I'm sorry but, what the actual fuck is wrong with allistics?
a fucking revelation?! shape better therapy strategies?! how about shaping a more holistic approach to understanding people and interacting socially and allowing neurodivergent people to be themselves? how about spend an hour talking to an autistic person while actually considering how they react to things rather than assuming we're emotionless computers just because we don't use the same social cueing criteria as allistics?
“We spend all this time problematizing autism, rather than doing the work to understand what it’s like to be autistic,” he said. “The popular idea that autistic people don’t have rich, emotional lives is simply not true.”
[...]
Instead of urging changes to how autistic people communicate, he said, anyone who has an autistic person in their life should work instead to improve mutual understanding between those who have diverse modes of experiencing the world.
the fact that the article takes a more sympathetic tone is nice, but does not negate the fact that the headline is both offensive and just downright awful.
also kinda absurd to think we should go to the effort of finding and reading the article when it’s not linked in the OP or the linked tweet and the headline is this fucking hurtful already.
you should be aware that headlines are often written by an editor, not the author. This is why I don't pay much attention to them, especially in science journalism. You'll get a paper published like "In vivo effect of XYZ on telomeres" that says XYZ extended rat lifespans by 1%, an interview with a scientist that says "nobody has tested this on primates yet, but helpful molecules in XYZ class could conceivably be discovered within a few decades", and a headline that says "XYZ PROMISES ETERNAL LIFE WITHIN THE DECADE". Whatever gets clicks and/or outrage gets published.
I think that hurtful and inflammatory posts are the ones we need to double-check before sharing more widely. Especially screenshots like this that have a reaction built-in.
I am well aware that headlines are shit and written by an editor rather than the author, but I disagree that reacting to them is wrong. the headline is what the publication chose to lead with, and shows the tone they wanted people to be led into the article with. the headline is arguably more in tune with what the general populace would read and identify with than the content of the article, since its entire purpose is to grab potential readers’ attention.
I think if allistics want autistics to not react to their shit takes, they should stop publishing headlines that alienate and demonize us.
I'm sorry but, what the actual fuck is wrong with allistics?
a fucking revelation?! shape better therapy strategies?! how about shaping a more holistic approach to understanding people and interacting socially and allowing neurodivergent people to be themselves? how about spend an hour talking to an autistic person while actually considering how they react to things rather than assuming we're emotionless computers just because we don't use the same social cueing criteria as allistics?
jesus fucking christ this headline got me riled.
study author in article:
as always, ignore headlines
the fact that the article takes a more sympathetic tone is nice, but does not negate the fact that the headline is both offensive and just downright awful.
also kinda absurd to think we should go to the effort of finding and reading the article when it’s not linked in the OP or the linked tweet and the headline is this fucking hurtful already.
you should be aware that headlines are often written by an editor, not the author. This is why I don't pay much attention to them, especially in science journalism. You'll get a paper published like "In vivo effect of XYZ on telomeres" that says XYZ extended rat lifespans by 1%, an interview with a scientist that says "nobody has tested this on primates yet, but helpful molecules in XYZ class could conceivably be discovered within a few decades", and a headline that says "XYZ PROMISES ETERNAL LIFE WITHIN THE DECADE". Whatever gets clicks and/or outrage gets published.
I think that hurtful and inflammatory posts are the ones we need to double-check before sharing more widely. Especially screenshots like this that have a reaction built-in.
I am well aware that headlines are shit and written by an editor rather than the author, but I disagree that reacting to them is wrong. the headline is what the publication chose to lead with, and shows the tone they wanted people to be led into the article with. the headline is arguably more in tune with what the general populace would read and identify with than the content of the article, since its entire purpose is to grab potential readers’ attention.
I think if allistics want autistics to not react to their shit takes, they should stop publishing headlines that alienate and demonize us.
Editors get the wall
the fact that this is news proves that the reaction to the headline is justified