Why not, it's not a big deal. In this day and age, it's getting harder and harder to distiguish loners and antisocial types from people with asperger's, anyway. I probably am aspie myself (or could easily qualify as one), i fucking hate people.
Believe that loners and antisocial types are hard to distinguish from people that suffer from aspergers? Fuck yes i do believe that, in fact most loners and antisocial types probably have aspergers to begin with.
You do realize mental diseases have varying degrees of severity, right? Right?
yeah, probably true seeing as 1/1000 (statistics from sweden) actually have the diagnosis. counting the undiagnosed masses(!!), you're probably right. in case you and your internet diagnosis didnt comprihend that: sarcasm.
but then thats not fair, you have solid ground for your self-diagnosis, after all, you do hate people (sarcasm, again!!)
tell me, have u ever even spoken to anybody with aspergers syndrome, or is just your persumtion that they hate people? not being able to comprihend various social situations, both internally and externally (which leaves a feeling out of place), and hating people is completely different things.
Please show me where i said that asperger's syndrome can be distilled to "hating people".
You presume a lot of things, good sir. I have full knowledge of how asperger's manifests, it's not confined to social awkwardness, in fact, it's a kind of autism. Yes, i do speak to people who were diagnosed with aspergers, yes, i do know "hating people" is not the same as "feeling awkward around people". What i don't know is how could you misinterpret what i was saying to such a degree, unless you're planting straw men deliberately in which case you can fuck right off.
"I probably am aspie myself (or could easily qualify as one), i fucking hate people."
im sry that i took it way too literally, but i just have no idea what u meant. you know how us retards gets when debating something close to heart; completely irrational!! is this just another opportunity for you to mock people with the diagnosis? i honestly dont understand what you're trying to accomplish.
A straw man is misinterpreting an argument and pretending to beat it down without actually beating it down.
To the point, i never claimed to be a good person. The joke in the picture was more about mocking the emerging internet stereotype of someone with aspergers, than people who actually do have aspergers. What i was trying to accomplish was to generate a few cheap laughs. If it didn't work for you, too bad.
edit: to further clarify the statement you quoted, this stems more from depression than anything else. I refocused it into hatred, which helped me pull myself out of a mental dump, but find myself struggling to forge lasting emotional ties with other people, with my default outlook on every single person i meet being cynical disapproval, distrust and wariness. I was trying to say that this is similar to how people with aspergers have trouble socializing, but maybe was too ambiguous at that.
Get off your moral high horse, sif you never laughed at a guy that looks funny or talks in a strange way. People are cruel and will point fingers at anything "out of the ordinary", whatever that means. Deal with it.
By the way, if you are implying that you're aspie yourself (or someone close to you is), boo hoo, why should i care?
no, i never deliberately try to single out anybody to such an extent as you. but you're right, im gonna deal with it. you're simply not worth my energy
Considering that guy has singled out some nonchalant aliteration pun involving asperger's, yet:
1) totally ignored a similar nonchalant joke about rape and cancer ( somehow actual problems in the world which cause grief to people involved)
2) is showing an inability of understanding a social situation ( checked Wikipedia on symptoms and implications of asperger's and this is a symptom c: )
3) is completely defensive and somehow outraged at a minor topic;
^ considering all of the above, one could guess this dude could be personally affected some how. Busy week huh bro, first Jeff and now this )) HEY BRO I GOT ANOTHER FRONT PAGE ARTICLE FOR YOU
Oleg Chujczynski: "beating up mental retards gives me infinite sexual prowess"
I don't know what is it about me, i just keep bumping into those guys. :@
On a related note, i wrote about aspie anger, and sometime later some guy who shows symptoms gets angry. OH MY GOD I'M LIKE THAT GUY FROM HEROES THAT COULD PAINT THE FUTURE :O
seeing as u didnt respond to me, ill draw the conclution that u dont actaully want answers to your questions, or that you're simply a coward. which one is it?
and if you are infact looking for answer: pls, at least try to show some understanding =))) i dont wanna try to have a discussion with another "i read a wiki page, now im professional"-kinda moran :DD
if not, keep on with ur ignorant mockery. i dont believe a person like that could change even if he wanted to
I didn't respond to you simply because there is a small chance of any healthy debate arising: you seem to be passive-aggressive on a topic which I feel no particular opinion on (and on top of that, minimal knowledge stemming from reading over an article no more than an hour ago).
On top of that, it is interesting to see that you did pick up the asperger's pun, yet completely ignored the jokes referring to cancer and to rape, which means that you understand that this picture is of an ironic self-depreciating nature towards the current state of esr and it is acceptable as long as they don't touch the subject of asperger's (which you feel strongly about). Or you are just completely accepting of people making fun of cancer and rape on any level (as long as whoever gets cancer or RAPE IN ASS doesn't have asperger's or any other ASDs). Either way, you are coming off as a dick (especially if you re-read all your additional comments as well), asperger's syndrome or not.
^ so yea, all that in mind, I would rather not waste my time exchanging posts with moral crusaders of "aspie rights" and send a direct reply to a friend. Have a nice day c:
i absolutely dispise when people make jokery about rape/cancer/racism/retards/etc, but arguing over it every time it comes up? i would be a fool to think i can make a change that will matter, just as now. this is in fact the first time i have mentioned aspergers in this sense, and it will probably be my last, if not for something more serious, but dont bet on that happening.
to be quite honest with you, i have reacted more to cancer in a sense like this, because i find it absolutely despicable to joke about.
ofc, would i react like this when being called "retarded" or "raped"... well, u have been online, you can probably understand why i dont bother very often. imo, its not as if thats as severely, seeing as these words are rarely used correctly =PPP
guess thats it for me and my passive-agressive style of arguing, now im gonna go mock some retards with my friends!! lied, im socially retarded!! BYE!!
Who'd think that one could find an extremely thin-skinned, naive moral crusader that exudes a nauseating stench of hypocrisy and pettiness here, of all places?!
i guess u have a point, but the difference is whether you're doing it to be helpful or not. if your idea of not being discriminating is pointing somebody out and laughing at him, well... im not really sure how to argue that =PPP cant even begin to understand the inhumanity to actually think like that =PPPPP
It isn't helpful to anyone to get singled out and laughed at. If he was picked because (not despite) he is diagnosed with asperger, that's would be a different story.
If they made that into a movie, I'd watch it! (read da vinci code years ago but I imagined Harrison Ford cast as the protagonist so when they premiered it with tom hanks I was like "meh" and then all the reviews were shit so I never bothered :D )
First time I visited ireland, to have something to read when at the hotel, I bought Digital Fortress, Angels & Demons, and Deception Point. I read them all, one after the other in about 2 weeks. They were 'okay', with Angels & Demons being the better of the 3, but he always uses a conventional and almost predictable structure for all his works, and after reading them all almost at once, I couldn't help notice the similarities and repeated plot devices / characters. Still haven't read Da Vinci Code, and I really cba after already seeing the movie. Looking back, what attracted me most to buying the books were the covers. OLOLO.
I've read them all around the same time (I believe this was winter 2005 going onto early 2006), I mean the 2 existing whatshisname series( Angels & Demons as well as Da Vinci Code) as well as 3 others if i recall correcly ( CIA headquarters fiasco with supercomputer, Washington pre-elections hype fiasco at same time as a "meteorite" is "found" and third being "guy goes to Spain for one reason or another with chick, they go around churches and dodge assassins)
The fact that no more than 7 years passed, but I am already losing (couldn't even remember amount of books) the semi-transparent plot points and identical protagonists (post-doctorate professional either within academia or high-classified governmental research currently the early stages of middle age), backup characters ( late 20's or early 30s hot chick (bonus if European c: )), quasi-religious or political subplots (and batshit insan33333 antagonists) and then some sort of subterfudge by the protagonists' superiors (who end up having more "varied" interests in the situation kekeke) , and finally running around famous landmarks which often have phallic symbolisms and a final plot point which is supposed to BLOW YOUR MIND. Freud would have a field day with Dan Brown c:
Apparently he wrote a new one in 2010. I was round my parent's house one weekend afternoon last summer and saw it lying about a bookcase. I was like "this title doesn't seem familiar" (could have actually been "I've never seen this Dan Brown cover before now you mentioned it AGHhaAGhaGHAhHAH) so after a I ended up talking about it borrowing ze book. Still exactly the same formula c: Guess it appeals to one's senses of "wow secret shit is going on and has been going on for centuries! I didn't know Barbarossa was a hermaphrodyte and Ghenghis Khan was three midgets in an overcoat and there are secret societies hiding it from me" i.e. appealing how stupid people think the World runs :D
Having said all that, his books are ok, and even catchy at times and you actually feel sympathy for the protagonists and want them to beat the situations they are facing, and better, more known and more critically acclaimed writers have certain formulas and repeating styles: like Bruce Forsyth (Dogs of War, Day of the Jackal , Odessa File) in Fiction has (at least in first 2... am about to finish day of the jackal since i am on holiday and get onto Odessa file) elements of military awesomeness, professional mercenaries being ruthless yet still have the reader thinking "fucking hell that dude is awesome" rather than "omg his an murdererer" , George R. R. Marting (with both the Westeros series and his independent works) creates an aura of characters who you sympathise with due to the thought narrative so u can see the fear, guilt, and confusion of a character who has done something wrong, as well as having more adult themes such as sex, revenge, and envy. Even with Hunter S. Thompson you could always get a breeze of anti-establishment, pro-freedom of choice for whatever articles and books full of excellent wordplay. Don't get me started on Isaac Asimov's sci-fi an repetitiveness.
OH FUCK I AM ON A TANGENT. Basically books are ok, but next time I hear " ZE SCIENTIST DUD FROM DA VINCI CODE IS BACK AND IS UNCOVERING DARK SECRET ABOUT PENIS OF JESUS STATUE IN RIO DE JANEIRO", I will pass, or not get book till I'm bored or something
Thanks dude, after finishing with Frederick Forsyth's popular bibliography I will check Cobley out. Recenly I was disappointed with some of Asimov's works, but enjoyed Arthur C. Clarke's Rezendevous with Rama quite a lot))
I've read most of them. To this day, thousands (literally) of books later, i find even the worst of them the most inspired and creative out of them all.
i read halfway through the one that starts with the murder in the louvre, but got really bored with the writing style, every page was just:
dr. symbolologist goes there. he say "bla", she answers "bla!!". then they do that. he says "bla", she answers "bla!!". then they do this. and so on
was also back in 2005 when i read it, so i cant remember much. but i do remember the author trying to shove about 50 fun-facts and i-bet-you-didn-knowits on me per page. and i some point there was this fun fact about the pyramid on the louvre being made of exactly 666 triangle shaped glass parts. so i'm like "what the fuck, the author blew my mind again", googled it. turned out its a blatant made up lie. and i'm guesing it wasn't the only one.
i really dont mind fictional storylines in actual historical or contemporal settings, but making this kind of stuff up as he goes along was just over the line for me.
i can't just write a book that plays in the empire state building and at some point make some character say "a funny thing about the empire stats building, and not many people know this, is that is has 10 stories and was built in the early 90s by one indian."
i cant say that because its not true.
also i dont like flawless knowitall overachieving protagonists.
i prefer the dontgiveagamn alcoholics who somehow manage but even in the end of the book won't quit drinking.