Home› Advocacy

Thought police

firemonkeyfiremonkey Citizen
in Advocacy
I'm all for things that make life better for an autistic person, and that these have to fought for in a less than perfect world. That's where advocates can do good.

However there's also what I would call a 'thought police' element centring round use of language, and how things should be approached,  that  is sometimes more about  dominant people wanting to control the agenda than something that is useful in itself. For me it can come over as quite  anxiety provoking ,intimidating and puritanical.

Comments

  • Statest16Statest16 Citizen, Mentor
    I'm surely against the thought police
  • BenderBender Citizen
    Statest16 said:
    I'm surely against the thought police
    You can add me to the list!
  • Save_FerrisSave_Ferris Citizen, Member
    Bender said:
    Statest16 said:
    I'm surely against the thought police
    You can add me to the list!

    No point adding me to the list , the thought police know how I feel about them before I do 😝
  • verityverity Administrator, Citizen
    Do you mean ridgid use of terms and definitions? What kind of language?

    I personally dislike gatekeeping/exclusivity as while we do have similarities we are also  quite different. The similarise might help us belong but for me it is our differences that I celebrate.
  • Mona_PerethMona_Pereth Citizen
    firemonkey said:
    I'm all for things that make life better for an autistic person, and that these have to fought for in a less than perfect world. That's where advocates can do good.

    However there's also what I would call a 'thought police' element centring round use of language, and how things should be approached,  that  is sometimes more about  dominant people wanting to control the agenda than something that is useful in itself. For me it can come over as quite  anxiety provoking ,intimidating and puritanical.

    Are you talking about, for example, people with person-first language-ism vs. adjectivistic people?

    What I call the "adjectivistic" stance (a.k.a. "identity-first" language, e.g. "autistic person") arose in reaction to the "person-first language" (e.g. "person with autism") that many parent-oriented groups insisted on.

    But most people who call themselves "autistic" would also say that it should be up to the individual autistic person whether to call oneself an "autistic person" or a "person with autism."  The point isn't to make a negative judgment about autistic people who call themselves "people with autism," but to resist being dictated to by the parents' groups that insisted on "person with autism.;"

    Personally I prefer to use whichever term flows better in a given sentence.  Usually that's "autistic person," but occasionally I also say "person with autism."

  • firemonkeyfiremonkey Citizen
    Language usage is certainly  part of it.   I accept some language should be kicked into the long grass. However   there are some,especially on places like Twitter, that are zealots when it comes  to what should be said and how things should be  approached. The phrase 'control freak' springs to mind.It's  the fanaticism of some that I find disturbing and anxiety provoking. Like you I'll use both 'autistic person' and 'person with autism'. 

  • Mona_PerethMona_Pereth Citizen
    edited April 2021
    Twitter is notorious for fanatical mob mentality and general nastiness.  That's one of the reasons why I've never had a Twitter account, although I am now, reluctantly, considering getting one.
  • Prometheus81Prometheus81 Citizen, Member
    edited May 2021
    In general, although I think Huxley was the more prophetic writer, Orwell was dead right about the dumbing-down and policing of language. Hence the PC/"woke" nonsense, as well as the almost complete inarticulacy of most recent products of the school/university system. 
Sign In or Register to comment.