U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent

It’s interesting to muse about the larger picture here. What is it that makes autism so dangerous? To me it looks like part of an almost spiritual war against empathy/compassion by traumatized individuals trying to fight their own Jungian Shadow.

RFK has been quite clear that autistic people are undesirables. They're collecting our personal information so that we can be imprisoned or killed.

He’s being incredibly clear that when he talks about people that have trouble participating in society, he is talking about the 26% of people with profound autism.

Online autism conspiracy theory channels turn this into some kind of eugenics purge.

He's not being "incredibly clear" because he speaks about autistic people with one broad brush.

And in calling this "a conspiracy theory" and "some kind of eugenics purge", you seem to be intentionally downplaying the very real and very legitimate worries of autistic people, a group who has historically been subjected to eugenics purges in the past, which started using the language and rationale Kennedy espouses.

If Kennedy wants to be taken seriously and with good faith, he should put autistic people and experts in charge of this effort. That he doesn't speaks volumes about his true intentions.

Sorry if that sounds like a conspiracy theory to you, but autistic people like myself see the obvious parallel here and we aren't going to just be quiet and allow it to happen again.

> He's not being "incredibly clear" because he speaks about autistic people with one broad brush.

You’re watching edited videos.

As far as I can tell I've heard all the words from that man and his surrogates. What are the words that have been said which I have not heard, which would clear all this up?

Like I said, I've heard all those words already. They don't clear anything up. I'm asking you if there are more words I haven't heard.

Here's the transcript: https://singjupost.com/rfk-jr-holds-press-conference-on-new-...

When he speaks here he says things like:

  So about 25% of the kids who are diagnosed with autism are nonverbal, non-toilet trained, and have other stereotypical features, headbanging, tactile and light sensitivities, stimming, toe-locking, et cetera.

Aside from not being toilet trained, the rest of that applies to me. So am I "profoundly autistic"? I mean, maybe but at the same time I don't think that's really what he means. So you can see my confusion. Is he talking about me or isn't he? Because he's listing off things I do all the time, and calling the these features of "profound autism".

He also says:

  "with full-blown autism, headbanging, non-verbal, non-toilet trained, stimming, toe walking, these other stereotypical features. "

Again, not incredibly clear by my reading. Very broad brush being applied here.

In the whole speech, he doesn't refer to autism as a "spectrum" disorder once until he's prompted by a reporter in those terms. Telling, because he clearly views autism as a binary of high/low functioning or high/low needs, which it's not. So again, painting autism with a broad brush.

Then there's this:

  Then you have to ask yourself, why is it so pervasive? Why has it been thrown up against us for so many years? Clearly, there are industries. This is coming from an environmental toxin. Somebody made a profit by putting that environmental toxin into our air, our water, our medicines, our food. It’s to their benefit to normalize it, to say, this is all normal. It’s always been here.

Yeah, so let me get this straight, RFK says this and yet it's the autism community who you think are the conspiracy theorists?

Yes, I would consider an adult that bangs their head to stim to have profound autism.

Yes, RFK said that and then I do think some extreme members of the autism community are conspiracy theorists. Literally nothing that he has said that you have quoted indicates that he wants to create concentration camps or kill everyone or anything else said on the autism community channels we have both read.

Let's assume they were planning to create concentration camps, do you naively expect them to publicly admit that in plain language or how do you think that would look?

Even the Nazis didn't have the political capital to plainly admit to their own atrocities. They tried to keep it secret for as long as they could, then they denied the camps' existence, denied the abuse in those camps, denied the genocide, falsified medical records to make it appear that people died from pneumonia and unfortunate medical complications.

In reality they were injecting children with pathogens, experimenting on them, torturing them, starving them and ultimately killing them. In the end they even tried to make their families pay for their "care". Officially, nobody knew anything terrible was happening. Unofficially, everyone was complicit.

> Let's assume they were planning to create concentration camps

Godwin’s law.

Normally I agree but Godwin's law is officially suspended the moment they threw a Nazi salute.

Regardless, Godwin's Law is a thought terminating cliche, which is shielding us from the truth. The person you responded to wasn't calling them Nazis (although I am), they were asking you to engage in a hypothetical to try to make sense of a problematic issue: for 70 years since the Holocaust we have heard the slogan "never again", as a cry to the future to prevent such an atrocity from ever happening again.

The question to all those who hear that cry is: how? How do you prevent a holocaust from happening again?

The problem the parent is pointing out is that the perpetrators of a holocaust don't say that is their intent. They will say they are "punishing criminals", "deporting illegals", "purging drug dealers", "cleaning up the streets", "bringing order", "causing peace", "uniting the nation", "restoring glory" etc.

Therefore in order to prevent a holocaust, one has to necessarily stand in the way of people who claim to be doing good. No one doing a holocaust claims to be doing evil.

If you wait for undeniable proof of a holocaust before you act to stop it, you will fail. That kind of proof only comes after the fog of war has cleared.

Therefore if you really want to prevent a holocaust, you have to do so before they consolidate power, before they operationalize their intent, at the stage when they still have plausible deniability, and when they can make their plans seem reasonable. You prevent them from laying the groundwork for the holocaust, despite all the deniers.

> is officially suspended the moment they threw a Nazi salute.

But they didn't. You know that. Unless you think Tim Waltz, AOC and everyone else who did that is a Nazi. I bet you don't.

Here's a video of Musk doing the same gesture as a group of avowed neo Nazis:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91266228/musk-roman-salute-histo...

That's a practiced and very intentional Nazi salute, don't tell me otherwise. He put his back foot into that.

Like I said, if a person does that salute, Godwin goes out the window and it's time to presume they are a Nazi until proven otherwise.

> Unless you think Tim Waltz, AOC and everyone else who did that is a Nazi.

Do you have video that shows the same thing as the link I provided? I bet you don't.

Trying to equate any random hand gesture that just happens to have their arm extended at some point isn't fooling anyone, but it's a strong signal for your true feelings on the matter so I appreciate the time-saving part of it.