Comment about hiring actors with autism.

Original Tweet.

I agree that not even giving a chance to actors with autism (if true) can be discriminatory, but there are hyperboles/distortion in many replies (as usual). Especially the ones mentioning ableism.

Certainly this great movie (and others) proved one can use actors with autism, and it's definitely a plus if the main message is to spread awareness about discrimination and wrong stereotypes. Promoting empathy and solidarity towards people with autism at the same time.

But the distortion comes when it's insinuated in some replies, or said explicitly in the hashtag #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs, that it's a must to hire actors with autism. Or, in general, actors with specific traits or characteristics if they are the core of the movie.

No, it isn't. Which has been proved with many counterexamples in cinema.

Counterexamples.

Brokeback Mountain with 2 straight actors efficiently interpreting gay characters.

Sean Penn interpreting Harvey Milk, a gay activist (and another excellent movie).

Leonardo DiCaprio in What's eating Gilbert Grape.

Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot.

Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.

Etc.

One thing is to say it would be positive to use actors who really have specific conditions or characteristics and another one to imply it's a must (or else you will get some cancel mob calling you ableist and whatnot, of course).

To make a counterargument against this you need to explain why these movies didn't positively promote awareness regarding each respective topic. At most you can say Rain Man spread awareness about autism, but also the misconception that autistic people will necessarily have some special ability... Yet that still isn't Dusting Hoffman's fault. The character is simply a specific type of person with autism. Hell, actually the conclusion if this char with X characteristics is this way, everyone else with that condition must be exactly the same is obviously a dogmatic generalization.

The viewer is to blame. Not the actor for not having autism.

It's like blackfacing tho.

Not, it isn't. There is no underlying attempt to mock a collective in the previous counterexamples. Quite the opposite. And discrimination would be a valid argument only if actors with autism certainly didn't even have a chance (analogous to gay actors, etc.).

But leaving aside the topic about discrimination of black actors, blackfacing would still be idiotic because it's related to the additional visual transformation and the unnecessary trouble it implies.

Blackfacing in this sense is analogous to using a man to interpret a woman when it's not necessary for the character. Even if there are great actors who could do it.

Or using a short man to interpret a basketball player. It's pragmatically stupid if you have many tall actors who aren't worse at acting.

It's not analogous to using a non-climber to interpret a climber in a movie about climbing (to partially mock climbers if we added the discriminative component of blackfacing).

The appeal to authority: I am human, so I am an expert about humans; thus I am right.

This type of appeal to authority is very common in Twitter in many topics. It simply sounds less ridiculous than the example of the title because it's normalized.

As I said in another entry, just because you have the flu, it doesn't make you an expert about the flu. And even being an expert doesn't guarantee you are right. What matters are arguments: quality of the premises (demonstrable, being mere axioms or not, supported by evidence or not) and internal logic with the conclusion.

Having a severe OCD doesn't make me an expert about OCD. In any case what makes me an expert is having a background in psychology, having read a lot about this disorder, and on top of this having a sever OCD (having experimented with myself/my mind, applying different interpretations and adjusting them to explain phenomenona/observations, etc). Even then... it's knowledge about data+one practical case. It doesn't make me automatically right about anything related to it.

Let alone giving me preference for a job about acting, something I would be terrible at compared to an experimented actor, even if said actor doesn't have OCD. And even if I was an actor as well, I still shouldn't have priority if other actors without the condition are freaking better at acting.