Aspies For Freedom

Agreed, but it's occasionally useful as a "slap in the face" to stereotypes. For example, I only really bring the Einstein one up when people say autistics all have low IQ, or similar things.

Also, celebrities are recognisable and familiar to people, which often immediately convinces people that it's nothing to worry about. This means that knowing about officially dx'd celebrities such as Dan Akroyd or Darryl Hannah often comes in handy.

All that aside though, the main reasons I often participate in these sorts of discussions are that it helps to clarify what is and isn't an autistic trait, and also because it's fun.

-----------
I often will mention famous people with AS when describing my daughter to friends or new acquaintances so they can put it into context. I usually wait til they start shaking their heads or looking soulful and too sympathetic to let them subtly know that Hope doesn't "suffer" from AS though it is a challenge.

When I mention Dan (Ackroyd) or Neil (Young) or Bill (Gates) or Einstein their faces light up as if to say "oh, ok, then- she will be alright".

I especially need to do this when trying to find her a job in the community. Right now she volunteers, but by doing the above I was able to get Hope a volunteer job at Habitat for Humanity doing DATA ENTRY. Just yesterday they told us that not only is Hope fast, but they checked her work and she is accurate!

I also told her recently that I fully expect her to do as well in life as her NT, college-educated brother because I felt she had the drive and determination. She is, after all, a lot like me: a bulldog in many ways. I learned to be a bulldog, to be tough, to get what I want in life, from my Dad who's parents suffered a lot during the Great Depression. It all trickles down into the various generations I guess.

That said, Hope does not now resemble these famous Aspies I think. She is not the "brilliant" type (academically, creatively) - at least not yet.  There will be a slow unfolding where she is concerned I think.

With autism, the consequences of negative publicity are very wide-reaching. One of the main autistic rights issues is the prevention of eugenic genocide.

Basically:

Negative publicity = Increased donations to Autism Speaks, or similar organisations.

Increased donations to Autism Speaks = Increased funding to negative publicity campaigns & pre-natal testing research.

Negative publicity campaigns + pre-natal testing = eugenic genocide.


Increased understanding of autism, on the other hands, means greater understanding of autistic issues, which in turn means more donations to support-based charities (as opposed to cure research charities).


So yeah, it's not just a self-esteem issue - it's critically important.


Also, there are things we can do to change their opinions. Most people believe what they do about autism because they have never knowingly met an autistic adult - all they know about are the problems children go through, and the various "pity" campaign ads they occasionally see.

By increasing our public profile on the internet, through real life groups, and by drawing attention to well-known autistic people, we can slowly turn public opinion around.

I know people that have looked into autism for the first time after following Heather Kuzmich on Americas Next Top Model. I've seen pro-cure debates stopped in their tracks after a single mention of Dan Akroyd, Darryll Hannah, or David Byrne.

Celebrity is valuable currency in autistic rights circles, and when it's helpful, I have no problem with cashing it in.

I can understand that it might sound like a conspiracy theory, but really it's all out in the open - Autism Speaks are actively pursuing pre-natal testing research, and are actively engaged in negative publicity campaigns. They aren't doing this covertly, they're saying it in public, and unfortunately they have a lot of support for it.

I think the reason it sounds unrealistic is that genocide is often associated with wars - but negative publicity campaigns designed to reduce the number of autistic births still qualifies as genocide, as it's "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" (from wikipedia).

To clarify, I don't think that anyone will "kill the unwilling". Forced rehabilitation, on the other hand, is going on even today.

The genocide I'm talking about is a campaign brought about by "nice" people - there's no group plotting to kill us all, just a group that would prefer that no more of us were born.

True - it's a tool that needs to be used carefully.

That being said, I think the people you're talking about are the ones that use these celebrities as a way of saying "autistics are superior" - which isn't really what I'm advocating.

I think we may have misinterpreted each other.

I don't believe that it will ever be compulsory to abort or kill autistic children - what I'm talking about is negative publicity campaigns, combined with pre-natal testing. This still fits the definition of genocide, as it is a measure designed to prevent births within the group.

Note that this doesn't say "prevent all births within the group". If the autistic figure is anything like the Downs Syndrome figure, though, 91-93% of autistic fetus's will be aborted, which will be enough to wipe us out in a couple of generations.

And unfortunately, very few people are against this.

Autism Speaks does not have the same stigma as the KKK - they are a major charity organisation, and are generally thought well of. People support them via misguided compassion, not via bigotry. Celebrities support them, major corporations (such as Toys 'R' Us & Starbucks) sponsor them. The things they do, they do because society supports them.

I think this whole thing is pretty simple, and it looks like you'd both probably actually agree if you both stopped butting heads.

People choose the degree to which they wish to fit in based on the things they want, and the things that are important to them.

Simen, you choose to do so more than Zachrates. Zachrates, you find personal expression to be more important than achieving goals.

Neither of these positions is incorrect, as they both apply to only one person - yourself. No-one gets to choose the criteria for another persons happiness.

*grins* No probs.

I think Downs Syndrome has some of the same sorts of negative publicity as autism. I don't know a large number of Downs people, but the one I do know is quite socially adept (i.e. loud, funny, and well-liked), and is also quite an avid political activist.

I do know that there are accomplished Downs artists & actors. I've even heard that they have their own neurodiversity activists - though I've never actually met one.

Also, negative publicity campaigns on autism are far worse than those on Downs Syndrome.

Imagine if pre-natal testing for autism was available today, and a pregnant women was told her child may be autistic:

She might remember the NSW autism ads that I grew up with, with the slogan "What disorder can stop a child from loving their dog?".

She might go looking on the net, and find numerous blogs from parents moaning about how autism "stole their childs soul".

She might remember the numerous news articles about the autism "epidemic", or various autism "tragedies".

She might have seen Autism Speaks "Autism Everyday" video - featuring lots of kids having tantrums (no other footage of the kids was shown), parents complaining about their lives, and including the woman that stated she thought about "putting her autistic daughter in a car, and driving off a bridge". She also goes on to say the only reason she didn't so this is that she has another "normal" daughter at home. All said within earshot of her autistic daughter, of course.



Of course, I could be wrong, and the autistic abortion percentage could be, say, closer to the 70% mark - which would still be enough to do the job.

It's simplistic, because I really think it's that simple.

I understand that there's a real debate, but I think the reason it's blown into a full-scale war is because both of you are attacking and polarising the others position, rather than discussing the issues. I believe that some statements made without thought have been drawn out to places they were never meant to go to. By "resetting the game", so to speak, I believe you can find a position you both agree on - you've both expressed similar sentiments on several things, after all.

My earlier statement was directed at both of you - I sought to present an opinion I believe you will both be able to agree on, and I'm hoping you can take things from there.

You've called him an idiot several times over. In fact, it's a common technique of yours to make blanket "this is stupid" or "this is idiotic" statements.

Perhaps you have an definition by which you do not consider these statements to be personal attacks. If so, it's irrelevant - these things are generally regarded as such.

Well, not really. I'm far from being normative. I'm a bit weird.

I just take issue with the idea that most people could, or should never conform.