The hate-mongers have a petition opposing Ari Ne'eman

Post Reply New Topic

I may not have agreed with their stance on Mr. Ne'eman's appointment, but it really isn't fair to summarize that stance as biggoted against Autism. They felt that Mr. Ne'eman didn't represent autism well, or further agendas that would help those who are lower functioning, and those are all valid discussion points, whether or not you and I agree.

Such people, though, seem to think that NTs are better at representing autism than autistic people. Even if said autistic person is high-functioning, surely they're closer to LFA people than an NT?

That petition makes him sound like a pretty cool guy

they may be closer in autistic behaviors, but their autistic status says nothing about their personal views. same for nts. simply because someone is autistic does not make them a good mouthpiece for the autistic community, and simply because they are nt doesnt make them not.

i admit i have a hard time understanding why anyone would be against a cure when it isnt even understood what the cause is. i fully believe we will eventually know, and i believe it will be found that there is more than one cause for all autism. it could be genetic, genetic+environmental, and/or environmental. but i dont see how any autistic, especially a high functioning one, should be allowed to decide for everyone including the low functioning whether a cure is made available. i think its a choice each individual should be allowed to make for themselves. i think we'd see both high and low functioning choosing both sides.

Thing is the position Ari is in doesn't have anything to do with deciding anything about a cure. So complaining about his appointment because of that is pretty nonsensical. I have my own problems with some of his stances but I think their petition is wrong. It's just the usual charges leveled against any self-advocate who disagrees with the status quo. The three things people do is try to make the person look like they're not really autistic, then they try to make it sound like the person is so so atypical that they have no business as an advocate, and then if they can't do that they appeal to prejudices about autistic people like saying he lacks enough empathy or something like that. And this doesn't just happen to autistic people. It happens to people advocating for themselves from any marginalized group in society. It is depressingly predictable and it would be done to absolutely anyone who didn't toe the line and say keep the status quo as it is (in which case there's no point in being an advocate). This is not happening because of anything specific to Ari. It's happening because these are the common silencing tactics people pull out for anyone. I'm disappointed that a moderator here can't recognize that.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human ... entmessage

I read this article here and I see no reason why not to elect him. He may be anti-cure, but this council has nothing to do with research and finding a cure anyway.

This council is about accommodations and support for disabled people. I dont see anything wrong with having him on this council, it has nothing to do with to cure or not to cure, I dont see why the only aspies who are voted on councils should have to be pro-cure.

Surely the best view to have is, do what the people you represent want? And I think you'll find that the majority of autistic people don't want a cure. I for one would rather shoot myself than take a cure.

Someone on the spectrum themselves will be able to understand the view of autistic community and will be able to understand autism themselves because they have it. I don't believe any NT can truly understand what it's like to have autism because they're simply never experienced it.

I don't see how anyone with no autism at all should be allowed to make decisions on behalf of a community of people that they can never understand, and blatantly ignore by continuing to promote the idea that a cure is answer.

Ignorance needs curing, not autism.

As has been noted his position on the council doesn't involve research funds for a cure. But, as far as not wanting a cure because it isn't known what autism is, I'd argue that *is* a reason not to cure it -- no one would know what they are curing/doing. I.e. some see autism as a behavioral problem and regard intense behavior mod as a cure ("indistinguishable from peers").

As far as the argument about not speaking for people who can't, the problem is if you step aside, all those people who signed that petition, and other 'expert' NT's, will step in and take your place. And then they'll do all the talking for the autistics who can't.

As far as who is better suited, well, sure maybe not any autistic person would be better than every NT, but history shows the results of NT-only research and understanding (that might not have happened with some autistic input; but that is rarely allowed): "purposeless" stims, "lack of empathy," "lack of imagination," "no emotions," "aversives are ok," and on and on. These outside-in interpretations have caused, and continue to cause, untold harm. (I.e. "autistics are are more likely to be rapists, because they see people as objects.") I'd say, historically, the NT viewpoint (research, definition, treatments, interpretations, theories) has been hugely dominating. Maybe it's time that changed.

I think you've misunderstood what I posted and why I posted it.

I've enjoyed seeing you back, btw. You were missed.