disclose about oneself or mislead about others

Sarah's recent post over at autisticcats.blogspot.com is yet another undermining of what can be considered disabilty. A very cruel one in my opinion. She ponders what it is like to disclose one's identity of autism and what worries her about it, and complains of possible negative reactions towards her from others from it. I'm disturbed by seeing this nonsense about "invisible" disability and "disclosure", which she brings up.

She has no business claiming any "identity" as a disabled person if it's based on ideas like "invisible disability" and disclosure of "disability". If one has a real mental disability, there's no such thing as concealing it for significant amounts of time, therefore any question of disclosure of it is absurd. Such a disability is apparent eventually as complete sets of abilities are very often needed and shortfalls in them are noticeable. I'm talking common sense here. There is no way of avoiding the specific problems resulting from it, without keeping away from the situations involved. The way it is now, being known as autistic along with mental health "stuff", as she describes, doesn't necessarily qualify as disability, or at least shouldn't be considered to.

The implications of someone who isn't impaired disclosing a diagnosis, are way different compared to those that would result based on someone who is significantly impaired. I can't determine what motivation she would have to tell others about her autism, and what reasonable outcome she would look for. I don't know what understanding of her from others she seeks. If only she wouldn't misconstrue the basic concept of what disability is by even just bringing it into her trivial discussion of disclosure and others' reactions to disclosure. Her reputation with those she knows at graduate school likely isn't delicate or in turmoil, as it would be for those who are known to be impaired and who are in less rewarding settings. When those in her position talk to others they know about their autism, I can't expect that their descriptions of it to them won't be done in a way that will distort others' perceptions of what it can be like for many of those with autism and how it should be handled.

How dare she complain about "ableism", with her directing indignation at the disabled themselves! And for what? For viewing disability as awful and tragic! (As if such a natural thought would have to be taught.) Her and the other vermin shouldn't go on the assumption that autism presupposes disability, as many of them themselves lack disability, unless they would consider questioning whether or not they should be labeled autistic. I surely don't expect them to not consider themselves autistic, but it must be acknowledged that those highly-abled autistics do not have a stake in the disability issue that concerns autism. They don't bear the burden of the impairments that they declare as being just and not of negative quality.

Crazed hysteria derived ideology

Two of the shit talking creeps I've previously written about, are saying some weird things this time in their pursuits to craft the perception that others have of them regarding what they preach. Almandite is at it again with her applying her own emotional instability to issues that affect far many others besides her in ways she doesn't bear the highest burden of. She claims that independent living at college isn't going well for her but she can't explain why or what's making it problematic. What a fucking joke.

One either has a problem or doesn't, and explaining it shouldn't be a mystery. When I was away at college for the first semester, I knew what awful problems I had in living on my own around others at the dormitory which led me to leave the dorm, and I knew what I was feeling about it. I had my mind on real problems. I hurt over real problems. She hasn't enumerated any actual problems she has with living on her own, but rather seems to be to an unbalanced emotional wreck. She goes on with some daft ideas about what others may be thinking about her in regards to her wanting and seeking help and other things, which she admits they may not even be thinking and haven't even said to her.

Then this freak goes on to cite her own crazed circumstances and thoughts to back up her vile claim that independence shouldn't be pushed, and again bashes the recognition of functional levels. Then she works her way to a long winded explanation of hers about why independence isn't necessary or wanted by all! She claims she shouldn't be considered high-functioning and even goes on to dismissively complain about the "stereotype" of the low-functioning autistic. I wish she would stop ridiculing the highly disabled on the spectrum, who don't have or need fabricated emotional reasons for why they aren't doing well.

Kowalski just went on with a bunch of pretentious complaints, but also, an interesting list of which groups within neurodiversity she feels compelled to lash out at. I wonder how extreme, or particularly how coercive, she would like the agenda to be. This makes me wonder if she is just a marginal individual within neuroperversity's domain of influence. I'm sick of how she fronts like she's some impressive radical who is all into "social justice" issues, to make what she has to say seem important and helpful and not as just the destructive ideas of a spoiled misanthrope.

I'm convinced this phony is deceptively exaggerating in claiming to be impaired with her ridiculous and contradictory stories of herself. Seems to me she just doesn't want to get a job. This welfare-state leeching gutter rat has no credibility pretending to be a marginalized underdog with progressive virtue. Makes me want to hurl. The hypocrisy of slobs like them makes me cringe in anger. I think it's interesting Kowalski mentions she has difficulty with anger and bites herself, because I also bite myself in anger when reading hers and others' restraining and oppressive lies crafted as anti-oppression.

It would sicken me if slime such as them were accepted to any extent as the voice of disability from the spectrum. The formation of this kind of a perception of the disadvantaged on the spectrum, in the minds of those who have the authority to affect policy, is one that can't be afforded by the highly disabled on the spectrum who are already up against enough problems, especially when it comes to getting access to help.

I'm sitting here while actually being highly disabled, also being confirmed as such with diagnosis, and I have to know that these poindexter scum are out there making a mockery of the reality of mental disability, pretending it makes sense to supposedly care so much yet wanting impairment to remain, all while this comes out of the mouths of those who aren't impaired, many of whom can or will get to live it up as they please if they please!

Where are such choices for everyone else? For those who don't have basic abilities ensured to them who have to deal with others to just get by? For those who don't have genius IQs? Where do they get off omitting to explain how "social justice" isn't violated by those advocates having obscene amounts of abilities and therefore choices and opportunities, while others are forced to begging and neediness? Well, they of course would continue to pretend that no such disparity in opportunity exists, nor that meaningful disparities in ability exist. It enrages me how some of the cognitively privileged so carelessly misuse and waste their opportunities, while I could only dream of what I would do with my ambitions had I possessed their aptitude.

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.