- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
Hark! Our dear leader has stumbled upon a new lolcow. Asa Maass and Priscilla Maass and their Youtube channel, FatheringAutism, focusing on the plights of parenting a severely autistic child whom they both exploit on camera with ads and sponsorships in order to make money off of sympathy pleas and such.
And this made me wonder, isn't he right in his intentions to exploit his severely autistic child on camera for money? I'd argue that the general existence of an autistic child warrants that they are financial drainers of cash. You have to pay for constant doctor's visits, medicine, anti-depressants, all of that hoo-hah. You'd probably be even more strapped than the average parent is already for their children. You oughta find a way to make some cash. Now, it's dumb to do it on social media or on someplace like Youtube, but imagine having a retarded child. You feel bad for them, yes, but they are retarded, therefore easy to manipulate and use as a little puppet. A freakshow, just as P.T. Barnum did way back when. He's rumored with saying "There's a sucker born every minute" and for good reason because there is. Everybody likes someone you could just put on screen and "feel bad" for them and when someone feels bad for someone else, naturally they like to give them money. The passing of cash to someone you feel bad for elucidates a sense of joy in one's heart and their own ego. It gives them a sense of accomplishment that they have done their good little scouty deed for the day and then on the receiving end, the person exploiting their autistic child for woe can get the satisfaction of paying off those medical bills. It's a win-win situation for both. So one could argue that at the base of his mind, he is right, but in the soul of it, he is wrong to use social media as their only financial incentive. That's not the best route. There ought to be other ways to put on your little puppet up for dough, but maybe social media is the best method since it's faster and you get more publicity. I dunno, what do you guys think?
And this made me wonder, isn't he right in his intentions to exploit his severely autistic child on camera for money? I'd argue that the general existence of an autistic child warrants that they are financial drainers of cash. You have to pay for constant doctor's visits, medicine, anti-depressants, all of that hoo-hah. You'd probably be even more strapped than the average parent is already for their children. You oughta find a way to make some cash. Now, it's dumb to do it on social media or on someplace like Youtube, but imagine having a retarded child. You feel bad for them, yes, but they are retarded, therefore easy to manipulate and use as a little puppet. A freakshow, just as P.T. Barnum did way back when. He's rumored with saying "There's a sucker born every minute" and for good reason because there is. Everybody likes someone you could just put on screen and "feel bad" for them and when someone feels bad for someone else, naturally they like to give them money. The passing of cash to someone you feel bad for elucidates a sense of joy in one's heart and their own ego. It gives them a sense of accomplishment that they have done their good little scouty deed for the day and then on the receiving end, the person exploiting their autistic child for woe can get the satisfaction of paying off those medical bills. It's a win-win situation for both. So one could argue that at the base of his mind, he is right, but in the soul of it, he is wrong to use social media as their only financial incentive. That's not the best route. There ought to be other ways to put on your little puppet up for dough, but maybe social media is the best method since it's faster and you get more publicity. I dunno, what do you guys think?
Last edited:
