We are looking for some regular longterm users wanting to contribute some articles for our homepage.

Those who match the following criteria will be accepted and may apply by clicking "join group" at http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/usercp.p...usergroups - if you are not accepted please do not take offence, we will reconsider you later if you prove yourself.

1. A long term regular user
   
2. Good grasp of the english language, good spelling and grammar
   
3. Good grasp of AFF's aims
   
4. Agreement with our views (those who want to write an opposing view are welcome to submit single articles however)
   
5. It helps to provide sample writing, but not having samples will not be held against you
   

For those with an opposing view who wish to write an article please post it in the "AFF news" section where it will be unapproved by default and PM myself indicating you would like it published. I will review it using criteria such as how honest it is and the quality of the writing itself, and will publish it marking it as "the opposing viewpoint" with commentary at the end of your article.

The policy on opposing views is intended to allow discussion of opposing viewpoints without censorship and publication of any article in this category indicates that whatever your message is, it will likely be heavily criticised. If you post an article for publication in this category and it is not accepted, then it will still be posted for community review on the site by request unless it contains any content that is actually illegal to publish.

A note on copyright:
By publishing stuff here you grant us a license to republish it, where "us" means the owners of this site and the general community.
Any such reproduction will indicate the original author and if it is modified, such modifications will be indicated in any reproduction.
Should you disagree with these terms, do not submit anything. If you submit an article and later file any sort of takedown notice, it will be ignored and any attempt at legal action later will result in a countersuit for expenses and damages.
Should you submit someone else's work, I will personally cooperate with them if you attempt to take credit for their work and takedown notices from third parties will be honoured so far as the law requires them to be honoured.

No offence, but "The opposing veiwpoint" is a very poor choice of words. No one is going to write an article under that category.

It's like "The bad guys opinion".

There are shades of grey in this discussion as well. Someone may agree with some aspects of your ideology and some aspects of mainstream practice.

Reguardless, most 'opposing' people do belive they are doing the right thing, and they're not just going to line up on the 'bad guy' pedistel. Especially after what happened with the interview.

I think it's very important that other people with other points of veiws do come to this site. If you want them to listen to you, you have to listen to them.

This is something that AFF is criticised for; you just complain to yourselfes. If you want to have a meaningfull discussion, you've got to make people feel like they're not wasting their time from coming here.

Just call it an 'article' if someone's going to say something contriversial and have them warn you beforehand.

Actually, "opposing viewpoint" doesn't mean "the bad guy." I doubt it's meant to sound antagonistic, either. It just means "most of us are likely to disagree." I don't think it's inappropriate to mark an article like that, as this site does take positions on issues relating to autism. I agree that people should be warned when an article is going to be controversial, but that's what labeling it as "opposing viewpoint" is supposed to do.

People with opposing viewpoints do sometimes make it here, and register. Most of the time, it's just to tell us how stupid and selfish we are. As this site does not actively search for new people to join, the regular posters are naturally going to end up being people that agree with the core message.

Mabye that's not the intention, but it does not sound welcoming.

The things I mean to say and the way people interperet them are different all the time. It's no excuse. Pick your words carefully if you want something from people.

I think it is inappropriat. It shows that we're narrow minded when recieving input.

If you were going to post your opinion on Autism Speak's website, would you like it to be posted under 'the opposing veiwpoint'? Would that make you feel like your opinion was going to be listened to?

We are asking people to do something for us, if anyone thinks we're going to get it by putting people into a corner, and labeling them like this, they're dreaming.


Just because we belive we are right, doesn't mean we're going to get anywhere by beliteling other people. They belive they are in the right too. Give and take.

This post was last modified: 09-26-2011 08:39 AM by Mytelli!.

Most of us are not asking AutSpks for anything
If I wrote an opinion piece to them I would want it filed under opposing viewpoint.

-----   

Aff's stated purpose and mission states that we oppose ANY group which uses negative publicity campaigns against autistic people. Therefore, since this article suggests support for XYZ organization, this viewpoint will be considered an "opposing viewpoint".

We at AFF feel that portions of this article state views that seem to be in opposition of AFF's stated mission  

Give the goal that is not being supported in the piece
or

The following views expressed, we believe, do not further the aims of Aspies for Freedom (we oppose____ - or "we advoate for ____)and are thereforethis piece is to be considered as "opposing viewpoint".

or for borderline views...
(some of) perhaps even say which part ( the views expressed in this piece, seem to be at odds with the stated mission of Aspies for Freedom. (As stated on our homepage)

I agree though, that mostly people who are active on the site should make up the majority of what is given space - otherwise AFF could become basically ad space for others...

Right, I think the issue here is attitude.

First of all, it is not just Autism Speaks and us. There are a whole range of people in volved with this, with a whole range of needs and different circumstances. This catogory describes the issue as 'us' and 'them'

As far as talking about the lower functioning end of the spectrum, I cannot begin to tell you how hard it is to get basic services and care for someone who really needs help. I'm talking about people who cannnot get by without 24hr support. If someone offered to help in that situation, whoever they were, Autism Speaks or another mainstream autistic organisation, I would use them, because the alternative is that person that person dies young and miserably in state care. I would still disagree with what they do but, I'd use them.

So, if someone here had a story like that, what would the message be? 'Oh, so what, you hate freedom? That's very interesting, do tell.' That is extremly insulting.

I am not talking about the technicallity of whether 'the opposing veiwpoint' fits the bill. I'm wondering why, if you're such broad minded and receptive people that you wouldn't consider calling it 'another perspective', something that might possibly get people to state their opinion and open up a dialog between the autism community.

So, you 'oppose' any group. You think it works like that? This is not 'Power Rangers'. If you want people to change their behavior, you have to open up a dialog. You're not going to 'Defeat' anyone, that's not real life.

This post was last modified: 09-27-2011 01:53 AM by Mytelli!.

The aims of AFF are clearly stated on the front page.

I think that having articles from a variety of viewpoints is fine, at least in principle, but AFF has absolutely no obligation to act as a soapbox for people and groups that oppose an AFF goal or principle.

If Gareth or a admin select an article to post, especially if on the front page, that is not in accord with AFF goals or principles, I think it should be marked as "Opposing View" or something similar.

I would also hope that such opposing views would not be a significant fraction of the articles chosen for display on the front page - the purpose of this website is not to spread their message.

There are some groups, such as Autism Speaks, with which no dialog is safe or desirable.

This post was last modified: 09-27-2011 02:19 AM by AlanTuring.

"Opposing viewpoint" is already a commonly used term, referring to an opinion that is in opposition to the stated viewpoints of the forum or media in which the opinion is being stated. It's generally not meant to be mean. It's just used to say "We disagree with this opinion."

It also looks to me like Gareth is only intending to use this tag on articles posted on the front page. Not for regular posts, like what we're saying here.

There are only so many autism dollars that the public can afford to donate each year.

In 2010 Aspeaks sucked up 54 million of them.
In 2010 "ASpeaks awarded $1.5 million to 69 organizations to meet the needs of individuals with autism."

Not much of a return from the $54 million donated.
At the same time good charities that pump all their money into the autistic community rather than into research establishments are being starved of funds and are stagnating and are unable to meet the demands of a growing autistic population.

So you are correct in saying it is getting increasingly difficult for an autistic person with complex needs to get the support they need to live a rewarding and fulfilling life.

However an individual with complex needs is more likely to win the state lottery than get the support they need from Aspeaks and if they are an adult then they have no chance because nearly all that $1.5 million that they give back to the community goes to children.

But don't lose heart, we ARE winning, that $1.5 million was more than previous years (2007-2010 total spend $2.9million) and as KenG said there are signs that they are changing their tune.

But I for one will not be listening to the propaganda spewed by their spin doctors.
I will wait for their 2011 accounts. They cannot lie.

(All figours used taken from Aspeaks 2010 accounts)

You need to consider your use of language and adapt depending on the circumstances. If you don't make them feel welcome or listened to in any way, they won't come, it's as simple as that.

If we don't listen to them, they won't listen to us. It's a two way street, bringing them to our platform exposes them to our ideology as well. If so called 'curbies' came here regurally to discuss these issues with us mabye we can persuade some of them to some extent.

Letting AS cover the front page with propoganda was a bad idea, but if we could talk to common "curbies" about these issues without them having loads of time to construct their statment, we could make leway by persuading the people themselves and catching them out on any spin they try to make. Publicly as opposed to internally.

What did you think this kind of activism was about?

I probably shouldn't have used autism speaks as an example because whenever they get brought the topic always changes completly. This is refering to AFF's choice of words.

Dialog is everything. I'm sorry, but that's the game we're playing here.

Anyway, we're just repeting ourselfes. That's my two cents on this topic.

I think it is a great idea. I might even submit something myself one day.

You are right Mytelli - dialogue is everything.

We have listened to Aspeaks on the TV, the radio and at events and didn't like what we heard but the didn't listen to us when they set out on their mission to make autism history. They thought we would disappear but the protests have grown and our voices have grown louder and at last they are just starting to listen.

As KenG said " perhaps AutismSpeaks are doing tiny moves in the right direction. Yet, they have to make much larger moves in the right direction to be taken seriously by the Autistic Community."

So now is not the time to stop shouting, we need to redouble our efforts so that they have to keep listening and hopefully they will eventually learn a lot more about autism from us than they could ever hope to learn from the research labs.

(And while I'm on this subject, I have said this before and it didn't go down well but what the heck.)

I have never liked the purely negative protests against Aspeaks. I do feel that we need to move towards more positive protests.

This is not just a US problem. Aspeaks funded the set up of  Autistica in the UK with exactly the same mission and they will not listen either and I'm sure it's happening elsewhere.

We need activists across the globe to investigate their local autism charities to find which ones give the best deal for the autism community in areas such as education. housing and employment and then publicise that list of approved charities.

Then when protesting against Aspeaks or any other curbie charity we can say;
Don't give your money to them because....
Give it to these people because.....

Divert the money away from the curbies and they won't just listen they will have to act.

Mytelli, why don't you write something for the home page then?  It's obviously something you feel strongly about.
Alison (who'd like to but is currently tied up with kanji...)

Alison - I think a few of your posts from your thread regarding learning kanji would make a really nice article/story - perhaps you could (sometime) write more on that... your story of learning a language is really, really interesting and realistic and great - we can relate to it and be inspired by it...