Am i the only one here who is not opposed to RFK's idea of wellness camp for autistic kids from a Left wing perspective?
Like yeah i get the concern that these could be euthanasia camp for disabled kids in practice (even though i think this is mainly fearmongering, the rhetoric used by the Trvmp admin for autistic kids are clearly removed from the dehumanizing ones they used against migrants) but a wellness camp run by the state is what socialized healthcare means in practice.
The current model of autistic therapy which focused on a collaboration between psychiatrists and nuclear family units is kinda reactionary but above all just doesn't work. Most parents are not well equipped to handle an autistic kid and often resorted to either abusing or neglecting them. It makes more sense, both from a humanist and economic perspective, to pool these kids in a camp where a specialized staff of professionals will help them in a controlled environment. Feel free to disagree though i'm looking at this from a layman perspective
74 posts and 9 image replies omitted.>>2415682>in the revolutionis anyone actually arguing the disabled in general can do anything at all in da revolushun?
>and constructing a communist societyeh, i dont care about imagining the future
>>2415682The average third world autist contributes more labor power to society than the average westoid "worker"
Yes, first worlders contribute negative value & should be exterminated
Depend if it's for actually challenged autists or "the doctor think you're weird!" autists. Because most autism diagnosis in 2025 are the second.
But yes some kind of boy scoot thing for autists even the later ones could be nice. But why not make them socialize with normal kids? They're just gonna end up as dysfunctional if they're forced to interact with only other autistics all day.
>>2413284This too.
I'm not in favour of whatever bullshit the Trump admin does in this regard, obviously, but I honestly don't disagree that there should be something available to people to offload stress of disabled offspring. Most people (read: working class) cannot afford to support someone indefinitely. To get rid of any institution that fills this function (which has happened in the last fifty years, outside of pricy private homes for the disabled) is unfortunately a burden on the proletariat both economically (even further strained budget permanently) and socially (lack of time for potential education). This whole ordeal is inherently tragic, but it is a reality.
>>2413240>Most parents are not well equipped to handle an autistic kid<Which is why they should hire a therapist.Ridiculous to think that people who can't afford expensive, private healthcare can afford a most assuredly out-of-pocket expense such as a specialised therapist. It seems like empty moralising about the situation without providing a better way other than spend money that you may have, but most in the working class do not.
>The current model of autistic therapy which focused on a collaboration between psychiatrists and nuclear family units is kinda reactionary<Good thing you shoehorned „reactionary“ in there, now we can dismiss employing a therapist for a family as evil. Why even the „nuclear family“ part? Does employing a therapist for your autistic kid require you to have a stay at home wife and a breadwinner husband? Or are you speaking about the separate fact that this society has a patriarchal family model? You really are just trying to shoehorn this in there to make it seem evil when a family is hiring a therapist for an autistic child. It doesn‘t require a „nuclear family“ to begin with, it could be two gay moms in a polycule relationship who adopted an autistic kid.You're putting words in his mouth in saying that he meant reactionary=evil. The fact of the matter is it is reactionary, proven by your diatribe following your first sentence in which you threw strawman after strawman at him. He didn't proclaim the nuclear family as """good""" perhaps it is the fact that the current model is based on the availability of a stay-at-home mom and/or having enough money to hire out help to be available (read: being bourgeois), with those being more and more a rarity nowadays means it is necessarily reactionary to uphold it as the proper method in the current day.
And for all the talk of shoehorning, why shoehorn in the idpol at the end? It's absurd, and with the whole bit of "just hire a pleb to help you" bullshit, does nothing but out you as a radlib with a fake revolutionary aesthetic, desperate to use queer people to hide your anti-proletarian tendencies.
Unique IPs: 32