How does this comment on autism grab you?

First of all, credit to Cracked.com for all commentary I am about to quote from them. I'm a big fan of Cracked, so this is not a hate blog. Cracked has a solid reputation for putting real facts in their comedic writing. They have a knack for showing us how absurd the world really is when it comes right down to it. So, when I saw they had an article on some of the truths about guns, I had to read it. With issues of gun control in media hysterics, it's a perfect fit to the times.

5 Mind Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

That's so you can read the whole article at your leisure. And you should.

There's another fit to the times that I'm not sure they fully noted when they wrote the section I'm going to share with you today. I was reading through the section on mass shootings when one sentence brought the entire flow of the article to a screeching halt in my head. I literally had to stop reading right there and re-read the sentence again. Then I read it again. And I read it again. Then I re-read the whole paragraph. Then I finished reading the section and re-read the last two paragraphs. I actually had a hard time reading the rest of the article because I was so flummoxed in how this sentence read.

NOTE: I don't think this is what Cracked actually thinks of people with autism. My reading constipation comes from how the sentence makes its impact. The way it comes across leaves you wondering what they mean by the comment. It stands alone and its direction is unclear. If you, like many in the autism community, have been outraged by the idea that autism made Adam Lanza go on a killing spree; you'll understand why it could be such a raw nerve. That's why I think some expansion should go into the article on that.

So before I go any further, this is what I would like from you, dear reader. I would like to know how the content reads to you.  Here it is in it's full paragraph form:

"Let's play criminal profiler for a minute. Describe the next school shooter. We know he's out there; the stats prove that. We know he's a he. But we know more than that, right? If you pay attention to the news, this shouldn't be very difficult: These guys are all nerdy or autistic loners who get bullied at school and play violent video games at night until they can't tell the difference and finally lash out. The Columbine shooters are the poster boys: goth outsiders who even made a Doom mod to simulate the shooting. These kids get picked on and can't defend themselves, and they see guns as the only way to get even."

Now, the context is hard to grab until you get clear to the next paragraph where they share facts about the Columbine shooters you probably never knew. But nothing more is said to say that none of them were autistic. That comment floats unresolved forever. However, they do state there is "no typical school shooter profile", but you know how we like clarity and resolution. Check the next paragraph:

"Except it turns out that the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, weren't bullied and weren't "goth" loners. In fact, they boasted about bullying the "fags" in school themselves. They didn't target bullies or "jocks" who wronged them (the bombs were supposed to kill everyone, including their friends). It turns out that Eric Harris was simply a psychopath -- an intelligent, charming mass murderer like you've seen in a dozen bad serial killer movies. Dylan Klebold was just a depressed kid who went along with it -- so even the two people involved in the same shooting had totally different reasons for doing it."

So, while it specifies that these guys weren't bullied and thus resolves the idea of bullying as a cause, it doesn't do that for the mention of autism; one of the hottest nerves in the community today.

Let me repeat myself, that I don't feel it was their intention to slam autism in any way. I don't want people to plague the site with ugly comments (they get plenty of that and are quite used to it).  I want to know if I'm alone in how this hit me. How does it connect to you?  I do strongly recommend that you read the whole section to get a full feel for it before making any decision. In fact, I beg that you do so.

Autism Controversy: Belief or Disbelief and miseducation

Once in a while you can still come across someone who simple doesn't think that some form of autism doesn't exist. They think it's some kind of elaborate scam either by families or the "big pharma" to get money.

If you are dealing with autism I'm sure you wish you were getting money because of how much treatments cost. That being said, "big pharma" isn't raking in the bucks either for the same reason. Now the pharmaceutical companies are not the controversy I really want to get into here, so that's for next time. This time it's the struggle to get some people, sometimes important people to believe autism exists.

I'm talking about teachers, principles, some media platforms, and even doctors. The number of disbelievers has dwindled in the last few years, but they are still out there and can do immeasurable damage. A prime example of that damage is Mike Savage.

Back in 2008, radio show host, Michael Savage had this to say about autism: "fraud, a racket. ... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot."

This caused a massive outcry and picketing to remove Mr. Savage from his job on his very political talk show. It also caused a massive clash between his loyal listeners and anyone who disagreed with what he had to say. The danger of making a general statement like that (especially in the context delivered) is that it creates a misrepresentation of the condition. I literally came across hundreds of online comments to the tune of "oh, you have autism? Mike Savage says you're a fake" and that was one of the tame ones. There were even teachers and medical professionals who took to the political sense rather than the medical and it affected how they in turn treated autistic students and patients. The clash was a major chain reaction that caused a great deal of conflict. This is not to start a debate over Michael Savage, so such comments won't even be entertained. I say that, because I've already been in long tirade discussions that get absolutely no where on the matter with anyone who thinks disagreeing with this guy is a blight on humanity.

When a teacher thinks Asperger's is just an excuse for bad behavior, she inhibits that child's support system and injures him or her mentally and emotionally. This happens in places like Florida and Arkansas. My next example of making waves is Wendy Portillo, a school teacher in Port St Lucie, Florida. Also in 2008, she made headlines for having her kindergarten class students, stand up one by one, and vote young Alex Barton out of his class for "bad behavior". Each student was forced to say something negative about Alex before voting him out. I can only imagine the results on his psyche. Mrs. Portillo lost a year of work, but was given her job back with support of the community. Yes, dozens of parents, and over a hundred supporters, came forward to give some kind of testimony to the board that Wendy Portillo was awesome and should have her job back. Was it forgiveness or did all these people hate autism? Is that a sign of just how much autism education is needed? I think so. As it is, Wendy thanked all her followers by getting in trouble yet again in 2010 for mistreatment of a partially deaf student. I wonder if all the same people will come forward to dump on a deaf child's integrity too? Sorry, in any case, it goes to show just how much some actions can create shockwaves that damage our community world wide. All the students in Alex Barton's class were taught something very wrong and they attribute it to autism. The public demonstration shows the same line of thinking.

There is a dangerous ignorance out there and it can do a great amount of damage to treatment possibilities, public education, and public opinion of people with autism. It's why we must be vigilant in teaching the truths of autism to anyone who cares to learn. It's our children's world next. How will it treat them?