institutions are a "rather large minority", whatever the fuck that means. This creep is trying to pretend the ones living in those shitholes don't count or don't still exist in significant numbers. He likely hasn't even considered that there could be ones who are homeless. He explains the study saying some shit about specialized employment programs and assimilation into society.

Now this bastard has said that LFAs aren't disabled, and that they're only disabled if they choose to be!! Then he viciously attacked someone's character, by giving an example of one he claims chose to be disabled. Then he went on with the usual inane bullshit that the impairment comes from society. How isn't he contradicting himself when he says that society causes impairment but an LFA is disabled by choice? I wonder how one is to choose not to be disabled. How does one abide by that suck it up, work harder till you drop ideal? I wonder what he expects them to do and try to do. I wonder what pitfalls he would warn them about, considering he once said this: "I constantly find LF's that try to operate like HF's and fail badly - and gives us all a bad name in the process" This mook doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's clearly been following the tactics and explanations of the rest of the neurodiverse freaks, unlike when he used to say what he really thought. He continues to be extremely self-centered and self-loving, and seems to think everything revolves around him, and that he is the final authority on anything he wants to talk about. But Phil isn't too popular with the other ND pushers, but it seems they keep him around to intimidate others and shout them down for going against ND. He's been quoted by others on Aspies For Freedom as saying: “Why do you think she was booted from AFF - aside from being a SELF CONFESSED LFA! (who BTW are INHERENTLY not intelligent – unlike HFA and Aspergers!"

He caught a lot of flack on there for saying that, so then he on that forum defended what he said using his clear understanding that IQ is a sign of functioning level. He even said a particular person was LFA because he thought her contributions to the internet are "hollow and repetitive". He was eventually banned from AFF. ND doesn't consider what he says to be a problem enough for them to go against him and forgo using him for their dictatorial cause. Alongside that, the stronger neurodiverse influence over his disordered ideas, is obvious now as he still works with them.

He still maintains his humungous ego through his ridiculous blogs that bash me and others when we make posts, along with his group of obscure assholes who back him up on his insults of others. I bet they're sock puppets of his. He bans my IP from his website and if I try to go on there it says: "has been banned as it has been used by a person or persons who represent a threat to the mental health of the owner of this website" What a pretentious jerk off! Anyone who sticks to their disagreement with him to his face, is supposedly a threat to his precious vulnerable mental health, which needs delicate protection, as if this lunatic has any mental health!

Starving the trolls

Sadderbutwisergirl has a new post up where she pretends that a diagnosis/label of aspergers is something that some autistics are just "dubbed" with, as if it has nothing to do with apparent level of disability and lack thereof. She also went on portraying the curing of those who are low-functioning as an extermination, typical of her hysteria where she likes to accuse anyone who favors cure of being a nazi. I think it's interesting that she let it slip that she knows that there are varying degrees of disability within the spectrum. She then went on with a misleading bizarre interpretation of the curative approach to the problem, and then she throws in a quote from Orwell. Damn, I hate it when so many individuals make hackneyed references to Orwell to prop up reactionary ideals, and to belittle helpful progressive measures.

She deleted all of my comments on her post after a while. She accused me somewhere of having only skimmed over her post. She even refers to my commenting with my opinion as "derailing the conversation", when conversation wasn't even really happening anyway. She, like the others, wouldn't mind having a dissent-free group think conversation, with nothing but pats on the back, and extra phony rhetoric in an echo chamber. Any talking to them that disagrees with them, is called trolling by them over and over. Then they come up with new slogans/phrases like "don't feed the trolls" and "concern troll". They often can't come up with anything cogent to refute what's been said to them, so their insults tell me that they're just full of shit.

I wonder if that accusation of skimming is just another example of those on her side deeming anyone who doesn't agree with what they say as having not listened to them, as if knowing what they say must lead one to agree with it as if it's fact. I don't like how she pretends to be some underdog prone to being mistreated, who so self-righteously knows so much better than others about how to handle these issues, sometimes with her black and white thinking, just because some entities have been assholes to her in the past. She is neither sad nor wise.

Fudging the numbers

I saw a new post by abfh, where she claims that most autistic adults are employed, citing a recent UK study about autistic adults, which was discussed by Joseph. That study only included ones living in houses, not ones living in institutions. That is obvious from just looking at the title of the study. I wonder what excuse she has for omitting that important fact which shatters the validity of what she concluded from the study. I think she's very comfortable with that lie, as it's part of the recent tactic of the neurodiverse hysterics, to pretend and try to get people to believe that the low-functioning don't really exist, by claiming they're only a small minority of the spectrum, among other nonsense. Since they could not justify to enough people their anti-cure crusade to maintain the obvious wide disparities in ability within the spectrum, they now resort to deny reality even further through implying that almost nobody on the spectrum is impaired, like autism only concerns high-functioning poindexters.

I even saw someone basically say that the majority even of LFA aren't very impaired. Corina commented on the blog that Phil Gluyas made to rebut and bash me, that it can't be assumed that anyone labeled HFA is less disabled than someone labeled LFA, as she says she sees no evidence of that. She pretends to know so fucking much as she departs from common sense and common knowledge on autism. I wonder if she'd like to imply that she has more impairments than someone who is LFA. She also implies somewhere else that Aspergers makes up a very large part of the 1 in 100 prevalence statistic. She implies I'm full of shit by saying that all I know about autism is from unnamed internet sources, because I don't specifically enumerate the various sources I've received information about autism from. I'd like to know where this phony bitch gets her information, and what autistics she chooses to interact with to base her claims on. The cruelty by which they deny what is going on is amazing, and they act like it's a joke.

response to "Kowalski Discovers The Cure!"

Someone called Kowalski says the idea of a cure for the disabling aspects of autism doesn't make sense, as she claims the disabling aspects are the "flipsides" of the amazing capabilities that "they" have. Well, that seems so convincing since she decided not to mention that the disabling aspects are concentrated in the autistics who are lower functioning, the same ones who get few of the benefits, while the ones on the spectrum who get the lion's share of the amazing capabilities, are often the ones who aren't saddled with the burden of the disabling aspects, and go on without impairments. So when it comes to an individual, the disabling aspects aren't inseparable from the capabilities. But across the spectrum, the flipsides are inherent.

This is another instance of an anti-cure slime disregarding and lying about the tremendous gap in functional level between the very high-functioning aspies and the similar, and the low-functioning. Some of them even pretend to be disgusted by the idea of involving hierarchy, by saying they don't like the hierarchy that the use of high and low functioning labels creates! Heeelllooo?! The hierarchy is already around, and has been around for a long time, the same hierarchy that you benefit from, and consequently support and defend with considerable effort! What do you think it's called the autistic SPECTRUM for? These phonies are not clueless about the unfair reality, and are basically trying to distract and confuse others from it and about it, to keep themselves from looking like the greedy elites that they really are!