Yeah, the discussion could be kept more to the point. But it was a legitimate question for a sidenote - it's not like every subthread has to revolve around the original topic.

>FWIW I do have that condition as well, though it isn't usually called that these days

I know, never cared much for the politically and financially motivated rename, that imho blurs the condition across a larger area, instead of defining it better.

> Asperger was a member of a seven-member commission that was to categorize 200 disabled children according to their "educational ability" to decide their fate. 35 children were classified as "hopeless cases" and transferred to Spiegelgrund, where they all died. He was part of the legitimization of the murders and as an expert contributed to their categorization into "usefulness levels".

In this case since the guy it was named after would have killed me given the choice, I'm glad they renamed it. Good info about where you stand though, thank you.

>Good info about where you stand though, thank you.

You appear to stand in a worse place, implying people are Nazis because they're OK with using the traditional name for a condition, just because the person who did studied it had connections to them.

Your quick judgement of others, is worse than that - more Nazi-like in practical action, than some "association by name used for a condition" (which is no associatation at all). If I got power I'd be OK with some tainted names.

If you got power you'd classify people as enemies, or worse, based on such trivial matters as whether they prefer the older established name for a condition (and don't particularly care if we don't retroactively erase the person who discovered it from medical history for his crimes 80 years after the fact).