Aspies For Freedom

I think the debate about biomedical intervention should be about what a parent should know and be aware of to make a decision.

Such things doesn't represent people seeking biomedical interventions.

BobB Wrote:

pikajedi4 Wrote:

actually..just watching the Autism Curebies Quacks Idiots vid, I think he is making a lot of sense.

watch it again, but...think about it from a purely detacted and objective point of view. he is correct about at least one thing; we use Curebie as an attacking word, and that turns people off, and makes them not want to debate or listen to us.

pikajedi,
  But if you put it into context, what have the 'curebies' said about US???

  They say we're 'broken', 'soulless', 'an unbearable burden', we 'suck the marrow out of families', and all sorts of wonderful things. Should WE not consider all that crap as 'attacking words', too?

  Besides which, the *real* problem ISN'T the 'curebies'; it's the autism haters that *really* cause the problems! *They're* the ones who want to *eradicate* autism, *not* just help us live happy and productive lives! The 'cure' they want is just that; *eradicating* us!

  So do they *really* have the moral right to be offended when we call them 'curebies'?

  -BobB

I'm sorry, BobB, but that smacks a little too much of "Well, he called me a spaz so i have the right to call him a N%$#ger!" to me.
Yes, they do have the right to be offended, no, we don't have the right to insult them, and yes, we do have an obligation to be kind to other people no matter how much we hate them, disagree with them, are offended by them, whatever.

I don't agree with those who are pro-cure and I often hate the things they do and say. I think they are misguided, sometimes cruel, always hateful, etc. But I still treat them with respect because they are my fellow human beings and they deserve that much. The same way I deserve to be treated with respect, so do they. The fact that I am autistic doesn't change that, and the fact that they don't treat me with respect doesn't change that either. The "rules" of morality don't shift just because someone doesn't do what you want them to. If it's wrong for them to make fun of and insult us, it's wrong for us to make fun of and insult them.

Curebie is meant as a derogative, no escape from that - So we better think carefully where we may use it if we are to be taken seriously.

Sounds like Phil stumbled upon some of the worse use of the word.

I believe Phil said "particularly people from the neurodiversity community", I don't think he addressed the neurodiversity community as a whole.

The neurodiversity community has definitely become a refuge for people who are sceptic to alternative approaches, even though I wouldn't say it usually is about of autistic rights - except when the treatments involve somehow putting children in considerable danger.

BobB Wrote:

Luai_lashire,
I can agree with you in principle, but given that the 'cure' that a lot of these people want is to eradicate us from the gene pool, I'm not quite sure that the normal guidelines apply, to be honest... Sad

  Respect begets respect; would *we* be using a term like 'curebie' if *they* hadn't been using derogatory language towards *us* for so long?

  The whole point of the neurodiversity movement - which Phil evidently has *no* clue about - is that we want to be *accepted* as who we are. We want to ne thought of as *people*, NOT 'broken', 'soulless', 'an unbearable burden', we 'suck the marrow out of families', etc.

  And does Phil show *any* sign of respecting *our* point of view? Not in the least; he goes out of his way to demean us!

  -BobB

If you agree with me in principle, why are you still drawing a line over which your morals switch? It would still be wrong to call someone "N$%^#ger" even if they are a murderer. It's ALWAYS wrong. It's ALWAYS wrong to insult someone. No matter what they think about you, no matter what they are doing to you or want to do to you.
Doesn't it make you the bigger man if you can stand in the face of that sort of disrespect and still maintain your respect for them? I think it does. And frankly, there's absolutely no way to have a discussion with someone that will result in anything of value, if it only degenerates into hateful flaming and insulting on both sides.

I agree with Luai, but now I'm kinda scared of her. Tongue

While the word 'curebie' is often used with strong strong feelings attached it shouldn't be used by people who wish to be representing neurodiversity as it would prevent us from being taken seriously.

I believe at least racist is a name that was first meant to describe people who studied academic racism, and that it was never designed to be a derogative such as curebie.

I like pro-diversity better.

EZ, the word curebie is associated with the attitude of condemning certain opinions on whether or not to cure, it appears to have been meant that way and I definitely don't think pro-cure people will adopt the word to be used among themselves - hence it will most likely only be associated with irrational feelings against pro-cure opinions. (Irrational feelings here meaning feelings like hate etc. and has nothing to do with what the feelings are directed at)

I usually just use the word a few times, usually in quotes, when trying to give a generalized description of a autism related group's views.

(generalized here meaning short)

I would definitely find the word curebie to be appropiate on folks who wanted to cure autistics against their will.

You don't offend if you use the term pro-cure at this point at least, but curebie definitely will - that's how it is nowadays.

I once tried introducing "cure aggressive organizations" - or something like that.

There should be name that doesn't have a history such as curebie for people who think that developing a cure should have priority.

*unsubscribes*

(wasn't really interested in the discussion)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ivar T

Ivar T

Luai_lashire

Ivar T

Ivar T

Luai_lashire

Ivar T

Ivar T

Ivar T

Ivar T

Ivar T

Ivar T

Ivar T

Ivar T

Ivar T