Aspies For Freedom

I was a bit bored at work, so I did a backsearch - I think this is the post you're referring to:

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...?tid=11885

I don't mind ATM in a general sort of way, but the "spiritualising" of autistic people is a huge problem, no matter who does it.

Spiritualising autistic people is just another way of dehumanising us - If someone is a "holy being", then you don't have to deal with them as a person. And to top it all off, if people see these ideas here, then it makes the whole autistic rights movement look crazy by association.

I believe neither of these things were ATM's intention, but it doesn't really matter - these would be the outcomes of his statements.

It's important to remember that in the forumverse, words have power. In fact, words are all we are here. The idea of the "spiritual autistic" has to be addressed and criticised, as ultimately it is damaging.

a) I made it very clear that I do not object to ATM as a person:

b) The statement you quoted is called a disclaimer - a short sentence tacked onto a statement to allow people to pretend they didn't say the rest of the post.

For example, if someone writes a long statement about not liking black people, it doesn't matter whether or not they add in "I'm not racist, but...".

ATM wrote a long rant about LFA's having a holy purpose, and we are addressing that. It doesn't matter that he added the statement that "Neurotypicals and "Aspies" were created for a holy Purpose too, of course" - It is the main content of the rant that is being discussed.

c) This isn't meant as an attack, it's meant as actual advice to prevent further out of control threads - be very careful about using emotional statements in a debate. I know you often use these things to get your point accross, but it is a very bad idea.

In the last three posts, you've called "shame" on me, you've called my posts a "personal attack" when I have gone out of my way to ensure it was not, and you've said that you believe in "openess and honesty", implying that I do not.

As a general guide, if you state the points directly without lots of these sorts of statements, it sounds much better. In this case, the quote "Neurotypicals and Aspies were created for a holy Purpose" was a valid point that furthered the debate. The other statements were not.

Apology accepted - I wasn't really too bothered by it, but I thought I'd use the opportunity to tell you how to better get your points accross. When you use emotional statements, your actual meaning get buried.

As far as support goes, I almost never support any person in a debate. Support for a person is something I reserve for encouraging them to do things or offering companionship - I don't ever support an idea I don't believe in, regardless of who's saying it.

As far as not believing his statement was added as a disclaimer, I'll just have to reiterate that it was the bulk of his post that we were addressing, and one extra sentence doesn't change the bulk of what he was writing.

No-one has the right to an unchallenged opinion - spiritual beliefs are as debatable as any other belief.

In this case, what is being debated is that the belief is damaging.

Well, Lucie, since you mention it...

There have been several instances lately (one of which was in one of ATM's thread about the lad he's helping) where I feel you'e gone out of your way to contradict me and argue and make me feel bad.  I feel this is not because you don't agree with what I say, but because you personally don't like me - you think I'm a big bad mean bully and a part of Max's imaginary gang.

I am really sorry ATM it is just that the comments seemed so unfair. I will take some more of my thoughts over to one of your threads

If you wish to opt out of a debate, try to do so without a last-minute attack on the alternative opinion.

If you'd like to offer a factual, not emotional, reason why you believe my comments to be unfair, do so. If you'd like to opt out of the debate, then do that instead. If you use the "attack and run" method above though, you will be called on it.

ATM, you may not have intended it that way, but long rants about the holy purpose of autistic people are damaging.

It appears that what you actually believe is that everyone has their own purpose, but if this is the case, there is no need to talk about an "autistic purpose" as a separate entity.

It is damaging to link autism to spirituality in a different way than other people are linked to spirituality - it implies that autistic people are something other than human.

This isn't meant as an attack on you personally - I quite like most of your posts. This is meant as an attack on the idea that autistics are "spiritually different" from other people. Is it possible for you to just say that everyone has their own purpose, and leave it at that?

I agree completely.

Batman, do not attack people on my behalf, especially for such a stupid reason. Why would I care how my name is spelled?

I don't condone stirring up trouble for no reason, but if you're going to, at least pick something worthwhile to complain about.

Lucie, I don't mind how you spell my name. Throw in a few silent q's if you like, I don't mind.

The shame of it all is that you two are actually quite similar in many ways. Ah well - for the sake of the forum, I'd recommend staying out of each others ways, or at least trying to avoid attacks on each other.

Lucie, there was no personal attack here - there was an observation that a fight was brewing over nothing.

This is the sort of thing I mean when I talk about you using emotional statements instead of factual statements - it's no good for anyone involved. If you're going to say you dislike someones behavior, say what it is you have an issue with - don't attack the person.

You both separate people into "good people" and "bad people" categories for very minor reasons, you both find it difficult to keep emotional statements out of debates, and, as you've mentioned above, you're both very reactive.

The similarities are probably why you're at each others throats so often.



Anyways, I vaguely remember someone talking about aspie teachers somewhere in the distant past... Perhaps we should get the thread back to that.

Nah, not annoyed - just didn't feel like discussing this via PM, and I new you'd want to.