Aspies For Freedom

I agree with Mr. Smith's suggestions. Although I don't necessarily think we are all guilty of his accusations, I think he has identified the negative traits I have been perceiving in a minority of us. I'd like to hope we are, by and large, capable of getting ourselves a voice without being "anti". This requires a bit of vigilance.

I think I had best explain Joel Smith's position in the simplest terms possible.

If we argue that Autistic people have a valid existence because of our abilities, what we contribute and our independance, what arguement do those who have none of these things have?

Why is this standard not imposed on NTs?

NTs do not have to be of above-average intelligence to have the right to exist, like we do. NTs do not have to make a substantial contribution to society for them to be included(many are even a drain) and no NT is independant unless they are a hermit because all in a society are co-dependants.

But if an Autistic has no job, is not actually very bright and will depend on others for the rest of their lives, what arguement are we making to protect them?

Joel Smith is just saying that we are missing the obvious one: "I think therefore I am". We're Human and that automatically makes us equal.

It's basically a dilemma I woke up to during my time on Aspergia.

When an anonymous person wrote a post on AS Connection warning people to stay away from Aspergia("This is a false site promoting a misleading representation of Autism!"), the only valid criticism they made was done entirely by accident: Aspergia does not support people with disabilities.

Our collective answer was of course: How can we support disability rights as a group when we don't believe we are disabled?

We didn't realise that from a certain(and valid) point of view, we were stigmatising disability by our refusal to admit we were disabled and we were alienating quite a number of Autistics.

But many of us realised that we were rejecting the Medical Model of disability which defined us as disabled, like many disabled people do, but the Social Disability Model was perfectly consistent with our views.  

From the position of the Social Disability Model, Autistics strengths do not have any affect on the status as disabled people, so regardless of your place on the so-called spectrum you are just as disabled as any other Autistic.

Joel Smith was careful to point out that he found this alienation in some sectors, but he didn't specify where, so don't take it personally.

Marlene, you have created a stawman to claim a strawman, hehe. If Joel hasn't accused someone specifically, it's not a semantic cover-up but just him expressing himself. How can he be defamatory if he's accused no one of anything? I might read something offensive in the Telegraph, but I don't accuse the paper of specifically targeting me to cause distress, but I can express how I feel.

However there is word that he was talking about the New Science article which Gareth and Amy featured in, which I have already spoken to her about. It was in mentioning Autistic abilities that was a big NO NO. Many have long argued that Autism should be cured because of the impairments caused by it(but using the Social Model of disability those impairments are unidentifiable). The most effective arguement against this is that a person's impairments do not diminish the rights they should get. But the polar opposite arguement that Autistics should have equal worth because of their abilities also automatically validates the opposing arguement if it is true. Even mentioning Autistic abilities in a discussion about worth contaminates the topic.

The New Science journalist wrote in the article of how a pre-natal test for Autistics would remove sources of creativity and such great gifts from the gene pool. This is not a good arguement to make against it, as in the wider picture it means those who do not possess great skills do not have the equal right earned by the 'good' Autistics. What was his source for arguing this? I believe Gareth and Amy if they say it wasn't them and my anger is at the journalist for not saying who said this, giving the impression that it was AFF.  

Joel Smith was criticising the article more than Gareth and Amy, but they have put a stain on themselves by taking part. If there was any doubt at any point that the journalist was not going to base everything written on what was actually said, they should have opted out.  

I can dig up a quote if you want. I can dig myself up for saying the stupid thing and proberley Gareth and Amy saying it a long time ago in a website far far away.

Oh I didn't know that we didn't have to be civil, accurate, reasonable or logical anymore, ASman. Now all we have to do is make sure there is enough of us saying the right thing and it will all fall into place.

I will remind you to date that Autistics have made the only real successes and progress when acting as few. It only takes one Autistic saying the right things to make curbies worry and people think. A million Autistics saying this or that about adversives is a million Autistics being discredited by the simple arguement that adversives are not policy, but incidence.

You're falling into the same line of thinking as the cure crowd who believe they are fighting a war, not an arguement. Numbers win wars, a solid undefeatable position wins arguements. If someone is going to say something which will have such a wide ranging effect on things, they must not hold a position which is easily defeated.

The reason why the cure lobby didn't speak out against the Autistic Advocacy movement in the 90s was not because of the numbers, it was because they mistakenly believed they were all high functioning or Aspergers. They were happy with the idea they thought was being pushed that Autistics have rights if they are not disabled because it would allow them to say and do whatever they like in the name of their disabled children. It's only when they actually started reading the stuff that they got worried, it had nothing to do with the belief in growing numbers.

When someone says something which plays into the cure lobbiy's hands, it is best that they say nothing at all.

Amy,

You took part in an article which is to a large effect very damaging, you don't know this and you won't have to live with the consequences, others will. When Spa school took part in the documentrary Make Me Normal, they insisted on having a large influence over what went in. Did you ask the journalist about the article as a whole? You had a lot of control over it but you didn't check. The journalist got sources for some pretty stupid claims from somewhere which he didn't specify(which is why Joel Smith can't specify who he wishes to criticise). If you had insisted that they make it clear who is saying what, they would have been liable for the article as it is written now.

Which is disingenous of you because I did not say that. You were not misquoted and I don't specifically mean just Autistic people but anyone. You have been misrepresented and you had actions which you could have taken to prevent it, but opted not to. I said in the other board that I do not talk to journalists because I know I am not informed enough, not because of danger of misquotation. The article as it is written links you to all the unaccounted claims it contains.  Simple prioritising would tell you that when given the choice between bad and worse you do not pick worse.

And those harmful, inaccurate comments are not defeated by more harmful, inaccurate comments. When you are fighting an arguement based on true or false statements, one specific inaccuracy properley identified and brought to wider attention wins, not equal and opposite false statements. Otherwise you have an arguement that goes like:

"Well I think it is"

"I think it isn't"

"But it is"

"No it isn't"

ad infinitum, until someone decides that simply getting more people to repeat your side of the arguement will make it automatically true.

I'll repeat what ASman said about how all those homeless and abused Autistics don't care about theoretical points(see how saying the wrong thing can backfire now?). The media CANNOT selectively pick anything when people refuse to be featured under certain conditions. One of the prices the media must pay for the right to free media is that they must extend the right same right to say what one wants to the people it interviews. A politician can walk off Newsnight and they can show it, but not if it's an ordinary member of the public(because the person has legally withdrawn consent to appear). You are fully responsible for the rights you have and the consequences of choosing to not use them or not know them.

Ridicule is no arguement, Amy. That's another cure lobby thing you have to shake off. I should tell you that you can't fight misunderstanding by actively propagating it either.

You have to understand the concept of the 'accent': where the emphasis is being placed in published information. The accent of the article does not in anyway allow for someone to look at it and make that kind of comparison because you are 'different kinds' of Autistics to the other ones. The article did not focus on ASBOs at all and one thing you will get is people wondering what YOUR special skills are if they think you were talking about them.

It's comments like that Bonnie, which first earned me a broken nose from a non-verbal guy. I rightly deserved it.

Your arguement about the genetic test is also defeated by the fact that the 'we are valid because we can do this' arguement automatically validates it's polar opposite 'this is a debilitating condition which must be cured, except for those who are not disabled by it'. Do they then promise that they will develop a genetic test which will distinguish between low/high functioning?(as Temple Grandin once inferred in an interview).

You take one step foward then two steps back with that position. It then becomes a matter of weighing up the benefits of the able Autistics against the drain of the disabled ones. I know exactly which side will automatically win with that.

And we are not persuading a whole society to change it's values; we are making it accountable to the ones already in place.

It was not meant to be an insult or calling anyone anything, I was describing the effects of the article. Don't opt for the cure lobby trick of finding offense where there is none.

I reccomend you go back to the Nizkor project or Athiest web and read up on logical fallacies. You first quantify something which doesn't have a measure(square peg in round hole). Since when did those people you are attacking 'fail' in protecting Down's Syndrome people?

You are resorting to the same evasive and emotive arguements that are used against Autistic advocacy. I can't argue against an arguement which isn't even there, just rhetoric.

This isn't just rhetoric but also pig-ignorance. You don't actually know how old I am or how long Michelle Dawson has been part of Autistic advocacy.

You can make weak arguements and think they are better because they are new(when they are not, the same ones have always been made but corrected again and again with the benefit of hindsight).

Ok, some questions. What is JRC? Do JRC represent the whole of the ABA-Autism field as a whole? Any parent can argue with this by simply saying "MY child doesn't get treatment from JRC!".  

I've read the latter part of your post and I want to know if you have also ever attended the Frankfurt school of Marxism? Apparently you believe rhetoric can beat reason if you get enough people to shout it loudly enough. The arguement made by the FEAT axis agrees with you, but insists that Autism impedes humanity, so it is those grounds that you have to argue on.

Using capslock doesn't make anything you say reasonable or coherent.

I've heard this argued before, but from an ABA parent: 'How does giving MY child Medically Neccessary treatment harm YOU!!?'

I would have thought you would have seen the comparison a lot more readily. But if you want to know, the article does lean towards a seperation of Autistics into disabled/able, disabled need treatment, able do not. You as an able Autistic will not suffer the result of an end contributed to by the article.

I'm not doing anything to that effect, but others have criticised the article and you and have an equal right to do so. I didn't say you needed permission, but when you will make input into something that will be seen and read by many people you are responsible for it. I'm not asking for anything more than responsibility, as is the price you pay for the right to express yourself.

Except be silent. Given the choice of the obvious between bad and worse you opted for the latter.

My view is not validated by a second opinion, same as yours. But you decide to discount Joel Smith's views anyway. Don't fall into the pit trap of thinking because you haven't seen it so it isn't there(same as the cure lobby).

Ah, the bit of ridicule quoted didn't happen then?

That is EXACTLY at the heart of this: You do not understand that some of your beliefs(or how they are portrayed) support the cure position. I can only explain so much before you have to work it out by yourself.

Gareth, I can summise from your post that you have either not read what has been said or do not understand it. Your query is too simplistic.

Are you forgetting the story of Ralph Smith so soon? Didn't you know that the cure lobby argues that those able enough to speak for themselves are not disabled enough to have a valid opinion in a disability discussion? These are arguements which you are inadequetely tackling.

And I have already shown the comparison with your version of that same line of reasoning and the ABA parents version and you are still unable to fathom why you are accused of being pro cure.

It's not overdramatic because it's not drama at all, I don't do emotive and evasive rhetoric like the kind FEAT practice and AFF emulate.

The article gives reasons for able Autistics to have a valid existence, it does not such thing for Autistics that do not share that, instead portraying that view of Autism from the position of anti-cure parents. These do not reflect your views but the accent of the article associates you with them without any objection from you.

After the NY Times article, the FEAT people were furious, saying they had been misquoted and threatened libel(which lawyers I am told, said they had no case because they had not been misquoted and did not protect their right to have their views properley represented). They at least recognised when they had been played for fools.

What the hell has happend to people on this board since I was last here? You're reading something into my words that isn't there. I was assaulted by a person for repeating an arguement which was used to cause him immense suffering. I didn't threaten you with the same. I was illistrating that I once believed something which contributed to harm and I was informed of it by a person who had no other means of expressing it otherwise.

Which I did not.

Which if you pick up any newspaper speaking out against abortion and euthenasia(these papers have the highest circulation) you will find your claim lacking substance.

Something you've been taught by FEAT then. The human condition survived through co-operation and reasoning, history doesn't reverse just because you ridicule it.

Please tell me who this 'enemy' is that you're imagining. You are just making a slippery slope diverting points and bypassing issues.

The problem with history is that it is selectively ignored and applied. You completely ignore that 'favoured slaves' ever existed and there are gaping holes left where you ignore that until society was made to understand that non-whites were not 'over-coming the limitations of their race' that discrimination still remained widespread. That's why the women's rights movement progressed fast while the much older racial equality question took much longer. Jews are still the most discriminated against race with the exception of the very able.

You removed the quote from it's context, wonderful selective editing on your part. I won't be answering this.

Ah, you seem to think the opposition against those things was non-existent among the general populace. First of all, stop fact-twisting: 98% of detected Down's Syndrome babies are aborted, but most women don't even opt for the screening so there is little actual impact on the Downs populace.  Once again people here are having trouble staying with Autism, drifting off to Down's Syndrome and other things instead of addressing things here.

The issues you are speaking of have wider political ideologies behind them. Christianity is heavily against abortion and the other abuses. Our society is mainly founded upon the Judeo-Christian value system.

We are not actually introducing new ideas, they're more than 2000 years old and they were widespread in western industrialised nations only twenty years ago. You could argue that Secularism has done more damage to disabled people than anything.

We are actually standing up for very old moral values, it's the new ideas that are threatening us. I'm saying this as a centre-left liberal secular agnostic too.

Try and work out the difference between 'you are a fool' and 'you've been played for a fool'. Please Amy.

Ok, I'll have to link to Nizkor.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...ading.html

Like the ABA parents, you think that if you just speak for yourself, you're not harming anyone.

Then next time I read something the AFF says that is one of those 'NO NO' things, I will quote a comparative statement made by a curbie and the relevent fallacy.

I did not call you pro cure, I keep spotting these little curbie soothsayings when ever you post, so I hope the irony is not lost on you that you've done it just now. See, you've learned something from that journalist; you took something I said about something else and applied it to you. AFF has become a rhetoric engine just like the curebies. It's not about finding sense and giving reason, but shouting something that unwittingly support and opposition's arguement(like Nacy Reagan's "Less people would die if there were a death penalty").

And ASman has made it clear: better unthinking masses instead of one insightful and undefeatable advocate.

The answer to all those questions is 'no'.

You have neither listened to or understood anything that I have said.

Then I will remind you that it is AFF that is alienating the wider Autistic demograph. No matter how many hits you get a day, the site membership is disproportionately Aspie and able Autistics just like Aspergia was. You have trouble understanding what it is that makes you out of touch, ideological and lacking common sense. Even if it's explained to you repeatedly, you twist it into a version that you are more comfortable with attacking rather than taking the criticism.

I will try to put it as clear as possible.

There are two arguements.

1. Autistics have worth because of our special abilities.

2. Autistics have worth because we are entitled to the same benefit of doubt as any person.

One of these arguements effectively made will help all Autistics. The other will only help a select few. The one that will help few is not neccessary when there is one that will help all, even detrimenal because it is more emotionally-charged. Emphasis and priority must be given to the one that will help all. I hope it is not too hard to work out which is which.

Or I can put it another way:

The Medical Model of disability automatically means Autistics lose, because Autistics are disabled therefore the disability needs a cure. You exclude yourselves from this by highlighting Autistic abilities.

But many Autistics do not share those abilities, so they have no defense against the Medical Model. AFF is accused by many of being pro cure because it keeps adhering to the Medical Model when regarding Autism.

The Social Model of disability means Autistics automatically win, because it's protections to disabled people apply to all, it is all inclusive.

When you argue for number one, you are working within the terms of reference of the Medical Model, which means any Autistic that does not meet a certain standard of ability is subject to no protection.

Arguement number two blanketly protects all Autistics, not just one group.

The Medical and Social Models do not work well together, so trying to make both arguements is very bad.

Rights are won through law and the law regarding Autism takes it's ear from the science available. That's proberley why my arguements might sound theoretical to you, but those arguements forced the NAS recently to ask some difficult questions to the head of Spa school and director of Make Me Normal.

rocobley, feel free to disagree, it would be a rare world where everyone agreed on everything.