This is why I don't like the term 'Neurodiversity' as a tool of persuasion;

Personal opinion;

• If people have a system that works, you will be extremly hard pressed to get them to change to a different one.
  

• People's actions are influenced by emotions and personal experiances, for the most part. Logic has very little to do with it. You need a slogen that is going to appeal to them not us.
  

To make a few slanderouse, unverified sweeping statments here are our demographics and their views:

Proffessionals:

Autism is a disease, cure the disease and you will cure the problem. They've poured everything into this mindset and worked very hard at it.

General public:

Don't really care. They see autistic people as 'Rainman' type people. If they want further information they will consult the proffessionals, so, yes autism is a disease. Supporting the proffessionals will make them feel good about themselves. If they already have made donations and what not, than supporting neurodiversity would mean that they would have to accept they've done the wronge thing. But why would they? The proffessionals are the ones who are the authority.

Unlikely to look into it very much, most people base their opinions on what they've seen in the news or whatever rather than doing the reasearch.

Also functional autistic people are self diagnosed moochers

Autistic people:

Very wide range of people. Different levels of functionality. If they've been brought up to belive that they are diseased and incomplete than they will belive it. If they haven't gone through the system than it doesn't really affect them.

Would it be fair to say that the 'Neurodiversaty' type aspies are in the minority?



So the term 'Neurodiversity' itself. Who does it appeal to? The general public? The proffessionals? Or the minority of aspies who have already taken to the idea?

If the majority of people have taken to the idea that autism is a disease or an imparment, then what is the average person going to think when they hear the term Neurodiversity? Sicknessdiversity, or 'we want to be diseased?

It wont make sense to the average person.

I think people need to understand the reasons for the mindset rather than having the mindset imposed on them from the start.

People can relate to not bieng listened to and not listening to autistic people is something they have no excuse for. If we make it blatently and undeniably obviouse that we are not bieng listened to than people will no longer get a good feeling out of supporting our oppression


I also think this stuff would be better off focusing on demographics rather than using the neurodiversity method to blanket all the demographics.

Neurodiversity doesn't appeal to far right political people. And those seem to be the ones who run Autism speaks and Autism speaks type organisations.

You're still not getting it....

Its not just the far right, its the ones that are "easily affected" and don't know where else to turn to with there "problems" with the child, its those types that might deny that they have Autism as a gene inside their family.

I get that you belive that you are the centre of the universe and anything that isn't your opinion is wrong and unworthy of debate.


Like I said it was a sweeping statment. I was bringing up some of the information and opinions relavant to whether or not 'Neurodiversity' is an approprait word for the cause. I was also only talking about some of the autism organisations. Such as Autism speaks or the Aus equaivalent.

To put us back on track is the term 'Neurodiversity' approprate and appealing to parents worried about their children?

I'm not the center of this discussion Mytelli get your facts straight here... Not all of the Far right are screwed up sometimes... sometimes Neurodiversity sounds like something thats not fully understood to the "norms". If you had a suggestion on what the word should be besides Neurodiversity what would it be?

The part where I said its the families that are affected, I meant the ones where the parents don't know where to turn too besides Autsqeeks.

"Neurodiversity doesn't appeal to far right political people. And those seem to be the ones who run Autism speaks and Autism speaks type organisations."

Granted, prehaps I phrased this a bit wronge. I don't think people on the right are 'screwed up'.

I was just hinting at whether or not we could aim some of our efforts in a way that could appeal to conservative people as well.


Prehaps you could assume good faith? Instead of assuming the worst of everything I say, without giving me a chance to clarify? I'm not going to respond to de-railing attempts.

Maybe I'm the one thats not getting the clear picture to this subject.... enlighten us on this why don't you...

This post was last modified: 07-31-2011 07:35 AM by Genesis.

This I totally agree with and I have alluded to several times.

Do we concentrate our efforts on supporting activism and fighting for neurodiversity, or do we try to get people to see that autism is not a tragedy? That we live worthwhile lives and often make a big contribution to the world?

I know that some of us do not like shows like Big Bang Theory, which presents a somewhat silly and exaggerated stereotype of aspergers syndrome. But I think that anything that presents us as being decent and worthwhile members of society, who are perhaps just a little different, has got to be a good thing.

All I am wondering is this..... wouldn't you both agree to a culture movement for those with Aspergers and Autism? mainly so people would get what its like? Without having the emphasis on a cure? Just on how life is like for us instead?

Cause the way nuerodiversity is getting with people these days.... its still a little unclear.

Yes, absolutely.

Then why not let that happen?

Thats the kind of thing that might lead it to feel like activitism, yet its not something to protest about... its something thats suppose to be told, be seen, be heard, be felt.... whats so hard about listening to a point of view, which can be different then the one of a short stumpy old lady who just doesn't seem to get it.

I think simply showing people that autistic people aren't like they are depicted by the charities is extremly harmful to the curbies image in itself.

I contacted one of the organisation's in my area about our portrayal and they said quite flatly that they wanted to shock and gain attention and raise funds. I guess accurate portrayal has nothing to do with it.

We don't need to raise the 'neurodiversity' flag. We just have to put a different image of autism into the public domain. Then, they'll have to wast more of their own money trying to misrepresent us, and misrepresenting us will start to be harmfull to their image, because people will start to ask 'Wait what's going on? Is autism a horrible death sentance or not?'

Honestly, I don't thing many aspies themselves catch onto the neurodiversity thing.

Shock and attention? Wow.... fail to Autsqeeks then...