Talk:Neurotypical syndrome

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

While I certainly sympathise with the message, the articile as it currently is, is too overtly political, in a way that takes itself seriously.

Agreed, it reads more like an attack on Autism/Aspergers - Especially the treatment section. Come on it's supposed to be silly/fun, not a personal rant. - Ryuujin

When you said "...it reads more like an attack on Autism/Aspergers...", I think you were missing the point entirely, Ryuujin. The "neurotypical" label is applied as an insult to people who are not part of the Autism/Aspergers spectrum.

The labelling of "normal" people as "neurotypical" is a form of backlash against people who consider those with Aspergers or Autism to be disabled, retarded or otherwise impaired.

This mainly came about as people who want to cure autism don't recognise the fact that by "curing" it they will eliminate the very traits that make the Autistic/Aspi who they are.

A lot of the diatribe in this article is pretty much verbatim of what actually happens to Autistics and Aspies, but instead of Autistics and Aspies inflicting such torturous "remedies" upon so-called normals, its the other way around in real life.

All of that is besides the point, this article is the sort of rant I could write on Uncyclopedia, but never would. It has no place here, not without a substantial re-write. Because it is such obscure material to those not in the "movement" (so to speak), there is little chance of making this funny without completely losing its meaning. I think the article should be huffed. --60.227.18.171 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh jesus christ. Ryu is a cocksucker but you my friend are making no fucking sense whatsoever. Condense it into two lines, mmmkay? 87.94.56.38 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

on top of that it's a rippoff of this, which will probably make it a candidate to be huffed. -- jsonitsac talk to me crimes against humanity18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If it were stylistically consistent and hilariously funny, then it would be a ripoff of that page; as it is, it's just a mess. --Falcotron 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I found this to be a most excellent piece of satire. I would find it quite sad if it was huffed like a homeless kitten. Can't we state the page as a source (under external links) or some other similar measure? Wikipedia tends to have sources after all... This article does certainly not deserve being huffed on the merits alone. Baron of Greed 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made it somewhat less factual and more factual at the same time and rewrote most of the bits insulting and threatening normals. As a person with AS I feel this article is important, and can help to spread much-needed actual information while still being funny and disinformative. If we can make it just spacey enough. IQ 08:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is political propaganda. Then again, most things are these days.

It should stay, its a very, very funny example of humor based on simple reversal.

It's a shame that the article was censored, as it now in its current state is quite toothless compared to the way it used to be. I wonder why people reacted so strongly in response to this article in particular. After all, this is Uncyclopedia, where it shouldn't (to my knowledge) matter how offensive anything is as long as it is funny, which the old content clearly was. I would like to see the old stuff re-added, particularly the PTAH bit, as it was part of the heart of the article. Not only that, but it could do with some new, original, razor-sharp satire as well; hold nothing back! If the article is so offensive, then why not add an appropriate, silly little template to it, and leave the content intact? As for the additions put in place of that now removed, they are funny as well, and I think they should be kept and integrated with the old content. --The Divine Fluffalizer 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but my negative reaction was based on the fact that there was a much better version of the exact same joke on the linked page. The whole ISNT site is subversively funny, and the satirical idea is great, and it deserves a great article if it has one at all.

Also, it has to be abundantly clear from the first paragraph that NTs are people without autism, or most people will not get the joke (as you can see from some of the reactions above).

Anyway, the article has definitely improved; it's closer to insidiously clever rather than beating the reader over the head. But it needs to go farther. I'd rewrite the whole thing in the third person, with a more encyclopedic tone, find a way to remove the list right at the start of the article, and in general make it sound more like the Wikipedia autism article than the ISNT front page. (I don't think the content was the problem; most of the old jokes can probably be added back in.)

And if you'd just go to your intensive ABA tortureaversion sessions and stick to your Specific MalnutritionCarbohydrate diet, you could think like a normal person and this would all be obvious. --  !!! ??? 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A complete rewrite is a bit over the top, I would say. Rewriting parts and modifying the rest to fit in, in order to change its tone would be nice, though, if done right. I have just put in a replacement for the Symptoms list; with the exception of adressing herd mentality and obsession with socialization, it is near-complete. (perhaps you could think of something fitting to add...?) As it is quite extensive compared to the list, some other parts of the article might have to be changed in order to avoid stating similar things more than once. --The Divine Fluffalizer 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Put PTAH back in and tweaked around. Feel free to funnify anything I messed up on, though I think I did a pretty good job. In any case, hooray for my first edit. --Mareth 02:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that if you have NT (which I pretty much believe I do :P), you'll find this article funny if you have more tolerance than that of one who is er.... an intolerant dumbass. An autistic might just look at it and say "Oh hey, I can relate to that." and just walk away, unless they're so deprived that they happen to actually find this shit funny. For most NTs that aren't dumbasses, they'll find this only kinda funny.

   The part about NTs preffering lies to honesty is not true all the time, I know some Nts who are honest, but they have a hard time putting honesty in front of people's feelings, so they tell a "white" lie.

I'm sorry, is the treatment section an attack on autism? I don't believe there is any attempt to cause people to be autistic, so this "treatment" should really be more along the lines of mercury poisoning or something. Beezwax 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't know anything about autism and don't get the joke.--Scott 01:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this article making fun of "normal" people? =3 Isshiki Kotonashi-chama =3 | Talk! | IMRAC! | Sign! | Play! | Courtier Isshiki FBu! 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)