ASAN vs. Autism Speaks

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Lwtbu9KZc[/youtube]

In the public relations battle between Autism Speaks and ASAN it was ASAN first who struck. Some would argue Autism Speaks view of autism was the first public relations attack. However autism is a concept and not an assumed person as a pathological label. From a legal and human rights perspective autism is viewed as a disability and I think most people view it as something that people with it deserve improvements for when chosen.

1. We are people not puzzles.

No one ever said and I never assumed that I was a puzzle.

2. Autism pity.

Negative aspects of disability projected to the public to develop treatments is not pity but is compassion and dignified albeit at times desperate. Saying I want pity is an indignity especially if those like me are marching along side parents and our community members.

3. Autism speaks needs to listen (different context)

I am listening and I have autism. What do you want me to say. I've been called dumb, stupid, a bigot and a nazi by supporters of ASAN and as an person with autism

4. Autism is a trap and whole being (both sides).

Try being isolated for many years without supports then say my disability is not a trap I am in figuratively. Autism cannot be forced to be perceived as a pathological concept as my identity not the entire makeup of my individuality. Like a sound in the forest however autism is akin to a vibration manifesting in my whole being.

5. Don't morn for me?

If someone cried at me about my autism I'd feel weird. I think this has to do with the abortion issue perhaps? I would like understanding but I can speak for myself about that. Anyone have questions?

Well what do you think about this post?

CJ, this post is confusing.

What is your point?

Anger does not always lead to truth and presumption is not absolute truth.

So are you saying ASAN is wrong? Are they factually wrong or do you disagree with their interpretation of the facts?

I would say no one really has the facts entirely about autism and the tact is harmful. Well honestly ASAN embarrasses me and I don't like conflict in general. I think there is a balance and when people settle down and stop calling peoples names and actually want to reason kind of like the tea party and the coffee party of autism I think peoples lives will be better improved. If you want fact of my mind as a person with autism and want me to speak it but do not help to prevent my dignity being attacked by whomever then who then has the right to speak and be respected? I don't think anyone want's to be felt sorry for and I say these things on this forum about ASAN to make a point and be brave enough about my own minds reality. It would seem some would want me to hide my truth to save unborn lives and then crush my feelings with peer pressure for speaking my truth which is perceived as pity.

Autism Speaks does not speak for me, and whoever pities me is a fool.

That's just the guy ego that most of us can't help that manifest in the form of an ape beating on his or her chest and autism is called at times a major maleness. It is instinct, preservation and protecting on many levels of self and sometimes ideologically in abortion politics. We cannot hate those who support our lives that also fund programs otherwise they might get mad and take them away. Autism Speaks does not speak for anyone with autism less they agree and autism is not a collective person but a diagnoses in a book. Even I have a hard time with their name but perhaps a different approach then being nasty will help them create an inspiring platform of civil rights and inclusion for us all. I could also attempt to do this but it would take less time if Autism Speaks were to do it.

Compassion is just as much a ungodly idea then it is godly. Humility does not mean humiliation but absent from adversity in this context it can bring truth. Now truth cannot be found so much when someone in spite of others truths adheres to the avoidance of other peoples truth for the preservation instinct. A bit of a moral in context and something to think about.

Fair enough.

I find the tension in the autistic universe between different factions distressing. It appears that agenda driven rhetoric is not the sole domain of NTs.

I do find Autism Speaks' lack of autisitics in top leadership positions curious. It is not enough that they practice good science, that science must also be guided by some framework foundation of moral and ethical choices. Without autistics actively involved at the top levels, those moral and ethical considerations are skewed towards the intellectual framework of neurotypical minds. I know from personal experience that I frame reality in ways that are decidedly atypical and that this atypical framing of the world stems from my autistic traits. Note I said atypical. I am not delusional, schizophrenic or in any way holding onto indefensibly inconsistent views. If Autism Speaks wants my support then they need to admit that their top leadership needs to be more inclusive.

On the other hand, ASAN invoking the word "eugenics" seems like deliberate hyperbole. It is not that helpful, IMHO.

The typical and atypical frameworks are an idea of normalcy hence does not innately include abnormality as it is at some level a threat. In truth there is no static Aspie or N.T framework but each have created there own but the aspie one even people with autism disagree with and for doing so calling them akin to N.T's I think is wrong. Pinning one against the other will not result for sure in proven good results. Instead try and think outside of this dynamic box. This anger between people is a framework and is not growing but subsiding. Humans are born entirely free of these bonds and these ideas.

We do not need a politic and philosophy of separatism if we want inclusion in result. Instead what the innocent need is compassion and innovation. Without the genuine attempt of working together it is logical to assume a non-optimal outcome will truelly make some at least really suffer.

Perhaps you connect the word atypical with abnormal, but I use it with a far more neutral meaning. Atypical simply means a statistical outlier, and this is something that can be objectified. And in fact, because autistics are statistical outliers in perception and processing, it follows that their constructs for reality are also statistically outside the norm.



Clearly. But enough similarities between each framework exist to allow communication, and it also follows that the more similar the framework the more robust the communication. Autism is by definition a communicative disorder and you only have to look at yourself to know that the way you frame reality is not wrong but it is different enough that you have challenges in communicating your reality.



I agree that setting the different sides against each other is not a good path.




I would disagree with this. People have shown repeatedly throughout history that anger is part of what we are. It seems more accurate that controlling our anger is the less natural behavior.



There are some that wish for separatism. Is that a valid philosophical stance?

[qoute]
Instead what the innocent need is compassion and innovation.
[/quote]

Just the innocent?



Working together towards a common goal is an admirable sentiment, but the common goal does not yet appear to exist. The conflict between ASAN and Autism Speaks demonstrates the width of the gulf among ideologies. Unless a common goal can be defined, then working together cannot happen.

Psst--you have the wrong gender. Check CockneyRebel's profile--she's female.

Seems to me that some of the time, people learn to agree with those who have a lot of power over them, as a sort of self-defense strategy. I don't know if this is you; but learning to be agreeable and not demand rights for oneself or others can be a survival strategy in an environment where the powerful people have declared that you do not have those rights. It can be a way to get what they will still allow you to have, if you don't make too much of a nuisance of yourself. But it comes at the cost of self-respect. I had this problem... I still do, to some extent.

But true equality can't be had without some sort of conflict; people who have declared themselves superior often don't want to give up that position. If we are lucky, the conflict will be mostly limited to the natural resentment of people who feel they have to "go out of their way" to treat "Those People" like human beings... if we are lucky, it will mean that we've successfully shown the general public what autism actually is and taught them not to fear it or hate it; and the no-longer-ignorant general public will teach the truly bigoted minority that they can't run over others' rights with impunity. If we're lucky, that's what will happen. But if we're not lucky, and we do have to get pushy about it, isn't it worth it in the end?

I moderate our local ASAN group meetings here in Portland. I think the Premis is a good one. That said, I am ALL ABOUT finding a cure for the bad things that Autism does and am going to actively seek funding and research for cures to things such as audio-hyersensitivity, lack of social understanding and any other thing that causes me and others pain and a hard life. So I guess you can call me a fence pacer. I will align with both groups.

The wonderful thing about the internet is it is simply a screen and text. There is no gender, color and so on but I might remember this if reminded enough. I cannot remember many things so I cannot feel to bad about it.

There is a big difference I believe between good strategies that enlighten, that inspire and that make others hold into their minds the hopes, the dreams and the intent of others and those of despondency and hard feelings. I do not believe for a second any oppressive storm is over me, any rain of despair out of my control and any reasonable change cannot be made with good strategy. The good fight is the good fight but in this pursuit the more enemies made to win battles the higher chances the metaphoric war will be lost.

The public should be assumed an innocent mind that has yet to be taught and not deemed ignorant or dumb. Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. gave his I Have a Dream Speech in that spirit. What if Kennedy never backed Martin Luther King Jr. but instead the Alabama governor had he had this approach which I don't think he would have in spite of this. In the real world however in context to autism things do not follow a straight path to truth and the best of ways with concern to ethics. Neither side to me seems to be the very best choice.

Does the public have to take sides? If the public does not take sides because infighting in the community has alienated themselves from public trust and universal appeal is it hate? What if the answer to change was beyond or not even considerate of traditional ideology and was so very simple even so called ignorance can make it happen?

Bliss might just be something to hope for...

Last edited by ci on 01 Feb 2011, 2:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

If I offered you my toll free number and you phoned would you get fired as the moderator? How strict is ASAN? Is it like other groups that if you disagree you get the boot?

Nah... I don't think the group I am with cares. I fully intend to work WITH Autism Speaks in anyway that I can to support the "good" things about what they do. I can speak against the bad things they do in an intelligent way. Right now I haven't facts to do either so I can only state my intentions. So what do you do for Autism Speaks? I thought they did not have Aspies on board.

I run my own advocacy organization that has reached thousands in my local area with concern to autism and DD opportunity. I work with government contracted agencies and the Regional Center system. I have no affiliation with ASAN and none with Autism Speaks. I work with media, broadcasting and related. My study of the issues is to find the faults and find improved ways to handle public relations.