I have to say I think there is some truth to this. There's clearly been a huge boom in diagnoses of ADD and Autism and not due to a corresponding rise in prevelance. It may be the case that they were just not diagnosed before and not they are being correctly diagnosed due to more active screening. Meh, whatever.
yeah but ADD and autism are pretty clearly distinct, right? this would be funny if he were attacking ADD but autism is pretty devastating to a lot of families, so i voted foul on this.
i support his right to say it, but i think it's over the line and mildly offensive. i'm not outraged or anything like that, but i think he has confused ADD with autism, which i think is a far less questionable disability. so, i voted foul. it's 51% foul, 49% funny.
but autism IS a form of developmental disability, which is what other forms of mental retardation are. just because they can be highly functioning doesn't mean that it's analogous to having a kid w/ ADD. I think almost nothing is off limits for humor, but dennis leary isn't funny. why doesn't he blame the parents of kids with down syndrome for having stupid and ugly kids? THAT might actually be funny b/c it's so offensive and over the top.
that's a good bit, cjr. you should start developing your routine... i don't understand kapualdo's "it's not offensive to make fun of ADD but it is offensive to make fun of autism" comment. please elaborate.
it's not that one is offensive and one is not. it's that i speculate that most of us believe that there are a lot of phony ADD cases, while most of us also believe that there are very few fake autism cases. so it's mildly offensive and very funny to make fun of fake ADD cases, because you can imagine denis leary's jokes being more grounded in reality. when you switch over to autism, it is still funny, but more offensive. imagine a continuum - at one end of the scale is ADD, in the middle is autism, and at the other end is down's syndrome. as you slide from left to right, making jokes about deficient parents becomes less funny and more offensive. for me, making jokes about autism is slightly more offensive than funny so i voted foul. there's nothing radical here, we can disagree on the nuances of where the continuum tips from funny to offensive, but it's a nuanced argument, not a black and white/radical one.
whereas my statement was based on the premise that autism is over-diagnosed. this isn't really a debatable a point, just one of which we're equally ignorant. i think autism is as made-up as ADD based on the fact (or rather the ignorance-based belief) that it's a behavioral diagnosis and not an objective fact based diagnosis. unlike downs syndrome, you count the chromosones, one too many therefore downs syndrome (also based on ignorance i admit). kapauldo thinks, presumably, that autism is a fact based diagnosis, with blood tests or urine strips that turn purple if you have it and salmon if you don't. i think we just need to do some research before continuing the debate. or perhaps an expert?...
Posted by
Dr. von Smartendokter
about 1 month ago:
(Expert Comment, Credentials: PhD in Doctor)
Voted: Funny
Yes ahem. As as an expert, which I been bein' since I receiveth mine diplome in Doctor, I have to weigh on in thar, y'all. It be cool runnin's when it comin' down to the diagnosis, ok? Dees kids dey come in to me office, an' be runnin' roun' buck wild and I been handing out pills like Ra hands out sun rays, ya knowin' wot I been talkin' bout? Its as if'n they been comin' out with they scews turned loosewise. Thar be the real tragedy.
"autism is as made-up as ADD" this is the precisely where we disagree. and while I may agree we are ignorant, i think real autism patients, like rain man, are clearly afflicted with a real medical condition. ADD is much softer a diagnosis. so I simply disagree that autism = ADD in made-upness. I submit this to you, Doctor.
what does an autistic person look like, cjr? they're people like you and i. in fact, exactly like you and i. so there's no way to know. i probably have. i probably am autistic. i'm autistic. there.
i agree. there must be a real kernel in order to serve as the nucleus around which a fake psychic frenzy is formed. kim peek is the real kernel. overdiagnosis is the fake frenzy. there is certainly a real component to ADD as well. there is a real component to restless leg syndrome and to irritable male syndrome. my hypothesis is the ratio of fake cases to kim peeks has been increasing in recent years. they're probably catching more kim peeks now due to the frenzy, that's good. but the definition has been so widened that lots of healthy, dumb kids are being labelled 'autistic'. that's all i'm saying.
so you're metric is ratio of real versus fake. my metric is the severity of the real disease as going too far. Even the worst ADD case is pretty functional, and probably treatable. autism is a hard disease, it's discrete and were he talking about ADD, i would gladly have voted funny, since in the worst case, i would only be laughing at the expense of real ADD cases, which aren't that bad compared to autism or down's syndrome. It's just not funny to laugh at kim peeks. and while it's not that funny to laugh at a real ADD case, is still pretty funny. i mean, imagine some ADD kid running around the kintergarten room going apesh*t- it's pretty funny right? if you replace him with a down's syndrome kid, it's suddenly not funny. replace him with an autism kid, not funny.
if people started getting cancer of the toenail, but actually they were just desperate for attention, and someone wanted to point out how absurd it was, i'd say that's pretty funny. even though real cancer isn't funny.
RSS Feed
why is it foul for a comedian to make outlandish comments? i'm not saying this particular bit is funny, but i certainly don't think it's foul.
I have to say I think there is some truth to this. There's clearly been a huge boom in diagnoses of ADD and Autism and not due to a corresponding rise in prevelance. It may be the case that they were just not diagnosed before and not they are being correctly diagnosed due to more active screening. Meh, whatever.
yeah but ADD and autism are pretty clearly distinct, right? this would be funny if he were attacking ADD but autism is pretty devastating to a lot of families, so i voted foul on this.
i think you're incorrect. you're thinking autism is like retardation or rainman disease. i think that's yesteryears definition of autism.
kapauldo, how can you consistently vote that free speech should not be hampered but vote that a comedian's words are foul?
i support his right to say it, but i think it's over the line and mildly offensive. i'm not outraged or anything like that, but i think he has confused ADD with autism, which i think is a far less questionable disability. so, i voted foul. it's 51% foul, 49% funny.
but autism IS a form of developmental disability, which is what other forms of mental retardation are. just because they can be highly functioning doesn't mean that it's analogous to having a kid w/ ADD. I think almost nothing is off limits for humor, but dennis leary isn't funny. why doesn't he blame the parents of kids with down syndrome for having stupid and ugly kids? THAT might actually be funny b/c it's so offensive and over the top.
that's a good bit, cjr. you should start developing your routine... i don't understand kapualdo's "it's not offensive to make fun of ADD but it is offensive to make fun of autism" comment. please elaborate.
it's not that one is offensive and one is not. it's that i speculate that most of us believe that there are a lot of phony ADD cases, while most of us also believe that there are very few fake autism cases. so it's mildly offensive and very funny to make fun of fake ADD cases, because you can imagine denis leary's jokes being more grounded in reality. when you switch over to autism, it is still funny, but more offensive. imagine a continuum - at one end of the scale is ADD, in the middle is autism, and at the other end is down's syndrome. as you slide from left to right, making jokes about deficient parents becomes less funny and more offensive. for me, making jokes about autism is slightly more offensive than funny so i voted foul. there's nothing radical here, we can disagree on the nuances of where the continuum tips from funny to offensive, but it's a nuanced argument, not a black and white/radical one.
i guess but your statement is premised on the presumption that autism is not over-diagnosed as leary's "comedy" suggests. isn't it?
whereas my statement was based on the premise that autism is over-diagnosed. this isn't really a debatable a point, just one of which we're equally ignorant. i think autism is as made-up as ADD based on the fact (or rather the ignorance-based belief) that it's a behavioral diagnosis and not an objective fact based diagnosis. unlike downs syndrome, you count the chromosones, one too many therefore downs syndrome (also based on ignorance i admit). kapauldo thinks, presumably, that autism is a fact based diagnosis, with blood tests or urine strips that turn purple if you have it and salmon if you don't. i think we just need to do some research before continuing the debate. or perhaps an expert?...
Yes ahem. As as an expert, which I been bein' since I receiveth mine diplome in Doctor, I have to weigh on in thar, y'all. It be cool runnin's when it comin' down to the diagnosis, ok? Dees kids dey come in to me office, an' be runnin' roun' buck wild and I been handing out pills like Ra hands out sun rays, ya knowin' wot I been talkin' bout? Its as if'n they been comin' out with they scews turned loosewise. Thar be the real tragedy.
"autism is as made-up as ADD" this is the precisely where we disagree. and while I may agree we are ignorant, i think real autism patients, like rain man, are clearly afflicted with a real medical condition. ADD is much softer a diagnosis. so I simply disagree that autism = ADD in made-upness. I submit this to you, Doctor.
randyc, have you ever met an autistic person?
what does an autistic person look like, cjr? they're people like you and i. in fact, exactly like you and i. so there's no way to know. i probably have. i probably am autistic. i'm autistic. there.
this is Kim Peek, the real life 'rain man.' he's not the product of anxious or inattentive parents. link
i agree. there must be a real kernel in order to serve as the nucleus around which a fake psychic frenzy is formed. kim peek is the real kernel. overdiagnosis is the fake frenzy. there is certainly a real component to ADD as well. there is a real component to restless leg syndrome and to irritable male syndrome. my hypothesis is the ratio of fake cases to kim peeks has been increasing in recent years. they're probably catching more kim peeks now due to the frenzy, that's good. but the definition has been so widened that lots of healthy, dumb kids are being labelled 'autistic'. that's all i'm saying.
so you're metric is ratio of real versus fake. my metric is the severity of the real disease as going too far. Even the worst ADD case is pretty functional, and probably treatable. autism is a hard disease, it's discrete and were he talking about ADD, i would gladly have voted funny, since in the worst case, i would only be laughing at the expense of real ADD cases, which aren't that bad compared to autism or down's syndrome. It's just not funny to laugh at kim peeks. and while it's not that funny to laugh at a real ADD case, is still pretty funny. i mean, imagine some ADD kid running around the kintergarten room going apesh*t- it's pretty funny right? if you replace him with a down's syndrome kid, it's suddenly not funny. replace him with an autism kid, not funny.
if people started getting cancer of the toenail, but actually they were just desperate for attention, and someone wanted to point out how absurd it was, i'd say that's pretty funny. even though real cancer isn't funny.