Should autistics be allowed to express creativity via public venues?

[Strelok]

The first post of this thread is more autistic than a thousand Sonic recolors.

 

[Le Bateleur]

So yes, autism and creativity go together like peanut butter and crack and that combination is exactly why the Kiwi Farms can function as a community based around making fun of speds and weirdos.

I don't think there's any evidence that autism makes people more creative. Schizophrenia, yes, I've seen evidence of a link to creativity with that condition. Autism arguably makes some autistic people better suited to jobs that need lots of concentration on repetitive tasks. I don't see the creativity part, though.

Some of the lolcows we follow here who have autism are notable not because they are creative, but because they lack the ability to see that their creation is terrible (and usually a cheap ripoff of something) and thus don't understand why people react negatively to it.

 

[Bugaboo]

I think mommy and daddy should moniter their special snowflake's computer time amd relize that anything they put on the internet can be subject to criticism

 

[Joan Nyan]

For every 20 Chris-Chans, you probably have a Satoshi Tajiri. Is it worth allowing 20 Sonichu's to roam the creative landscape for the hope of a masterpiece made by an autist, as an example of what autists can potentially do?

What's the problem with having 20 Sonichu-like things? How does the existence of shitty things made by autistics matter at all? Who is hurt by shitty webcomics?

 

[KingQueen]

This thread is straight retarded, but I'll play along by answering questions in the faith they actually make sense in some universe.

Is it worth allowing 20 Sonichu's to roam the creative landscape for the hope of a masterpiece made by an autist, as an example of what autists can potentially do?

Is it worth allowing the KKK to speak if it means free speech for all? Is it worth it to allow every toddler to bang on a piano in case one of them is Mozart? In Russia they select children for ballet based on genetic potential - do they have the right build, can they do 180 degree turnout, etc - but in the United States we let everyone try, with the idea that the one individual that was willing to work hard enough to overcome their limitations will be the highest success. Just some food for thought.

Is it worth suppressing or censoring the works of people based on a neurological condition they have just to make sure some simple minded folk don't get triggered by a weirdo in their creative landscape? Now I seriously don't believe this is implemented in any way and don't think any sane person would unironically think about that, but all it takes is a malevolent crazy or self-loathing parent of someone with autism to convince enough idiots to turn the vistas of the creative landscape into a death trap for autistic people.

Loaded language here. Are you seriously suggesting someone out there is plotting to campaign against the right of people with neurological disorders to write or make art? Are you suggesting that Kiwi Farms users are "triggered" by the material written by autistics and are so upset they created this forum? I don't understand your use of "triggered" or "death drap".

If we actively fight people solely based on a condition they have, are we really any better than Tumblr?

This sentence does not make sense because it is applying morals to a hypothetical situation. Additionally, it presumes all "conditions" equal and therefore wrong to "fight". Is pedophilia a "condition"? Shall we take away free speech from color blind people because they have a "condition"? Shall we stop trying to fight anorexia nervosa, because people with that condition should be allowed to freely express themselves? What is your definition of this imaginary fight?

 

[AnOminous]

No honeypot, no troll, no bait, no hooks, serious discussion only, Final Destination.

I want the 90 seconds I spent reading that back.