Which one of these people is doing more damage to our image?

Post Reply New Topic

It's a pretty straightforward question up there in the poll. Which of these if any, in your opinion, is doing more damage to our image, and why?

- Chris Chan, who runs all over the place acting like a fool in public and putting all kinds of stuff on the internet that probably really humiliates his parents

- Simon Baron Cohen, who every so often issues forth a missive hinting that aspies are probably the most mentally messed up people on the planet, and then explains why he thinks AS is worse than some debilitating and dangerous psychiatric illnesses

- The Autism Moms who blog, who detail the hardships of their lives and by the magic of the internet give the rest of the parents and anybody else who is curious, a very detailed glimpse into what they describe as constant and work and isolation that's done solely for the benefit of their child, with no guarantee of results

- None of these, because people who make a difference in the world and who are actually listened to, don't form their opinions from YouTube, blogs, or even the one guy in the autism study and education field who makes wilder claims every year.

- Somebody else entirely. Please tell us why and who. I wanna Google them.

The Autism Moms who blog, who detail the hardships of their lives and by the magic of the internet give the rest of the parents and anybody else who is curious, a very detailed glimpse into what they describe as constant work, sacrifice and isolation, endured solely for the benefit of their child, with no guarantee of results, and no appreciation or support from their husbands whatsoever while simultaneously blaming their husbands for every hardship, setback and meltdown their child experiences.

I'm sick of them.

Simon Baron-Cohen is a scientist, a highly decorated scientist who happens to be a Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the second best university in the world and a director of Cambridge's Autism Research Centre. Whether you like what he says or not, he is a man of science working at some of the best institutions of the world, not some silly pantomime villain out to spite everybody with autistic spectrum disorders. If he says something, it's probably because he thinks it's true and likely has some evidence to back it up.


Also, if you're referring to the "Asperger's suffers have less empathy than psychopaths" comment, that's taken from a book written in 2011, and is perhaps slightly out of context. From his book, The Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth about Autism:

Suzanne Wright - co-founder of Autism Speaks

^ THIS!! ! Her and Bob Wright are the reasons why I want to destroy A$ for a long time. I mean, one of the celebs I follow on twitter- JJ Totah- Supports this garbage! And he's just a kid!
I hope they love the rapture... The moment it happens, They'll end up on earth, not taken immediately!

Bob and Suzanne Wright. They get audiences with the Vatican, the UN, Congress, and any new entity they want and so they are more able to spread their bigotry than mommy bloggers

Researchers who victimize and exploit people on the spectrum for their own benefit. This is why I chose Baron-Cohen.

The difference between research which benefits and that which exploits is discussed here:
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/927/1/priestleym1.pdf

Interesting to read it thinking of Baron-Cohen (who is not mentioned) and considering how he fits in to the considerations in this paper. To my mind, he is definitely exploitative rather than "emancipating", and one of the major offenders.

The mothers may rant though at the end of the day they have little credibility. The loudest of them are the "victim" mothers who place themselves at the centre and do a poor me performance at every opportunity. They are toxic though transparent. They perpetuate and expand disability myths and stigma for their own selfish benefit.

However I have a lot of sympathy for the "crusader" mothers who are genuinely trying to get respect for the "personhood" of their children and a better deal from institutions, professionals, policy makers etc - they want inclusion for their children. For the genuine activists amongst them, who challenge the status quo, I have considerable admiration.

The natural human trait to fear difference is the biggest.

As for actual people Bruno Bettelheim. While he is dead and his "refrigerator mother" theory has been mostly discredited for decades the idea that an evil entity kidnaped some cute kid and broke him and he or she needs to be "recovered"or "rescued" all goes back to him. The only thing that has changed is the evil entity be it the “Autism” or the Big Pharma vaccines, and the rescuer “warrior mothers” or ABA , the idea is the same.

I would argue that all research benefits somebody, just not necessarily people with autistic spectrum disorders. I also question whether this "exploitative" research would be as controversial, if it worked in people with autism's favour, because it's sounds to me like people are upset that he's saying something they don't want to hear...

I understand that, but don't vilify him because of it. If it had been the other way round, he'd have probably publicised it just as well...

Thirding this. Why isn't even Autism Speaks in general an option?

Also, while I don't agree with SBC's theories and I think the way many people gobble them as absolute is extremely damaging, I'd say he actually improved the way autistic people are seen as I think he is the first popular researcher to portray a positive side to autism by linking famous scientists to it with the systemizing end.

You have assumed rather too much. This quote from the article may help to clarify matters as to why I have concerns about SBC as a researcher. (Not the only concerns, and I am a qualified researcher)

1. Choosing an Epistemology
As noted above, disability research has been condemned where it
has conceptualized disability as an individual pathology, a medical
problem to be treated, or a personal tragedy to be pitied. Such
conceptualizations are inseparable from the tendency of
rehabilitation professionals to define the self-concept, goals, and
inner motivations of disabled persons and determine their ‘real
wishes and potential
… without asking the individuals about their problems,
preferred solutions, and alternatives or by openly
disregarding all information received from the disabled
persons themselves about desirable goals and solutions.
(Safilios-Rothschild 1981: 5)
Academics working within the dominant paradigms for disability
research (positivist and interpretative) have followed suit, casting
themselves in the role of expert and ‘knower’ - a role which
implicitly (and, on occasion, explicitly) maintains that the
knowledge and experience of disabled people does not count.

Also agreeing. Can't tell how many people have been fooled by A$' messages

At the moment, I'm going to have to go with Chris Chan, I've seen the discussions that came about, and they're not pretty.

After Chris Chan fades from the lime light, and everyone forgets, it will be Autism Speaks again, with NT bloggers doing roughly less than half the damage Autism Speaks does perhaps.

Has SBC done this?, and if he has, has he done it to the same extent as Autism Speaks ?

I wouldn't go with Chris Chan because I would consider him to never really have ever been in the limelight except among his "fanbase". Nobody really knows about Chris-chan outside of some internet cultures.

Before the pepper spray event, yes. In fact, he was off the radar so to speak, for about a year or two. Now, however, there's now much more talk about Chris-Chan, he's trending much more since this has happened, enough to be picked up by this site and others, rather than just 4chan. The totality of his antics were available for those that were curious, nothing truly dies on the internet.