Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 14:57:13 UTC No. 16202564

>>16202545
Show me the autism under the microscope. As long as you don't provide me or anyone else with a clear description of a disease pathway (encephalomeningitis, autoimmune disorders, mitochondrial dysfunctions etc.), it's conjecture based on meaningless behavioral diagnostics. In other words, poisoning the wheel.

If vaccines cause autoimmune disorders which then cause the autism (or so it's claimed), then I'm sure you have the data to back up the claim that vaccines cause so much autoimmune disorder. If that is true, why not simply say the factual truth then? That vaccines cause autoimmune disorders? Why would we have it boiled down to a statement such as "vaccines cause some meme diagnosis"?

Also, I'm fairly sure that shills/trolls deliberately spread this bullshit on sites which begs the question: Why do certain people want us so badly to believe in the whole "vaccines cause autism" theory? Seems pretty retarded to me that we are spending so much time proving something when we don't even have a functioning definition of autism when we could... like look on the hard facts?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:03:05 UTC No. 16202571

Well, the reason you don't see actual facts is simple:

This shit is not meant to explain or elucidate anything. It's just a manufactured controversy that is demonstrably false and that makes others who advocate against the pharmaceutical companies based on hard facts look like idiots. If you can't defeat your opponents, you might as well fund idiots who astroturf the whole shit into the ground.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:16:53 UTC No. 16202594

>>16202564
>we don't even have a functioning definition of autism
This statement is a complete debunk of the materialistic / physicalistic belief system y'all so dearly hold on to. Here's your clear description/functional definition smart ass:
>(you) = (brain) physiology
>autism = ways of thinking and doing that are perceived / (re)cognized / measured as different from a norm
>thinking and doing = states of physiology
>therefore autism is a series of physiological states that are measurably different from normal physiological states
>physiology that is measurably different from a norm is defined by medical practice as pathology
Now if you have any trouble with equating thoughts and actions to physiological states and/or if you have any trouble with defining a norm then you might as well completely reconsider your materialistic worldview and the fundaments of modern medicine/psychology.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:25:27 UTC No. 16202603

>>16202594
>This statement is a complete debunk of the materialistic / physicalistic belief system y'all so dearly hold on to.
No, it isn't. My entire point boils down to the idea that materialism makes it clear that autism isn't one thing. This is why I object to your idea that all of autism has to be caused by vaccines because it's an objectively stupid statement.
If, on the other hand, you would have dialed back on that claim and instead tried to show objectively if there are autism cases that actually are down to vaccine-induced encephalitis, then I would have agreed with you.
>therefore autism is a series of physiological states that are measurably different from normal physiological states
Yes, where are the measures? Do you think, this autism thing is going to correspond neatly to some very specific type of physiological state? Do you really believe Elon Musk and a non-verbal institutionalized case have the same physiological state? That's where the argument breaks down. Again, it's objectively stupid. If vaccines gave us autism, either every single vaccinated person would have it or it depends on some other non-vaccine related component. And what does it mean to have autism? Fulfilling the criteria of some industrially-funded behavioral test? You do know how easy it is to qualify for an autism diagnosis?

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:28:01 UTC No. 16202610

It's pretty straight forward how much a pointless manufactured controversy this is. The only thing that actually follows from this is that lots of people are going to believe that autism is a real thing and not an artifact of observation and that our corporate-state is justified in billing your insurance 80,000 dollars a year so some kid can get overpriced autism classes because he's sensitive to fluorescent light.
It isn't that hard to see. Trump, Bob Wright, Peter Thiel who lavishly funds RFK Jr. campaing all have invested millions in autism services and they expect returns.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:28:43 UTC No. 16202612

How about reading basic cell biology and immunology textbooks first

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 15:49:43 UTC No. 16202646

>>16202603
>Do you really believe Elon Musk and a non-verbal institutionalized case have the same physiological state?
Every phenomenon in existence is on a spectrum among other spectrums. Everything is fuzzy like a rainbow and yet the fuzziest of rainbows have identifiable colors. Let's separate woke ideology from science shall we? Clearly there are people who are abnormal in a particular recognizable way and indeed it's a challenge to define phenomena in valid, reliable and accurate ways and yes definitions are a toy of political and financial interests. That doesn't discredit the existence of a phenomenon like autism.

Now in a similar fashion, despite not clearly defined, a correlation between vaccines and autism is plausible in such a way that any disruption of our physiology is a risk factor for pushing our physiology off-track in a way that will never entirely correct itself. Like pathogens can cause permanent damage, getting hit in a boxing match can cause permanent damage, like having sex can exchange stuff that is not immediately clinically significant/recognizable, like living in a house with lots of dust etc. Every day all day everywhere all the time our physiology is under threat of being pushed off-balance by countless risk factors we only pay attention to when they lead to clear identifiable symptoms. However that doesn't mean that non-clinically significant risk factors should be considered harmless. Vaccines like many other things are possible disrupters of our physiology and at least for some of us some of the time the risk, no matter how small, may not be worth the benefits. Because even if a vaccine only causes sides effects in 1/1000.000 cases, then that means you are willingly accepting that one unlucky person as collateral damage for a greater good. The morality of such judgement is highly debatable.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:03:33 UTC No. 16202662

>>16202646
>That doesn't discredit the existence of a phenomenon like autism.
I feel like this is a very big spectrum we're talking about given the fact that for two specimen, one can be completely normal and the other severely incapacitated in various different ways, be that social, intellectual, emotional, motor function-related.
>Now in a similar fashion, despite not clearly defined, a correlation between vaccines and autism is plausible in such a way that any disruption of our physiology is a risk factor for pushing our physiology off-track in a way that will never entirely correct itself.
Define normal and abnormal. Your formulation rests on the assumption that there is a default "normal" state and that variations and deviations from it are necessarily down to external causal factors when they could be intrinsic as well. Given that our notion of normality depends on sampling and averaging over thousands/millions of people, intrinsic variation is built in it by default. Separating the intrinsic from the extrinsic would then require correlation studies which again would have to account for the hundreds of additonal environmental variables involved. With autism, the diagnosis itself (not the psychological phenomen) already depends on numerous external factors. This is one reason or correlator as to why kids of parents who never take them to the doctor have lower vaccination rates and lower autism "rates".
>Vaccines like many other things are possible disrupters of our physiology and at least for some of us some of the time the risk, no matter how small, may not be worth the benefits.
>Because even if a vaccine only causes sides effects in 1/1000.000 cases, then that means...
Until recently, people understood perfectly fine that accepting side effects of vaccines is a societal cost we have to accept in order to prevent measles, smallpox etc. outbreaks whose impact on a person is much worse.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:10:05 UTC No. 16202669

I don't belong to the faction that says that vaccines are fine in 100 % of all cases. They're not. No medical device is. No thing for that matter is.
This is why I consider the whole vaccine thing to be a shitshow largely down to people, most notably women, whose infantile emotional breakdowns (who would have guessed?) is being milked by third parties for their own political and financial gains. For every guy actually hurt by vaccines, there are four who enjoy the attention grabbing and self-victimization which is how you capture an anti-establishment movement. The same way, anti-capitalist movements have been drowned in LGBTQ+ identitarianism.
Either way. Feel free in rejecting Western medicine. The institutions are obviously corrupt, the research is shaddy and financially tied to corporations, and I generally agree with the notion that we're overmedicated, overtreated, overvaccinated etc. Yet, still. A false statement remains a false statement, no matter how much the institution sucks. The system feeds on your rage.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:38:02 UTC No. 16202692

>>16202662
>one can be completely normal and the other severely incapacitated
This is a common phenomenon in modern medicine and psychology. There are many pathologies that can be so benign that a patient does not experience symptoms and does not need treatment most of the time. Autism is no exception. Of course when a patient/client presents themselves to a doctor/psychologists then there is a perceived dysfunction. It's the responsibility of the doctor/psychologist to identify what the problem and the cause is on a case-by-case basis. Of course there's all sorts of factors that can make us doubt the judgement of doctors and psychologists. Now suppose that there was a clear definition of problem-cause-solution: wouldn't that be suspicious as well? Because clear definitions ignore the fuzziness of phenomena and thus advance the bureaucratic/machine-like approach of human beings. Either way, clear or unclear definitions, is not satisfying all considerations.
>Given that our notion of normality depends on sampling and averaging over thousands/millions of people
That's a big part of it of course but normality is not, can not nor will it be a democracy/majority rule or any kind of power play. There are aspects of normality that are above time, place and culture. For example: a living organism must have a functional reproductive system, even when it's socially accepted to not have a functional reproductive system. Likewise an organism must have at least some degree of adaptability to its environment: a person who is literally incapacitated by a change of expected routine or by a loud noise for example is not merely a more structured and sensitive kind of outlier but even beyond the extremes of the bell curve and thus beyond mere cultural judgement.

1/2

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:52:42 UTC No. 16202709

>>16202662
>Until recently, people understood perfectly fine
No way. Recently, people have become more aware of risk and focusing on risk can make risks seem more risky. Until recently people were fine with trusting authority and falling asleep with child-like sweet-talk about the safety and effectiveness of all sorts measures, not just medical. That trust is gone and what's left is a world that is hostile to our existence. We've left the womb. Everything and everyone is changing rapidly. There are many conflicting narratives. There are no guarantees of anything. Pessimism is on the rise. We're waking up to to something that has been awful for a very long time, however, when one has a comfy home, a sweet partner, a meaningful job, friends, some money to spend on leisure, a nice smelling cup of coffee, when one feels healthy, then everything doesn't seem so bad. But that kind of sugar-coating/rose-tinted glasses have fallen off.

>A false statement remains a false statement
The problem is the opposite is happening. Speculations that were unbelievable a few decades ago are becoming more and more plausible by the day. One day you wake up and realize that all the conspiracies are actually true. It seems just a matter of time before enough evidence is gathered and public sentiment is ready for disclosure.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 16:53:49 UTC No. 16202710

>>16202692
>There are many pathologies that can be so benign that a patient does not experience symptoms
Pathologies that don't cause symptoms and have no prognosis of causing symptoms are known as overdiagnoses. Also, diagnosing autism based on not showing signs of autism is a logical fallacy. Again, you mistake the behavioral for the neurological while failing to adequately prove coherence in both cases.
>Autism is no exception
Again, prove to me the materialistic foundation of autism. Conclusions based on arguments assumed to be true are meaningless hypotheticals. Autism rests on a simple grouping of behavioral traits with the additional social commentary that it's bad to have these behavioral traits. It's bad to be nonverbal just as much as it's bad to have "special interests". It's socially constructed garbaeg and distinctively non-scientific.
> It's the responsibility of the doctor/psychologist to identify what the problem and the cause is on a case-by-case basis.
So you don't trust the vaccines, but you trust the institution that effectively makes and administers them?
>Because clear definitions ignore the fuzziness of phenomena and thus advance the bureaucratic/machine-like approach of human beings
If we can't give clear definitions because phenomena are fuzzy, then so are vaccines.
>There are aspects of normality that are above time, place and culture.
No, there aren't. You mistake the biological necessity for organisms to propagate themselves with some very fuzzy notion of normality that again doesn't exis outside of stats.
>a person who is literally incapacitated by a change of expected routine or by a loud noise for example is not merely a more structured and sensitive kind of outlier but even beyond the extremes of the bell curve and thus beyond mere cultural judgement.
This doesn't follow from above. The description is also vague: "what does a change of expected routine" mean? How loud is that loud noise? Aren't animals startled by loud noises too etc

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 17:01:01 UTC No. 16202717

>>16202709
>No way. Recently, people have become more aware of risk
Yes. You suffer from myopia when it comes to medical history. Vaccine controversies are much older. What has arguably changed over the last 20 years is the enorm decrease in evidential rigor that is now needed for something to be considered true among anti-vaxxers.
>Until recently people were fine with trusting authority and falling asleep with child-like sweet-talk
No, they weren't. This is contrarianism aimed against the establishment. Again, the system milks you. You're angry, but you don't know where that aggression should go. So you get lost in numerous constructed narratives carefully set up to confuse you even more. By going against the system, you serve the system. By saying no to whatever the system says, you become their tool. This is the reason, you believe in vaccines being harmful. It's not about the science. Ergo, vaccines are completely irrelevant to the actual point you try to convey. Yet, the more you peddle the vaccine-autism or any other conspiracy shit, the more you get lost in open narratives where no conclusion can be drawn because none of the terms have ever been properly defined.
>Speculations that were unbelievable a few decades ago are becoming more and more plausible by the day.
Such as? Large-scale corruption and capturing of institutions has been going on since... for ever.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 17:29:44 UTC No. 16202736

>>16202717
Go ahead and post RCT for every jab recommended by the CDC. The burden of evidence is on them to show it is safe.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 17:54:11 UTC No. 16202775

>>16202736
You deflect.
>The burden of evidence is on them to show it is safe.
I have argued with other anti-vaxxers before. In general, most of these people are not willing to accept any piece of evidence other than whatever feeds into their cognitive dissonance. This issue is obvious and it makes it clear early on that this really isn't about science. They hide behind science, but it isn't about it.
That's what you would expect when the whole vaccine issue is just a way for them to funnel their aggression. The lack of commentary on our economical system, on how our system essentially feeds on the poor and the working/middle class to feed the upper classes, suggests to me that such narratives are deliberately promoted to cover up systemic inequalities. Why bother with critically reflecting about the way things work in this state when you can blame vaccines for the problems in your life. Incidentally, people on psychotropic drugs develop very similar coping strategies, just that in their case, the drug becomes the unquestioned saviour of their life. So I reckon, the psychological mechanisms are similar.

Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 22:25:25 UTC No. 16203102

Please stop trying to find excuses for your autism

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 01:14:19 UTC No. 16203360

>>16202775
Wow, so you present no data supporting the safety of the jabs and yet you think there is an argument to be had. You have already admitted defeat. Btw, you have never argued with anyone. You just pretend you have. I always ask the same thing in every thread and they never go to the data. Because it doesn't exist.
Because you believe in a fraud.
Because you are a moron.
Because you were brainwashed.
Because they want you dead.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:36:37 UTC No. 16203891

>>16202594

You should look up bernado kastrup. The brain is just the image of ego topography. When you die it unknots itself and you either have reduced ego or become eogless. People who have NDEs describe both.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 10:43:16 UTC No. 16203952

>>16203360
>Wow, so you present no data supporting the safety of the jabs and yet you think there is an argument to be had.
I never said they were safe. I can readily admit their side effects without drawing unwarranted conclusions from that. It's called not thinking in black and white. It's why I can acknowledge the reality of both vaccine harm and vaccine protection.
There's a case to be made that a pharmaceutical company deliberately engineers notions of dysfunction and disease to generate profits. But that doesn't mean that the disease is necessarily real. For example, we might as well have simply started calling even the most innocent quirk or character flaw as signs of mental disorders. Simultaneously, this has rendered the meaning of the term pretty much meaningless.
>I always ask the same thing in every thread and they never go to the data.
There is no data. 95 % of the data is generated by the institutions that have an ideological interest in pushing the pro-side. The remaining 5 % might as well simply consist of alternative health "experts", alt-right idiots etc. who push their own agenda. You're right in pointing out the obvious: That a institution complicit in covering up crimes can't be trusted. You're wrong in believing that the opposite side must have the correct answer to your question.
>Because you believe in a fraud.
Possibly
>Because you are a moron.
>Because you were brainwashed.
>Because they want you dead.
I doubt they want me dead for the same reason I doubt a rancher wants his cows to drop dead. They don't need to me kill right now if population stats are destined for a rapid break-down in numbers anyway.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:04:59 UTC No. 16204033

>>16202710
>Pathologies that don't cause symptoms and have no prognosis of causing symptoms are known as overdiagnoses. Also, diagnosing autism based on not showing signs of autism is a logical fallacy.
You're side-stepping the argument that for a construct to be valid it doesn't need to be one particular value. Instead a range of values is common practice for any sort of diagnosis. If you must insist what those values can possibly be then an obvious and popular one would be the degree of inflammation (CRP and calprotectine are popular markers) because there's an obvious correlation between for example auto-immune disease activity and the incidence of depression, autism and such mental disorders. Again: just because those constructs are nebulous does not mean they don't exist. I only intend to make the argument that it's plausible that there are such things as autism, depression etc, I'm not arguing about how exactly they should be measured. How to measure things that by their very nature are not clearly defined is the frontier of all sorts of scientific fields. It's too much to ask on this board.
>mistake the behavioral for the neurological
There can be no mistake about it. Behaviour = physiology. That's axiomatic.

>So you don't trust the vaccines, but you trust the institution that effectively makes and administers them?
You are ironically making the same fallacious argument as you accuse me of doing because an ''institution'' is a nebulous concept. Let me put it in this simple and easy to understand way: individual doctors and psychologists in the Netherlands are hell bent on diagnosing and prescribing as little as possible. The mentality of such professionals here is the complete opposite of those in the U.S.A.
>If we can't give clear definitions because phenomena are fuzzy, then so are vaccines.
Yes of course. There many different types of vaccines and thus have a different cost/benefit profile.

1/2

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:19:30 UTC No. 16204043

>>16202594
>>physiology that is measurably different from a norm is defined by medical practice as pathology
That's a pretty retarded definition.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:27:27 UTC No. 16204048

2/3

>>16202710
>If we can't give clear definitions because phenomena are fuzzy, then so are vaccines.
However: all vaccines are medical interventions and by default we should intervene as little as possible.
>No, there aren't. You mistake the biological necessity for organisms to propagate themselves with some very fuzzy notion of normality that again doesn't exis outside of stats.
If you intend to separate social constructs from biological constructs then you are effectively creating a mind-body dualistic problem. How can behaviour and biology not be the same?
>This doesn't follow from above. The description is also vague:
Let's take another route: in a darwinistic animal kingdom those who can't make a living just die and no one cares. Making a living for a human being includes being liked by others who give you a job etc. In modern society we've silently agreed to support people who can't make a living for themselves which includes those who are not liked and can't get a jon for whatever reason (autism, skin disease, criminals, drug addicts etc.). These are not arbitrary social definitions but follow from biological functioning. Likewise it's a rather forgiving symbiotic evolutionary strategy to take care for those unfit to make a living and part of that process is that they need to cooperate with treatment to fit the status quo. The alternative is dying or overthrowing the status quo. That's how it is but you are more on the level on how it ought to be.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:46:50 UTC No. 16204068

3/3

>>16202717
>Vaccine controversies are much older.
Sure.
>What has arguably changed over the last 20 years is the enorm decrease in evidential rigor that is now needed for something to be considered true among anti-vaxxers.
There can be no evidential rigor if everyone is bought and paid for to gate keep the dominant narrative. What all the so-called anti-vaxxers, who also happen to be anti-glyphosate, anti-orthodontics, anti-wind energy etc. have in common is that they point to the fact that the kind of research that needs to be done to verifiy/falsify their arguments is either not financed at al, done with deliberately flawed methodology or not allowed to be published for vague reasons. You can't point to a lack of evidence if you don't allow the full spectrum of scientific research to be done or apply the equal scrutiny to both mainstream and alternative research.
>>16202717
>This is contrarianism aimed against the establishment.
Yes of course. If you lack the means to accurately judge the validity of any narrative the safest bet becomes to do the opposite of what the powers that be communicate they want because with how life is going listening to authority has not been in our best interest.
>Such as?
A few decades ago you couldn't say out loud that politicians don't act in our best interests. It took decades of inflation, immigration, limiting freedoms, increasing inequality and exposed corruption for people to wake up that something is structurally wrong. Now everyone pretends that it's always been obvious to anyone. The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that. Many generations have known that the food we eat, the water we drink, the education we receive etc. the entire way society is structured is not in favor of developing human beings to their utmost potential. Even worse: it's not an accident, it's not corruption, it's not just some evil or selfish people in charge: no the final blow no one is really to accept yet: it's all on purpose.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:59:19 UTC No. 16204090

>>16204068
>A few decades ago you couldn't say out loud that politicians don't act in our best interests.
Which year are you posting from?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:59:59 UTC No. 16204091

>>16203891
All is one consciousness does not change the fact that some temporary locations in the consciousness field have a form and function that are significantly different from other temporary locations in the consciousness field. These locations have a will to survive, reproduce in a co-existential matter. Therefore these locations need to adapt their form and function to others if they don't want to unknot too early.

>That's a pretty retarded definition.
No it's the normal definition and for good reason. People tend to feel unwell when their measurements deviate too much from the norm and tend to feel better when treatment brings their measurements closer to the norm. It's an effective approach to well being.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:12:14 UTC No. 16204108

>>16204090
In 2024 such voices are heard in every western parlement. In 2004 it was axiomatic that a politician always represents the will of the people because that's what western constitutions say and because he/she democratically chosen and because he/she acts according to the law and the law is also the result of a democratic process and when politicians act unlawful they are often fired from their position which proves that democracy works. Allegedly.
You prove exactly the point that people don't even remember that our current ideas of the world and the public debate have evolved. You may have always had the sense that politics are bullshit but consider this: the entirety of gen X knows the song Another Brick in the Wall from Pink Floyd, they've seen Fight Club and the Matrix and what to they do? Well answer me: What. Did. They. Do? I will tell you what they did: they created the millennials, sent them through the same institutions and told them to shut up, listen, get good grades and apply for an office job. That's what they did. So don't pretend like ''we knew all along''. No you have not understood anything yet.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:01:23 UTC No. 16204190

>>16204033
>You're side-stepping the argument that for a construct to be valid it doesn't need to be one particular value
Yes, but is the construct of autism or depression or any mental disorder valid? I personally don't think so.
>just because those constructs are nebulous does not mean they don't exist.
That's not what I mean. The behavioral aspects arguably are real. Doesn't mean that by smashing together a bunch of behavioral traits (or really their definitions), we have discovered a coherent grouping. Very clearly, if behavior is physiology, you would prefer a physiology-first approach.
This, however, doesn't touch upon your initial claim nor upon why we should consider variations to be pathologies. You do promote a weird logic that regards normality and conformity as necessarily morally good. In discussions with other antivaxxers, I have found similar sentiments which suggests to me that the anti-vax movement might be primarily carried by people who are in enormous distress over their failure to conform. In that case, we're talking about a form of hysteria. Gender distribution is biased to women within the antivax scene so there's anecdotal evidence.
>individual doctors and psychologists in the Netherlands are...
Rates for mental disorders are disproportionally increasing practically everywhere.
>In modern society we've silently agreed to support people who...
Doesn't this comment simply amount to nothing other than a total justification of the status quo. Autism is whatever doesn't work very well under the status quo and that isn't yet demonstrably down to brain damage (drug addiction is conceptualized along similar lines) or can't be easily disguised as moral failing (because we don't like that with children). The reasoning is incredibly circular.
>the safest bet becomes to do the opposite of what the powers that be communicate
Which renders you predictable and thus a toy they can play with.
>you couldn't say out loud...
Is that so?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:13:50 UTC No. 16204221

>A few decades ago you couldn't say out loud that politicians don't act in our best interests. It took decades of inflation...
You believe this conclusion is the most important one. I believe it's actually the most irrelevant.

You base your fear-mongering on concepts that are largely down to socio-political commentaries such as: What things we're supposed to like and dislike, what we should select for and against etc. The situation has become more complex since all the Covid19-myocarditis claims popped up but it still fits neatly into the whole idea of demoralization and radicalization.

Let's look again at the antivax movement and their obsession, for example, with allergies or autism. Maybe let's strike allergies, because, arguably, there's a real connection. What is autism other than a socio-political commentary on what someone is supposed to do and not supposed to do?
This applies to the non-verbal institutionalized case just as much as the quirky socially awkward nerd. Most people simply agree that we should prevent people from becoming non-verbal institutionalized cases. However, whenever the autism concept gets ever more vague and broader and encompasses more and more fairly normal people, my concern is that the pathologization of ever more traits results in a more and more narrow concept of normality. The whole vaccine claim, then weirdly enough, indirectly justifies and upholds the governments/corporate-state's power in legislating what people should be like. That's why I called you a tool, among other things. Your contrarianism is milked by the system for its own political gain. If the antivax movement is needed to establish a logic of eugenics, in other words the corporate-state's right to decide what your child should feel and think, then that's what's gonna happen.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:16:53 UTC No. 16204229

How many vaccines and various injections do newborns get in the first 3 days? Like 43 right? And if male, they get their foreskin cut off then get 43 injections with all kinds of shit, then kept away from their parents for long periods of time.

Sounds totally healthy and normal. But hey just trust the doctors, right.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:39:21 UTC No. 16204263

>>16204190
>I personally don't think so.
Your social constructionist' view must have a limit somewhere because you wouldn't dismiss cancer as a mere social construct yet we can apply similar scrutiny to cancer as to autism: what's wrong with pain? What's wrong with dying early? Cancer is a natural phenomenon after all. Everyone gets cancer to varying degrees so why be so judgemental about a particular case of cancer? Your only objection seems to be that you can easily point your finger and say: there's the cancer. Yet you can easily point to a person and say: there's an autist. There's a woman around here who for many decades now walks around with fluffy balls on a string (for real: no joke) and she's always rocking back and forth when she sits down with those things to calm herself. If these patterns get disrupted, for example when people touch her fluffy balls on a string, she gets very upset. Therefore she needs her whole work environment to adapt to her behaviour. Everyone gets instructed not to upset her in any way, to not comment on her behaviour etc. You can't just say: ''oh she's just a variety of how human beings can be. There's no problem except the social environment needing to adapt to her strange quirks but hey: don't be so judgemental about it because your judgement is just an arbitrary conditioned norm/value system.'' Hell no. Something is seriously wrong with that line of reasoning.

>>16204190
>Very clearly, if behavior is physiology, you would prefer a physiology-first approach.
Please explain the merits of that hierarchy because you know that washing hands was a good idea before we observed micro-organisms right?

>Rates for mental disorders are disproportionally increasing practically everywhere.
It's highly debatable what that means yet you seem to already know the answer to that question.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:53:38 UTC No. 16204298

>>16202564
>>16202571
>>16202603
>>16202610
>>16202612
>>16202662
>>16202717
>>16202775
>>16203102

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:04:57 UTC No. 16204321

>>16204190
>justification of the status quo
Not justification but observation that there was, is and always will be some kind of a status quo and that there will always be a need for an individual to adapt or die.
>The reasoning is incredibly circular.
That's not a bug but a feature. Like evolution theory: who is fit? Those who survive and reproduce. Who survives and reproduces?
Those who are fit. Circular? Yes. Arbitrary? No. Fallacious reasoning? Only on face value. Autism is not whoever has undesirable traits. Otherwise we wouldn't have a whole bunch of other constructs like depression, narcissism, schizophrenia etc. Obviously there are clear distinctions between those constructs. They do have in common that they are deemed undesirable because they cause suffering for themselves and others. So if you want to take a moral approach take that into consideration. Now why do they cause suffering to themselves and others? If you want to approach that as a moral question then either their norms and values are wrong or society's norms and values are wrong. At least there's a mismatch between individual and environment. The relationship between individual and environment is an ongoing negotiation and it's in the interest of both individual and environment to resolve the mismatch. Obviously the environment has more power than the individual so the individual will get the short end of the stick in the negotiation progress: he/she must adapt more to the world than the world must adapt to the individual. Especially because you see morality as a social construct you must admit that you can't judge wether this is a good or a bad thing.

Furthermore: consider that by nature a society is a thing with boundaries. A society can not be fully inclusive, fully diverse, fully tolerant to everyone and everything. A thing that has no form, no coherence, does not even exist. Inequality and selection of (un)desirable traits are forever the game.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:20:41 UTC No. 16204351

>>16204263
>you wouldn't dismiss cancer as a mere social construct
No, I wouldn't. This is why I say "physiology-first".
>Yet you can easily point to a person and say: there's an autist.
No, because the cancerous growth still exists irrespective of what we call it. I don't think this is the case with autism. If your issue is limited to behavior, then at least have it confined to behavior. Don't have this watered down to assumed but unproven links between the behavioral and physiological.
>oh she's just a variety of how human beings can be
Well, I mean that's objectively true given the fact that she exists and is human
>don't be so judgemental about it because your judgement is just an arbitrary conditioned norm/value system
Scientific notions of how the behavioral relate to the physiological are, in fact, separate from whatever value judgments you seek to impose on her. It's one thing to explore the behavioral in terms of the physiological. It's another thing if the scientific procedure is just meant as a tool to defend and forcibly impose on others some, arguably arbitrary, standard of normality.
>you know that washing hands was a good idea before we observed micro-organisms right?
This doesn't follow from what I've said. The physiological is the cause of the behavioral, that is your assumption. Therefore, we would differentiate behavior based on physiological characterists, not vice versa.
>It's highly debatable what that means
Overdiagnosis, that's what it means.
>Autism is not whoever has undesirable traits. Otherwise we wouldn't have a whole bunch of other constructs like depression, narcissism, schizophrenia etc
Within the social context, it is explicitly defined as such. Socially inappropriate behavior based on theories around the individual being incapable of seeing "hidden social rules" which again is indirectly or directly related to the status quo, be that sociological or biological in nature.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:28:54 UTC No. 16204373

>>16204321
>They do have in common that they are deemed undesirable because they cause suffering for themselves and others
Which again ties into my idea that "suffering" is a value judgment indirectly related to the status quo. If you suffer from a child because his behavior gets him kicked out of school, it follows that you wouldn't suffer or would suffer less from the same child if there weren't schools or the schools could adequately deal with him.
>Especially because you see morality as a social construct you must admit that you can't judge wether this is a good or a bad thing.
Depends on whether or not you see our current social order as something negotiated by everyone as equals or as something that is imposed by a few on the many. I gravitate towards the latter. I conceptualize much of autism as a symptom of a society that has gone wrong, rather than vice versa.
>A society can not be fully inclusive, fully diverse, fully tolerant to everyone and everything
You know, if all behavior is biological, and this might be true, then revulsion against certain members due to their traits is a pre-built aspect of the same biologically determined program. There's no moral in it. From this, it would follow, other than some kind of number games, that no meaningful moral insights could be derived from it. Which leads me back to: "It's one thing to explore the behavioral in terms of the physiological. It's anotneher thing if the scientific procedure is just meant as a tool to defend and forcibly impose on others some, arguably arbitrary, standard of normality." A biological program acting against the manifestation of some other biological program based on biologically pre-determined mechanisms that evaluate the good and the back in terms of pre-built preferences. Yes, such a view is logically coherent. I personally don't subscribe to it. But our whole discussion has now reached its logical conclusion: It's down to ideology.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:31:40 UTC No. 16204385

>>16204190
>Which renders you predictable and thus a toy they can play with.
There's no other way to be. Every way of thinking and behaving known to man is conditioned and has existed for thousands of years across many generations. If you think you're somehow original, spontaneous, creative or anything of the sort you're simply ignorant. We're completely locked into a collective stream of being unless you become some mystical enlightened holy men appearing as a simple old fool dancing and drooling and shitting in the streets. Then you are free and spontaneous. It's time to face the horrendous truth: we are indeed programmable machines.

>demoralization and radicalization.
Lately this has become the favorite strawman of particular types across the 4chan boards. Your strawman entails NEETS, addicts, antinatalists and the like. These strawmen are not demoralized at all. They are highly motivated to fap, drink, smoke, play videogames, browse imageboards and such. That's not demoralization and not radical at all. To be demoralized is to be beyond all that.

>What is autism other than a socio-political commentary on what someone is supposed to do and not supposed to do?
If said person builds his own house with his own tools and his own building materials cut from his own trees and grows his own vegetables and catches his own chickens and cows in the wild if there even is such a thing as a wild farm animal anymore and so on and so on thus completely free from anyone else then and only then is such a person entitled to be free from socio-political commentary. Otherwise we're mutually dependent on eachother and thus need to negotiate our mannerism with eachother to mutual satisfaction.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:39:00 UTC No. 16204408

>>16204385
Name all of the ways of thinking and behaving.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:08:22 UTC No. 16204496

>>16204351
>I don't think this is the case with autism.
To be clear: autism as an identifiable trait (no matter physiological, behavioural or otherwise) or autism as a moral judgement? I assume you mean the latter.
>a tool to defend and forcibly impose on others some, arguably arbitrary, standard of normality.
I proposed the alternative that labels are a tool to identify a particular type mismatch that causes suffering. I've also mentioned negotiation: imposing normality on abnormality is one side of the negotiation and imposing abnormality on normality is the other side of the negotiation. Now you may turn those labels around like J. Krishnamurti: it's not healthy to adapt to a sick society. Fine: that's your moral judgement that you prioritize above the moral judgement from society. Again: that's one side of the negotiation.
>Overdiagnosis, that's what it means.
Not necessarily. For example: Sam Vaknin has argued that in the past few decades everyone has become unironically narcissistic. We can measure that more people have more of a particular trait than in the past. There's a clear link between the rise of social media and the rise of concern with self-image and the rise of discrepancy between self-image and how others perceive you and the suffering caused by this discrepancy. Such development has nothing to do with professionals lowering standards for diagnosis. It poses an interesting dilemma: if everyone is a narcissist then narcissism has no discerning value. Perhaps the standard for narcissism needs to change as well but then we normalize previously undesirable behaviour and societal developments.

>if there weren't schools
It's absurd to argue against a construct just because it's embedded in a cultural context because the whole universe is an interrelational web of things. You might as well argue against gravity because that's only in the context of this particular space-time location until expansion overtakes the binding force between matter.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:21:00 UTC No. 16204543

>>16204408
More like: name any thought and/or any behaviour and an AI will tell you in what philosophical, religious, political or historical framework it's embedded as described in any 101 college book. Do you think we should minimize suffering? Buddhism. All is one consciousness? Idealists and Hindu's. Free markets? Adam Smith. Do you like to draw penises on bathroom stalls? Roman youth already did. Do you complain that there's nothing new under the sun? Solomon/Ecclesiastes. Did you just spontaneously whistle a magical melody? Some medieval composer already wrote the same tune. Did you have amazing sex? The ancient Japanese already described every possible position. The computer has already calculated all your moves.