I understand the aversion to "made up words" mainly used by the chronically online Discord teens who completely miss the point, but all words are made up, there's only useful and none useful words. Allistic is useful to me
It seems to me like a vernacular word that happens to be used outside its intended area. Allistic means non-autistic, so if you're discussing autism a lot then it makes sense you have a shorter word that rolls off the tounge. I don't think it serves much function outside of circles where autism is discussed frequently. If talking less is the goal, then saying non-autistic is faster than saying allistic then explaining what allistic means.
Ok, so. I'm not diagnosed with autism, however I do have other mental conditions, I'm not "normal" I'm not "regular" I'm not "neurotypical" I am allistic, because I don't have autism, this argument as I understand it hinges on autism being the only mental disorder, which is untrue, there is nothing wrong with making a word that means something more specific.
Sorry, just like with your video about self-diagnosing, I think you have misidentified what you are actually concerned / disgusted / angry with. In this case, what I hear is that you dislike people who have developed an unnecessary, militant us-against-them mindset in their stance on autism. But the term "allistic" is used much more broadly, including by people who do a lot of good for the situation of autistic people. Completely disagree with your take on the word "normal". In my experience, as soon as you use it to describe one set of people, the rest have no choice but to be "not normal" or "abnormal", with the automatic connotation that there is something wrong with them and that we should do something to make them normal or to ideally not have them come about in the first place. As you say, there is nothing wrong with being different. But labeling everybody who isn't "different" in some significant way as "normal" doesn't help the rest of the world accept "different". Think about how the word "norm" is the basis for "normal" - "norm" comes with a lot of baggage in this context: a standard to be followed, a code, a scheme, a mould to fit into, a rule to be obeyed. You are right in that we shouldn't make small differences unnecessarily big and develop our entire self-image around things that ultimately don't matter. But in a world where non-"normal" people continue to experience real downsides because of their differences, it is both understandable and perhaps even necessary for progress if some become militant about it. Don't understand your associating the use of "allistic" with developing a victim mindset. Maybe you happened to come across a few people who seemed to you to lean in this direction. That doesn't make it universal.
are you that weak as to not take pride in abnormality: normal is a weakness, deviation from the norm can be bad in some situations, but can often be far better than the norm.
I use "allistic" because it's a commonly accepted word with a definition that is shorter than "non-autistic" and less dehumanizing than "normal people." Autistic people have long demonstrated that they posses the same qualities as an allistic person but with a different brain development. To say they aren't normal or to exclude them as "normal" is simply false. The term derives from the Greek "állos" meaning "other" and autistic. Combined, it literally translates to "other than autistic" which is a perfect summary of non-autistic people. I can't really make any claims on "the people who make autism their whole personality" because I've never ran into a real life instance of that being the case. Most autistics I know (including myself) hide the condition from others. I've only ever heard the claim vaguely thrown at another party online when it simply isn't the case. 9/10 times the source of the claim is a single "I'm autistic" in the party's bio
"Allistic" is useful because it contains non-autistic _neurodivergent_ people where as "normal" only describes neurotypical people. That is a very important distinction! Just saying "non-autistic" is fine too but it can get clunky, especially with a lot of other combined-words. And it's good to have synonyms
but then when you say "this is something allistic people don't understand" you 100% only mean normal people, because people with ADHD, dyslexia etc probably do understand, so no one uses it that way
@@kyceessadki2501 but "normal" is a vague non-scientific descriptor with no agreed definition and can be interpreted as only people who are neurotypical. "allistic" easily solves that issue and is a useful scientific/medical term rather than a vibes based one. your counterargument is just silly.
I think that while just using the word "normal" for non-autistic people is fine, there's nothing wrong with using terms like allistic either. The main terms people use for non-autistic people are normal, allistic, and neurotypical, which each have slightly different meanings. Normal just refers to someone who generally fits in with others, really depends on context, but it's clear enough what it means in the context of talking about autism. Allistic is specifically talking about someone who is not autistic, but that doesn't necessarily make them normal, as they could have things like ADHD or personality disorders. Neurotypical is for someone with brain functioning that is considered normal, while neurodivergent is for someone who's brain diverges from the norm. These terms often can be used interchangeably, but they each have their own specific meanings and can all be useful in different contexts.
The argument presented in the video exhibits several logical inconsistencies, emotional reasoning, and misunderstandings of terminology and social dynamics. Below is a detailed breakdown of why the speaker's reasoning is unsound: 1. Misunderstanding the Purpose of Labels Claim: The speaker believes that using the word "allistic" perpetuates the idea that autistic people are "not regular" or "not normal." Flaw: This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of labels in the context of social identity. Labels like "allistic" and "autistic" are not value judgments. They serve to provide clarity and precision in discussions about neurodiversity. Using a specific term like "allistic" avoids the ambiguity of terms like "regular" or "normal," which can carry implicit bias and stigmatize autistic people as inherently irregular or abnormal. The creation of the term "allistic" is to provide a neutral counterpart to "autistic" without assuming that neurotypical people are inherently "regular" or superior, much like how terms like "heterosexual" and "cisgender" were created to avoid implying that heterosexuality or cisgender identity are default or superior states. 2. Conflating Statistical Minority with Abnormality Claim: The speaker states that "autistic people are not normal" because they make up only 1% of the population, using statistics to argue that this makes autistic people inherently abnormal. Flaw: The speaker equates statistical rarity with abnormality or deviance, which is a logical error. Just because something is statistically less common does not make it abnormal in a negative or pathological sense. For example, red-haired people are a small percentage of the global population, but this does not make them "abnormal" or justify labeling them as such in a negative sense. The idea of "normal" is subjective and fluid, depending on cultural, social, and historical contexts. Rarity or minority status does not imply inherent inferiority or deviance, and using it as a justification for rejecting terms like "allistic" is a weak and biased argument. 3. Emotional Appeal and Bias Claim: The speaker describes the word "allistic" as making their "skin crawl" and repeatedly calls it "cringy" without providing substantive reasons for why the word is logically problematic. Flaw: This is an emotional appeal. The speaker's personal distaste for the word is based on subjective feelings rather than objective reasoning. Using emotionally charged terms like "cringy" without further elaboration or logical support weakens the argument by relying on personal discomfort rather than addressing the merits or flaws of the word itself. Emotional reactions do not constitute a sound basis for rejecting terminology, especially when the term serves a useful and clarifying role in discussions about neurodiversity. 4. Ad Hominem Against Users of the Term Claim: The speaker suggests that people who use the term "allistic" are those who make mental illness or neurodiversity central to their identity and who "present themselves as victims." Flaw: This is an ad hominem attack, where the speaker dismisses the term "allistic" by attacking the character or motivations of those who use it, rather than critiquing the word itself. Suggesting that those who use the term are overly focused on their mental health or presenting themselves as victims distracts from the actual debate about whether the term "allistic" is useful or appropriate. It undermines the argument by shifting the focus to personal attacks rather than addressing the substance of the issue. 5. False Dichotomy Between Acceptance and Advocacy Claim: The speaker argues that accepting autism as a "tweak" and learning to function with it is the only healthy approach, and that advocating for changes in language (like using "allistic") is unnecessary and cringy. Flaw: This presents a false dichotomy. The speaker suggests that one must either accept their autism and learn to function in society or be caught up in unnecessary advocacy for special treatment and labels. However, these are not mutually exclusive. One can accept their autism while also advocating for changes in language and perception that reduce stigma and promote understanding. Acceptance and advocacy are not opposing forces; in fact, they often go hand-in-hand for many individuals in the neurodiversity community. The assumption that advocating for the term "allistic" implies a lack of acceptance of one's autism is an oversimplification. Many people advocate for inclusive language precisely because they have accepted their differences and wish to create a more understanding and supportive society. 6. Mischaracterization of Neurodiversity Movement Claim: The speaker frames the use of "allistic" as part of a broader trend where people with autism or other disorders focus too much on their condition and seek "special treatment." Flaw: This misrepresents the neurodiversity movement, which is not about seeking special treatment, but about promoting understanding, acceptance, and accommodation for people with different neurological conditions. The movement seeks to normalize neurological differences and challenge the idea that being neurotypical is the default or superior state. By dismissing it as a desire for victimhood or special treatment, the speaker oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the goals of many within the neurodiversity community, who often seek equity, not special status. 7. Inconsistent Use of Terms Claim: The speaker acknowledges that autism is "not really an illness" but a "disorder," and then seems to argue that autistic people should simply accept being "not normal." Flaw: This inconsistency shows a lack of clarity in the speaker’s understanding of the terminology they are using. On one hand, they reject the pathological framing of autism ("not an illness"), but on the other hand, they emphasize the idea of being "not normal" in a way that implicitly pathologizes autism. If autism is not an illness, then framing it as a deviation from normality is contradictory and unhelpful. The argument lacks internal consistency, and the speaker does not reconcile these conflicting ideas in a coherent way. 8. Overgeneralization Claim: The speaker argues that the word "allistic" is a bad term because it is "cringy" and signals victimhood. Flaw: This is an overgeneralization, assuming that the use of the word "allistic" always comes from a place of victimhood or cringe-worthy behavior. In reality, many people who use the word do so simply to provide a clear and neutral term for non-autistic individuals, without any victim narrative attached. By overgeneralizing the intentions of those who use the term, the speaker makes an unsubstantiated leap and overlooks the more nuanced reasons behind why the term exists and why it is used.
Imagine writing all this yap lmao brostfu, do something with your life, its not that deep stop thinking youre so smart because you honestly sound ridiculous
using logical fallacies in itselfs doesnt disprove an argument (generalisation). the video is why he specifically hates the term, ultimately hes just explaining his reasons as he sees them. sorry, i tried writing a full response, but its late and im too tired to check it for errors. hes drawing conclusions from his assumptions and world view, your disagree with his assumptions and then listing a bunch of fallacies where you make your own. in 1: you equate normality to assuming superiority by drawing equivalency with homosexuality, rather than argue over definition of normal is it not better to be indifferent to perceived normalcy, where in 2: you try to argue the definition of normal to not mean 99% of cases, when people say normal they mean most of the time, even arguing definitions, when he spoke he meant most of the time. you then go on to argue using an incorrect definition of normal 7: "If autism is not an illness, then framing it as a deviation from normality is contradictory and unhelpful", deviations from normality are not illnesses, see your own homsexuality comparision. again, sorry i didnt bother with a full reply, but your comment is incorrect.
The critique of the speaker’s perspective on the term "allistic" raises some valid points but ultimately fails to appreciate the nuanced concerns at play. Below, I outline key reasons why the speaker's argument deserves careful consideration. Purpose of Labels While the critique claims that labels like "allistic" provide clarity, the speaker emphasizes that such labels can inadvertently reinforce a binary between "normal" and "other." By labeling neurotypical individuals as "allistic," there may be an implicit suggestion that they are inherently different from or lesser than their autistic counterparts. The speaker highlights the potential harm in labeling, which can distract from meaningful discussions about individual experiences and the complexities of human diversity. Statistical Rarity and Identity The critique dismisses the speaker's point about autistic individuals being a minority in society. However, this perspective brings to light an important truth: being part of a statistical minority can lead to feelings of alienation or abnormality. The speaker's concerns are rooted in the social dynamics that often frame minority identities negatively. Rather than simply relying on statistics, the speaker calls for a more holistic understanding that acknowledges the lived experiences of autistic individuals in a predominantly neurotypical world. Emotional Appeal as Valid Perspective Criticism of the speaker's emotional response to the term "allistic" overlooks the role of personal experience in discourse. Language is not merely a technical matter; it is deeply tied to identity and emotion. The speaker’s discomfort with the term reflects a broader societal sentiment and merits attention, as emotional reactions often reveal underlying truths about identity and social dynamics. Dismissing these feelings as "cringy" undermines the complexities associated with identity and labeling. Critique of Users Without Ad Hominem The argument claims the speaker engages in ad hominem attacks against those who use the term "allistic." However, the speaker may be attempting to highlight the motivations behind the use of such labels. By critiquing the potential victimhood narrative associated with the term, the speaker does not dismiss users but raises important questions about the broader implications of labeling and how it might reinforce divisions rather than promote inclusivity. Acceptance Versus Advocacy as Intertwined The critique posits a false dichotomy between acceptance and advocacy. However, the speaker emphasizes that true acceptance can manifest as a rejection of labels that may not empower individuals. The speaker encourages focusing on personal acceptance of identity without feeling compelled to advocate for potentially divisive terms. This perspective values personal journeys over societal labels, promoting a more organic understanding of identity that may not align with established terminologies. Understanding Neurodiversity While the critique asserts that the speaker mischaracterizes the neurodiversity movement, the speaker’s concerns resonate with the idea that the movement can sometimes become overly focused on identity labels, overshadowing individual experiences. The speaker highlights the need for recognizing the multifaceted nature of neurodiversity, advocating for a dialogue that prioritizes lived experiences over strict adherence to labels that may not fully capture individual identity. Consistency in Terminology The critique points out perceived inconsistencies in the speaker's terminology, yet this may reflect the evolving nature of discourse surrounding neurodiversity. The speaker’s call for clarity showcases a genuine struggle with the implications of terms that can be fluid and subject to interpretation. This inconsistency highlights the need for ongoing discussion and critical examination of how language impacts identity and societal perceptions. Nuanced Use of Language The argument claims the speaker overgeneralizes the term "allistic," but it is important to recognize that language is inherently nuanced. The speaker’s concerns reflect a fear that the term might be misused to foster a sense of division or superiority within neurodiverse communities. By questioning the motivations behind the term's use, the speaker advocates for a more thoughtful consideration of language that prioritizes genuine understanding over labeling. In summary, the speaker’s perspective challenges the adoption of the term "allistic" as a binary label and encourages a reflective approach to discussions about neurodiversity. Their concerns about identity, language, and social dynamics highlight the necessity of ongoing dialogue that considers the complexities of personal experiences and the implications of terminology on societal perceptions. Rather than dismissing the speaker's argument as flawed, we should engage with it critically and recognize the valuable insights it offers in discussions about neurodiversity.
Autistic people are inherently abnormal. If you think that's a negative thing then that speaks more to your own biases. Most people are not autistic. Most of what you wrote are not logical fallacies, you just disagree with the opinion of another person.
At first I assumed the video would go over how saying "allistic" and making the idea that we're super different from normal people further away is bad.. bcz autistic people are (from my experience) brutally treated differently. Normal people can tell when you're autistic even if they don't know what it is they're picking up on.. it's just that you're different. I will die on the hill that autistic people DO need to fight back. idc if ppl use allistic whatever.. but I do know that being autistic isn't something you can "ignore and live normally with." I mean I guess ur just more high functioning than me.. but being on the verge of panic attacks during simple conversations, trying to push myself even if I've always been ostrazised and bullied, accidently talking about my hyperfixation too much that people get uncomfortable or I seem unkind, etc, all just for a conversation about steven universe.. it's a lot to handle. Saying that autistic ppl aren't victums of literally living autistic.. is like saying gay ppl aren't victum to what they go through just bcz they're gay.. or someone with a physical disability. Whether it's entirly social hatred or both that and being uncapable yourself compared to a normal person,, it's literally a struggle. Whatever,, it's just kinda crazy. I mean being autistic doesn't just mean being different.. that's if we lived with unicorns and somehow everything was fine.
the fact that they made a word to use instead of normal to describe neurotypicals because they want to be considered normal is contradictory to their sentiment of "it's okay to be not normal"
Is it really though? It sounds like it's not contradictory at all as it's trying to get rid of the idea that being neurotypical = normal. Calling neurotypicals not normal is not an attack on them in any way according to the sentiment of "it's ok to be not normal" it's actually saying that neurotypicals & neurodivergent are not so different to be classified as different things in the sense of normal & abnormal. In fact many neurotypical people are weird too... the whole concept of what's normal & not is kinda overblown.
@@Lin_Eileen "normal" means "typical". They are synonymous. A "normal" steak would be average. both a mind-blowingly amazing steak, and a disgustingly terrible steak would be abnormal. Even a steak which tastes completely the same as the average steak, and is just as healthy, but is a different colour, is also not normal. Abnormality is a neutral thing.
Honestly I don’t care about whether or not people call anyone that word. I’m “on the spectrum” or whatever people wanna call it and I’ve gotten to the point in my life at 30 years old after multiple mental breakdowns over having to mask for so many years that I don’t really care. I don’t care if people think I’m “cringy” for stimming or having anxiety tics in public. I don’t care if people think I’m faking my texture sensitivities or food anxieties or behaviors for attention. I’m just going to do what I want and what makes me feel comfortable. If they’re upset about it whatever. Too bad for them. I agree that it is sad when people have so much self hatred and been so beaten down that they have to use different language to make themselves feel better about being different. I feel more sad that they were beaten down and made to feel that way in the first place. That’s what I’m sad about. “Not my circus not my monkeys” though, as they say. I’m happy with where I’m at in life, finally. I’ve surrounded myself with people who when I tell them I have ADHD and am very likely autistic they said “we know, and knew before you did”. That feels good. I’m accepted for who I am. That’s all you can really ask for.
Same with me. I have been diagnosed with autism at 5yo and hate the word allistic because it sounds so cringey and fake. There is no etymological or meaning clue what the word means. I prefer the word "neuro-typical", it feels less judgemental towards normal people and describes that just being common. "Neuro-divergent" vs "neuro-typical" is a more useful description
I completely disagree. There can be different words for similar concepts with slightly different contexts and meanings. Saying "non-autistic" is a mouthful when you can just say allistic to those who know what it means, and even "regular" or "normal" people don't think "normal" is a thing. Hating useful words that describe a particular set of people in a way that isn't insulting is pretty ridiculous, especially when you're doing it in the same way that people make fun of tone indicators or pronouns. Allistic has been used as a term in autistic circles since NeuroTribes, at least.
I completely disagree with you, when he says normal, he means the same thing as allistic, which guess what, normal is even easier to say, sure it's not an insulting word by any means, but that doesn't mean we have to like and use it? That's like saying you need to call 2 weeks a fortnight, I doubt you do that, like, I HEAVILY doubt you do that, so it's the exact same thing here, I'll admit the reasoning is vague, and.. Odd, I'll admit it as well, but that's for jms, I simply don't want to use the word, and I don't have to, I honestly find it saddening that you felt the need to make a stupid comment ranting for 2 minutes to read it when you don't need to waste our time on Earth anymore with your hate-speech, you're wasting others, and my, time, even tho I'm responding.
Just use normal or regular obviously if you use it in a degrading way its bad but the word normal or regular just means the majority just cause smth is normal doesnt mean its inherently good or bad and a lot of times the words we use to try remove offensive words end up becoming offensive words too later on
Non-autistic is a pretty good terms for people without autism. That is what I usually say, for the meaning to be clear. There are very few contexts where I need to make a distinction between autistic and non-autistic people
Neurotypical then. The only way I would find a justification for “regular” would be “normal” and that would be comparing experiences. I’m neurodivergent, my ‘normal’ experience is not the norm. Those who are neurotypical I’d say, for the most part have an experience which is based in a norm, it part of the conformity. Even normal I don’t really like but that is based on society accepting conformity as a “good” trait. Still I’d prefer neurotypical for the normies
-I call nonautistics "neurrotypical." -I wouldn't call autism a "disorder," either but I don't know what term to ine in it's place. -I agree that the victumhood mentality around autism is abit tiresome.
There are people who aren’t autistic but are neurodivergent in other ways like they have conditions such as ADHD, OCD, ACC, Williams syndrome etc, they’re not autistic but they’re also not Neutotypical.
its a lot easier to say allistic or neurotypical than fumbling around for a bit trying to figure out what the hell im supposed to call a person that isn't autistic.
I think the explanation here is easy, using a word that's meant to remove people from being excluded only serves to remind that the division exists and therefore making a problem worse. This is actuall a very common problem with any condition and it's why train network I use has adds that tell you to not be afraid to use terms like 'See you' when talking with a blind person. Being careful around someone and using special language only reminds people of their condition. This doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it often is, while using default language is something everyone is used to and doesn't pay attention to.
Youre completely correct. Autistic people are not "normal" or "regular". Whats wrong with that? Who cares about whether or not someone is normal? Be good. Be a great person. Dont be normal.
I understand your point, but what if someone is autistic AND also not regular? What if they have ADHD/dyslexia/bipolar disorder etc. Other than allistic, what other word do you use to describe the fact that they are not at all a regular person but are not autistic. Suggesting that all non-autistic people are reuglar is inaccurate.
I've heard the words are neurodivergent and neurotypical. I'm not a fan of them either, for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned about "allistic", which is a word I haven't even heard before watching this video.
Honestly, I feel that trying to use the "correct" terminology on how to address neurotypical vs neurodivergent people is a waste of time. "Alistic" is a very new word, and if people want to use it instead of "neurotypical/ regular/ normal," that's fine with me. I can see how someone could be offended since it would imply that autistic people aren't "normal," but in a way, we're not? We need accommodations, our brains interpret things differently, and being treated as a "normal" person could be detrimental to autistic people depending on their severity. I treat normalcy as just an average. The average human doesn't have Autism. Same as saying it's normal to be right handed, because it's more prevalent, not because it's better.
I think we need to move away from autistic and non autistic in the first place. And that also counts for allistic and things like ''neurodivergent''. I'm not even sure what ''regular'' means in this context. Also counts for ''high functioning'', *sigh* like functioning in the world is a competition. They're buzzwords, almost marketing at this point. Ofc course you have a diagnosis or you don't, but reality is a very wide spectrum. Autism is not a black and white thing, it's not a binary switch. There's plenty of people that show some autistic traits but don't warrant a diagnosis. People get so extremely hung up on labels, a testament of their bankrupt individual personalities.
bad take, unfortunately normal and regular do not mean "average" they do not mean "not special" for context, the Jewish population worldwide is about 20 million, or 1 in 500, thats like saying that they aren't normal or regular, or that we shouldnt have words for people who aren't Jewish, and if either of those seem wrong or weird to you (because they are), then this idea that autistic people aren't normal or we don't need words to describe people who aren't autistic should as well.
I agree, adding terms to make yourself feel normal means you have some internalizing to do and you need to accept yourself. All it does is act like a comfort blanket, while mudding the water. It makes conversation about autism more confusing to normal people. Do you really need to make communication MORE difficult?
Yeah victim mentality is a huge problem in today's culture. Like I dont know instead of trying to make everything a hierarchy and blaming everyone else for your problems you could probably recognize that everyone out there is pretty much just trying to do their best and you can do a lot of things for yourself.
The problem with your way of thinking is that people who feel victimized don't usually blame everyone else for their problems & not everyone has to try to do their best to succeed in life. There is a lot of class issues in society that should be addressed, there is a hierarchy of power that makes life extremely unfair to those who are not born into wealth. I think your mentality is even worse than the professional victim mentality (which is usually a result of complicated mental health issues), as it is one of pure complacency. You are basically telling people to stop trying to change the world for the better, just stay in their lane & do things for themselves. It's not bad advice because those in power don't wanna give it up, have the power to destroy the world if they want & probably would if truly challenged, but at the same time somethings got to give ya know? Things just keep getting worse for people out there just trying to do their best in life.
@@Lin_Eileen Alright what does someone who feels victimized thinks their problems arise from? Who or what are they a victim of, and who's responsibility is that? What is unfair? Like specifically, what actually makes something fair/unfair? And what's wrong complacency? I feel being complacent and happy is better than feeling sorry for yourself all the time. But yes I am telling people to stop trying to change *the world* for the better, not to stay in your lane, but rather yes, do things for yourself. Because that's what you can do. You just logically *cant* change the world. No individual can. You can only control what you have in your life. Wanting to change the entire world will just result in frustration and resentment. You cant control the world, so you cant change it. You can only change the little piece of the world you personally inhabit, and I would encourage anyone to try to improve that in any way they can.
yeah... no. First off.. nobody and I mean NOBODY is "just trying to do their best" when they're actively treating autistic people horribly. If you try to overstimulate and bully someone past a panic attack.. do you think you're trying?? fuck no. wtf is "victum mentality" are you talking about people who are victums.. and think that wait for it.. they're a.. victum. gosh! a victum thinking they're a victum! that's crazy. a child who is abused, and then sent to school to further be abused by quite literally everyone, isn't thinking "all these people are being mean to me and that's their fault" they think it's all their fault and they go on for years trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with them.. (it's part of the autistic experience especially if you're late diagnosed that you are the problem.. and that YOU (not anybody else) have to fix it (which is exactly what you beleive is the truth.. and sorry bud. it's not.)) when there's nothing.. that brings me to my hatred for you saying "you can do a lot of things for yourself" NO. if doing things "for yourself" brings you to depression and exauhsting yourself so much you go into autistic burnout.. you can't do it yourself. in fact, doing anything just makes things worse. trying again and again and getting the same result of trauma isn't going to fucking work. it's torture. (please, are you dumb? how the fuck are you saying "Wanting to change the entire world will just result in frustration and resentment" do you realize the ONLY thing you're missing is that the frustration and resentment are justified??) (you said "What is unfair? Like specifically, what actually makes something fair/unfair?" what makes something unfair is subjective, but what makes something a crime isn't. likewise kicking an abused dog (the victum) while it's already down is objectivley a BAD thing to do. idc ab morality at all.. it's straight up BAD to do that no argument against it. "oh but uhm what ab this dumb argument" what if I bring up gay people being killed? or what about the farthest extremes that can make you actually view this as an issue when you clearly lack the trauma to understand. when people are treated like autistic people are.. it is BAD to abuse them more.) this is mostly a rant bcz fucking what?? excuse me? you can put your sholders back and say with full pride "I don't beleive in victums so I victum blame them" and you're okay with that? wow. literally wow
@@Yipper64 Its a little hard to say since most of your questions really depend on who/what group we're talking about If we're being general, any situation where one group might be at a disadvantage compared to another group is unfair (which is just the definition lol) Complacency doesn't help anyone, it can allow for things to get worse for some people. If a bad situation is bad, instead of not caring we should try to fix the bad. The wording for "complacent and happy is better than feeling sorry for yourself" is very naive, the only people who are happy with complacency are the people who never had to deal with those issues in the first place I think you're under the impression that people who have these issues don't try to do anything about it which is just silly, masking exists for a reason, they just want to try and help fix the situation, spread more information, and/or let people understand the issues and understand them better Also don't take the "world" thing too literally LMAO
speaking of terms I hate as an AuDHD dude: Aspie sounds like a term made up by a sensitive liberal college professor who was afraid of hurting anybodies feelings: just listen to the cadence: ASP-IE, it sounds so soft and weak, if you are a girl with aspergers it is fine if you want to be called aspie and I get it: but as an actual dude it feels disgusting to the core of my sole. SPERG on the other hand sounds like something I can be proud of being as a dude: it sounds like something men can identify with: SPERG sounds like your smart mysterious loner dude, ASPIE sounds like a kid who is ready to cry at the slightest problem. I know this is all subjective and based on how the words sound to me: but at the same time, as a dude who is 100% proud of being a dude: why would I want a feminine weak sounding label describing me (aspie), when I can have a label that sounds like it was made for based dudes instead (sperg).
Sperg has a negative connotation to it though... it's used as a derogatory term by a lot of people sperg basically is synonymous with someone who freaks out a lot. Also no offense but worrying so much about how words makes you feel is not really giving me the idea of a strong masculine type just saying 😂. Not trying to question your sense of masculinity or anything but like the way you are so bent about aspie sounding feminine & weak to you makes me think you are one of those types who want to seem hyper masculine & strong but inside are really fragile & sensitive. This doesn't make you any less masculine or strong as there is strength in showing vulnerability. Men are supposed to have feelings & be comfortable expressing them. I feel like you have a pretty binary view of gender identity like women are weak & men are strong kinda thing which isn't really how it is but you are free to believe what you want.
@@Lin_Eileen if you are incapable breaking through past offensive connotations to claim something as your own you have no right to judge others masculinity or security because you are clearly too malleable to outside influences and opinions: if you want an example of claiming a word, the number 1 people saying the n word these days are black folk referring to each other. as for how things sound: I am a musician who plays guitar and drumkit, so I am very big on how things sound, I also do have a traditional male mindset: so sound wise: aspie sounds like I am a soft weak fragile pushover, sperg kind of just has a masculine quality that just sounds right to me
I understand the aversion to "made up words" mainly used by the chronically online Discord teens who completely miss the point, but all words are made up, there's only useful and none useful words. Allistic is useful to me
It seems to me like a vernacular word that happens to be used outside its intended area.
Allistic means non-autistic, so if you're discussing autism a lot then it makes sense you have a shorter word that rolls off the tounge.
I don't think it serves much function outside of circles where autism is discussed frequently. If talking less is the goal, then saying non-autistic is faster than saying allistic then explaining what allistic means.
Ok, so. I'm not diagnosed with autism, however I do have other mental conditions, I'm not "normal" I'm not "regular" I'm not "neurotypical" I am allistic, because I don't have autism, this argument as I understand it hinges on autism being the only mental disorder, which is untrue, there is nothing wrong with making a word that means something more specific.
Sorry, just like with your video about self-diagnosing, I think you have misidentified what you are actually concerned / disgusted / angry with. In this case, what I hear is that you dislike people who have developed an unnecessary, militant us-against-them mindset in their stance on autism. But the term "allistic" is used much more broadly, including by people who do a lot of good for the situation of autistic people.
Completely disagree with your take on the word "normal". In my experience, as soon as you use it to describe one set of people, the rest have no choice but to be "not normal" or "abnormal", with the automatic connotation that there is something wrong with them and that we should do something to make them normal or to ideally not have them come about in the first place.
As you say, there is nothing wrong with being different. But labeling everybody who isn't "different" in some significant way as "normal" doesn't help the rest of the world accept "different". Think about how the word "norm" is the basis for "normal" - "norm" comes with a lot of baggage in this context: a standard to be followed, a code, a scheme, a mould to fit into, a rule to be obeyed.
You are right in that we shouldn't make small differences unnecessarily big and develop our entire self-image around things that ultimately don't matter. But in a world where non-"normal" people continue to experience real downsides because of their differences, it is both understandable and perhaps even necessary for progress if some become militant about it.
Don't understand your associating the use of "allistic" with developing a victim mindset. Maybe you happened to come across a few people who seemed to you to lean in this direction. That doesn't make it universal.
are you that weak as to not take pride in abnormality: normal is a weakness, deviation from the norm can be bad in some situations, but can often be far better than the norm.
it's not that deep tbh
I use "allistic" because it's a commonly accepted word with a definition that is shorter than "non-autistic" and less dehumanizing than "normal people." Autistic people have long demonstrated that they posses the same qualities as an allistic person but with a different brain development. To say they aren't normal or to exclude them as "normal" is simply false. The term derives from the Greek "állos" meaning "other" and autistic. Combined, it literally translates to "other than autistic" which is a perfect summary of non-autistic people. I can't really make any claims on "the people who make autism their whole personality" because I've never ran into a real life instance of that being the case. Most autistics I know (including myself) hide the condition from others. I've only ever heard the claim vaguely thrown at another party online when it simply isn't the case. 9/10 times the source of the claim is a single "I'm autistic" in the party's bio
Nobody tell him that all words are made up.
genuinely have never heard about this word until this video
"Allistic" is useful because it contains non-autistic _neurodivergent_ people where as "normal" only describes neurotypical people. That is a very important distinction!
Just saying "non-autistic" is fine too but it can get clunky, especially with a lot of other combined-words. And it's good to have synonyms
but then when you say "this is something allistic people don't understand" you 100% only mean normal people, because people with ADHD, dyslexia etc probably do understand, so no one uses it that way
@@kyceessadki2501 but "normal" is a vague non-scientific descriptor with no agreed definition and can be interpreted as only people who are neurotypical. "allistic" easily solves that issue and is a useful scientific/medical term rather than a vibes based one. your counterargument is just silly.
They can be something else than. If you just limp everyone into one of 2 categories, than why would even bother?
I just wrote my own comment making this point so yes I completely agree
I think that while just using the word "normal" for non-autistic people is fine, there's nothing wrong with using terms like allistic either. The main terms people use for non-autistic people are normal, allistic, and neurotypical, which each have slightly different meanings.
Normal just refers to someone who generally fits in with others, really depends on context, but it's clear enough what it means in the context of talking about autism.
Allistic is specifically talking about someone who is not autistic, but that doesn't necessarily make them normal, as they could have things like ADHD or personality disorders.
Neurotypical is for someone with brain functioning that is considered normal, while neurodivergent is for someone who's brain diverges from the norm.
These terms often can be used interchangeably, but they each have their own specific meanings and can all be useful in different contexts.
(i think you meant to put neurotypical rather than neurodivergent)
@@jellylemonade1655 yeah you're right i changed it
The argument presented in the video exhibits several logical inconsistencies, emotional reasoning, and misunderstandings of terminology and social dynamics. Below is a detailed breakdown of why the speaker's reasoning is unsound:
1. Misunderstanding the Purpose of Labels
Claim: The speaker believes that using the word "allistic" perpetuates the idea that autistic people are "not regular" or "not normal."
Flaw: This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of labels in the context of social identity. Labels like "allistic" and "autistic" are not value judgments. They serve to provide clarity and precision in discussions about neurodiversity. Using a specific term like "allistic" avoids the ambiguity of terms like "regular" or "normal," which can carry implicit bias and stigmatize autistic people as inherently irregular or abnormal.
The creation of the term "allistic" is to provide a neutral counterpart to "autistic" without assuming that neurotypical people are inherently "regular" or superior, much like how terms like "heterosexual" and "cisgender" were created to avoid implying that heterosexuality or cisgender identity are default or superior states.
2. Conflating Statistical Minority with Abnormality
Claim: The speaker states that "autistic people are not normal" because they make up only 1% of the population, using statistics to argue that this makes autistic people inherently abnormal.
Flaw: The speaker equates statistical rarity with abnormality or deviance, which is a logical error. Just because something is statistically less common does not make it abnormal in a negative or pathological sense. For example, red-haired people are a small percentage of the global population, but this does not make them "abnormal" or justify labeling them as such in a negative sense.
The idea of "normal" is subjective and fluid, depending on cultural, social, and historical contexts. Rarity or minority status does not imply inherent inferiority or deviance, and using it as a justification for rejecting terms like "allistic" is a weak and biased argument.
3. Emotional Appeal and Bias
Claim: The speaker describes the word "allistic" as making their "skin crawl" and repeatedly calls it "cringy" without providing substantive reasons for why the word is logically problematic.
Flaw: This is an emotional appeal. The speaker's personal distaste for the word is based on subjective feelings rather than objective reasoning. Using emotionally charged terms like "cringy" without further elaboration or logical support weakens the argument by relying on personal discomfort rather than addressing the merits or flaws of the word itself. Emotional reactions do not constitute a sound basis for rejecting terminology, especially when the term serves a useful and clarifying role in discussions about neurodiversity.
4. Ad Hominem Against Users of the Term
Claim: The speaker suggests that people who use the term "allistic" are those who make mental illness or neurodiversity central to their identity and who "present themselves as victims."
Flaw: This is an ad hominem attack, where the speaker dismisses the term "allistic" by attacking the character or motivations of those who use it, rather than critiquing the word itself. Suggesting that those who use the term are overly focused on their mental health or presenting themselves as victims distracts from the actual debate about whether the term "allistic" is useful or appropriate. It undermines the argument by shifting the focus to personal attacks rather than addressing the substance of the issue.
5. False Dichotomy Between Acceptance and Advocacy
Claim: The speaker argues that accepting autism as a "tweak" and learning to function with it is the only healthy approach, and that advocating for changes in language (like using "allistic") is unnecessary and cringy.
Flaw: This presents a false dichotomy. The speaker suggests that one must either accept their autism and learn to function in society or be caught up in unnecessary advocacy for special treatment and labels. However, these are not mutually exclusive. One can accept their autism while also advocating for changes in language and perception that reduce stigma and promote understanding. Acceptance and advocacy are not opposing forces; in fact, they often go hand-in-hand for many individuals in the neurodiversity community.
The assumption that advocating for the term "allistic" implies a lack of acceptance of one's autism is an oversimplification. Many people advocate for inclusive language precisely because they have accepted their differences and wish to create a more understanding and supportive society.
6. Mischaracterization of Neurodiversity Movement
Claim: The speaker frames the use of "allistic" as part of a broader trend where people with autism or other disorders focus too much on their condition and seek "special treatment."
Flaw: This misrepresents the neurodiversity movement, which is not about seeking special treatment, but about promoting understanding, acceptance, and accommodation for people with different neurological conditions. The movement seeks to normalize neurological differences and challenge the idea that being neurotypical is the default or superior state. By dismissing it as a desire for victimhood or special treatment, the speaker oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the goals of many within the neurodiversity community, who often seek equity, not special status.
7. Inconsistent Use of Terms
Claim: The speaker acknowledges that autism is "not really an illness" but a "disorder," and then seems to argue that autistic people should simply accept being "not normal."
Flaw: This inconsistency shows a lack of clarity in the speaker’s understanding of the terminology they are using. On one hand, they reject the pathological framing of autism ("not an illness"), but on the other hand, they emphasize the idea of being "not normal" in a way that implicitly pathologizes autism. If autism is not an illness, then framing it as a deviation from normality is contradictory and unhelpful. The argument lacks internal consistency, and the speaker does not reconcile these conflicting ideas in a coherent way.
8. Overgeneralization
Claim: The speaker argues that the word "allistic" is a bad term because it is "cringy" and signals victimhood.
Flaw: This is an overgeneralization, assuming that the use of the word "allistic" always comes from a place of victimhood or cringe-worthy behavior. In reality, many people who use the word do so simply to provide a clear and neutral term for non-autistic individuals, without any victim narrative attached. By overgeneralizing the intentions of those who use the term, the speaker makes an unsubstantiated leap and overlooks the more nuanced reasons behind why the term exists and why it is used.
This comment absolutely sums the whole video up, don't it?
Thank you, *squint* .. m- .. Methlab.
Imagine writing all this yap lmao brostfu, do something with your life, its not that deep stop thinking youre so smart because you honestly sound ridiculous
using logical fallacies in itselfs doesnt disprove an argument (generalisation). the video is why he specifically hates the term, ultimately hes just explaining his reasons as he sees them. sorry, i tried writing a full response, but its late and im too tired to check it for errors. hes drawing conclusions from his assumptions and world view, your disagree with his assumptions and then listing a bunch of fallacies where you make your own. in 1: you equate normality to assuming superiority by drawing equivalency with homosexuality, rather than argue over definition of normal is it not better to be indifferent to perceived normalcy, where in 2: you try to argue the definition of normal to not mean 99% of cases, when people say normal they mean most of the time, even arguing definitions, when he spoke he meant most of the time. you then go on to argue using an incorrect definition of normal 7: "If autism is not an illness, then framing it as a deviation from normality is contradictory and unhelpful", deviations from normality are not illnesses, see your own homsexuality comparision. again, sorry i didnt bother with a full reply, but your comment is incorrect.
The critique of the speaker’s perspective on the term "allistic" raises some valid points but ultimately fails to appreciate the nuanced concerns at play. Below, I outline key reasons why the speaker's argument deserves careful consideration.
Purpose of Labels
While the critique claims that labels like "allistic" provide clarity, the speaker emphasizes that such labels can inadvertently reinforce a binary between "normal" and "other." By labeling neurotypical individuals as "allistic," there may be an implicit suggestion that they are inherently different from or lesser than their autistic counterparts. The speaker highlights the potential harm in labeling, which can distract from meaningful discussions about individual experiences and the complexities of human diversity.
Statistical Rarity and Identity
The critique dismisses the speaker's point about autistic individuals being a minority in society. However, this perspective brings to light an important truth: being part of a statistical minority can lead to feelings of alienation or abnormality. The speaker's concerns are rooted in the social dynamics that often frame minority identities negatively. Rather than simply relying on statistics, the speaker calls for a more holistic understanding that acknowledges the lived experiences of autistic individuals in a predominantly neurotypical world.
Emotional Appeal as Valid Perspective
Criticism of the speaker's emotional response to the term "allistic" overlooks the role of personal experience in discourse. Language is not merely a technical matter; it is deeply tied to identity and emotion. The speaker’s discomfort with the term reflects a broader societal sentiment and merits attention, as emotional reactions often reveal underlying truths about identity and social dynamics. Dismissing these feelings as "cringy" undermines the complexities associated with identity and labeling.
Critique of Users Without Ad Hominem
The argument claims the speaker engages in ad hominem attacks against those who use the term "allistic." However, the speaker may be attempting to highlight the motivations behind the use of such labels. By critiquing the potential victimhood narrative associated with the term, the speaker does not dismiss users but raises important questions about the broader implications of labeling and how it might reinforce divisions rather than promote inclusivity.
Acceptance Versus Advocacy as Intertwined
The critique posits a false dichotomy between acceptance and advocacy. However, the speaker emphasizes that true acceptance can manifest as a rejection of labels that may not empower individuals. The speaker encourages focusing on personal acceptance of identity without feeling compelled to advocate for potentially divisive terms. This perspective values personal journeys over societal labels, promoting a more organic understanding of identity that may not align with established terminologies.
Understanding Neurodiversity
While the critique asserts that the speaker mischaracterizes the neurodiversity movement, the speaker’s concerns resonate with the idea that the movement can sometimes become overly focused on identity labels, overshadowing individual experiences. The speaker highlights the need for recognizing the multifaceted nature of neurodiversity, advocating for a dialogue that prioritizes lived experiences over strict adherence to labels that may not fully capture individual identity.
Consistency in Terminology
The critique points out perceived inconsistencies in the speaker's terminology, yet this may reflect the evolving nature of discourse surrounding neurodiversity. The speaker’s call for clarity showcases a genuine struggle with the implications of terms that can be fluid and subject to interpretation. This inconsistency highlights the need for ongoing discussion and critical examination of how language impacts identity and societal perceptions.
Nuanced Use of Language
The argument claims the speaker overgeneralizes the term "allistic," but it is important to recognize that language is inherently nuanced. The speaker’s concerns reflect a fear that the term might be misused to foster a sense of division or superiority within neurodiverse communities. By questioning the motivations behind the term's use, the speaker advocates for a more thoughtful consideration of language that prioritizes genuine understanding over labeling.
In summary, the speaker’s perspective challenges the adoption of the term "allistic" as a binary label and encourages a reflective approach to discussions about neurodiversity. Their concerns about identity, language, and social dynamics highlight the necessity of ongoing dialogue that considers the complexities of personal experiences and the implications of terminology on societal perceptions. Rather than dismissing the speaker's argument as flawed, we should engage with it critically and recognize the valuable insights it offers in discussions about neurodiversity.
Autistic people are inherently abnormal. If you think that's a negative thing then that speaks more to your own biases. Most people are not autistic. Most of what you wrote are not logical fallacies, you just disagree with the opinion of another person.
At first I assumed the video would go over how saying "allistic" and making the idea that we're super different from normal people further away is bad.. bcz autistic people are (from my experience) brutally treated differently. Normal people can tell when you're autistic even if they don't know what it is they're picking up on.. it's just that you're different. I will die on the hill that autistic people DO need to fight back. idc if ppl use allistic whatever.. but I do know that being autistic isn't something you can "ignore and live normally with." I mean I guess ur just more high functioning than me.. but being on the verge of panic attacks during simple conversations, trying to push myself even if I've always been ostrazised and bullied, accidently talking about my hyperfixation too much that people get uncomfortable or I seem unkind, etc, all just for a conversation about steven universe.. it's a lot to handle. Saying that autistic ppl aren't victums of literally living autistic.. is like saying gay ppl aren't victum to what they go through just bcz they're gay.. or someone with a physical disability. Whether it's entirly social hatred or both that and being uncapable yourself compared to a normal person,, it's literally a struggle. Whatever,, it's just kinda crazy. I mean being autistic doesn't just mean being different.. that's if we lived with unicorns and somehow everything was fine.
the fact that they made a word to use instead of normal to describe neurotypicals because they want to be considered normal is contradictory to their sentiment of "it's okay to be not normal"
Is it really though? It sounds like it's not contradictory at all as it's trying to get rid of the idea that being neurotypical = normal. Calling neurotypicals not normal is not an attack on them in any way according to the sentiment of "it's ok to be not normal" it's actually saying that neurotypicals & neurodivergent are not so different to be classified as different things in the sense of normal & abnormal. In fact many neurotypical people are weird too... the whole concept of what's normal & not is kinda overblown.
@@Lin_Eileen
"normal" means "typical". They are synonymous. A "normal" steak would be average. both a mind-blowingly amazing steak, and a disgustingly terrible steak would be abnormal. Even a steak which tastes completely the same as the average steak, and is just as healthy, but is a different colour, is also not normal.
Abnormality is a neutral thing.
@@wj11jam78in a void, yes, in language, no, words have connotations
Honestly I don’t care about whether or not people call anyone that word. I’m “on the spectrum” or whatever people wanna call it and I’ve gotten to the point in my life at 30 years old after multiple mental breakdowns over having to mask for so many years that I don’t really care. I don’t care if people think I’m “cringy” for stimming or having anxiety tics in public. I don’t care if people think I’m faking my texture sensitivities or food anxieties or behaviors for attention. I’m just going to do what I want and what makes me feel comfortable. If they’re upset about it whatever. Too bad for them. I agree that it is sad when people have so much self hatred and been so beaten down that they have to use different language to make themselves feel better about being different. I feel more sad that they were beaten down and made to feel that way in the first place. That’s what I’m sad about. “Not my circus not my monkeys” though, as they say. I’m happy with where I’m at in life, finally. I’ve surrounded myself with people who when I tell them I have ADHD and am very likely autistic they said “we know, and knew before you did”. That feels good. I’m accepted for who I am. That’s all you can really ask for.
non-victimized take. based.
Same with me. I have been diagnosed with autism at 5yo and hate the word allistic because it sounds so cringey and fake. There is no etymological or meaning clue what the word means.
I prefer the word "neuro-typical", it feels less judgemental towards normal people and describes that just being common. "Neuro-divergent" vs "neuro-typical" is a more useful description
Neurotypical excludes people with other neurodivergencies like ADHD. Allistic is every state besides autism.
I completely disagree. There can be different words for similar concepts with slightly different contexts and meanings. Saying "non-autistic" is a mouthful when you can just say allistic to those who know what it means, and even "regular" or "normal" people don't think "normal" is a thing. Hating useful words that describe a particular set of people in a way that isn't insulting is pretty ridiculous, especially when you're doing it in the same way that people make fun of tone indicators or pronouns. Allistic has been used as a term in autistic circles since NeuroTribes, at least.
I completely disagree with you, when he says normal, he means the same thing as allistic, which guess what, normal is even easier to say, sure it's not an insulting word by any means, but that doesn't mean we have to like and use it? That's like saying you need to call 2 weeks a fortnight, I doubt you do that, like, I HEAVILY doubt you do that, so it's the exact same thing here, I'll admit the reasoning is vague, and.. Odd, I'll admit it as well, but that's for jms, I simply don't want to use the word, and I don't have to, I honestly find it saddening that you felt the need to make a stupid comment ranting for 2 minutes to read it when you don't need to waste our time on Earth anymore with your hate-speech, you're wasting others, and my, time, even tho I'm responding.
@@futureofgeographyis the hate speech in the room with us
@@nyanbinarydisaster HMMMMMMMMMMM
Just use normal or regular obviously if you use it in a degrading way its bad but the word normal or regular just means the majority just cause smth is normal doesnt mean its inherently good or bad and a lot of times the words we use to try remove offensive words end up becoming offensive words too later on
Non-autistic is a pretty good terms for people without autism. That is what I usually say, for the meaning to be clear. There are very few contexts where I need to make a distinction between autistic and non-autistic people
Neurotypical then. The only way I would find a justification for “regular” would be “normal” and that would be comparing experiences. I’m neurodivergent, my ‘normal’ experience is not the norm. Those who are neurotypical I’d say, for the most part have an experience which is based in a norm, it part of the conformity. Even normal I don’t really like but that is based on society accepting conformity as a “good” trait.
Still I’d prefer neurotypical for the normies
-I call nonautistics "neurrotypical."
-I wouldn't call autism a "disorder," either but I don't know what term to ine in it's place.
-I agree that the victumhood mentality around autism is abit tiresome.
"ine" isnt even close to "use" how did you mess up that bad
There are people who aren’t autistic but are neurodivergent in other ways like they have conditions such as ADHD, OCD, ACC, Williams syndrome etc, they’re not autistic but they’re also not Neutotypical.
its a lot easier to say allistic or neurotypical than fumbling around for a bit trying to figure out what the hell im supposed to call a person that isn't autistic.
jms its not that serious
I think the explanation here is easy, using a word that's meant to remove people from being excluded only serves to remind that the division exists and therefore making a problem worse. This is actuall a very common problem with any condition and it's why train network I use has adds that tell you to not be afraid to use terms like 'See you' when talking with a blind person. Being careful around someone and using special language only reminds people of their condition. This doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it often is, while using default language is something everyone is used to and doesn't pay attention to.
Also on the spectrum here. I agree with you
Uh oh
Ballistic Wistfully when Bautistic Wistfully walks in:
Idk man, I'm not autistic, but I am a weirdo.
"regular" or "normal" just means "no mental conditions"
I like this style of video, maybe I will start making videos like this :) good job
as someone with autism i am glad i am not normal
Youre completely correct. Autistic people are not "normal" or "regular". Whats wrong with that?
Who cares about whether or not someone is normal? Be good. Be a great person. Dont be normal.
Its dehumanizing. It implies that on a foundational level, they are wrong, and ideally shouldn't exist.
queen u ATE w this idk why everyone else dissing u
Tbh I've never even heard about that word. But based take.
My parents used to call me that I think.
This has the same vibe as saying that cis is a slur
I think the term, "neurotypical," is technicly the correct term for a non-autistic person.
What about people with ADHD or other neurological conditions?
I generally hate all therapy-speak. It feels fake.
I understand your point, but what if someone is autistic AND also not regular? What if they have ADHD/dyslexia/bipolar disorder etc.
Other than allistic, what other word do you use to describe the fact that they are not at all a regular person but are not autistic. Suggesting that all non-autistic people are reuglar is inaccurate.
allistic is too specific
preach gang
I've heard the words are neurodivergent and neurotypical. I'm not a fan of them either, for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned about "allistic", which is a word I haven't even heard before watching this video.
Honestly, I feel that trying to use the "correct" terminology on how to address neurotypical vs neurodivergent people is a waste of time. "Alistic" is a very new word, and if people want to use it instead of "neurotypical/ regular/ normal," that's fine with me.
I can see how someone could be offended since it would imply that autistic people aren't "normal," but in a way, we're not? We need accommodations, our brains interpret things differently, and being treated as a "normal" person could be detrimental to autistic people depending on their severity.
I treat normalcy as just an average. The average human doesn't have Autism. Same as saying it's normal to be right handed, because it's more prevalent, not because it's better.
I think we need to move away from autistic and non autistic in the first place. And that also counts for allistic and things like ''neurodivergent''. I'm not even sure what ''regular'' means in this context. Also counts for ''high functioning'', *sigh* like functioning in the world is a competition. They're buzzwords, almost marketing at this point.
Ofc course you have a diagnosis or you don't, but reality is a very wide spectrum.
Autism is not a black and white thing, it's not a binary switch. There's plenty of people that show some autistic traits but don't warrant a diagnosis. People get so extremely hung up on labels, a testament of their bankrupt individual personalities.
This man made a UA-cam channel on bad takes
Based
bad take, unfortunately
normal and regular do not mean "average" they do not mean "not special"
for context, the Jewish population worldwide is about 20 million, or 1 in 500, thats like saying that they aren't normal or regular, or that we shouldnt have words for people who aren't Jewish, and if either of those seem wrong or weird to you (because they are), then this idea that autistic people aren't normal or we don't need words to describe people who aren't autistic should as well.
agree tbh
Oh come on jms normal is overrated and thank you you gave me another reason to hate tik Tok
Just use the term neurotypical. It's neutral, accurate, and most widely used by the austistic community and pychologists.
I agree, adding terms to make yourself feel normal means you have some internalizing to do and you need to accept yourself. All it does is act like a comfort blanket, while mudding the water. It makes conversation about autism more confusing to normal people. Do you really need to make communication MORE difficult?
...neurotypical??
Ratio
To me, Allistic feels like its ment to put us down more.
Yeah victim mentality is a huge problem in today's culture.
Like I dont know instead of trying to make everything a hierarchy and blaming everyone else for your problems you could probably recognize that everyone out there is pretty much just trying to do their best and you can do a lot of things for yourself.
The problem with your way of thinking is that people who feel victimized don't usually blame everyone else for their problems & not everyone has to try to do their best to succeed in life. There is a lot of class issues in society that should be addressed, there is a hierarchy of power that makes life extremely unfair to those who are not born into wealth. I think your mentality is even worse than the professional victim mentality (which is usually a result of complicated mental health issues), as it is one of pure complacency. You are basically telling people to stop trying to change the world for the better, just stay in their lane & do things for themselves. It's not bad advice because those in power don't wanna give it up, have the power to destroy the world if they want & probably would if truly challenged, but at the same time somethings got to give ya know? Things just keep getting worse for people out there just trying to do their best in life.
@@Lin_Eileen Alright what does someone who feels victimized thinks their problems arise from? Who or what are they a victim of, and who's responsibility is that?
What is unfair? Like specifically, what actually makes something fair/unfair?
And what's wrong complacency? I feel being complacent and happy is better than feeling sorry for yourself all the time.
But yes I am telling people to stop trying to change *the world* for the better, not to stay in your lane, but rather yes, do things for yourself. Because that's what you can do. You just logically *cant* change the world. No individual can. You can only control what you have in your life.
Wanting to change the entire world will just result in frustration and resentment. You cant control the world, so you cant change it. You can only change the little piece of the world you personally inhabit, and I would encourage anyone to try to improve that in any way they can.
yeah... no. First off.. nobody and I mean NOBODY is "just trying to do their best" when they're actively treating autistic people horribly. If you try to overstimulate and bully someone past a panic attack.. do you think you're trying?? fuck no. wtf is "victum mentality" are you talking about people who are victums.. and think that wait for it.. they're a.. victum. gosh! a victum thinking they're a victum! that's crazy. a child who is abused, and then sent to school to further be abused by quite literally everyone, isn't thinking "all these people are being mean to me and that's their fault" they think it's all their fault and they go on for years trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with them.. (it's part of the autistic experience especially if you're late diagnosed that you are the problem.. and that YOU (not anybody else) have to fix it (which is exactly what you beleive is the truth.. and sorry bud. it's not.)) when there's nothing.. that brings me to my hatred for you saying "you can do a lot of things for yourself" NO. if doing things "for yourself" brings you to depression and exauhsting yourself so much you go into autistic burnout.. you can't do it yourself. in fact, doing anything just makes things worse. trying again and again and getting the same result of trauma isn't going to fucking work. it's torture. (please, are you dumb? how the fuck are you saying "Wanting to change the entire world will just result in frustration and resentment" do you realize the ONLY thing you're missing is that the frustration and resentment are justified??) (you said "What is unfair? Like specifically, what actually makes something fair/unfair?" what makes something unfair is subjective, but what makes something a crime isn't. likewise kicking an abused dog (the victum) while it's already down is objectivley a BAD thing to do. idc ab morality at all.. it's straight up BAD to do that no argument against it. "oh but uhm what ab this dumb argument" what if I bring up gay people being killed? or what about the farthest extremes that can make you actually view this as an issue when you clearly lack the trauma to understand. when people are treated like autistic people are.. it is BAD to abuse them more.)
this is mostly a rant bcz fucking what?? excuse me? you can put your sholders back and say with full pride "I don't beleive in victums so I victum blame them" and you're okay with that? wow. literally wow
@@Yipper64 Its a little hard to say since most of your questions really depend on who/what group we're talking about
If we're being general, any situation where one group might be at a disadvantage compared to another group is unfair (which is just the definition lol)
Complacency doesn't help anyone, it can allow for things to get worse for some people. If a bad situation is bad, instead of not caring we should try to fix the bad. The wording for "complacent and happy is better than feeling sorry for yourself" is very naive, the only people who are happy with complacency are the people who never had to deal with those issues in the first place
I think you're under the impression that people who have these issues don't try to do anything about it which is just silly, masking exists for a reason, they just want to try and help fix the situation, spread more information, and/or let people understand the issues and understand them better
Also don't take the "world" thing too literally LMAO
bro cooked til golden brown
nobody cares edgelord!
Just saying neurotypical
Allistic is a shorter word
@@QwertyS3 it takes the same time to say
speaking of terms I hate as an AuDHD dude: Aspie sounds like a term made up by a sensitive liberal college professor who was afraid of hurting anybodies feelings: just listen to the cadence: ASP-IE, it sounds so soft and weak, if you are a girl with aspergers it is fine if you want to be called aspie and I get it: but as an actual dude it feels disgusting to the core of my sole. SPERG on the other hand sounds like something I can be proud of being as a dude: it sounds like something men can identify with: SPERG sounds like your smart mysterious loner dude, ASPIE sounds like a kid who is ready to cry at the slightest problem. I know this is all subjective and based on how the words sound to me: but at the same time, as a dude who is 100% proud of being a dude: why would I want a feminine weak sounding label describing me (aspie), when I can have a label that sounds like it was made for based dudes instead (sperg).
Sperg has a negative connotation to it though... it's used as a derogatory term by a lot of people sperg basically is synonymous with someone who freaks out a lot. Also no offense but worrying so much about how words makes you feel is not really giving me the idea of a strong masculine type just saying 😂. Not trying to question your sense of masculinity or anything but like the way you are so bent about aspie sounding feminine & weak to you makes me think you are one of those types who want to seem hyper masculine & strong but inside are really fragile & sensitive. This doesn't make you any less masculine or strong as there is strength in showing vulnerability. Men are supposed to have feelings & be comfortable expressing them. I feel like you have a pretty binary view of gender identity like women are weak & men are strong kinda thing which isn't really how it is but you are free to believe what you want.
@@Lin_Eileen if you are incapable breaking through past offensive connotations to claim something as your own you have no right to judge others masculinity or security because you are clearly too malleable to outside influences and opinions: if you want an example of claiming a word, the number 1 people saying the n word these days are black folk referring to each other. as for how things sound: I am a musician who plays guitar and drumkit, so I am very big on how things sound, I also do have a traditional male mindset: so sound wise: aspie sounds like I am a soft weak fragile pushover, sperg kind of just has a masculine quality that just sounds right to me
Tbh this rant feels like "man yells at cloud"
Sounds like you're 12
So in summary:
Apsie = soy beta liberal
Sperg = sigma macho masculine
Truly insightful.