Worst case:They decide not to do it
Second worse case:They do it but twist things around. They get sued/slammed(remember NTSpeaks?)
Best case:They actually do what they said
In any case, what do we lose?
i'm going to have to say no. i'm afraid that autism speaks will either edit our positive stories to have a negative spin or claim that 'miracles like us' only happen with many years of early intervention, quack treatments and aba, something many of us didn't have much of. in each case, it's more pity and negative autism portrayal as a doomsday situation for families and maybe a way for them to dictate a measuring bar for parents for their autistic kids to live up to 'or else you're a failure of a parent and might as well kill the kid'. they will also get to get out of the negative press they have been in lately, pretty much by exploiting us. make sure you get the copyright before you do anything to them so you own the work, instead of them being able to twist it to whatever they want.
if autism speaks had an image more like 'our kid has health issues, etc, but we are glad that we had this kid' and if autism were seen more positively than they do now, i wouldn't have too much problem with their cure stuff. but since they claim every single one of us are tragic defective burdens, i can't associate myself with them.
Don't trust them. My vote is an emphatic "No!"
In the long run, posting your own videos on YouTube, etc., and maintaining our own online communities (independently, without the involvement of curebies) will make a better impression than crawling up to a group like that.
As for the corporate partnerships... remember what Starbucks did? I haven't bought any coffee from them since I heard about that, and won't until I've heard they've stopped supporting curebies.
Korrigan, it's been a few months since the discussion of Starbucks. I tried to find some recent news on it just before submitting that last post, and didn't find anything. Not sure if they're still doing it.
Come to think of it, Al Cureda has probably realized how much it screwed up with the Abscout / NTspeaks incident, and now they're sucking up and trying to save face before more people find out.
Exactly. I intend to go back to plan A and write that autiebiography I've been meaning to...it'll be my summer project.
They would not change their goals or actions or the nature of their propaganda. The post at the beginning mentioned how Suzanne Wright talked about gaining acceptance, than went right into an AIDS comparison. For anyone who saw Autism: the Musical, the one parent was ranting about how we need acceptance and better access to services, then in the same breath talked about vaccines and cure, then went right back to acceptance. If our message of being proud of being autistic and the importance of acceptance - of ourselves and children - is merged with Autism Speaks, but they don't alter their goals or actions, then nobody would even notice any inconsistency except for us on this forum and people in the posautive blogging community. It would only serve to improve their image without getting anything practical done.
But the flip side of this is that if we don't do it, Autism Speaks could make themselves out to look like the victims, and say "we made the offer. They're so disabled and disorganized they couldn't do it"
True, but better for Autism Speaks to say "See, they're so disabled they couldn't do it" than for them to be able to say "See, we have the full support of autistics as well as their NT family members!"
I'd like to point out that I believe it is a common practice for newspapers and magazines to alter the text of people's "Letters to the Editor". They excuse this practice by claiming that this is editing to make over-long letters more brief and readable, but I know that the editing can sometimes alter the meaning of contributions. You do have copyright on everything that you write the moment that you write it, but that fact is in practice irrelevant to the issue of a publisher altering/editing your text.
I would also like to say that there is a long, long tradition of sell-out autistics who sell books and go along to conferences run by The Establishment, and make a living as after-dinner speakers etc etc, all the while rubbing shoulders with curebies and autism experts who can't tell the difference between a psychopath and an autist, all the while lending credibility to the big, powerful organizations and the powerful people. I hope I am never that hard-up for a buck that I even think about going down that road.
In my experience it is a waste of one's time even communicating with most academics and other power-trippers who do not have a clear and consistent pro-neurodiversity attitude. I have never been pleasantly surprised.
Sadly to say, this is quite often true. It would be a refreshing change to see somebody aspie who writes a book and remains down to earth and accessible.
[ABA] Seems a horrendously traumatic way to teach it.
I don't see how it would be traumatic if it doesn't use aversives, or teach people to be ashamed of their autistic traits. As far as I know, not brushing your teeth is not a part of being autistic.
I wrote a poem about pro-cure organizations. I cannot remember the whole thing, but it was scathing in a subtle way. I'm also working on a second poem called 'The Thing We Call A Cure'.
Anyway, the original poem that I wrote had this stanza in it:
'Is science defiance of human rights? No.'
I vote "not sure".
They don't sound very sincere to me.
I would not support Autism Speaks for this reason: their primary objective is to "eliminate autism". There is no point of autistics compromising with them. If a few of the CAN people changed it would really be of no help since there would still be the people there working against us. People who do change their mind can quit CAN and form another organization that does support people with autism.
I am really tired of "cultist" charities doing soft sell campaigns that try to disguise their true objectives so they can seem appealing to a wider range of the public. I take great pleasure in exposing these "sham" charities to people and pointing out to people, using the charities own websites more than often, that their money is really not being used for the causes that people think they are.
People go on these walks and tell me they are "doing it for kids with autism". Most of them have never read the charities annual report or even their website. Some that do are so "emotionally involved" with the cause, they can't think logically. That is not my problem. I just present the facts. When they try to get help for their child or adult family member with autism and are told "they should have never been born. There are methods to prevent this" -- am I supposed to say "told you so"?
Seems abit like Autism Speaks is just charity that gives money to poor snobs unhappy with their children - not really part of the autism community.
i'm still saying no to the offer. by taking this offer, you say that what autism speaks is okay (views that include dehumanization, eugenics and condoning of murder). i don't want the autism rights movement to be squashed by autism speaks just like that and lose more ground.
I say yes. I believe that AS honestly believes that we don't really have any positive stories to tell. So if we don't respond the twist it to make it seem like the nerodiversity movement is full of hot air.
If we respond however, I doubt they will actually follow through. They will either bury it somewhere where nobody can find it, or simply backpedal completely. In either case we can make them out to be liars or hypocrites.
Anyways it's good to have a dialogue with people that disagree with our views. Simply talking to each other accomplishes nothing.