Forbes writes an clickbait article against an autistic group

Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

HisShadowX
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2015
Posts: 344
Location: Chicago

06 Oct 2015, 6:39 am

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... ic-people/

Imagine your a white yuppie liberal writer for Forbes from San Francisco. You drive your hybrid to Starbucks and notice another yuppie complaining about a black hate group.

You check out this Facebook page and write an article full of righteous indignation. You write how this hate group uses the words "Black" and "hate" in the article...but don't link the group in question.

You find the group in question as well as the counter group trying to take this group down.

You go onto the group and find out the group is black owned and the sites name is "Black People Against Hate"

Clickbait right?

Forbes recently wrote about a Facebook group owned by autistic people called "Autisic families against shooters"

Basically NTs are claiming it's a hate group against autistic people but yet it's run by autistic people and there is not autistic hate anywhere on there. Talk about an NT over reaction



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

06 Oct 2015, 6:59 am

HisShadowX wrote:
Forbes recently wrote about a Facebook group owned by autistic people called "Autisic families against shooters"
Basically NTs are claiming it's a hate group against autistic people but yet it's run by autistic people and there is not autistic hate anywhere on there. Talk about an NT over reaction


The Facebook group is called 'Families united against autistic shooters'.

It's sarcasm. The group is making fun of autistic people by suggesting 'autistic shooters' are common.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

06 Oct 2015, 7:22 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
HisShadowX wrote:
Forbes recently wrote about a Facebook group owned by autistic people called "Autisic families against shooters"
Basically NTs are claiming it's a hate group against autistic people but yet it's run by autistic people and there is not autistic hate anywhere on there. Talk about an NT over reaction


The Facebook group is called 'Families united against autistic shooters'.

It's sarcasm. The group is making fun of autistic people by suggesting 'autistic shooters' are common.


So it IS a hate group against autistics after all?



HisShadowX
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2015
Posts: 344
Location: Chicago

06 Oct 2015, 7:42 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
HisShadowX wrote:
Forbes recently wrote about a Facebook group owned by autistic people called "Autisic families against shooters"
Basically NTs are claiming it's a hate group against autistic people but yet it's run by autistic people and there is not autistic hate anywhere on there. Talk about an NT over reaction


The Facebook group is called 'Families united against autistic shooters'.

It's sarcasm. The group is making fun of autistic people by suggesting 'autistic shooters' are common.



Okay I see what your saying at this point we are getting conflicting information. Where are all the posts with pictures showing what's happening. The side saying and accusing isn't showing any pictures.

But it looks like we are indeed being trolled one way or another.

The journalist in his article is not posting anything from what I see showing what's being said that's the offending content



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,029
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

06 Oct 2015, 11:16 am

a liberal yuppie huh?.....right, I think its more likely a socially conservative democrat.


_________________
We won't go back.


ASPickle
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 177
Location: Denver, CO

06 Oct 2015, 11:41 am

Considering the author of the Forbes post is Emily Willingham, who has a history of writing about Autistic advocacy issues, I'd say you need to slow your roll on this one, Shadow. The original group she wrote about was called, "Families Against Autistic Shooters." Your overreaction is to the counter group that was set up in response to the original page.

Before it was taken down, I saw the Facebook group in question. It was highly offensive. I bet Emily didn't post pictures of the page because it would need a heavy Trigger Warning for Autistics. Also, why give that heinous voice any ounce of respectability by showing it, even in screencap form?

In one of her comment replies, Willingham added:

Emily Willingham wrote:
I gave a great deal of consideration to posting this article. I did not link to the page itself for a reason. I came down on the side of writing about the page for two reasons. (1) It has been shared to hundreds and hundreds of people and a petition to have it taken down has thousands of signatures. So that cat is out of the bag, the troll bait has been taken. (2) As I noted in the article, yes, of course, that’s what people with limited intrinsic resources want, a lot of reactive, negative attention, but … this site is exactly the sort of tone for some people to take seriously–and I know from experience following Newtown that they will–which has serious, real-life repercussions for autistic people, whether we feed the trolls or not. This person will do what they want. It’s a little late to worry about the “autism-violence” connection taking root in the public mind.

But the onus is on Facebook to moderate it appropriately, rationally, and swiftly, in this instance and in future instances, and that’s the ultimate message of this post. You can irrationally mock the idea of autistic people as a stigmatized, marginalized group if you like and be angry about “neurodiverse cult movements,” but the fact remains that autism is considered a disability under federal law, and Facebook would do well to take note of that.


I, for one, am glad that it's been taken down. It clearly violated the Facebook community standards for hate speech. Heck, it had Autism Kills in its URL.

The only thing that can be seen as "clickbait" or "trolling" here would be a hastily concocted thread based upon a sliver of information available to the reader.


_________________
The Autistic Pickle is typed in front of a live studio audience.
No ghosts were harmed in the making of this post.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,883
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Oct 2015, 1:41 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
a liberal yuppie huh?.....right, I think its more likely a socially conservative democrat.


Being that Forbes is a business magazine, I would think it would at least have a conservative slant.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 62
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

06 Oct 2015, 3:19 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
a liberal yuppie huh?.....right, I think its more likely a socially conservative democrat.


Being that Forbes is a business magazine, I would think it would at least have a conservative slant.

I wouldn't count on it. Just because a company or publication may be fiscally conservative doesn't mean that it can't be socially liberal.


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.