The thing is, we have to make our own choices, and not simply be swayed by the group's choice. Wilky made her choice, knowing what it would bring, and she did it anyways. A noble act to speak up for someone who is taken for granted to be evil. But behind his actions, we see a father struggling to give his son freedom to live his life to it's fullest. To be able to do what any other person can do. To live, to learn, to love, to give, to get, to have, to hold, and to cherish.
It's easy to call someone evil, and mock them, but it's another thing entirely to understand them, to know what drives them forward through a storm of cruelty.
Wilky has given herself to this. She is cast adrift by it, torn from the community, tormented by those she knew as friend. She is taking a stand for what she believes in, and stands firm under this pressure. She stands firm as she is ridiculed, vilified, insulted, reduced, by her community. It's easy to hate, and harder to love, and harder still to love what hates you. It is so difficult.
Wilky has given herself to this. She is cast adrift by it, torn from the community, tormented by those she knew as friend. She is taking a stand for what she believes in, and stands firm under this pressure. She stands firm as she is ridiculed, vilified, insulted, reduced, by her community. It's easy to hate, and harder to love, and harder still to love what hates you. It is so difficult.
Just because it's difficult to "love what hates you" doesn't mean it's not stupid. She has basically said that we should not exist. What she believes in is offensive and stupid.
I, too, am a person. Aspergers is not all I am, but it is still a part of me - without it, I would no longer be myself.
If Wilky thinks that autistic people should be altered to be more "normal", then she IS against us. It's as simple as that.
First off, I personally haven't attacked you for being critical, so it's not really relevant.
Secondly, finding a cure for autism would mean that autistic people no longer existed - hence her essentially stating "you all have no right to exist".
That's like saying a cure for cancer means people with cancer no longer existed. If you genuinely believe that autism is no different from cancer, a disease that can and should be removed to help improve the quality (or even prospects of) life, then I don't see how it's really so bad.
Er, no, I don't believe that autism is no different from a cancer or a disease - not sure where you got that idea. In fact, that's the entire point of the attack on Wilky. And of this site.
One of the tenets of autistic rights is that it's an inherent part of a persons personality. Remove it, and you're no longer the same person.
Perhaps it's wrong to say that autism is really like cancer, but then it's wrong and not outright evil.
When pro-cure organisations are trying to eradicate us through pre-natal testing research combined with a negative publicity campaign, then it is an extremely negative thing to say (evil's not the word I would have used, as there's nothing evil about the "intent", just the goal). Wilky's been around long enough to know the aims of the site, so she was being deliberately offensive.
I didn't realize this was a political movement. I thought it was an online forum geared towards asperger's and autism and the people who have to deal with it.
Gareth and Amy don't mind people coming on and using the forum for support and enjoyment, but the main purpose of the site is to launch the autistic rights movement. It's on the front page description of the site, and it's what Wilky was referring to when she talked about "politicising autism".
Then are we differences, or people? I said disorder because that is what I believe. It insults me that you feel it's an insult. I don't take it as such. I do take it as an insult if I am to be know for my difference, not who I am. Aspie is my label, Aspergers is the filling, and I am to be the empty shell? Nay! I am Joe, I am a person, and I am not a follower for the sake of following. I am not a tool to be used, a political bullet. I am a brother, I am a friend, I am an Aspie. AFF has turned AS into politics and validity through majority. How can we say that we are a proud community while the heads of the community jockey us for political purposes?
If they call it disorder, difference, or a dancing bear, does it make us that? No. We are human, and as human beings, we are what we make ourselves. Will you be difference? Or will you be the master of your own destiny? Our lives, they are what we make them, what circumstances expand them, what experiences shade them.
We are not what they say we are.
We are who we are.
Then are we differences, or people? I said disorder because that is what I believe. It insults me that you feel it's an insult. I don't take it as such. I do take it as an insult if I am to be know for my difference, not who I am. Aspie is my label, Aspergers is the filling, and I am to be the empty shell? Nay! I am Joe, I am a person, and I am not a follower for the sake of following. I am not a tool to be used, a political bullet. I am a brother, I am a friend, I am an Aspie. AFF has turned AS into politics and validity through majority. How can we say that we are a proud community while the heads of the community jockey us for political purposes?
If they call it disorder, difference, or a dancing bear, does it make us that? No. We are human, and as human beings, we are what we make ourselves. Will you be difference? Or will you be the master of your own destiny? Our lives, they are what we make them, what circumstances expand them, what experiences shade them.
We are not what they say we are.
We are who we are.
You're correct in saying that the word used doesn't matter, and I absolutely agree that knowing the word doesn't mean it becomes your whole life. The main thing is that you state "I am an Aspie", and don't feel ashamed by it - which, again, doesn't mean that it's everything you are.
When you say "I am an Aspie", or "I am Autistic" to the cure movement, though, they hear "I am deeply flawed, and incapable of living a happy life". They then try to remove everything "Autistic" about us. We want to be the people we are, not the people they want us to be. This is what being "anti-cure" is all about.
I'll quote your words back to you:
We are not what they say we are.
We are who we are.
... Why do I bother? Have you understood anything I've said? No, you've read what I said, and shaped my words to your desires, to your blind, petty hatred.
As I had said, you are cruel, cruel people. It sickens me that this is what AFF has come to; Crucifying an Aspie for not conforming to the group's ideals. Have you no shame? Read what you have wrote, and feel it then! You callously taunt and mock, and say vile, disgusting things and justify them with hatred.
For shame.
... Why do I bother? Have you understood anything I've said? No, you've read what I said, and shaped my words to your desires, to your blind, petty hatred.
As I had said, you are cruel, cruel people. It sickens me that this is what AFF has come to; Crucifying an Aspie for not conforming to the group's ideals. Have you no shame? Read what you have wrote, and feel it then! You callously taunt and mock, and say vile, disgusting things and justify them with hatred.
For shame.
You mean the same way that you've "crucified" Timelord? Some peoples actions do justify an attack. Wilky saying that "Autism is a debilitating disease" fits the bag - it was a deliberately offensive statement.
What compelled her? I said it. It pained her to turn her back to those she knew as friend, and it pains her yet more to have them plunge their sharp tounges into her back, one could only think.
Remove the Autism, and you are no longer yourself? Scaremongering, assumption, unproven, urban legend. You have no proof, and there is nothing to suggest it. I would take a cure to be a test, if there was one, just to discover if it would kill who I am, or if I would be the same. I would do this, not for any particular want for being cured, but to find out for fact what it would do. To show either that it is a bad choice, or a good choice. And why? For you. For him. For her. To solve an equation, to prove or disprove the theory, and to know for certain.
Not everyone against the Autistic Rights Movement wants to cure us. It's stupid to think things are so incredibly simple. This isn't a book, or hollywood, or a play. This is soceity. It is complex, and not as simple as kneejerk reactions and assumptions of people's intent.
We are but tools, Zakkie. A political weapon, able to be wielded with grand effect. The one with the most Aspies dictates what we are to believe. Or did you think that every Aspie abhors the idea of a cure? There are many differences of opinion, and it's not just black and white as it's being shown here.
Not everyone is so keen. Look at the disparity in the movements. There are moderates, and there are extremists. I was moderate here, before an Aspie drove me to extremist and back again the other way. Now, I'm a disillusionist. I'm for no one, and against no one. I only go for or against certain things, as they come up.
To some of the cure movement... That we say that we are Autistic, they know we could be one of any spectrum disorder. They don't know enough to differentiate between us, since we're all blanketed as "Autistics." What drew them to the cure movement is people like John Best, who this thread is about. He wants his son to be able to do all kinds of things, and to be able to live his life fully. For him to be able to do anything he wants. This is because of LFA. Those who resist a cure who are Aspies really drive him to frustration, since we don't need a cure, though he feels his son does. He has good reason to be as he is, because to him, Aspies try to prevent LFAs from getting what he believes they need. He sees it as intentional.
So you can see that even the best of intentions, like love for a son or daughter, can result in offense and misunderstandings.
This, I believe, is part of what Wilky wanted to convey. Fore Sam, that is his screen name. John is his name, and Sam is his son. For Sam, John tries so hard... And it earns him enmity.
Understanding is the key to knowledge.
Batman, it's irony. AFF is Aspies for Freedom, but this view of hers is disturbing because it's not agreed with. It casts back on the content, that all of this is but what she said, a politicalized forum, which was supposed to support and comfort, not what it is. Now it;s just for telling people what to think. A cure kills your personality, these people on this list are evil, and so on.
As for deception? It's probably because the issues adn't been raised. An epiphany of sorts, one could say. A realization.
Zakkie, I'd have not crucified Timelord if he had not done what he has.
I think that when it comes to calling in a group of people for the sole purpose to harass you, it's not exactly all happy and fun. I was being honest, and blunt. I won't be intimidated against my will again. And as it has been said, Timelord never made many friends around here. I was his friend, until he made me into an enemy. But this is neither here nor there, and when an Admin sees me, this account will be banned, and likely my IP.
I risk much coming back here, and I came back first to speak here, and as a side note, to inquire as to help from Timelord's harassment.
You think Autism then, as Aspergers, or HFA? God, save me from this twisted phrasings. Autism, as in Low functioning Autism. She did not mean the whole spectrum. She meant the part of the spectrum that is debilitating. LFA is not exactly AS. What Fore's son has. What has made Fore so certain of his views.
If we could find a way to seperate "Autistic" from every part of the spectrum, to be more specific, things like this wouldn't happen.
But Amanda isn't Low Functioning, nope. Just ask Timelord. She's HFA, apparently, and her doctors are quacks or something. Might want to ask him, though.
And we attack LFAs too. Remember Droopy? She came in here, and was promptly insulted, antagonised, and banned. How many members have left? How many of them were LFAs? The numbers would surprise you, I think.
Why did he have a cause to insult them? Understanding an "enemy" is the first step towards defeating an enemy.
Er, no, I don't believe that autism is no different from a cancer or a disease - not sure where you got that idea. In fact, that's the entire point of the attack on Wilky. And of this site.
I was using "you" in a general sense--as in "one". The point being, if one (not YOU(the second person singular pronoun)) believes that autism is like cancer, then one might think the way wilky thinks, without wishing that autistics should wither and die.
I think that wilky, who may or may not be misguided, only wants the best for people; her opinions of what is best are only profoundly different from yours. (I also acknowledge the lowliness of flaming and personal attacks that also stem from this thread; but I don't think wilky has anything against autistics in particular).
What your saying is true - there are two "camps" of how Autism is thought of, and if she belongs to the camp that thinks Autism is a disease, then it would follow that the best course of action would be to cure autism. The reason that I mentioned politics is that this site was set up as a protest against this type of thinking - as a counter to the many pro-cure organisations springing up.
Wilky knew this, and chose to deliberately insult us by calling Autism a disease. It is quite self-apparent that this was her intent, as she actually refers to AFF "politicising" autism, and says she hopes the founders feel ashamed that they have created this site.
One of the tenets of autistic rights is that it's an inherent part of a persons personality. Remove it, and you're no longer the same person.
Remove cancer, and you're not the same person. Remove poor eyesight, not the same person. Everything, both good and bad, about you, contributes to your person. Hell, you're not the same person you were a minute ago, or an hour, or a day or week or lifetime.
I do not believe this is an attempt to destroy or annihilate anyone.
Semantics - we're talking about brain alteration with the deliberate intent to alter a group of personality traits. A personality is the person. Replace it with a different personality, and you have a different person.
This isn't the same as a persons experience altering their personality over time, either - in this case, it's a personality that is a natural extension of the pre-existing personality. In the case of an Autism "cure", it is a deliberate, forced personality change by surgical or chemical means.
An actual cure for an autistic person is pretty much science-fiction for now, anyway. The more realistic form of "cure" is pre-natal testing, followed by abortion if the child turns out to be autistic.
In the meantime, we also have to deal with the negative effects of autism being seen as a disease, or as an entirely negative thing. This too is a deliberate thing, as you'll know if you've ever seen any Autism Speaks publications.
When pro-cure organisations are trying to eradicate us through pre-natal testing research combined with a negative publicity campaign, then it is an extremely negative thing to say (evil's not the word I would have used, as there's nothing evil about the "intent", just the goal). Wilky's been around long enough to know the aims of the site, so she was being deliberately offensive.
No one is trying to eradicate us anymore than treatments for cancer eradicates cancer-patients. It is my view that an embryo of some weeks is not a person, and deserves not the rights of a person, so I don't care much for non-persons aborted due to prenatal testing. And no one wants to kill off real persons, i.e., autists that have been born.
This means that Autism itself will no longer exist, and Autistic culture will be destroyed - essentially, genocide.
Here you've just stated your opinion that you don't mind this, so I can only state my opinion that I strongly disagree with you.
Further, it's a bit silly that people will scorn Autism Speaks and so on, claiming that they shouldn't presume to speak for those who cannot speak themselves, when that is what those self-same people do: claim that they have a right and knowledge to speak for those they don't know or have any experience being or being with.
We have previously non-communicative people that are now able to communicate what they want. These people are being ignored.
You will notice that no autistic people are involved in the decision-making bodies of Autism Speaks - hence the claim that they do not speak for Autistics.
I didn't realize this was a political movement. I thought it was an online forum geared towards asperger's and autism and the people who have to deal with it.
Gareth and Amy don't mind people coming on and using the forum for support and enjoyment, but the main purpose of the site is to launch the autistic rights movement. It's on the front page description of the site, and it's what Wilky was referring to when she talked about "politicising autism".
I see nothing of the sort on the frontpage. It says AFF is a hub for the online community around autism/AS, for "autism, offline groups, autism rights, legitimate therapies for comorbid conditions, diagnosis, employment and education and AS special interests".
It states the political viewpoints of AFF, including:
- We have the view that aspergers and autism are not negative, and are not always a disability.
- We know that autism is not a disease, and we oppose any attempts to "cure" someone of an autism spectrum condition, or any attempts to make them 'normal' against their will.
- We aim to strengthen autism rights, oppose all forms of discrimination against aspies and auties, and work to bring the community together both online and offline.
On reading again, it does not explicitly state that this is an Autistic Rights site, but the indication is there. Don't worry about debating this one with me personally, as Gareth will be able to actually tell you the reasons he set up the site next time he drops past.
And now for something completely different.
Can we get a lift on the ridiculous idea that you can only post so-and-so many posts in a day? I assume that's why EvilZakkie is EvilZakkie2. When discussions are hot and active, you sometimes want to defend yourself and your view before the discussion has rolled so far on that it's too late. That's difficult when you're limited. I assume the reason is that people won't SPAM, but when they post coherent, on-topic and thoughtful posts, I don't see what the problem with allowing them to post more a day is.
Yep, that's the reason. I don't mind the limit too much - we had a huge problem with recurring trolls a while back, and having two accounts for busy days is a small price to pay for not going back to that. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the BB software this forum runs on only allows a blanket posts per day limit, and doesn't allow them to award different people exceptions to the rule.
Read again:
We aim to strengthen autism rights, oppose all forms of discrimination against aspies and auties, and work to bring the community together both online and offline.
*grins* You beat me to it.
There's a difference between being insulting and being blunt, as well. Why do you think she was trying to deliberatley be offensive? If she had phrased it differently, would you not still feel insulted?
"... if she chooses to deliberately offend the beliefs of people on this site..."
Should she have said nothing at all then, and let things stay as they are? Look at what has come about from this discussion. She did not choose to offend for the sake of offense. She made a statement, stated her opinion. Because her opinion isn't the same as yours, is it really alright to punish her for that? That's conformity, plain and simple, outing people from their community simply because they don't think exactly like us. She's being attacked because of her beliefs. Are you to say that her beliefs are wrong because of the way she worded them?
Ask yourself, just what are you doing by denying someone's beliefs based on your own beliefs? And ask yourself, are they really your beliefs, or the beliefs of the community?
Pakrat, could it be better to inspire debate over John Best, in efforts not to villanize him?
We've already heard plenty of things about him from Timelord, whom was and is fighting him, harassing him, and trying to have him shut down. Isn't it wise to hear things from another's perspective on the matter? After all, despite what people are saying about Timelord now, a lot of Aspies really agreed with him over what he had to say about John Best. And what he was saying...
Healthy debate seems like a positive thing, really. Coming forward, sharing your views, saying why you think something is right or wrong.
Flardox... It's a long and complex issue, and you'd be bored to hear about it. But it does involve something I told you, a while back, on Fore's blog. I used to be just the same, I was told about Fore, offended, and so I did what anyone like myself would do; What I thought was right. Why? Because of Timelord's propoganda about John Best. I'd never heard the name before, but here I was, all fired up, and saying the same things you were saying. I did whatyou were doing, and when I went that route... That's when things got weird. After a while I started my own blog, and was quite vehement. I drew the attention of Timelord with my actions, and we became friends. Until...
Well, I won't get into that. I'm probably in enough trouble as it is even talking to you, without relating the break Timelord and I had. And I wiped the slate clean, as I promised.
But as it stands, I've got more than half a dozen angry, aggresive, and dedicated friends of Timelord on my blog harassing me(they admit it's harassment), and all to silence me so that I won't ever mention the man again. And I will NOT be coerced, forced against my will by threats and harassment, to do ANYTHING.
I'm sorry, ignore those last two parts. They were really off topic.
Frustration's no excuse.
Again, I'm sorry.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14