Re: Autism and Hate Speech in the Toronto Star

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Autism and Hate Speech in the Toronto Star (Aug 31, 2004) The Toronto

> Star published articles that contained demeaning and misleading

> information about autism. When Dawson, an autistic woman,

> tried to counter these letters with facts, she was told (at long last)

> that her letter was " too hurtful " to publish. Read her correspondence

> with the newspaper (as well as the original articles that sparked this

> off) at _Autism and Hate Speech in the Toronto Star: The Letter that was

> " Too Hurtful " _.

>

> http://www.autistics.org/library/hatespeech.html

>

>

>

> --

> Random recommended webpage:

> Lunatics Liberation Front

I read the stuff printed in the link above. I think it is ironic that

underneath this is a link for a Random recommended webpage, " Lunatics

Liberation Front " .

I can well understand why The Star or any other newspaper would refuse

to publish Ms. Dawson's letter. Honestly As a person on the aspergers

spectrum I certainly do not want her speaking for me. Her harassment of

The Star was totally uncalled for. At the very least her letter was

seriously inflammatory. It in no way represents what The star was

saying. There is obviously much legalese that does not

understand or comprehend. The language used in the court battles for

funding is legal terminology that is completely misinterpreted by Ms.

Dawson. She never gives facts, only her own ideas.

I most definitely agree with The Star that her letter was to hurtful to

be published. If anything present was a hate speech it was 's

Letter.

A.

[Guest guest]

In fact, the Star also argued that I was too stupid to understand

both autism and the article and letter in question. I did not

include those letters in the sequence, which was much longer than

what was posted.

People have argued all along that I am too stupid to understand the

issues. So this is nothing new.

I didn't realize Asperger's was a " spectrum " . I guess I really don't

know anything.

I am also used to people who argue on the basis that if only

everyone was like themselves (and unlike stupid people like me), the

world would be much better. There is no way of arguing with such

people, since by definition those disagreeing with such people are

defective and inferior. And I certainly don't speak for such people.

They are way, way too good for the likes of me.

But those aren't facts, of course. They are just my own ideas.

This is a letter the Star printed today:

Sep. 2, 2004. 01:00 AM Toronto Star

Autism not a disorder that must be `cured'

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

Autism

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

The Star's recent series of articles and letters on the issue of

public funding for autism treatment have neglected several vital

aspects.

First, in conceptualizing autism as a " disease, " readers are misled

as to the true character of autism as a behaviourally defined

developmental disorder. Autism is not a medical condition or

diagnosis such as cancer and therefore the need to " medicalize " the

disorder — to import the pathological and curative predisposition of

medicine — is entirely inappropriate. Let the advocates of

treatments for autism such as applied behaviour analysis (ABA) or

intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) make their own case for

insisting on " curing " autism without this false premise.

Second, since the criteria for diagnosing autism capture a multi-

dimensional range or spectrum of developmental disorders, readers

are misled when the portrayal of autistics invariably include

aggression and the inability to communicate causing tremendous

sacrifice and disruption in family life. Why are invariably all

autistic children portrayed as doomed to live in institutions unless

treatments continue throughout childhood and adolescence?

As a parent, I understand the source of any possible despair that a

child may not be " normal. " Imagine the despair of the parents of

Einstein, Freud, Yeats, Bertrand , Wittgenstein, and Turing.

These intellectual giants of the 20th century were all high

functioning autistics. In all likelihood, their parents no doubt

found many of their childhood behaviours to be unusual but

fortunately for humanity, they were no subjected to intensive

behavioural modification techniques to " cure " them of any symptoms

of autism.

Can we not also present the other side of the story? The advocates

of ABA or IBI therapies have so " poisoned the well " for parents of

autistic children that perhaps the time has come to call for

mandatory counselling of parents of autistic children on the diverse

nature of autism and wide array of treatments and therapies

available.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

Corey Vermey, Toronto

---

>

> > Autism and Hate Speech in the Toronto Star (Aug 31, 2004) The

Toronto

> > Star published articles that contained demeaning and misleading

> > information about autism. When Dawson, an autistic

woman,

> > tried to counter these letters with facts, she was told (at long

last)

> > that her letter was " too hurtful " to publish. Read her

correspondence

> > with the newspaper (as well as the original articles that

sparked this

> > off) at _Autism and Hate Speech in the Toronto Star: The Letter

that was

> > " Too Hurtful " _.

> >

> > http://www.autistics.org/library/hatespeech.html

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Random recommended webpage:

> > Lunatics Liberation Front

>

>

> I read the stuff printed in the link above. I think it is ironic

that

> underneath this is a link for a Random recommended

webpage, " Lunatics

> Liberation Front " .

>

> I can well understand why The Star or any other newspaper would

refuse

> to publish Ms. Dawson's letter. Honestly As a person on the

aspergers

> spectrum I certainly do not want her speaking for me. Her

harassment of

> The Star was totally uncalled for. At the very least her letter

was

> seriously inflammatory. It in no way represents what The star was

> saying. There is obviously much legalese that does not

> understand or comprehend. The language used in the court battles

for

> funding is legal terminology that is completely misinterpreted by

Ms.

> Dawson. She never gives facts, only her own ideas.

>

> I most definitely agree with The Star that her letter was to

hurtful to

> be published. If anything present was a hate speech it was

's

> Letter.

>

> A.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I didn't know you were on this List, welcome! Don't mind " A " ,

(who won't even give us a name), he's pretty much clueless, in

that he thinks ABA is a wonderful tool to help " tragically

suffering " autistic children. I've tried to explain to him,

offlist, what it really is, but he doesn't seem to think much

of other people's opinions. You're right, it's useless to

argue with some people. The rest of us are all behind you.

I'm glad the Star printed the letter from a non-hysterical

parent.

Clay

> >

> > > Autism and Hate Speech in the Toronto Star (Aug 31, 2004) The

> Toronto

> > > Star published articles that contained demeaning and misleading

> > > information about autism. When Dawson, an autistic

> woman,

> > > tried to counter these letters with facts, she was told (at

long

> last)

> > > that her letter was " too hurtful " to publish. Read her

> correspondence

> > > with the newspaper (as well as the original articles that

> sparked this

> > > off) at _Autism and Hate Speech in the Toronto Star: The Letter

> that was

> > > " Too Hurtful " _.

> > >

> > > http://www.autistics.org/library/hatespeech.html

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --

> > > Random recommended webpage:

> > > Lunatics Liberation Front

> >

> >

> > I read the stuff printed in the link above. I think it is ironic

> that

> > underneath this is a link for a Random recommended

> webpage, " Lunatics

> > Liberation Front " .

> >

> > I can well understand why The Star or any other newspaper would

> refuse

> > to publish Ms. Dawson's letter. Honestly As a person on the

> aspergers

> > spectrum I certainly do not want her speaking for me. Her

> harassment of

> > The Star was totally uncalled for. At the very least her letter

> was

> > seriously inflammatory. It in no way represents what The star was

> > saying. There is obviously much legalese that does not

> > understand or comprehend. The language used in the court battles

> for

> > funding is legal terminology that is completely misinterpreted by

> Ms.

> > Dawson. She never gives facts, only her own ideas.

> >

> > I most definitely agree with The Star that her letter was to

> hurtful to

> > be published. If anything present was a hate speech it was

> 's

> > Letter.

> >

> > A.

[Guest guest]

Hi Clay,

Thanks. I'm bad at lists and even when I manage to join, I don't

post much and usually can't keep up. But I serendipitously arrived

here to see me being honoured in the usual way and thought I'd stick

my oar in. I'm glad the Star printed that letter also.

> Hi ,

>

> I didn't know you were on this List, welcome! Don't mind " A " ,

> (who won't even give us a name), he's pretty much clueless, in

> that he thinks ABA is a wonderful tool to help " tragically

> suffering " autistic children. I've tried to explain to him,

> offlist, what it really is, but he doesn't seem to think much

> of other people's opinions. You're right, it's useless to

> argue with some people. The rest of us are all behind you.

> I'm glad the Star printed the letter from a non-hysterical

> parent.

>

> Clay

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

Don't pay any attention to " A " because I appreciate everything you've

done. " A " doesn't even begin to speak for all of us and said some

really nasty things to other people too. he/she is very supportive of

censoring the free-speech rights of anyone he/she does not agree with

and worse, saying it in a not-nice sort of way. This person already has

a 'rep'. His/her opinions and arguments do not seem well thought out;

almost like knee-jerk reactions. It's making me wonder if " A " is an NT

or an NT plant on this list.

Kathleen

=====

http://www.designer-entrepreneurs.com

~~~~Nurture people, not products~~~~

[Guest guest]

> Don't pay any attention to " A " because I appreciate everything you

> 've done. " A " doesn't even begin to speak for all of us and said

> some really nasty things to other people too. he/she is very

> supportive of censoring the free-speech rights of anyone he/she does

> not agree with and worse, saying it in a not-nice sort of way. This

> person already has a 'rep'. His/her opinions and arguments do not

> seem well thought out; almost like knee-jerk reactions. It's making

> me wonder if " A " is an NT or an NT plant on this list.

There are autistic people who hold very different attitudes than I do,

so I tend to figure if someone does disagree with me on a lot and says

they're autistic, they're probably an autistic who disagrees with me

on a lot. (It helps that I grew up with an autistic brother who

disagrees -- or disagreed; our last conversation was very different

than usual -- with me on a lot and is very different than me in many

respects. :-))

[Guest guest]

Kathleen wrote:

> Hi

> Don't pay any attention to " A " because I appreciate every-

> thing you've done. " A " doesn't even begin to speak for all

> of us and said some really nasty things to other people too.

> He/she is very supportive of censoring the free-speech rights

> of anyone he/she does not agree with and worse, saying it in

> a not-nice sort of way. This person already has a 'rep'. His/

> her opinions and arguments do not seem well thought out;

> almost like knee-jerk reactions. It's making me wonder if " A "

> is an NT or an NT plant on this list.

Hi Kathleen,

I agree with everything you say above except the last line.

" A " , who apparently signs as " Ahab " on another List, is most

definitely an Aspie. Unfortunately, he exhibits some of the

worse aspects of aspieness, in that he is egocentric, full-of-

himself, contemptuous of other's feelings or opinions, smug,

arrogant, haughty, and *will not listen* when anyone tries to

explain something to him. We've seen it before.

When he first came here, he didn't think to write a little

introduction, as you most graciously did, but immediately

set out to criticize someone for the way she forwarded a post,

as it wasn't clear to him that it was forwarded. He then

began to champion ABA, arguing with whoever said anything

against it, (in a not-nice sort of way). I happen to agree

with our new friend , who recently said to him something

to the effect that " We have all been picked on and abused,

made fun of by others in our lives, and we don't come here

for more of the same. "

I have a strange thing, in that I have always had difficulty

in arguing with people, sticking up for myself, even when I

know I'm right. On the other hand, I have No problem with

sticking up for other people, especially people I respect

and admire, and will not sit on my hands while some yahoo

who hides behind the anonymity of " A. " criticizes and implies

that is a lunatic. (Yes he did, and in a weaselly

way.)

You've ignored me before, Ahab, let's see a response here,

or get lost, since you don't know how to behave.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> Hi Kathleen, I agree with everything you say above except the last

> line. " A " , who apparently signs as " Ahab " on another List, is most

> definitely an Aspie. Unfortunately, he exhibits some of the worse

> aspects of aspieness, in that he is egocentric, full-of- himself,

> contemptuous of other's feelings or opinions, smug, arrogant,

> haughty...

That does not, in itself, indicate autism, in any form. There are a lot

of conditions that cause that sort of profile. Of course, in this

medicalized day and age, it is questionable that someone could be

anything and not be diagnosable with something in the DSM.

I too have wondered if " A " is on the spectrum, because the view that he

refers to as a " minority " view is the view of at least 95% of the

autistics that I have met (including online acquaintanceships).

However, I cannot say that views like his are incompatible with being

autistic; they're merely incompatible with being a rational,

self-respecting autistic.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Clay wrote:

> > Hi Kathleen, I agree with everything you say above except

> > the last line. " A " , who apparently signs as " Ahab " on another

> > List, is most definitely an Aspie. Unfortunately, he exhibits

> > some of the worse aspects of aspieness, in that he is egocen-

> > tric, full-of- himself, contemptuous of other's feelings or

> > opinions, smug, arrogant, haughty...

> That does not, in itself, indicate autism, in any form.

Hey, no need to get defensive, ;-). I'm just talking about Ahab

here. And there's something to what I so redundantly said above.

In his letter to AutismOntario, he states that he has not been

Dx'd as autistic or asperger's, but has dx'd himself. I agree

with that Dx, because in a very intrinsic way, autism implies

self-centeredness. Whether or not we're able to communicate,

we communicate with ourselves a lot more than with others. As

I was growing up, I had no one to talk to except myself, and I

have to admit, I got a lot of misinformation that way. At the

age of 5 or 6, I had developed a theory, (which I later learned

was called solipcism), that I was the only " real " person, and

everyone else in my life was a figment of my imagination. While

doubting the very existence of others, I probably had little

respect for their feelings or opinions. Fortunately, I did grow

out of that, but not everyone does. I remember one who said that

I " was only words on his monitor " and thought he could safely

ignore me while he was attacking others. It took awhile, but I

did convince him I was real.

> There are a lot of conditions that cause that sort of profile.

> Of course, in this medicalized day and age, it is questionable

> that someone could be anything and not be diagnosable with

> something in the DSM.

I'll have to confess ignorance of other conditions that would

result in these symptoms. In his letter to AutismOntario, he

stated that he was definitely Not " low-functioning " , was very

adept at learning new things in the workplace, but had always

had the " social deficit " . I heartily concur with that eval-

uation. BTW, I noticed a discrepancy in that in the letter he

says he's almost 60, but in the Yahoo profile, it says he's 48.

> I too have wondered if " A " is on the spectrum, because the view

> that he refers to as a " minority " view is the view of at least

> 95% of the autistics that I have met (including online acquaint-

> ships). However, I cannot say that views like his are incompat-

> ible with being autistic; they're merely incompatible with being

> a rational, self-respecting autistic.

Right on, !

Clay

" People who think they know everything " really annoy " those of

us who actually do. " - seen on a bumper sticker -

[Guest guest]

> Clay wrote:

> and *will not listen* when anyone tries to explain something to him.

> We've seen it before.

> I have a strange thing, in that I have always had difficulty in

> arguing with people, sticking up for myself, even when I know I'm

> right.

>

> You've ignored me before, Ahab, let's see a response here, or get

> lost,

Well let's see, will not listen when anyone tries to explain something,

" People who think they know everything " really annoy " those of

us who actually do. " " Even when I know I am right " .

I think you just painted yourself into a corner. I noticed that you seem

to think you have the ability to explain it like it really is. I have

always understood this to be a sign of someone arrogant enough to think

that they know better than everyone else.

What special ability is it that you have that makes that you know you

are right when all evidence points to the fact that all you are doing is

spouting your own personal believe with no evidence that it is fact.

The truth is you have no difficulty at all in arguing with people it's

just that you don't see it as arguing. You see it as you presenting fact

that other refuse to accept. For this you try to make them wrong because

you know that you are always right.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

I cannot say that views like his are incompatible with being

> autistic; they're merely incompatible with being a rational,

> self-respecting autistic.

>

Actually a better answer would be that my views are incompatible with

those who insist that all people on the spectrum should be left to their

own devices because they are already better than NTs and that in actual

fact it is NTs that need to be retrained to see the world as aspies see

it. I realize that you don't know me but in fact the biggest complaint

in real life is that I am way to rational all the time. Self-respecting

is obviously open to interpretation. Some of the most self respecting

people are actually extremely arrogant SOBs in the eyes of those around

them. Too often the appearance of self respect is actually a coping

mechanism for severe insecurity. I am happy to not be included with them.

A.

[Guest guest]

acsnag wrote:

> > Clay wrote:

> > and *will not listen* when anyone tries to explain something

> > to him. We've seen it before.

> > I have a strange thing, in that I have always had difficulty

> > in arguing with people, sticking up for myself, even when I

> > know I'm right.

> > You've ignored me before, Ahab, let's see a response here,

> >or get lost,

> Well let's see, will not listen when anyone tries to explain

something,

> " People who think they know everything " really annoy " those

> of us who actually do. " " Even when I know I am right " .

Well, that wasn't much of a response, taking things out of con-

text and running with them. The quoted item, " People who think

they know everything... " was just a sign-off line, which I act-

ually did see on a bumper sticker, and I used it because it applies

to you. It was a humorous thing, and people here know that I don't

actually think I know everything.

It was You who said to me, " Silly man, no dealerships use screws

to fasten nameplates, they all use glue. " But I surveyed the

cars I saw later that day, and found that while most dealerships

now use decals, and some used glued-on raised plastic nameplates,

I Did see that at least two local dealerships Did still use

riveted-on metal nameplates. You didn't bother to reply to that.

Do you suppose you'll be well-accepted by calling people " silly "

over such a trivial thing?

When you simply inquired, " What is an A-shirt? " , I gave you a

straight answer, with no barbs, that they were " the other " men's

underwear shirt. You answered quite emphatically that Hanes,

Fruit-of-the-Loom, and Penman's all made a-shirts with exactly

the same material as their T-shirts. You were mistaken then, too.

Although tank tops and muscle shirts are shaped similar to A-

shirts and may be made of smooth all-cotton material, they are

Not A-shirts, and are not primarily underwear shirts. All the

A-shirts I've ever seen are ribbed, (a fine ribbing).

> I think you just painted yourself into a corner. I noticed that

> you seem to think you have the ability to explain it like it

> really is. I have always understood this to be a sign of someone

> arrogant enough to think that they know better than everyone else.

Not only I, but others tried to explain to you what ABA really is,

gave you links to webpages that described it, but you dismissed

them all, preferring to hold on to your original pro-ABA, pro-

" Son-Rise " conception. Anyone can check the archives to find

your snide comments to them.

> What special ability is it that you have that makes that you

> know you are right when all evidence points to the fact that

> all you are doing is spouting your own personal believe with

> no evidence that it is fact.

What evidence are you talking about, and in regard to what subject?

I know I'm right about you, in all the things you didn't bother to

refute. If you talk to people in real life the way you've talked

to them here, it's not hard to understand why you don't have

friends.

> The truth is you have no difficulty at all in arguing with

> people it's just that you don't see it as arguing. You see

> it as you presenting fact that other refuse to accept. For

> this you try to make them wrong because you know that you are

> always right.

Are you talking to me? Or to a mirror?

Clay

[Guest guest]

Clay wrote:

> What evidence are you talking about, and in regard to what subject?

> I know I'm right about you,

>

> Are you talking to me? Or to a mirror?

This is pretty much all I expected of you. It's nice to see that you

still live down to my expectations. I don't talk to mirrors. So the

shirts you described are only a-shirts if they are ribbed. I guess that

pretty much makes it impossible to find them without ribbing. As to

being right about me, I guess you know much more about me than I do.

It's probably because you have spent more time around me than I have so

have a nice day knowing that you are always right because you know you

are right.

A.

[Guest guest]

> Actually a better answer would be that my views are incompatible

> with those who insist that all people on the spectrum should be left

> to their own devices because they are already better than NTs and

> that in actual fact it is NTs that need to be retrained to see the

> world as aspies see it.

If that's true, then why do you act like there's a problem with the

views in this group, or with Dawson? I haven't seen any of

us saying that autistics are superior (that's a common smear against

us but I haven't really see much of it) or that autistics don't need

education.

[Guest guest]

> Actually a better answer would be that my views are incompatible with

> those who insist that all people on the spectrum should be left to their

> own devices because they are already better than NTs and that in actual

> fact it is NTs that need to be retrained to see the world as aspies see

> it.

Ah, the false dichotomy. There are more then two options.

Just as it is not " ABA or institutionalization " , it isn't " ABA or

neglect. "

--

[Guest guest]

It's funny that with *non*-autistic children, if you say good things

about them, for instance, that they are capable of learning, nobody

responds: " You just want to tear down our schools! " .

And if you say that *non*-autistics have worth and merit ethical

consideration, and should have basic human rights, nobody then

argues " You're saying non-autistic children should be left to their

own devices! "

(who wonders: hasn't the problem of false oppositions been

addressed? and isn't having to address it over and over tedious, and

the result of extreme discourtesy on the part of those who ignore

what we have said and flail around against what we have not?)

>

> > Actually a better answer would be that my views are incompatible

with

> > those who insist that all people on the spectrum should be left

to their

> > own devices because they are already better than NTs and that in

actual

> > fact it is NTs that need to be retrained to see the world as

aspies see

> > it.

>

> Ah, the false dichotomy. There are more then two options.

>

> Just as it is not " ABA or institutionalization " , it isn't " ABA or

> neglect. "

>

> --

>

[Guest guest]

assnag wrote:

> I don't talk to mirrors.

The paragraph you wrote before I asked that question did sound

as if you were talking to yourself, rather than to me.

> So the shirts you described are only a-shirts if they are

> ribbed. I guess that pretty much makes it impossible to find

> them without ribbing.

See how you misunderstand things? You asked what was an A-shirt,

and I answered, " They're the other underwear shirt " . A-shirts

are all white, are ribbed, and they are UNDERWEAR! You are con-

fusing them with similarly shaped tank tops and muscle shirts,

which may be any color, may be all smooth cotton, but are Not

meant as underwear, get it? And have you bothered to look for

pre-washed and stone washed jeans yet? They're out there, and

they're soft and comfortable. I wasn't talking about the old

farmer's jeans that you thought I meant. Now go to the store

and find some soft jeans, and report right back here! While

you're there, look at A-shirts in the underwear row, and notice

the tiny vertical ribs.

> As to being right about me, I guess you know much more about

> me than I do. It's probably because you have spent more time

> around me than I have so have a nice day knowing that you are

> always right because you know you are right.

I never said I was always right, I said, " even when I'm right. "

You said earlier that I wasn't giving any " facts " , but only my

beliefs. You said the exact same thing about , showing

a small debating repertoire. As far as I know, there haven't

been any scientific studies into Why you're such an arrogant

jerk, I'm only going by what you've shown us here.

Clay

[Guest guest]

> (who wonders: hasn't the problem of false oppositions been

> addressed? and isn't having to address it over and over tedious, and

> the result of extreme discourtesy on the part of those who ignore

> what we have said and flail around against what we have not?)

I still wonder if people know that even if the false oppositions and

such are illogical, that the majority of people will see them as

self-evident and we will look non-credible no matter how much we say

these things aren't true. So they don't really have to come up with

*real* arguments, because they know that what they do (even if

illogical) will do nicely. But that's my cynical side talking and I

don't know if it's true.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I still wonder if people know that even if the false oppositions

> and such are illogical, that the majority of people will see them

> as self-evident and we will look non-credible no matter how much

> we say these things aren't true. So they don't really have to

> come up with *real* arguments, because they know that what they

> do (even if illogical) will do nicely. But that's my cynical

> side talking and I don't know if it's true.

I don't think you're being (unduly) cynical. It seems to work in

politics, as evidenced in the convention the other night. ;-)

Clay

[Guest guest]

acsnag@... wrote:

> Actually a better answer would be that my views are incompatible with

> those who insist that all people on the spectrum should be left to

> their own devices because they are already better than NTs and that

> in actual fact it is NTs that need to be retrained to see the world

> as aspies see it.

Has anyone argued that? Hint: No.

What I, and others that think like me, are saying is that we have a

right to exist, and a right to be respected as human beings. Currently,

we're not. We are treated as walking bags of impairments, as if the

things that we do not do up to NT standards are all that we are, and

until we are made normal, all that we can ever be. We have no intrinsic

value as people; our opinions don't matter, our feelings don't matter,

our thoughts don't matter, even as they pertain to our own lives.

Anything we say that they do not like is written off as the ravings of

one that is too diseased to know anything. Normality is a prerequisite

for having any value as a person.

As long as we are not normal, it is okay to abuse us... it is okay to do

things to us that would be illegal to do to prisoners of war, or to

convicted criminals. It's okay to deny us our basic civil rights,

because we are not seen as having any civil rights. You have to be

normal to be a real human, and you have to be human to have civil rights.

Nothing in that implies that ANY person, whether on the spectrum or not,

should be denied the teaching methods that are best suited for that

person. After all, no one leaves NT children to their own devices; if

they did, those children would never go to school, never learn much of

anything. It's just that the teaching methods that work with NTs are so

common that they are taken for granted, and as such are " the " way of

doing things. Anyone that requires other teaching methods is seen as

defective, not different, and rather than try to teach them in the way

that they should be taught, the goal becomes one of changing them into

normal kids.

It is a fallacy to presume that those people who resist the idea that

autistics need to be forced into the NT cookie cutter are advocating

neglect... and it is one that I have never seen come from one claiming

to be on the spectrum before. Most of us that are on the spectrum " get

it " simply by virtue of living life.

It is absolutely not a question that normal people need to be retrained

to see the world more as we do. They think it is okay to marginalize,

disenfranchise, institutionalize, bully, torture, and otherwise abuse

people that are different. Not just autistics, of course-- people with

speech impediments, cerebral palsy, Down's Syndrome, fat people, people

from other cultures-- all of them are " okay " to abuse, simply because

they are different.

The majority of normal people, even if they will not admit it, want to

get rid of those that are not normal. They see people that may be

struggling with being different, and their idea of compassion is to help

that person stop being abnormal. They are so obsessed with normality

and fitting in that they never consider anything but making the abnormal

people into normal people as a solution. If those abnormal people

insist that they have the right to be, as they are, and to not be

abused, the normal people write that off as the rantings of someone that

desperately needs to be made normal.

Yes, normal people need to be retrained. They can't be deprived of

their true nature, just as autistics cannot. Far too many autistics are

depressed and suicidal (or dead) because of the " compassionate " efforts

of others to " help " them with their lack of normality. To try to force

NTs into being more like us by behavioral means would be no different.

By nature, NTs are pack animals; conformity is innate within them, and

it makes up a big part of who they are. We can't teach them to overcome

that. But we can teach them to expand their group of " okay " people to

include those that are different from themselves.

Getting NTs to see us as part of the " deserves to exist " group is going

to require getting them to drop their efforts to force us to be normal,

and to accept us on our terms, JUST AS WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM ON

THEIRS. No autistic is attempting to force NTs to be like us-- we are

simply trying to get them to treat us with the same respect that they

treat other NTs. We're not getting that respect now, and we're not

going to get it unless we fight for it-- same as the American blacks,

the gays, and every other group of not-normal (relative to the reference

group) people that have been on the wrong side of societal bigotry.

No autistic I know is trying to make this an NT-free world. We're only

trying to make people realize that we are valuable people even if they

don't fix us, and that their efforts to fix us do tremendous harm to us,

just as having us try to fix them (to be more like us) would do them

tremendous harm. Each of us, whether NT or not, has to be true to his

nature to be happy and well-adjusted.

We're not trying to wipe out NTs, but they ARE trying to wipe out

autistics. We are seen as a disease, broken freaks that don't have any

right to exist, and who should be made extinct post haste. There are

people that say that about lots of other groups-- gays, Jews, blacks,

you name it. The people that want to cure the " disease " of Judaism as

not seen as wonderful, compassionate people-- they are seen, properly,

as hateful bigots that are themselves the problem. The people that seek

to wipe us out are not one tiny iota better. They are exactly the same.

My problem with the stuff you write is that it is essentially chapter

and verse out of the book of those anti-autistic bigots. Take a look at

some of the stuff Kit Weintraub has written about our kind-- she is a

perfect example of the anti-autistic bigotry of which I write. She

thinks we need to be made normal, and that ABA is a great way to get us

to do that... and if her kids end up suicidal later in life, so be it.

Yeah, she wrote that. It doesn't matter to her if she makes her kids

depressed and suicidal later, so long as she does all she can to force

them into the NT mold as much as possible. She could be helping them to

learn and develop, but she's more interested in making them normal.

That's what ABA is largely about... making autistics normal, by making

their behaviors normal. ABA is about denial-- if the kid stops acting

autistic, then, as they see it, he stops being autistic, and is thus

normal. Never mind that autistic behaviors are a function of having

autistic brains, and that no matter how you retrain those behaviors, the

brain in the head is still an autistic brain. And after ABA, you then

have the problem of someone who has an autistic brain, but has been

essentially tortured into thinking that those autistic behaviors that

come naturally are bad-- and that creates an internal conflict that

always causes problems. You can achieve the limited learning benefits

of current ABA programs without the efforts to force normality. There

is a big difference between promoting learning and development, and in

forcing normality. Most NTs cannot see the difference, but every

autistic to whom I have spoken (or typed) about this can see the

difference, plain as day.

If you need any proof of the problems that behavioral " therapy " causes,

you need not look far. Autistics like that are all over the place.

They're almost always severely depressed, suicidal-- or they once were,

when they were still alive. Those of us that have been around many

autistics (including online) can see the simple truth in this. But do

the ABA people and their groupies (like Weintraub) care about this? No,

of course not-- because what we think and feel is irrelevant. ABA is

not for the benefit of the autistic-- it is always for the benefit of

the parent, who is the one paying the outrageous bills that ABA programs

bring. What ABA actually does to the autistic is seen as irrelevant,

because the real goal is to destroy the autistic and replace him with a

normal person. If only the first part is done (destroy the autistic)...

well, " so be it. " That's their attitude.

That is why no self-respecting, rational autistic would write the things

you write. No one can respect himself and simultaneously advocate

things that would result in the destruction of the self that he purports

to respect, unless he is irrational.

[Guest guest]

Bravo, , well said! (applauding)

Clay, wishing I could write that well

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

wrote:

> What I, and others that think like me, are saying is that we have a

> right to exist, and a right to be respected as human beings.

Currently,

> we're not. We are treated as walking bags of impairments, as if

the

> things that we do not do up to NT standards are all that we are,

and

> until we are made normal, all that we can ever be. We have no

intrinsic

> value as people; our opinions don't matter, our feelings don't

matter,

> our thoughts don't matter, even as they pertain to our own lives.

> Anything we say that they do not like is written off as the ravings

of

> one that is too diseased to know anything. Normality is a

prerequisite

> for having any value as a person.

>

> As long as we are not normal, it is okay to abuse us... it is okay

to do

> things to us that would be illegal to do to prisoners of war, or to

> convicted criminals. It's okay to deny us our basic civil rights,

> because we are not seen as having any civil rights. You have to be

> normal to be a real human, and you have to be human to have civil

rights.

>

> Nothing in that implies that ANY person, whether on the spectrum or

not,

> should be denied the teaching methods that are best suited for that

> person. After all, no one leaves NT children to their own devices;

if

> they did, those children would never go to school, never learn much

of

> anything. It's just that the teaching methods that work with NTs

are so

> common that they are taken for granted, and as such are " the " way

of

> doing things. Anyone that requires other teaching methods is seen

as

> defective, not different, and rather than try to teach them in the

way

> that they should be taught, the goal becomes one of changing them

into

> normal kids.

>

> It is a fallacy to presume that those people who resist the idea

that

> autistics need to be forced into the NT cookie cutter are

advocating

> neglect... and it is one that I have never seen come from one

claiming

> to be on the spectrum before. Most of us that are on the

spectrum " get

> it " simply by virtue of living life.

>

> It is absolutely not a question that normal people need to be

retrained

> to see the world more as we do. They think it is okay to

marginalize,

> disenfranchise, institutionalize, bully, torture, and otherwise

abuse

> people that are different. Not just autistics, of course-- people

with

> speech impediments, cerebral palsy, Down's Syndrome, fat people,

people

> from other cultures-- all of them are " okay " to abuse, simply

because

> they are different.

>

> The majority of normal people, even if they will not admit it, want

to

> get rid of those that are not normal. They see people that may be

> struggling with being different, and their idea of compassion is to

help

> that person stop being abnormal. They are so obsessed with

normality

> and fitting in that they never consider anything but making the

abnormal

> people into normal people as a solution. If those abnormal people

> insist that they have the right to be, as they are, and to not be

> abused, the normal people write that off as the rantings of someone

that

> desperately needs to be made normal.

>

> Yes, normal people need to be retrained. They can't be deprived of

> their true nature, just as autistics cannot. Far too many

autistics are

> depressed and suicidal (or dead) because of the " compassionate "

efforts

> of others to " help " them with their lack of normality. To try to

force

> NTs into being more like us by behavioral means would be no

different.

> By nature, NTs are pack animals; conformity is innate within them,

and

> it makes up a big part of who they are. We can't teach them to

overcome

> that. But we can teach them to expand their group of " okay " people

to

> include those that are different from themselves.

>

> Getting NTs to see us as part of the " deserves to exist " group is

going

> to require getting them to drop their efforts to force us to be

normal,

> and to accept us on our terms, JUST AS WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM ON

> THEIRS. No autistic is attempting to force NTs to be like us-- we

are

> simply trying to get them to treat us with the same respect that

they

> treat other NTs. We're not getting that respect now, and we're not

> going to get it unless we fight for it-- same as the American

blacks,

> the gays, and every other group of not-normal (relative to the

reference

> group) people that have been on the wrong side of societal bigotry.

>

> No autistic I know is trying to make this an NT-free world. We're

only

> trying to make people realize that we are valuable people even if

they

> don't fix us, and that their efforts to fix us do tremendous harm

to us,

> just as having us try to fix them (to be more like us) would do

them

> tremendous harm. Each of us, whether NT or not, has to be true to

his

> nature to be happy and well-adjusted.

>

> We're not trying to wipe out NTs, but they ARE trying to wipe out

> autistics. We are seen as a disease, broken freaks that don't have

any

> right to exist, and who should be made extinct post haste. There

are

> people that say that about lots of other groups-- gays, Jews,

blacks,

> you name it. The people that want to cure the " disease " of Judaism

as

> not seen as wonderful, compassionate people-- they are seen,

properly,

> as hateful bigots that are themselves the problem. The people that

seek

> to wipe us out are not one tiny iota better. They are exactly the

same.

>

> My problem with the stuff you write is that it is essentially

chapter

> and verse out of the book of those anti-autistic bigots. Take a

look at

> some of the stuff Kit Weintraub has written about our kind-- she is

a

> perfect example of the anti-autistic bigotry of which I write. She

> thinks we need to be made normal, and that ABA is a great way to

get us

> to do that... and if her kids end up suicidal later in life, so be

it.

> Yeah, she wrote that. It doesn't matter to her if she makes her

kids

> depressed and suicidal later, so long as she does all she can to

force

> them into the NT mold as much as possible. She could be helping

them to

> learn and develop, but she's more interested in making them normal.

>

> That's what ABA is largely about... making autistics normal, by

making

> their behaviors normal. ABA is about denial-- if the kid stops

acting

> autistic, then, as they see it, he stops being autistic, and is

thus

> normal. Never mind that autistic behaviors are a function of

having

> autistic brains, and that no matter how you retrain those

behaviors, the

> brain in the head is still an autistic brain. And after ABA, you

then

> have the problem of someone who has an autistic brain, but has been

> essentially tortured into thinking that those autistic behaviors

that

> come naturally are bad-- and that creates an internal conflict that

> always causes problems. You can achieve the limited learning

benefits

> of current ABA programs without the efforts to force normality.

There

> is a big difference between promoting learning and development, and

in

> forcing normality. Most NTs cannot see the difference, but every

> autistic to whom I have spoken (or typed) about this can see the

> difference, plain as day.

>

> If you need any proof of the problems that behavioral " therapy "

causes,

> you need not look far. Autistics like that are all over the

place.

> They're almost always severely depressed, suicidal-- or they once

were,

> when they were still alive. Those of us that have been around many

> autistics (including online) can see the simple truth in this. But

do

> the ABA people and their groupies (like Weintraub) care about

this? No,

> of course not-- because what we think and feel is irrelevant. ABA

is

> not for the benefit of the autistic-- it is always for the benefit

of

> the parent, who is the one paying the outrageous bills that ABA

programs

> bring. What ABA actually does to the autistic is seen as

irrelevant,

> because the real goal is to destroy the autistic and replace him

with a

> normal person. If only the first part is done (destroy the

autistic)...

> well, " so be it. " That's their attitude.

>

> That is why no self-respecting, rational autistic would write the

things

> you write. No one can respect himself and simultaneously advocate

> things that would result in the destruction of the self that he

purports

> to respect, unless he is irrational.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> What I, and others that think like me, are saying is that we have a right

> to exist, and a right to be respected as human beings. Currently, we're

> not.

Nowhere have I seen any evidence of this. I doubt that you can point to

anything or any place that suggests that we have no right to exist.

> Anything we say that they do not like is written off as the ravings

> of one that is too diseased to know anything. Normality is a

> prerequisite for having any value as a person.

I have seen no evidence of this.

> As long as we are not normal, it is okay to abuse us... it is okay

> to do things to us that would be illegal to do to prisoners of war,

> or to convicted criminals. It's okay to deny us our basic civil

> rights, because we are not seen as having any civil rights. You

> have to be normal to be a real human, and you have to be human to

> have civil rights.

This is so completely untrue that it is useless to even try to discuss it.

> It is absolutely not a question that normal people need to be

> retrained to see the world more as we do. They think it is okay to

> marginalize, disenfranchise, institutionalize, bully, torture, and

> otherwise abuse people that are different. Not just autistics, of

> course-- people with speech impediments, cerebral palsy, Down's

> Syndrome, fat people, people from other cultures-- all of them are

> " okay " to abuse, simply because they are different.

>

> The majority of normal people, even if they will not admit it, want

> to get rid of those that are not normal.

All of this is simply a generalization and only applies to a very small

percentage of people ant has nothing to do with autism or NT.

> By nature, NTs are pack animals;

Again this is a broad generalization that is not true. It simply is not

possible to generalize like that.

> Getting NTs to see us as part of the " deserves to exist "

By far the larger percentage of people already do.

> We're not trying to wipe out NTs, but they ARE trying to wipe out

autistics.

>

Again this is completely and totally false. First off ABA and similar

programs are advocated only for the most severely autistic people not

all autistics by any means. Even for those it is simply an attempt at

assisting them in being able to better function in the arena where they

have chosen to make an appearance.

> Take a look at some of the stuff Kit Weintraub has written about our

> kind-

Using one extreme example to prove that most see it this way is a very

distorted way to see the world.

> That's what ABA is largely about... There is a big difference

> between promoting learning and development, and in forcing

> normality. Most NTs cannot see the difference, but every autistic

> to whom I have spoken (or typed) about this can see the difference,

> plain as day.

And this certainly is not claiming that autistics are smarter and know

better? It's a very distorted view.

> Those of us that have been around many autistics (including online)

> can see the simple truth in this. If only the first part is done

> (destroy the autistic)... well, " so be it. " That's their attitude.

Again this true probably for less than one percent of the parents of

autistics. Most are loving parents who only want what is best for their

children. After all parents do have an obligation to do what is best for

their children and most take that very serious.

> That is why no self-respecting, rational autistic would write the

> things you write. No one can respect himself and simultaneously

> advocate things that would result in the destruction of the self

> that he purports to respect.

Well the first part is untrue and makes no sense. The second part I

agree with. I certainly do not advocate anything that would be self

destructive.

A.

[Guest guest]

acsnag@... wrote:

> > What I, and others that think like me, are saying is that we have a

> > right to exist, and a right to be respected as human beings.

> > Currently, we're not.

>

> Nowhere have I seen any evidence of this. I doubt that you can point

> to anything or any place that suggests that we have no right to

> exist.

You should pay more attention. Look at the archives of this list. Talk

to some autistics.

> > Anything we say that they do not like is written off as the ravings

> > of one that is too diseased to know anything. Normality is a

> > prerequisite for having any value as a person.

>

> I have seen no evidence of this.

Once again, you should pay more attention. The fact that you have not

seen it does not mean it is so. The things that are done to autistics

and other abnormal people, in institutions and elsewhere, are often so

bad that they would be illegal to do to convicted criminals. Autistics

are presumed to be guilty of crimes, simply because they are autistic;

this happened right here in my hometown of Tucson (see the article

" Autism, Civil Rights, US Residency: Pick Any Two " on my site for more

details.) On the other list (AutAdvo), we have a woman whose child is

denied access to a playground based only on his diagnosis. Good, loving

parents that happen to be on the spectrum have had their kids taken

away. An attorney that passed the bar exam in New Mexico was denied a

law license, based entirely on his diagnosis.

I have been told that my opinions do not matter, because they are just

symptoms of my disease. This idea is the central theme of just about

all incidents in which autistics are incarcerated in mental institutions

for the crime of not being normal. The autism society in Canada has

said the same, and has denied autistics the opportunity to join (see

Dawson's " No Autistics Allowed. "

This is the way that general society sees us, and anyone else that is

not normal. These people see the things that are done to us because we

are autistic, and their goal is to eliminate autistics. Problem solved,

as far as they are concerned. The idea that their attitudes are the

problem never occurs to them, and when one of us suggest it to them,

they seek to marginalize our words in any and every way possible. I

know-- you have not seen any evidence of this. Try doing some advocacy

(pro-autistic, I mean, not the anti-autistic stuff you write)... you

will see the evidence right quick.

> > As long as we are not normal, it is okay to abuse us... it is okay

> > to do things to us that would be illegal to do to prisoners of war,

> > or to convicted criminals. It's okay to deny us our basic civil

> > rights, because we are not seen as having any civil rights. You

> > have to be normal to be a real human, and you have to be human to

> > have civil rights.

>

> This is so completely untrue that it is useless to even try to

> discuss it.

I agree with the last part-- you are so blind to what is so obvious that

it is pointless to argue. I feel like I am trying to convince you that

the sky is blue. Go talk to autistics. I know several of them pretty

well, including one that lived with me for over a year. I can tell you

with 100% certainty that the things that were done to these people would

get any prison guard into a prison uniform in a heartbeat. No

question. Hell-- autistics are not uncommonly killed by these

" therapies, " and somehow it seems okay to everyone. If a parent of an

autistic kid goes nuts and kills him, a very large segment of the

population looks at the murderous parent with sympathy-- NOT the child

that has been killed. When " therapy " kills an autistic, it's not seen

as being all that bad... it was an acceptable risk, they think, because

being autistic is worse than being dead. A lot of them say that. We've

seen people in the curebie community say that autism is worse than

cancer, because at least cancer kills you eventually.

> > The majority of normal people, even if they will not admit it, want

> > to get rid of those that are not normal.

>

> All of this is simply a generalization and only applies to a very

> small percentage of people ant has nothing to do with autism or NT.

Nonsense. It is part of the evolutionary legacy of humans to fear and

hate those that were not of their tribe. Autistics don't have the

innate group mind. They can (and often do) learn to hate people based

on supposed groups, but it is not an autistic trait.

> > By nature, NTs are pack animals;

>

> Again this is a broad generalization that is not true. It simply is

> not possible to generalize like that.

It is completely true. Wolves are pack animals... would that be a broad

generalization that is not true? Certain animals are pack animals, and

others are not. NT humans absolutely are pack animals. You really need

to do some research into the way humans act. Again, this is so obvious,

it's like arguing that the sky is blue.

> > Getting NTs to see us as part of the " deserves to exist "

> By far the larger percentage of people already do.

You seem to have a lot of statistical knowledge on how people think

about things. You have declared that only a small percentage of people

want to get rid of those that are different, that a minority of

autistics hold views like mine, and that by far, the larger percentage

of people sees us as having the right to exist. Please, do reveal the

sources of your statistics.

> > We're not trying to wipe out NTs, but they ARE trying to wipe out

> autistics.

> Again this is completely and totally false.

So there is no group called " Cure Autism Now? " There is no group called

" Defeat Autism Now, " with a leader that says he wants to " send a

ballistic missile into the heart of autism? " These don't really exist?

> First off ABA and similar

> programs are advocated only for the most severely autistic people

> not all autistics by any means.

This is not so. An awful lot of high-functioning autistics and aspies

are in behavioral programs. Perhaps even more importantly, that does

NOT matter. It is not okay to deprive anyone of their identity and

their dignity, no matter how " low functioning " some person with letters

after his name may deem them to be.

> Even for those it is simply an

> attempt at assisting them in being able to better function in the

> arena where they have chosen to make an appearance.

And the incident where the autistic kid was killed by people trying to

exorcise the " demon " that they thought was in him (his autism) was an

attempt to do that too. Does that make it okay? Should we only look at

the stated intent of things like this, and deliberately ignore the

actual results?

> > Take a look at some of the stuff Kit Weintraub has written about

> > our kind-

>

> Using one extreme example to prove that most see it this way is a

> very distorted way to see the world.

She is one of the bigger advocates of late for the pro-ABA community,

and her garbage has been posted on the ASAT web site. She is not an

extreme example, and if you were out there debating with these zealots

like many of us are, you would see that her writings are ABSOLUTELY

typical.

> > That's what ABA is largely about... There is a big difference

> > between promoting learning and development, and in forcing

> > normality. Most NTs cannot see the difference, but every autistic

> > to whom I have spoken (or typed) about this can see the difference,

> > plain as day.

>

> And this certainly is not claiming that autistics are smarter and

> know better? It's a very distorted view.

We know better about things we have experienced, yes.

> > Those of us that have been around many autistics (including online)

> > can see the simple truth in this. If only the first part is done

> > (destroy the autistic)... well, " so be it. " That's their attitude.

> Again this true probably for less than one percent of the parents of

> autistics.

Cite the statistic. Either put up or shut up. You cannot prove points

by inventing statistics on the fly.

> Most are loving parents who only want what is best for

> their children.

And they think that what is best is to destroy the kid they have, and to

replace it with the kid they always wanted. They love the kid they

think they can get if they modify the one they have... whether they love

the one they have is open to debate. I'm talking about the ABA

disciples here, not all parents.

> After all parents do have an obligation to do what is

> best for their children and most take that very serious.

And yet they work so hard to defend their decisions against the mountain

of evidence that what they are doing is NOT the best for their kids.

> Well the first part is untrue and makes no sense.

That does not surprise me that it does not make sense to you.

> The second part I

> agree with. I certainly do not advocate anything that would be self

> destructive.

You most certainly do.

[Guest guest]

I do agree with much of what you say, but I find some of your statements

toward NTs to be unwarranted and prejudiced. We need to not use sweeping

inaccurate generalizations, especially when we are trying to get the other

side to do the same. See comments below.

> Nonsense. It is part of the evolutionary legacy of humans to fear and

> hate those that were not of their tribe. Autistics don't have the

> innate group mind. They can (and often do) learn to hate people based

> on supposed groups, but it is not an autistic trait.

It is a *learned* trait. EVEN IN NTs. Young children don't hate people

that are different until they are taught to (often VERY young, but taught

nonetheless). Children who grow up with other races, in an environment

where the races are treated equally, don't suddenly become prejudiced

because their evolution shows through. We are not fighting evolution,

either, we are fighting a learned behavior. How do you fight against a

learned behavior? You teach. How do you fight against an innate behavior?

You " cure " .

In fact, I see autistic attitude toward NTs when stereotyping and using

prejudiced statements - like you are doing to an extent - as the same

behavior that we claim is " innate " to NTs. When I see NTs treated with the

respect we ask ACs to be treated with, then I'll believe ACs don't treat

those who are different worse then they treat those who are the same.

I do ask for your reasoning that prejudice and discrimination is innate in

NTs but not in ACs - and that prejudice and discrimination are anything

but learned behavior, learned from the society you grow up in.

> > > By nature, NTs are pack animals;

> >

> > Again this is a broad generalization that is not true. It simply is

> > not possible to generalize like that.

>

> It is completely true. Wolves are pack animals... would that be a broad

> generalization that is not true? Certain animals are pack animals, and

> others are not. NT humans absolutely are pack animals. You really need

> to do some research into the way humans act. Again, this is so obvious,

> it's like arguing that the sky is blue.

Autistics are pack animals by this same argument though. I've seen plenty

of " alpha males " in groups of autistics to think any differently.

--

[Guest guest]

http://www.isn.net/~jypsy/ourstory.htm

How about if you take time to read all the stuff about .

He is similar to those considered " low functioning " . You can hear him

speak if you look for the links on that page. He still has a speech

problem, but he's understandable. He is not low IQ. ABA would not

have made him speak more clearly. ABA would not have made him more

functional. If he had had Lovaas style ABA he would have learned that

his autism was unacceptable and inferior. But he likes himself

because he was never taught that he was uacceptable or inferior.

You can read some of the things he has written himself

You should ask those parents you admire if they had had a child

exactly like you, if they would have wished for an NT child.

They only know that they want a normal child. They do ABA so that

they can get a " recovered child " . Which is bunk.

I don't want a different child from the autistic one I have. Xe is

wonderful. ABA would not have benefited my child. It would have

destroyed xyr.

You think that ABA is so great for low functioning autistic

children...but you don't look at the alternatives. jypsy found

alternatives for her autistic child. The other parents don't want

them because they don't carry the lying promise of 47% cure rate.

the 47% cure rate offered by Lovaas style ABA is a lie.

It's a lie.

It's a lie.

Never happened. It's a lie.

Camille