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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Yeah. People have a tendency of labelling anyone that is depicted in TV shows as socially awkward as autistic. That's why so many people on twitter who simp for Dahmer on twitter refer to his supposed autism despite the fact that he was subjected to multiple psychological evaluations and never was accessed as autism.
Wednesday was socially awkward, sure... But the Munsters? From what I remember, they were depicted the same as any other sitcom family of the time; except they were physically monsters. To be fair, though, I barely remember the show from when it was on Nick at Nite when I was a kid; I might be conflagrating memories.
You are showing your age here. Granted, kinda the person who made this fault because they just said Eddie and expected everyone to know which Eddie. They mean Eddie from stranger things.
How does counter culture have any relation to actual neurological conditions. I think that’s the questions people are asking. This whole post is insulting and stupid to actual neurodivergent people.
If you haven’t even seen the show, why are you defending the characterization? If you had seen the show, you would know Eddie Munson is not socially awkward, especially compared to most of the other main characters who actually are portrayed that way.
