#Autism question for those who are #ActuallyAutistic: Do you feel that it's moral immoral, amoral, or something else entirely for celebrities who have been diagnosed as being / are suspected to be on the autism spectrum to not use their position of privilege as a way to advocate?
Mainly, to get *sensible* arguments as to why celebrities might not want to jump up on an autism-advocacy soapbox. "Because they don't have to" is a tautology that seems kind of unreasonable.
-
-
In particular, I find the argument that "it could adversely impact their careers" to be spurious when suspected-autistic actors like Dan Aykroyd have no qualms about publicly announcing frankly bizarre crystal-skull shit, yet are silent on the subject of autism.
-
Sure, everyone is more than welcome to say everything or say nothing on the subject of being on the autism spectrum, but when I see people who are suspected of being on the spectrum doing crazy career-imploding shit when they could be doing something net-positive, it kinda sucks.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
They *don't* have to, though. If they do, it's a good thing. If they don't, it's nothing but a missed opportunity. Just because my opinion isn't iron-clad enough to you to change your mind about it doesn't mean you have to talk down to me or imply that my *opinion* isn't sensible
-
It seems like I agree with you, I'm just emotionally charged right now. What I actually want to know is why it's wrong for me to think less of celebs who fail to speak on autism for fear of consequences, while openly doing far more controversial/consequential crap.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.