Hiding The Truth For Popular Political Appeal

Post Reply New Topic

"4. ASAN is a "single-issue" organization. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, but I think it's pretty clear that this isn't true. We work on a variety of issues that affect autistic people. I also find it kind of odd that ASAN is criticized on the one hand for supposedly being "single issue," while on the other hand we're accused by some of these very same people of "combining issues." This doesn't make very much sense to me. "

You folks claim your a diversity minded advocacy network but combine issues to seek empowerment of a select few philosophies as defined in your "values". These values don't make you folks better then other people with autism who view autism differently and I hope you know that If you were truly a diversity of self-advocates more then one or just a few would be represented in your central platform and out right disagreements and even democratic voting would occur. Voting that as a advocacy network you move forward based on what diversity thinks about issues and not what a special interest chooses for us to have to accept or else even as people with autism we just "hate" ASAN.

It's time for ASAN to evolve or step aside in the grand whole of self-advocacy in implies name. the name is misleading and any insinuation you speak for the whole of people with autism or that you include all views need to be backed with evidence and a fair right of projection on the macro platform. It is misleading and special interest centered.

I will continue speaking against those who seek to dominate self-advocacy by constricting diversity by not tolerating differing values.

"5. There is a general idea that reading the forums will give you a good idea of what ASAN is about. Not necessarily so, and there is obviously a lot of misinformation here. I suggest reading what ASAN leaders have actually written rather than rely on summaries from people with a grudge. If there is a chapter near you, you might even try to attend a meeting. That will give you an infinitely better picture of the organization's priorities than reading this flame-ridden forum"

You mean where opposition like where ASAN started on the alike forums flaming? As a person with autism confirmed in the media and so on I find that your not taking my words not very seriously likely to be how you suppress views. Chapters do not vote on how they are represented based upon publicly seen debate, they have very little say in the central platform that relates to the media and issues are dictated as values and members do not have a very much control at all. I suppose a reform within ASAN and would you mind telling me about your electron processes? ASAN seems to be a party that does not let it's members vote on who represents them to the media. If they disagree they simply "hate" and are just specks of riddle on computer forums. I have news for you. ASAN as it exists now won't be tolerated forever by the much larger self-advocacy community.

Enhance the individual rights in the media as a collective organization about advocacy or simply be seen as a special interest group putting words in our mouths with no choice about evolving who we empower to represent us.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF3D2oiy6YA&feature=fvst[/youtube]

Last edited by ci on 08 Sep 2011, 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Have you attended an ASAN meeting, ci? (I am referring to an in-person meeting officially put together by an ASAN chapter leader.) If you have been silenced at such a meeting I would be appalled, but it seems you are referring to something else altogether.

I am not able to travel due to disability as supports do not go that far but have spoken to some of those that attend. There is nothing wrong with a support element but something very wrong with a leadership that does not concern the diversity which comprises it. A leadership that itself does not allow public debate on it's platform of those whom disagree with one another whom it's members can think for themselves to decide on. That's part of the scheme of a self-advocacy network unless it is only for those that think one way which is implied in its expressed philosophies.

The public and the autism community should realize however that ASAN is not a diverse network enhancing one another participation in autism community awareness by means of it's platform. It's simply the Ari self-advocacy network as implied by some news awareness I seen and not a true self-advocacy network of diversity but only that which goes along for the show.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF3D2oiy6YA&feature=fvst[/youtube]

So far all I have been privy to from you is that you disagree with what ASAN talks about because they talk about abortion and social policies at the same time, and that they are 'intolerant' of your viewpoint because their viewpoint stops you furthering your goal of cure.

That is all I have been able to get from ci's attacks on ASAN, as well.

I don't think any organization should be expected to give meeting time to those whose stated goals are to undermine the mission of the organization.

Would a gay support group give time to fundamentalists who want to 'cure' them?

Of course not!

ci's attacks on ASAN continue to make me more inclined to look upon ASAN with interest and favor.

I have had no dealings with ASAN directly. I disagree with them simply because they do not enable a diversity of self-advocates and recklessly combine issues in PR potentially effecting the innocent. A modification of their organization to be an encompassing facilitation of individuals rights, expressions and media relations to enhance the collective say and make available the minority view points would alter this PR risk. It would alter is because in fluid democratic models everyone can understand items of concern will conflict.

ASAN cannot in all it's might prevent what I do. It would be silly to think that. I am speaking of matters of self-advocacy in general.

That's your point of view based on your already held beliefs. Instead a self-advocacy network in premise ought to be diversity enabling instead of perceiving it as a threat. Typically dictators perceive democracy as a threat. IF enabling the say of the true diversity is a threat then they want to simply protect certain views. Once enact however a self-advocacy democracy like facilitation would then protect the organization as a whole from criticism.

If criticism against ASAN by people with autism is not welcomed then they will become less and less effective as time passes. Shielding the organization with claims of autism bigotry, people just want to kill developing life and that they are just intolerant against a view point is mute. Become a network of encompassing facilitation in views and it will be a well protected organisation in function in scope of PR.

If Ari and company want to be true civil rights advocates they had better support civil rights in all it's forms and should be an example of it.

Comparing autism to being gay as I know you claim you are gay is a bias in personal perceptions of autism and sexuality. It is merely a sexuality others were and sometimes still are intolerant of. Autism is a life long disability and the higher functioning you are the less this is realized and the more it can be compared to gay pride.

I think you can plainly see that my previous post had no mention of explicit dealings, talks or interaction with ASAN. So this bit of your post means nothing.



Talking about pre-natal scans and autism speak's deficiencies are all things that affect autism, which is exactly the range of topics that you'd expect a group called the Autism Self-Advoacy Agency to talk about. Also as I have already said that Autism Speaks doesn't let autistics speak in its meetings so a hypocritical name is something for which it is much more guilty. Also if you have never had any direct dealings with ASAN, how do you know that they do not allow for a diversity of views? Do you have proof to the contrary? Or is this another accusation about ASAN for which you will provide no proof?

Again another accusation about ASAN for which you provide no proof. Where have they tried to tread on you? If anything all you have shown is that their views threaten the possibility for a cure of something for which the idea of a cure is debateable at best and for which you have only supported by accusing 'pride-mites', ASAN and presumably some people on here of trying to attack your 'right to treatment'. At the same time you have said that we 'high-functioning' are somehow not allowed to decide on our affairs, thus abridging us of our freedom of speech.

I was open to hear your side, but you are not only not convincing me, you are driving me away.

ASAN only allows certain perspectives yet claims to be a diversity of self-advocates which is false. A civil rights facilitation exibites a diversity of views which ASAN does not in it's central platform. Instead the issues are dictated by a micro-minority of a minority of alike people.

As far as Autism Speaks I'm not a member of that organization either. However a statement of the obvious that might be interpreted that people with autism do speak does not state people with autism in a diversity are speaking by means of that organization. Instead they could be implying certain people speak who also have autism and those having to do with autism that would like a cure or certain treatment developments. That is a protected liberty just the same as ASAN has a protected liberty to speak. However ASAN unlike Autism Speaks claims to be a self-advocacy network. As a network ASAN simply is a network of views that only agree with it which typically are centered on a world-view of us vs. Autism Speaks and alike perspectives.

To me it's just a social trap of drama when there a re more important things to be doing. In how my organization forms all individuals are confirmed diagnosed and will have equal say. Unlike ASAN where diagnoses are not always confirmed and their is no voting I can rest at night knowing I am not putting words in anyone's mouth and that my job is to facilitate expressions about inclusion. Me I wouldn't feel comfortable being part of ASAN because of how they use abortion issues while demanding money in awareness toward the public or do not allow voting under the self-advocacy network claim. It's a dictating and not civil rights facilitation of a comprised diversity of self-advocates.

Thankfully inclusion for the most part has nothing to do with with these kinds of things. The few exceptions are being polite toward individuals like not calling them a disease in the personable sense and accepting people do not want to be called a disorder like autistic which can be perceived as dehumanizing. As far as ASAN goes much like Autism Speaks they are special interest organization one going against selective abortion and the other seemingly asking for insurance mandates. Neither seems bad in my opinion but neither would just the opposite so as long as in my view peoples quality of lives are protected.

Some have wondered if ASAN and Autism Speaks are really on the same side where ASAN makes a big fuss to hardened the potential of certain political achievements that Autism Speaks otherwise agrees with. I find that interesting.

So your organization is exclusionary and prejudiced.

I think it is wrong to support an organization that behaves in this way.

Absolutely not. Confirmed and diagnosed according to the law. That way self-advocates are not manipulated by unconfirmed potential special interests that mean them harm with their tactics. Also anyone with autism can work for the organization and fulfill the obligation in a support capacity can do so but to be part of the advocacy which is about consumer rights in society they must be covered under the law here in this context for what it is for.

That being some kind of discrimination is absolutely absurd given what the organization is about. Just another cry of wolf that discredit true discrimination. A person must qualify for the relevant services to speak in context to their rights that are enabled by such services. It has nothing to do with abortion politics but the protection of individuals whom are legally defined as participants. .

Common sense.

Adding 'acording the the law' doesn't make your argument more credible. It justs means that its enforced by law. Might doesn't make right. The law isn't perfect. The law has often been wrong.


Speculation about other's personalities.

Consumer rights has nothing to do with advocacy. What you're talking about is impersonation. Also there is no existing injunction about people with self-diagnosed autism doing anything with an autism group. It would be a personal decision. If the law interceded on that sort of decision then this law you are talking about is fastidiously bureaucratic.


No it isn't. There are lots of reasons why people on the streets actually don't want a diagnosis.


So basically you say AlanTuring is crying wolf without justifying it.

This coming from a person who said 'I know my place' when I told him that Autism Speaks doesn't let autistics speak at its meetings nor actually has any autistics in its higher echelons.

I know it has nothing to do with pre-natal tests (abortion politics just sounds like a forced pejorative). AlanTuring didn't even mention abortion in the last post. So why are you talking about it?

Common sense.[/quote]

The organization is not about the issues presented on this forum nor for individuals who do not qualify under the law. It's not up to me who qualifies and who does not. It's in service of those under state regulations. It's not discrimination to decline individuals who otherwise do not qualify. Just another pride advocating trying to take over if not ruin something they cannot control.

That doesn't stop them talking about the issue. Everyone has the right to discuss every issue. To give you some controversial examples: Muslims are allowed to talk about homosexuality, Israelis are allowed to talk about the idea of a palestinian state, genetic biologists are allowed to talk about GM foods and this topic is no different. That is a guarantee of freedom of speech: Discussion of all subjects without libel.


So far I have only had evidence of these misnamed 'prides' (another serious pejorative (or you make it sound like one)) only using picketing and not trying to control anything. It is ironic that you say this whilst saying they have no right to speak freely on a subject.

You makeup so many things. The organization I head is about inclusion for employment and opportunity in general for qualifying individuals. It has nothing to do with enabling people on the internet to speak through it. Are you getting the context or misinterpreting to make a fuss? I do not propose to control free speech online and do not even agree with slander laws because that removed fundamental freedom and is akin to socialism. I would never sue someone for freedom of speech unlike what is threatened by internet advocates at times and some autism organizations. I think it conspires against free thought in premise.