Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: Jenna McCarthy was on CNN last night.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
At least I think that's her name.  The wife of Jim Carey.

She was discussing the "link" between autism and vaccines, saying that there is no doubt about it, and that now parents have to bully or something until they get the vaccines changed.

She was discussing this with three peadeotricians and made me so angry I couldn't sleep for hours.  She was rude and intolerent, even taking to swearing on live television (CNN), and yelling at people.  What got me was when she screamed "my child died in my arms" when he got the vaccine and supposedly became autistic.

How can a person say their child died when their child just became autistic?  I wanted to tell her her child did NOT die, her dreams for her child did.

Also, I was wondering if anyone else, when they see this sort of thing, gets the impression that the parent blames themselves for their child's autism, but cannot deal with the feelings of guilt and try to make like someone else was actually responsible so they don't have to deal with it?  I got that impression from her.

Tigger_the_Wing Wrote:
I didn't watch CNN yesterday (we get excerpts on Aussie TV) so I didn't see it. I'm glad, because my TV might not have survived being beaten soundly with my walking stick! Tongue

Of course, the more such people behave like that on TV, the more people are going think that they ought to feel the same way. Sad


Well, fortunately my tv survived, but only because I had MSN on.  The poor lady I was chatting with got to see me having to restrain myself from cursing and swearing and yelling and screaming about Jenna McCarthy.

Pakrat Wrote:
I think some of that silicone migrated up into her brain...


hahaha

Or plastic surgery caused the loss of too much blood...

Timelord Wrote:
*applause* Couldn't have said that better, BobB! Smile


Timelord,
  Thank you, thank you, throw 10's and 20's, thank you!!!  Big Grin

  -BobB

M Wrote:
Do you think that Jenny McCarthy really reads anything on this forum?  She could tell the moderator herself.


M,
  The idea of Jenny McCarthy being *able* to read is surprising enough...  Big Grin

  -BobB

tenaciouscj Wrote:
Seriously, her facial structure is quite masculine and she is handsome rather than pretty. It is a real shame that she has got her metaphorical knickers in such a knot over having a child with autism.


tenaciouscj,
  She has a new hairstyle lately that makes her look a *little* less masculine...

  

  But look at that blank expression!

  Look at those eyes; soulless, like she was possessed by a demon!

  It's almost as though she's...  Big Grin

  -BobB

earthmonkey Wrote:
Also I think we should keep in our minds that there is a distinction between someone who is pro-cure and someone who is curebie. All curebies are pro-cure, of course, but I think the word "curebie" implies a bit more - a blatant sort of disregard. Given the fact that the major autism organizations are almost all pro-cure, and given the dismal predictions doctors give to parents who don't know any better, it's only natural that many people will be pro-cure even if they are otherwise reasonable people who'd be receptive to our views. It's because of this that I think it's important that we should phrase our skepticism of people like McCarthy in tactful terms, just about the facts and the arguments rather than speculation about personal characteristics such as whether she can read and such.


earthmonkey,
  Good distinction between 'pro-cure' and 'curebie'; the problem, though, is that the curebies tend to be the loudest voices, and this is a culture where the louder the voice, the more people take them seriously when they shouldn't (see: Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al).

  As for Jenny McCarthy, she made her name being a brainless blonde bimbo to begin with; poking a little fun at her isn't going to make all that much difference, imho...

earthmonkey Wrote:
Having said that, I well understand the need to vent, after seeing how our perspective is so frequently ignored, and dismissed with faulty arguments we've each seen 100 times over, and refuted them when having the energy to do so. But I think it would be more appropriate to reserve this type of venting for the General and Support fora. After all, these aren't visible to people who are just coming over here to see what we're all about (of course it's still easy to register and see more, but I think initial impressions of our viewpoints ought not to be based on such venting-type responses.


  But this *is* part of what we're about; we have discussion, debate, and disagreements, *especially* about how we're perceived and treated in society! I'd imagine that any reasonable person who comes here is going to be intrigued and impressed by the *level* of discourse here!  Smile

  More than anything else, though, it's important to *welcome* new people with open arms, and to be receptive to any sincere questions they might have!  Smile

earthmonkey Wrote:
Wow, on TV now they're showing a factory where they make pita bread, and it goes through an oven of over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit for about 15 seconds and they puff up, with extremely hot air still inside.

Just thought that was an interesting aside.


  It was!  Smile

  -BobB

P.S. Your YouTube video is great, too!!!  Smile

Joker Wrote:
The world isn't so black and white, BobB.

"Vast majority" this or that, is what you're doing still fine? Is it still moral? You justify that it's just venting, but that excuse won't work if pro-cure people used it to justify one of their vents. It's a hypocritical argument, if you accuse them of being ignorant and disrespectful based on their venting. Think about it; Is this any better than the ignorance and disrespect that you feel is unjustifiable? Is trying to justify it in your case any different from them trying to justify things in the same way?

You accuse those who want a cure of being a vast majority of non-autistics, people who don't really understand autistics.


Joker,
  The world is *never* black and white, even for us...  Wink

  Let's take it out of the realm of autism for a moment. For *hundreds* of years, blacks were taken from their homeland, sold into slavery, whipped, beaten, lynched, and otherwise dehumanized. They went through struggles for *decades* to get to the level of even *nominal* equality!

  Now, is there a difference between whites demeaning blacks and blacks resenting whites?

  ABSOLUTELY!

  It's the difference between resenting the *oppressed* and resenting the *oppressors*!

  In our case, we're the 'blacks'; *we're* the ones who've been oppressed. The 'pro-cure' types are the ones who've been the 'white oppressors'.

  Are we going to be *brave enough* to stay seated on the 'white seats' of society?

Joker Wrote:
On the flip side, the smart pro-cure aspies and Auties don't speak up about it anymore, because they know it gets them insulted, ostracized, mocked, ridiculed, and subject to no holds barred harassment. I've seen autistic people who hold pro-cure views come and go, I've seen aspies who wouldn't mind a cure or wanta cure just not posting in these kinds of topics, because they know that if they do, they will get dragged over the proverbial coals... by the few people they ever really shared their autism with, the people they know who are the ones who also have ASDs.

One autistic woman wanted a cure, and now she's being ridiculed by strangers, people who never even met her. Why? She doesn't want to be the way she is, she wants to be cured.

Is it so wrong to not want to be autistic? Is it?


  It's not the cure itself; it's the *ramifications* of what a 'cure' would entail.

  If you were gay, would you be insulted if somebody told you that you needed to be 'cured' of being gay? More than likely, yes. If *you* wanted to be 'not gay', and you were willing to try to be 'cured', that's fine.

  For *you*.

  For others, though - those who *don't* want to be cured - it represents a *threat*; the *existence* of a 'cure' gives the people who want to 'cure *all* gays of their perversions' ammunition to use against them. It would start as an option, but more than likely, it would soon be *forced* on gays, whether they wanted it or not!

  And *that's* what we're against!

  In the same way that being gay is part of who that person is, being autistic is part of who *we* are!

  And who has the right to *threaten* that part of our existence?

Joker Wrote:
Respect can't be demanded, it can't be taken, it can't be stolen, forced, or bought. You don't get respect for being autistic because you should; That's plain laziness and selfishness. All the "normal" people, they need to earn respect, through their words, their actions, and their attitudes. Are we then deserving to be respected because we have Autism, and not because we're good people? Are we to become so self-centered that we think the world owes us? That's the way that parents spoil children rotten, by giving them the things that they don't deserve.

I'm not saying that being autistic means you don't deserve any respect, but I am saying that you can't expect it to fall into your lap or be handed to you. If you want it, you earn it. I want it, and I earn it. I earn it from my friends, my neighbors, or even total strangers.


  Respect breeds respect. If somebody's going to be an *advocate* for autistics - which the curebies *supposedly* are - then it follows that *they* have the responsibility for respecting *us* FIRST!

Joker Wrote:
What you're doing? That earns scorn and derison, unless you're among like-minded individuals, people who seem to share a sense of entitlement, or simply want to let off some steam in a negative way.

You don't earn respect by mocking others, by degrading people because of their beliefs, by insulting mothers, silencing criticism, attacking anyone who doesn't toe the opinionated line(the one that you know is the "right" one), altering views and spreading black PR.


  Tell that to Jenny McCarthy, et al...

Joker Wrote:
Tenaciouscj, TheZach, Timelord, BobB, Natalie, isn't this kind of petty and vindictive mockery and slurs beneath you? Are you capable of responding to her only by insulting her? You can't counter bad with bad; As the old adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Are you petty, spiteful, vindictive individuals, ignorant, or are you ready to act mature and do something worthwhile about Jenny McCarthy rather than just insult her?

Personal insults like, brainless blonde bimbo, for one. I think that's fair rude, don't you?


  That's the image that *she* created for herself! Whether it's rude or not, *she* chose to project that as her public persona; it's a little bit late for her to think she should be immune from criticism *of* that image, wouldn't you say?

  If somebody is *deserving* of criticism for being ignorant, they're going to *get* that criticism!

  I call a spade a spade (unless I'm dealing with racial issues, of course...)  Big Grin

Joker Wrote:
The people on the anti-cure side need to get their acts together regarding personal insults and deliberate attacks and messages of war against pro-cure groups, even curebies. You can't claim a moral high ground when you're as stained as those you're fighting; We can fight for the public view, but the pro-cure groups are pretty big, well-known, and have lots of money and support, no? Anti-cure just can't win against all the celebrity, money, and sheer numbers of pro-cure.

If we ensure that both sides become completely opposed, closed off, and deadlocked, anti-cure is done for. That's why the anti-cure movement needs to stay above this base garbage; Otherwise, pro-cure people will oppose simply for the sake of opposition, and won't be swayed by any arguments in a course that the anti-cure movement was formed to face: The elimination of autistic culture, of autistic people, of autism.


  Modern math: Ignorance + Money + Media = Gospel Myth  Sad

  It's time to start killing the myths...

Joker Wrote:
I agree; A topic for venting needs to be where it is appropriate. Where it is known that it's not being taken seriously, and is not part of a serious point of view. Of course, in some instances, these are serious points of view, which is negative. And about first impressions, I agree completely. If all they see are threads involving things like this, or like overtly biased topics, they'll chalk us down to being the other point of view of similar pro-cure sites.

I think it's come down to two groups of anti-cure people; Attackers and equality promoters. Sometimes the two intermingle, and you get people who mix the two. You'll get people who are autistic elitists, and other negatively focused people from the attackers, and you'll have people who promote that they're just different, and other positively focused from the equality promoters. Problem is, the negatives are ruining the positives with stuff like this.


  I believe in promoting equality, but at the same time, I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for the cause. Sometimes, you *have* to be negative to *properly* fight the good fight...

Joker Wrote:
Well, in closing, I guess that it's up to the individual to govern themselves; I can't stop anyone from being a certifiable jerk, but I can name them fo what they are. Tolerance for pro-cure beliefs from autistics, is the first step to the examination of those beliefs by those who hold them.


  If somebody *genuinely* believes that they want to be cured - that their autism is 'persona-dysphoric' - I have no problem with that. But if someone wants to be cured, it *has* to be for the *right reasons*, not just a matter of social pressure, etc.

  -BobB

Joker Wrote:
BobB, the promotion of one race over another is the promotion of one race over another. If it were blacks who took whites as slaves, would the argument work only in reverse?

If we're not promoting equality, we're promoting superiority. Look at it this way; If the roles are reversed, and blacks become the oppressors, will it be right for the whites to demand equality? If you follow through on the path your argument took, it would be. After all, depending on their race, they are either demeaning or resenting, and when it comes down to it, neither are positive.

Did the blacks, having won the same written rights as whites, immediately decide to promote black superiority? No. They, having been the oppressed, had no desire to become the thing that they hated. Would you become what you hate to "win?"

Are we cold and heartless enough to take those white seats over the pro-cure side? Are we willing to become oppressors?
The resenter is an oppressor, if they are resented. The oppressor is a resenter, if they are the oppressed.
Equality isn't an exchange of oppression and resentment; It's the balancing of the scales.


Joker,
  Who says the scales are balanced, though?

  If the tables were turned, and whites had suffered everything that the blacks had suffered for hundreds of years - and it's a matter of the situation having been opposite from day one, not just a potential *future* occurrance - the whites *would* have had the same resentment that the blacks had, yes. ANYONE going through what the blacks went through could be expected to react the same way!

  You *are* right when you say that they're "either demeaning or resenting, and when it comes down to it, neither are positive"; the point, though, more than anything else, is, "How do WE as autistics deal with the oppression that we're facing?" I just used the black/white situation as an example.

  For the most part, very few of us are promoting 'Autie/Aspie Superiority'; we *do* have a reason to be defensive, though, and if that's what it takes, so be it. Put *me* on Larry King with Jenny McCarthy, and we'll see some sparks fly, and she *won't* look like a 'victim'!!!

  I don't know *anyone* here who's looking to *become* oppressors. Just in case you haven't noticed, The Powers That Be (Autism Speaks) aren't exactly looking out for us, although they ARE making *shitpiles* of money exploiting us!

  When the Eugenics Wars start, *they'll* fire the first shot!

  *I* intend to fire the *last*!

Joker Wrote:
On to the topic of cure:

Now, the gay comparison isn't valid here. Homosexuality is NOT, in any circumstance, a neurobiological disorder. It's not a disease, it's not diagnosable, it's not a valid comparison for talk of a cure.

Furthermore, your argument is a logical fallacy. You say, a cure is fine for you, the one who wants it. But you flat out openly say that you are absolutely opposed to the creation of a cure, making whether or not I want a cure a moot point in the face of the fac that, in your eyes, a cure may never be made.

Is it then a lie to tell me that I may seek a cure as I see fit, yet directly oppose the method through which I would be cured? You tell me I may use crutches to walk, and then you tell me that crutches will never be.

And by denying a cure to those who seek it, is it not the same forced control as forcing a cure on those who don't seek it? Those who want a cure are a threat to your existence, as you are a threat to them.

Don't tell me I can be cured, when you will not let a cure come to pass. Don't lie to me.

Respect breeds respect. If you won't respect the pro-cure side, they will not respect you. If they will not respect you, you will not respect them. Do you see the folly?

Look within your own ranks before pointing your finger at your enemy. I'm not talking about her, or the pro-cure movement; I'm talking about the anti-cure movement. A fault is a fault, no matter who commits it.

Are you being serious? Are you not responsible and accountable for your own words? Are you not insulting someone, be damned if her public persona is that of a dancing bear? You are still the one to choose whether or not to throw the mud.

It is high time to do that. But you're not going to do that if you look like a pot calling a kettle black. If the anti-cure movement doesn't shape up and present a clean and mature public image, it'll become a mass media myth melee, if you'll forgive the alliteration. And anti-cure is a grassroots movement, as opposed to the combined organization of the pro-cure movement.

Sometimes... Maybe in military conflicts, but not in a fight for people's good regards. Today, in this day and age, the only way to win the fight, is to win the people. And you won't win them with such tactics.

I believe you misunderstand my last post; I mean that in order to get people to stop and think about their own beliefs, is the acceptance and desire to understand those beliefs. You won't cause as many to examine their beliefs by mocking theirs; But you will if you understand what they believe.

As for the right to be cured; Again, do not lie to me. If the anti-cure movement will not permit a cure, then to say that those who want a cure are free to seek it, is dishonest.


  This assumes that there *will* be a cure for autism at some point; so far, the 'cure' that Autism Speaks is promoting is genocide - completely wiping out autism by eradicating US from the gene pool!!!

  The gay comparison is *perfectly* acceptable here, and for the *exact* reason you cited: "It's not a disease, it's not diagnosable, it's not a valid comparison for talk of a cure." Homosexuality *used* to be a *crime* - one that was punished by throwing gays in jail with other men (how apropos!) - then it was a 'mental disease', until psychiatrists decided it wasn't. Now, it's becoming more accepted as a valid part of society, although there are *still* pockets of strong resistance (i.e., fundie religious types who haven't been caught with their pants down yet)!

  As for my being against a cure being a 'logical fallacy', perhaps you could tell me how prenatal screening can do *anything* for people who are already born? Again - and let me put this as bluntly as possible - THERE IS NO CURE FOR AUTISM!!!

  Nor is there likely to BE one *anytime* soon!

  In fact, I really don't like it being referred to as a 'cure'; 'Final Solution' would be *much* more appropriate! People are being *misled and deceived* into believing that Autism Speaks is *trying* to find a cure!

  They're not. Period.

  But they couldn't get people to donate if they said, "We want to kill autistics and keep new ones from being born", could they?

  They lie. We don't. It's as simple as that.

  You're making the mistake of assuming that this is a reasonable, rational debate.

  It isn't.

  The enemy - Autism Speaks, et al - is pathological and pretty much psychotic! They have no *desire* to be rational! Look at the way Jenny McCarthy comported *herself* on Larry King; she was - to put it charitably - a screaming psycho-bitch! Never mind rational debate, never mind that she was screaming hysterically at *genuine* experts when they disagreed with her; *we're* obviously the ones who are wrong by calling her on her bitchiness!

  In this case, 'winning the people' means that we *have* to show 'the people' that the 'curebies' are psychotic, pathological lying *bastards*!!!

  We have to show what their *real* agenda is!

  It's *our* lives and future on the line, *not* theirs!

  *They* have nothing to lose, because they don't really have any *personal* stake in it!

  WE do!

  Which side are *you* on, Joker?

  -BobB

Timelord Wrote:
Which side is Joker on, Bob?

I can answer that. He is against us fighting for our rights. The reason is because he makes no secret of the fact that he has "conquered his Aspergers". I know for a fact that he hasn't - he hasn't suffered the extreme prejudice from the NT world yet, but he will. It's inevitable. But he won't listen to those who know.

So bluntly I wouldn't bother with him. Beyond his own experience (which is comparitively limited) he knows nothing in the practical sense.


Timelord,
  Yeah, but I've got to practice to get ready to debate the people who *do* matter...  Wink

  -BobB

Joker Wrote:
Reality check; Autism is a neurobiological disorder. Until it's proven not to be, it is unwise to make assumptions against it. There are no studies to determine if autism is a disorder that prove it is not.


I don't think that any studies to "determine if autism is a disorder" have been done (studies have basically proven that autism is a fundamentally different brain structure, but that's a bit different than "proving if it is a disorder"). I don't think that such a thing is really possible.

Joker Wrote:
What are you on about? OF COURSE pre-natal testing doesn't do anything for people already born; But is that the only, single, solitary direction Autism Speaks has taken? Is every charitable donation solely purposed for that research? Nay; It's not as big a priority as you assume it. You're taking the absolute WORST parts of the pro-cure movement, and dismissing any redeeming qualities on that basis.


Well, they certainly aren't spending very much money where it actually helps autistics - on support and services (see the "Finance" section here).

Joker Wrote:
I guess it's true though; If you're pro-cure, you're fair game. No rights, no value, just a worthless, useless piece of trash. Ironic, that I was once an anti-cure advocate; Back then, oh, I was popular here, on other forums, on my blog. I should have stayed ignorant and blissful.


I certainly don't think such a thing. I can't speak for anyone else here, though. I think that pro-"cure" people are for the most part, just misguided, and want what they think is best for autistics. The problem is that what they want is at odds with what the majority of autistics want (at least, I get the impression that most autistics are either anti-"cure" or neutral, and that pro-"cure" autistics usually support a "cure" because they haven't been accepted as autistics).

anbuend Wrote:

TheZach Wrote:

M Wrote:
I wonder if she gets paid to go on these shows and scream about autism and mercury?  Does anyone know?


My guess is she was compensated quite well by CNN


I don't know if she was or not, but I have been on CNN about autism three times now, and I have not been paid at all (nor have I expected payment).  Of course maybe things are different for celebrities, who knows.


anbuend,
  Probably not; the public exposure that they get is the 'payment'. This is why we see so many celebrities - even celebrities that have traditionally shied away from that spotlight - on talk shows these days. It's a *lot* cheaper to go on talk shows to promote a movie, TV show, social/political issue, etc., than it is to *buy* media advertising...

  -BobB

Chosen 1 Wrote:
Jenna and Jim McCarthey-Carrey are at it again. tacanow.org?? (talk about curing autism now.) A rally in Washington DC on June 4th. YIKES!


Chosen1,
  You know, I'd *really* like to have a nice little discussion with Jenny McCarthy, and tell her that the 'cure' caused her son to lose his Special Crystal Child Nature, and that the Hope For The World that he represented was destroyed and lost when he was 'cured'...

  Just to see her go into conniptions, you understand...  Wink

  -BobB

Tigger_the_Wing Wrote:
Oh please Bob, at least try to find some way of telling her - is there any contact info on the website? WinkTongue


Tigger,
  That's one of those things that *has* to be done in person; you've *GOT* to see the look on her face!!!  Big Grin

  (And have a camera ready, too!)

  -BobB

ConLang Wrote:

Chosen 1 Wrote:
tacanow.org


I'm going to be bad, here.  

That sounds like a movement from the excremental symphony


ConLang,
  No, that would be cacanow.org  Wink

  And if it was nihilistic as well, it could be cacapolypsenow.org  Big Grin

  -BobB

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Reference URL's