• subignition@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Depictions of autism in media very rarely focus on anything other than what’s perceived as the upsides.
    Like all other forms of entertainment and marketing, it’s not realistic, it’s designed to present something appealing to a mass audience.

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think it’s also in the current day spirit of unquestioning inclusion. Producers can’t make a more nuanced or even unlikeable neurodivergent character because there would definitely be backlash for harping on a marginalized group. Even if the character is written with the best of intentions in mind

    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d say Tina Belcher is a fairly good depiction, and people love her character.

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Yeah I commented that the best depictions I’ve seen of all these identities are usually kids cartoons, Bob’s Burgers is pretty family friendly and decent for the most part. The Marshmallow character is another. There’s an episode that kink shames Pesto for his adult baby diaper fetish though, or rather using the fact that Pesto is ashamed of it himself. Marshmallow has no shame about what they are. Overall it’s positive even with the few issues.

    • Globeparasite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think there are similar stuffs with mental illness : in a media they serve to further the character’s progression. In reality those are often more disability aither because they are disabilities at their core or because they make you not fit with the crowds who react awfully to that.

      In a book or a movie, the struggle a character face, even if well depicted, serve his progression. They also are often a Chekov’s gun, furthering the plot. While in reality it’s just a thing you have to deal with on a daily basis. It’s true with autism but also with so much other stuff. Think depression, depicted a lot, much better than autism, and most depressed character end up cured at the end of the story thanks to their accomplishment. Except it doesn’t work like that, you can very damn well save lives and remain depressed. Showing that would be realistic but wouldn’t make sense story wise and the narration would feel incomplete.

    • joel_feila@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well in past autism was only shown in extreme forms. Like non talking just have the actor twuxh and occasionally yell. So not showing the up side, but a mix oh the poor parents and inspiring disabilities

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Downsides are presented as personality traits which are your own fault. Humans love to think that if something bad happens to you, then you either had it coming or you are going to come out victorious in the end. It makes them comfortable. Them - cowards, that is, and most humans are cowards, it’s not something new.

  • vivadanang@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    pretty soon people on the spectrum are going to realize what the rest of us know: we’re all cunts. bastards. shitbags and utter ass pimples of humanity. we’re all shite and the ones that get loved are the rare fraction of the 1% of humanity, and they’re rarely worth it either.

    Personally I’d rather avoid people entirely.

  • celerate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    People used to tell me that I reminded them of Sheldon from tbbt as though that was a compliment.

  • Blue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Flash news people like fiction not as a representation of reality but as a stylized, idealized versión of it, that’s why you see beautiful people, not fat, ugly or old. So it’s autistic quirky and not every day autistic.

    I’m aware it’s an impopular opinion but that doesn’t make it less true. And you can gauge it by how popular it is.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      that’s why you see beautiful people, not fat, ugly or old

      I frankly don’t usually agree with Hollywood ideas of “beautiful”. Which is also the reason I’m watching mainstream movies (and I’m not a cinema enthusiast, so mainstream is all I watch) less and less - those ideas are becoming even more narrow and specific over time. I’m feeling as if some subculture’s or even some little group’s idea of “cool” is being shoved down my throat, in appearances and writing and cinematographic language even.

      In my personal opinion people I know are in average more beautiful than Hollywood faces active now.

      • Blue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I frankly don’t usually agree with Hollywood

        I said fiction, not Hollywood. And yes you can have your own preferences, I’m not saying that you can’t, just that what we call mainstream is the representation of objective beauty.

        those ideas are becoming even more narrow and specific over time

        Depending on who you ask, somebody would tell you it’s the contrary.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          just that what we call mainstream is the representation of objective beauty

          Beauty can be only subjective by definition.

          • Blue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Nope, facial and body symmetry can determine if someone is considered universally beautiful.

            And it’s not limited to humans, animals and plants can be considered universally beautiful.

            The sea and the starry sky, a sunset, the moon etc, if it moves emotion within you then it’s beautiful, and there are things that move the world entirely.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Nope, facial and body symmetry can determine if someone is considered universally beautiful.

              Facial and body symmetry is ugly or at least scary. You’ve just never seen people with that.

              Other than that - beauty is by definition your own opinion on whether something looks good or bad. If there’s a single person in the world who disagrees - then it’s not universal. If there is none, but there may be the next moment - then it’s not universal.

              and there are things that move the world entirely

              Nothing moves the world entirely. Majority vote doesn’t apply here and even the 3 (or up to 7, whatever) sigma rule doesn’t.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Take a sufficiently well-centered photo, leave only the left or the right half, and replace the other one with its mirrored version. Then honestly say whether what you see is beautiful or ugly.

                  If you know that, just walk around here trolling, then bon appetit and ignore my advice.

  • souperk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    My favourite character is Abed from Community. Wondering what other autistic people think of him?

    • vamputer@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Rewatching Community for like the 5th time, and I love Abed- especially how the show makes it clear he’s not always the easiest to deal with, and not just some freakishly-smart supergenius who’s always two steps ahead of everyone. He seems smart because he can read patterns in peoples’ behavior, but he’s otherwise just as human and imperfect as any of the others.

      He’s shown to have a lot of insecurity about the gang sticking around, and expects them to eventually give up and abandon him because everyone gets sick of putting up with his quirks eventually. They never do, of course, but it’s something I relate to a lot. It sucks to deal with, but it’s nice to have a character to relate that to.

  • seth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    As We See It was good. The autistic characters each had their own issues, strengths, difficulties communicating with neurotypical people and finding their ways to fit in (or not) in the world, and were actually played by people on the spectrum. Everyone I know who’s seen it really enjoyed it. It’s a shame that they didn’t get picked up for a second season, because the writing, story arcs, acting, and character development were all great.

  • ChexMax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t understand the confusion here. Yes, it’s interesting and entertaining to watch people on TV deal with issues that don’t affect me and that I don’t have to accommodate, and it’s not interesting, entertaining, or fun to watch my brother deal with those issues in real life, or that we have to walk on eggshells at family holidays so my brother in law doesn’t have a meltdown. Duh. It’s also entertainment to watch a show where an important character dies, but extremely difficult and uncomfortable when your actual friend loses a spouse or child.

    Society loves things that are difficult on TV, and in real life society prefers things that are easy.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, but one thing useful to tell a good person from a bad one is that they are conscious of this at least when you point out their behavior of this kind to them. Sometimes people consider themselves good because they like watching and reading about people doing good things, and are in denial about the contrast with their own real actions. Or have the gall to behave as if the latter matters less.

  • Skates@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Wait you think Wednesday is supposed to be neuro fucking divergent? The Addams family are macabre. They enjoy inflicting pain on themselves and others. They’re obviously creepy and quirky. They’re bizarre. They’re morbid. They’re antiheroes, maybe. They could even be argued to be sociopathic, sadistic, cruel, or just mean. But that’s their entire shtick, you absolute massive twat. They’re an antithesis of a typically-portrayed family, the one with the white picket fence and the golden lab. What they are not, nor has anyone involved with their creation ever claimed they were, is neurodivergent.

    But sure, just randomly make something unrelated to you completely about you, cause that screams neurodivergent, not narcissism.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You’ve just described a lot of autistic people though. And specifically in this era where characters are given an extra dash of “autistic-coded writing” yeah thats the popular consensus is that Wednesday represents an autistic character.