They are two different conditions that appear similar. But they are not the same.

  • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because they are the same underlying condition, only presented at different levels of impediment.

    Diagnosis works the same, treatment is the same, it’s mostly the amount of support needed that differs.

    • gnutrino@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And always worth remembering that Hans Asperger was a massive Nazi and part of the reason he originally made the distinction was to separate those children in his care who could be sent to work camps from those who were to be sent straight to be euthanised.

      • Lhianna@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Can we stop fucking up terminology please? Asperger was not a Nazi. A nazi is a member of the NSDAP and Asperger never was a member. He was, however, absolutely an opportunist.

        We have to finally stop to view people’s doings in other times from our point of view. Asperger was most certainly not a hero but he did save a bunch of children who were deemed socially unacceptable by giving them a diagnosis and humane treatment. What do you think would have been their future without him?

        • octoperson
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          A nazi is a member of the NSDAP

          Sorry, nobody understands that word in such narrow terms. A nazi is someone who promotes Nazi objectives and Nazi ideology. If the claims on his Wikipedia page are fair, then Asberger was absolutely and enthusiastically a nazi.

          • Lhianna@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            He absolutely was a nationalist and he was a proponent of eugenics which, at the time, was quite common. In that regard you might want to look up Alexander Bell for example.

            Even Herwig Czech says in his paper (that has been linked in this thread) that he was not a member of the Nazi party but an opportunist. There is a difference and it is an important one.