Alex's testimony for the IACC meeting!! !

Post Reply New Topic

Just as there's nothing "wrong" with making inappropriate comments, there's nothing wrong criticising them. I don't see the point of contending them unless one's intentions are to show that the individual in question is biased, and should be removed from having a say on autism research. She can then make the same argument that those with the disorder themselves are biased, and shouldn't have a say either.

There was a well done documentary on autism I saw the other week; it had numerous inflicted individuals with Asperger's speaking of killing themselves, teenagers too; was that documentary brought up?

Was her comment directed at all individuals, or only her daughter?

I agree with Alex's stance, that improving the quality of life for all autistic individuals --there's a lot of us, and we aren't going anywhere, and there's going to be just as many born with said disorder in the future.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that "Autism Every Day" is an erroneous piece of propaganda. Mothers were told to look as gross as possible (not shower, do make-up, dress nicely) and the kids were given absolutely no warning about the presence of a film crew. That's upsetting to many kids--especially autistic ones! Furthermore, the film makes it seem as though the kids did nothing but tantrum the entire time, when in reality the video crew waited around for hours for that to happen. Selective editing, much? Now, of course many other "documentaries" have engaged in similar tactics, but that doesn't make "Autism Every Day" a fair or accurate presentation. I don't object to documentaries taking a point of view, but when it contributes to the dehumanization of others there's a problem. "The Birth of a Nation" anyone? Heck, I've seen documentaries about child molestation which still managed to portray the criminals as humans, albeit deeply disgusting ones. AED portrays autistics exclusively in terms of tantrums--which is silly, I might add, because non-autistic kids have tantrums too, sometimes. I don't think Singer shouldn't be involved in making decisions for autism research because she's biased. Everyone is biased. I think that because she has demonstrated no respect for the actual "subjects" of autism research. I might be willing to reconsider should she express regret for previous statements. Put it this way: should a member of a KKK be involved in sociological research about African-Americans?

Ad hominem only when used in an erroneous context (after all, the "documentary" can just as well be about those who live with the individual with autism), and there's nothing wrong with showing the emotional upheaval that autism can cause in family members--one just has to look up the myriad of clinical sites that speak of such.

There's nothing wrong with making a documentary that focuses on the difficulties of family members of autism, to garner financial support or no.

Danielismyname:

There is a difference, and a significant one, between presenting difficulties in an objective fashion and sympathy-mongering. If difficulties are to be portrayed, so should their opposite - the joy the child will bring into one's life DESPITE the difficulties, and the love one feels for the child, otherwise it will not be a fair and balanced portrayal.

Sympathy-mongering, on the other hand, consists of taking only the negative things and giving them an "oh look how hard and terrible my life is with this child, look what I have to endure because of her daily, I'm SO miserable" subtext. It is akin to the tactic of the histrionic individual who will accuse other people of abandoning her, not paying her enough attention, being unthankful etc., in order to elicit guilt and compassion in these people and make them do what she wants them to do. It means exploiting people's (best) feelings to gain a profit, whether financial or emotional - and, like any manipulation, it is indeed quite wrong.

I'm afraid that this is precisely what Autism Speaks are doing. It is also worth remembering that at least half of the funds they gather in this fashion, or more, go into genetic research, which basically amounts to searching for a pre-natal screening test (in other words, getting rid of the people they are trying to present as a burden). That makes their tactic doubly wrong.

Also, subjectively, if I were present in a room where my mother was being filmed for the whole country to see, and she said in this calm, cold tone that she used to think about killing me, speaking over my head as if I didn't exist, that could be the end of our relationship. I probably wouldn't be able to treat her the same again - I would have eventually forgiven her words themselves, because I understand the feeling of despair etc. that could've been behind them, but I would take her whole manner of talking, as well as her choice to speak about this in public, as a sign of utter disrespect for me (or worse). It would simply make me too frightened of her.

It makes me cringe just to picture it. Unfortunately, I have an imagination.

Perhaps the individuals in question don't have any noticeable qualities due to the autism itself; if the video is about the difficulties of autism and those who care for the children with challenging behaviour, it can be objective without showing the opposite as the opposite doesn't exist in this context. There's nothing wrong with trolling for empathy to garner financial support (there is morally, but morality rarely enters into politics); it's a way to get money, i.e., these poor parents, and these poor, poor children.

The opposite doesn't exist for when taken in the context of the difficulties that autism can produce, there's no need to show the opposite (I kinda lack the executive functioning to look up the video itself and the statements that come with it, so I'm assuming it's a basic fundraising video that intends to show the severe side of autism--not that it showed was all that severe to me as I watched it).

Eugenics doesn't bother me as I lack the empathy to feel for those aborted (or anyone for that matter); people do what they wish to, and if the majority deem "severe" autism as a burden on society, that's what they deem (I don't agree with this as many times weaknesses are what make us strong; adapting to a weakness, surviving with one, caring for those who cannot care for themselves is strength; all of this is beneficial to humanity as a "pure" and "perfect" people forget to overlook something basic. "Freaks" are always beneficial due to this reasoning).

I can see how her emotional outburst could have been "intelligently" placed to show the effect that autism can have on an individual, but this isn't an ad hominem as she wasn't arguing with anyone. It's an ad hominem to bring it up in a debate over where research funds should go.

The most basic form of such:
Person A makes claim X (where the funds should go)
There is something objectionable about Person A (emotional outburst)
Therefore claim X is false

People wish to discredit the person who made such a claim on film to prove that she's not fit to argue due to this: hence, it's an ad hominem.

Naturally, I'm not offended in the slightest that someone stated that she'd kill herself and her child with autism if it wasn't for her "normal" daughter. Autism isn't a single entity, and in no way is her and her daughter's experience related to mine at all; who knows, I might say the same thing in her shoes, or I might not.

Alex, you are awesome. You will be a wonderful role model for my boys to look up to when they are older and understand more about their AS. You take everything I feel about autism but put it better words than I can come up with. Thanks so much for all you do!