Board index › General Discussion › Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation

Autism Extremism - Deprogramming Propagandistic Ideologies

Page 1 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Would you like the videos posted?
Yes 38%  38%  [ 3 ]
No 63%  63%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 8

ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 12:47 am

For some months I wondered how to improve the state of extremism in autism politics. The kind of politics most people don't subscribe to but in the autism community people are indirectly influenced by somehow. I will outline a few examples.

1. The War on Autism

True Meaning: To assist individuals with autism with undesired symptoms or traits.

False Meaning: To seek to destroy people with autism.

2. Seeking to cure Autism

True Meaning: To entirely remove adverse symptoms.

False Meaning: To conduct brain surgery, kill people with autism and to treat people with autism like the Jewish in WWII.

I would like to know if anyone would like to see the videos posted on this forum on this specific topic. The techniques can be described as reverse propaganda, literal to or non-literal to literal or non-literal interpretations, Peer Pressure neutralization techniques, critical thinking in-sighting and de-radicalization by means of what might be described as removing the soap by washing clean the brain from the brain washing with purified water.

Nathan Young


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:06 am

So...are you saying that there isn't a significant philosophy in general that Autistic ways of thinking/acting/BEING are inherently "wrong",
and that there doesn't exist a dominant societal paradigm that seeks to CORRECT them?

I don't entirely understand your post-
to be clear, you're discussing what you perceive to be overly-reactionary sentiments in the Autistic community to what you think are benign and reasonable approaches to Autism?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 19 Mar 2011, 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 1:09 am

I think folks mean well and false interpretations hinder choice. Choice is part of human rights law and I as a person with autism have the right to recieve treatment and have research conducted to create new kinds of treatments. Many special interest would enjoy hindering my and other choices whilst perhaps utilizing self-esteems. I've seen the movie lawnmower man and don't view cure as wildly changing the brain. I think emotionally susceptible people are prone to believing propaganda such as the above and if folks were nicer and more constructive toward one another choices could be enhanced and so could individual choice based tolerances.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:17 am

ci wrote:
I think folks mean well and false interpretations hinder choice. Choice is part of human rights law and I as a person with autism have the right to recieve treatment and have research conducted to create new kinds of treatments. Many special interest would enjoy hindering my and other choices whilst perhaps utilizing self-esteems. I've seen the movie lawnmower man and don't view cure as wildly changing the brain. I think emotionally susceptible people are prone to believing propaganda such as the above and if folks were nicer and more constructive toward one another choices could be enhanced and so could individual choice based tolerances.


Well, the fact that there are groups who want to eliminate Autism isn't exactly a mere fantasy of the "emotionally susceptible",
nor is, for instance, that some of the groups that purport to speak for Autistics actually have policies in place to deliberately SILENCE us.

I think the people you're referring to wouldn't begrudge you "treatment" if that's what you as an individual truly wanted.

Where the concern lies is the propagation of the underlying concept that those with Autism NEED treatment-
that what many feel is a fundamental part of their identity and experience as individuals is being portrayed as "wrong", as opposed to a DIFFERENCE.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 1:20 am

thinking/acting/BEING are inherently "wrong"

Let's look at this statement as a repeated argument that any so called normal person would be put in the place of being an autism bigot for disagreeing. Now let me as a person with autism reply for them so they are not manipulated for trying to help.

People would assume that how I was born is wrong by diagnosing me as a diagnoses means a defect. Yet people call themselves a label as an identity and I don't exactly like that. I never perceived myself defective unless I try to function in so called normalcy to the extent others commonly do. So to cope with this I could just accept myself for how I am and inherently I have done nothing wrong but should society not try to help me if I chose to be part of it more and function within it like others do then they would be wrong.

If people want to get together and believe they are discriminated against without much other kinds of thought and call that the autistic community and exclude my opinion or seek to make it unpopular then that seems wrong. I'd like to choice to remove adverse symptoms and that not be be some kind of wrong doing. To me this autism politics can be a little bit counter productive to other kinds of human rights such as my fundamental freedom to choose rather then exist simply with no modification by choice. Others call that pity, discrimination, eugenics enabling and so on and so on which is just peer pressure politics and is bull crap honestly.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:22 am

ci wrote:
thinking/acting/BEING are inherently "wrong"

Let's look at this statement as a repeated argument that any so called normal person would be put in the place of being an autism bigot for disagreeing. Now let me as a person with autism reply for them so they are not manipulated for trying to help.

People would assume that how I was born is wrong by diagnosing me as a diagnoses means a defect. Yet people call themselves a label as an identity and I don't exactly like that. I never perceived myself defective unless I try to function in so called normalcy to the extent others commonly do. So to cope with this I could just accept myself for how I am and inherently I have done nothing wrong but should society not try to help me if I chose to be part of it more and function within it like others do then they would be wrong.

If people want to get together and believe they are discriminated against without much other kinds of thought and call that the autistic community and exclude my opinion or seek to make it unpopular then that seems wrong. I'd like to choice to remove adverse symptoms and that not be be some kind of wrong doing. To me this autism politics can be a little bit counter productive to other kinds of human rights such as my fundamental freedom to choose rather then exist simply with no modification by choice. Others call that pity, discrimination, eugenics enabling and so on and so on which is just peer pressure politics and is bull crap honestly.


So you're saying that those who oppose the treatment of Autistic individuals as "flawed" are somehow infringing on your individual rights?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 1:23 am

Bethie wrote:
ci wrote:
I think folks mean well and false interpretations hinder choice. Choice is part of human rights law and I as a person with autism have the right to recieve treatment and have research conducted to create new kinds of treatments. Many special interest would enjoy hindering my and other choices whilst perhaps utilizing self-esteems. I've seen the movie lawnmower man and don't view cure as wildly changing the brain. I think emotionally susceptible people are prone to believing propaganda such as the above and if folks were nicer and more constructive toward one another choices could be enhanced and so could individual choice based tolerances.


Well, the fact that there are groups who want to eliminate Autism isn't exactly a mere fantasy of the "emotionally susceptible",
nor is, for instance, that some of the groups that purport to speak for Autistics actually have policies in place to deliberately SILENCE us.

I think the people you're referring to wouldn't begrudge you "treatment" if that's what you as an individual truly wanted.

Where the concern lies is the propagation of the underlying concept that those with Autism NEED treatment-
that what many feel is a fundamental part of their identity and experience as individuals is being portrayed as "wrong", as opposed to a DIFFERENCE.


Autism by definition is a disability. Why would they assume otherwise and as a disability why not seek to correct it? If you want acceptance then the methods of approach have been very poor and even adverse to the human rights of those seeking treatment. I think the law can be understood as so as long as one is not an impending danger to themselves or others their choices are held intact.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 1:30 am

Bethie wrote:
ci wrote:
thinking/acting/BEING are inherently "wrong"

Let's look at this statement as a repeated argument that any so called normal person would be put in the place of being an autism bigot for disagreeing. Now let me as a person with autism reply for them so they are not manipulated for trying to help.

People would assume that how I was born is wrong by diagnosing me as a diagnoses means a defect. Yet people call themselves a label as an identity and I don't exactly like that. I never perceived myself defective unless I try to function in so called normalcy to the extent others commonly do. So to cope with this I could just accept myself for how I am and inherently I have done nothing wrong but should society not try to help me if I chose to be part of it more and function within it like others do then they would be wrong.

If people want to get together and believe they are discriminated against without much other kinds of thought and call that the autistic community and exclude my opinion or seek to make it unpopular then that seems wrong. I'd like to choice to remove adverse symptoms and that not be be some kind of wrong doing. To me this autism politics can be a little bit counter productive to other kinds of human rights such as my fundamental freedom to choose rather then exist simply with no modification by choice. Others call that pity, discrimination, eugenics enabling and so on and so on which is just peer pressure politics and is bull crap honestly.


So you're saying that those who oppose the treatment of Autistic individuals as "flawed" are somehow infringing on your individual rights?


Yes and no because flaw denotes needed assistance in society and culture. It's when treatments that are not forced upon you and research that seeks to create more choice is sought for new treatments and understanding is opposed is when human rights are being infringed upon with political manipulation. You have the right to view autism in yourself a certain way and those that agree with you but soon as a group or individual states autism is not a disability in me and others that choose to view it as so it is an item of politics. If you don't like a label why profess it as an identity to revise it's image and to seek less attention to it for research and treatments? It seems like some special interest is trying to remove future treatment choices, accommodations and allocations of funding for social services perhaps.

Why not just reject the label? The label was created as a disability term to get help. Then autistic disorder became an identity for use in politics to say otherwise? Sounds kind of odd and I am suspicious.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:32 am

ci wrote:
Bethie wrote:
ci wrote:
I think folks mean well and false interpretations hinder choice. Choice is part of human rights law and I as a person with autism have the right to recieve treatment and have research conducted to create new kinds of treatments. Many special interest would enjoy hindering my and other choices whilst perhaps utilizing self-esteems. I've seen the movie lawnmower man and don't view cure as wildly changing the brain. I think emotionally susceptible people are prone to believing propaganda such as the above and if folks were nicer and more constructive toward one another choices could be enhanced and so could individual choice based tolerances.


Well, the fact that there are groups who want to eliminate Autism isn't exactly a mere fantasy of the "emotionally susceptible",
nor is, for instance, that some of the groups that purport to speak for Autistics actually have policies in place to deliberately SILENCE us.

I think the people you're referring to wouldn't begrudge you "treatment" if that's what you as an individual truly wanted.

Where the concern lies is the propagation of the underlying concept that those with Autism NEED treatment-
that what many feel is a fundamental part of their identity and experience as individuals is being portrayed as "wrong", as opposed to a DIFFERENCE.


Autism by definition is a disability. Why would they assume otherwise and as a disability why not seek to correct it? If you want acceptance then the methods of approach have been very poor and even adverse to the human rights of those seeking treatment. I think the law can be understood as so as long as one is not an impending danger to themselves or others their choices are held intact.


Autism is not inherently disabling, actually.
Some of it's manifestations can be, although not necessarily, depending on how the individual copes with them.

As for people like myself with high-functioning Autism, I resent being called "disabled" simply because I am different from the norm.
My Autism needs no more "correction" than my red hair, left handedness, or any other statistically un-average thing about me.

Once again, the people you seem to be talking about are not averse to your "human rights"-quite the contrary.
They are averse to the view that Autism is a "mistake" that needs to be "fixed",
not to your right as an individual to pursue elective "treatment".


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 19 Mar 2011, 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:40 am

ci wrote:
Yes and no because flaw denotes needed assistance in society and culture. It's when treatments that are not forced upon you and research that seeks to create more choice is sought for new treatments and understanding is opposed is when human rights are being infringed upon with political manipulation. You have the right to view autism in yourself a certain way and those that agree with you but soon as a group or individual states autism is not a disability in me and others that choose to view it as so it is an item of politics.

You just declared that Autism is a disability when *I* as an individual do not find it to be inherently so-
that is also "an item of politics", and it is precisely the type of ideology people in the Autistic community are fearful of.

ci wrote:
If you don't like a label why profess it as an identity to revise it's image and to seek less attention to it for research and treatments? It seems like some special interest is trying to remove future treatment choices, accommodations and allocations of funding for social services perhaps.

I never said I had a problem with the label of Autism.
Nor do I oppose research and treatment for individuals who choose to pursue it.
What I do oppose is being treated as "wrong", "flawed", "diseased", or "disabled".
If that's how you view yourself, then carry on.
ci wrote:
Why not just reject the label? The label was created as a disability term to get help. Then autistic disorder became an identity for use in politics to say otherwise? Sounds kind of odd and I am suspicious.

It was actually "created" to describe narcissistic symptoms of schizophrenia in Switzerland, but believe whatever fantasy you want.
:lol:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 1:41 am

I am sure you believe it's a conspiracy to make your genes look bad or how you are. Yet if you function in society very well then you don't need help that the label was originally created for. You have an opinion that is adverse to the symtomotological outline of adverse functional limitations. If you are different from the norm yet function well in society without help you are then part of normal. If you have a belief in autism that it is part of you as a concept due to negative judgement rather then the desire to help this is your opinion. Everyone has opinions but autism is indeed a disability by diagnoses in-spite of genetics that may be similar that do not manifest impairment to function.

If you want to think of disability in the cultural model of societal perceptions I could understand that. Disability being a difference that people should simply accept and embrace I think this is good. Yet for reasons of adaptation autism is viewed as a disability in technicality within the law so folks that need help can get it. Anything to the contrary should be critically reviewed for alternative political reasons.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


Last edited by ci on 19 Mar 2011, 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 1:45 am

Bethie wrote:
ci wrote:
Yes and no because flaw denotes needed assistance in society and culture. It's when treatments that are not forced upon you and research that seeks to create more choice is sought for new treatments and understanding is opposed is when human rights are being infringed upon with political manipulation. You have the right to view autism in yourself a certain way and those that agree with you but soon as a group or individual states autism is not a disability in me and others that choose to view it as so it is an item of politics.

You just declared that Autism is a disability when *I* as an individual do not find it to be inherently so-
that is also "an item of politics", and it is precisely the type of ideology people in the Autistic community are fearful of.

ci wrote:

If you don't like a label why profess it as an identity to revise it's image and to seek less attention to it for research and treatments? It seems like some special interest is trying to remove future treatment choices, accommodations and allocations of funding for social services perhaps.

I never said I had a problem with the label of Autism.
Nor do I oppose research and treatment for individuals who choose to pursue it.
What I do oppose is being treated as "wrong", "flawed", "diseased", or "disabled".
If that's how you view yourself, then carry on.
ci wrote:
Why not just reject the label? The label was created as a disability term to get help. Then autistic disorder became an identity for use in politics to say otherwise? Sounds kind of odd and I am suspicious.

It was actually "created" to describe narcissistic symptoms of schizophrenia in Switzerland, but believe whatever fantasy you want.
:lol:


What research then is needed for something that is not a disability. Seems like cognitive dissonance which would be understandable. I am sure anything that in times past many people thought about things differently then discovered the contrary. Id oppose someone walking up to me and calling me a disease and disorder. Yet some people with autism want to be called a disorder label. Another item of cognitive dissonance. I actually preferred to be called my name and simply that.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:47 am

ci wrote:
I am sure you believe it's a conspiracy to make your genes look bad or how you are. Yet if you function in society very well then you don't need help that the label was originally created for. You have an opinion that is adverse to the symtomotological outline of adverse functional limitations. If you are different from the norm yet function well in society without help you are then part of normal. If you have a belief in autism that it is part of you as a concept due to negative judgement rather then the desire to help this is your opinion. Everyone has opinions but autism is indeed a disability by diagnoses in-spite of genetics that may be similar that do not manifest impairment to function.

If you want to think of disability in the cultural model of societal perceptions I could understand that. Disability being a difference that people should simply accept and embrace I think this is good. Yet for reasons of adaptation autism is viewed as a disability in technicality within the law so folks that need help can get it. Anything to the contrary should be critically reviewed for alternative political reasons.


You need to do more research into the etymology of "Autism" in describing differences in the human mind. It was NOT "created" to help disabled people get help.

The people who oppose organizations like Autism Speaks (for example) do so largely BECAUSE they are weary of the "alternative political reasons" of such groups. :roll:

You don't really seem to be interested in discourse, merely in ranting.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 19 Mar 2011, 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

19 Mar 2011, 1:51 am

ci wrote:
What research then is needed for something that is not a disability.

Had you read what I've said, I never said Autism *cannot* be disabling.
I said it is not *inherently* disabling.

ci wrote:
Yet some people with autism want to be called a disorder label.

Highly doubt it, but you should really read my previous three or four refutations of your notion that the people in question oppose individual freedoms.

You have one more shot at saying something new/and/or substantive, then I'm out.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 1:56 am

Bethie wrote:
I am sure you believe it's a conspiracy to make your genes look bad or how you are. Yet if you function in society very well then you don't need help that the label was originally created for. You have an opinion that is adverse to the symtomotological outline of adverse functional limitations. If you are different from the norm yet function well in society without help you are then part of normal. If you have a belief in autism that it is part of you as a concept due to negative judgement rather then the desire to help this is your opinion. Everyone has opinions but autism is indeed a disability by diagnoses in-spite of genetics that may be similar that do not manifest impairment to function.

If you want to think of disability in the cultural model of societal perceptions I could understand that. Disability being a difference that people should simply accept and embrace I think this is good. Yet for reasons of adaptation autism is viewed as a disability in technicality within the law so folks that need help can get it. Anything to the contrary should be critically reviewed for alternative political reasons.

You need to do more research into the etymology of "Autism" in describing differences in the human mind. It was NOT "created" to help disabled people get help.

The people who oppose organizations like Autism Speaks (for example) do so largely BECAUSE they are weary of the "alternative political reasons" of such groups. :roll:

You don't really seem to be interested in discourse, merely in ranting.


What really should happen is an entire understanding of the causations of autism(s) so to separate differing sub-groups of people. I think that once it's figured out people would be less emotionally attached to a label. For some the label is very important. Why is it so important in the first place? Then to create an identity with it and be especially sensitive to all mentions of it. I think this all is political and common sense denotes in todays society autism is a disability people with it need help with. For the very high functioning people it seems more like an interest then a reason for a need to adapt.

My suggestion would be for those with it that do not have a disability to say so and those diagnosed with it to be assumed as so. Regardless the new diagnostics of ASD should help and again for reasons of helping people in need of help. The religion of autism should be understood and you have outlined some thing which may hold true in the beliefs of some others.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com


ci
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: Humboldt County, California

19 Mar 2011, 2:01 am

Bethie wrote:
ci wrote:
What research then is needed for something that is not a disability.

Had you read what I've said, I never said Autism *cannot* be disabling.
I said it is not *inherently* disabling.

ci wrote:
Yet some people with autism want to be called a disorder label.

Highly doubt it, but you should really read my previous three or four refutations of your notion that the people in question oppose individual freedoms.

You have one more shot at saying something new/and/or substantive, then I'm out.


I understand the political idea of not using the DSM to understand autism. This is part of the religion of autism. You need to prove you and others if you are not qualifying for the diagnoses due to significant functional limitations as having the same causation of "differences" as others diagnosed with autism. In the future with research beyond these words and beliefs we will have much more real scientific data.

Political interest are using the label of autism to play politics with it. My suggestion is to stay out of the way of the rights to treatments and the ultimate cure by choice. Otherwise it will be a political nightmare for opposition.


_________________
The peer politics creating intolerance toward compassion is coming to an end. Pity accusations, indifferent advocacy against isolation awareness and for pride in an image of autism is injustice. http://www.autismselfadvocacynetwork.com