My comment to Autism Speaks

Post Reply New Topic

Please give examples from history of powerful organisations, countries, dictators etc who have changed direction through constructive criticism.

History shows that they only come to the negotiating table when it suits them or when they are forced to because the bashing gets too loud.

Your comments insult all those that have fought so hard to get Autism Speaks to listen to reason.

Here, for the third time, is a link to all my articles written for their website.

http://blog.autismspeaks.org/?s=John+Scott+Holman+

Fair enough. You keep fighting your way, and I'll keep fighting mine. With luck and determination, we will continue to see progress.

Thanks. Can you point to a specific one where there is criticism? Also I don't need you to fill up the board by replying and quoting to yourself.

My experience with the general NT population has revealed them to have a very shallow understanding of autism, believing it to be synonymous with mental retardation and Down Syndrome. Not ALL NTs think this way, but I have noticed that it often seems to be the case.

I am sorry if the NTs you interact with have a deeper and more accurate understanding of autism. The ones I have interacted with typically do not.

Gedrene, I copied over some specific examples. I'm not going to go find every single one, as you don't seem to notice them when I paste them here anyway. I have done three copy/paste jobs and provided three links.

If you cannot interact with people in a meaningful way then you should not attempt to accomodate their incompetence as intellectual beings. The first moment you do that you essentially say to your mind that you will take on board any insanity that's commonly accepted in order to avoid conflict. Working with people with tyrannical objectives in the hope that you will achieve your own is using the ends to justify the means.

Alright, what do you suggest we do about these "tyrannical" people? How do you propose to be a part of the solution?

What should I be doing outside of attempting to humanize the autistic experience to as wide an audience as possible?

Would it be more effective to accuse them of being a cult on their Facebook page, where my comment will be disregarded and largely ignored?

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

You asked "what bashing", I provided the answer for you.

A cult in reference to a charitable organization is a demeaning word. If you don't think a demeaning word directed at a charitable institution is bashing it you may have a different understanding of the meaning of cult, than I do.

Normally the term is used to describe a group that has abnormal and bizarre behaviors, per Wiki definition. Chances are that people on the Facebook site, will understand it that way as well, and will have no idea he is using that term in relationship to Autism Speaks, other than an offensive term being used to bash autism speaks.

Whether or not he believes that Autism Speaks is a group that exhibits abnormal or bizzare behavior, is his opinion, that he is entitled to, but that doesn't change the fact that his intended audience on the Autism Speaks facebook page will likely see it as an offensive term to bash autism speaks, rather than constructive criticism.

Every powerful organization that deals with customers, at least in a free market economy/democracy, like the US, listens to constructive criticism and makes changes, if they want to stay in business. Voters are the customers of politicians, just as folks that dine in at a restaurant are customers of the restaurant. Voters typically bash the opponent not the powerful party and polticians they support. Politicians listen dutifully to most every concern of their constituents.

Autism Speaks, is neither a country or a dictator, but they are an organization with customers, whom are their supporters, that they must listen to if they want to gain the fundraising needed to support the mission of the organization.

It's not entirely different than going up to the counter at a fast food restaurant, offering constructive criticism that one's hamburger is cold, and receiving the corrective action of at least one hamburger to replace the cold hamburger in question, with one that is warm.

One could certainly bash the cashier if they wanted to, but the result would likely be a better one if a tactful approach is taken to criticize. Instead of one one warm burger, they might receive two.

The dictator example is one, where I would agree that constructive crticism won't work.

It has no place here. He said it was a cult. I ask him to provide evidence. I ask you not to instantly claim that what he said is bashing.


Cult is a demeaning word. But it can also be a justifiable word. If you are saying that a charitable organisation cannot be cult-like or be a cult then I would like you to keep your arguments from incredulity and empty them in to a river. They have no place here.


I don't particularly care if what he says isn't seen as constructive criticism. What I care about is that it's true. If it's true then it has a right to be free of criticism. Weak euphemism serves noone, nor does servicing anyone else's pride.

It would be more effective that you told the truth and did not try to warp yourself in to the shape that other people insist you to be, or make of you. If you do that then you will find no clever solutions as they arise. I know that you seem very conflict-averse, but the fact is that bending your neck is not a solution, especially when your wan criticisms of other people because of what they say mean you only end up resembling the nightmare that you intended to combat.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

My methods, actions, and intentions have never been hidden. On the contrary, I've broadcast them.

If you don't agree with my methods, well, that is your point of view, but it has nothing to do with the truth.

"I don't believe in truth. Only points of view." - Allen Ginsberg.

My sister actually just pointed out a program sponsored by Autism Speaks to me. Here is a little info...

Advancing Futures for Adults with Autism (AFAA) is a national consortium seeking to create meaningful futures for adults with autism that include homes, jobs, recreation, friends and supportive communities.

President Obama’s Federal Budget for the Fiscal Year 2012 allocated funding to various programs and initiatives designed to help “Win the Future for People with Disabilities." These proposals include: expanding autism research, increasing support for workers with disabilities, and expanding funding for the education of children with disabilities. Click here to read more.

On July 15th, 2010, AFAA hosted a Congressional briefing in Washington, DC that brought together federal legislators, national policymakers and advocates for adults with autism – including individuals who have autism – to discuss priorities for action in the public and private sectors that address the increasing and unmet demand for effective services for adolescents and adults with the disorder.

spamming autism speaks' wall sounds like a great passtime.

To continue with your rather weak analogy of the fast food restaurant.

If I received bad service in this diner then of course I could complain. If I received no satisfaction after complaining the I could withdraw my custom. This action would probably have no effect but if I stood outside the diner with a placard telling people about the bad service it might have an effect. If others joined me and started protesting outside their other branches then they definitely would listen.

Well guess what. Aspies have complained about the poor service they have been getting from Autism Speaks for years with no effect. The protests spread and now they say they want to listen. We will see if they are just trying to fob of the protests or whether the service really will improve.