Re: Re: Protest at autism speaks TGIF event

[Guest guest]

*laughs* So do I. I have to give it a lot more thought. I really don't know

how exactly it's to be done either - sorry, I didn't mean to sound all

preachy.

Ari

>

> Well, thanks, Ari! I look forward to your message making the points

> you have made here:

>

> > ... we need to make the case against cure on

>

> > that board, against quack ideas and against Autism Speaks' ideas there.

> In

> > short, we have to work to get the people on there to disagree with what

> > Autism Speaks does yet do it in such a way that will not be so overtly

> > confrontational that it won't serve any purpose. We have to be

> constructive,

> > yet effective, and not get used.

>

> ... I look forward to seeing your message that will do this.

>

> Kate Gladstone

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 01:12 PM 9/9/2006, sacha delia wrote:

>Great idea ... How about " AUTISTICS Speak " ?

FWIW I own autisticspeak.org

-jypsy

________________________________

[Guest guest]

As much as I hate " me too " posts, I think I'm going to have to make one

here, just for emphasis. It is not a good idea at all to protest a

restaurant chain's policies by screwing over someone who, as likely as

not, makes a very meager salary and desperately relies on tips to make

ends meet, especially when that person has zero input on the chain's

policies, probably doesn't even know about most of them, and might even

disagree with them and actually be on our side.

Picketing outside may be feasible, but even that would have to be done

carefully. Keep in mind that a lot of people still haven't heard of

autism advocacy and aren't aware of the anti-cure movement... if you

protest outside and hand out leaflets and so on, it is extremely

important to do so in a way that will make a good first impression.

(I.e., it would be very unwise to hand out flyers saying that TGIF are

Nazis who support eugenics.)

--Parrish

Clay wrote:

>

> Order the food, but not eat it; pay the bill, but stiff the

> waiter/waitress, who has nothing to do with setting policy?

> May not be illegal, but sounds like dirty trick, and the only

> one who really loses is the hired help.

>

> I think it would be fine to picket TGIF, hold signs either in or

> outside the restaurant, and write letters and petitions to the

> restaurant and headquarters, notifying them of the reasons for

> our opposition to their siding with that organization. What you

> propose would likely get us the reputation of being " shit-heels " ,

> (people who don't leave a tip). We don't want the working class

> against us, better to direct our efforts towards those who set

> policies.

>

[Guest guest]

I hadn't thought of the risk that the waiter/waitress would evaluate

us as crude, insensitive jerks. So, if we go with just picketing

outside (logistically easier, in any case!), given the need to do it

carefully (as Parrish points out), just HOW do we " do it carefully " so

as to create a good first impression among folks who (probably)

haven't even heard of any such thing as autism self-advocacy?

(Specifics, please?)

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Right now nobody has agreed to go. Some interest but no definites.

Kinkos can be fast.

>

>

>

> PS. That's a great sign, Kate. Joe, will there be time to get

> some made before the ballpark demonstration?

>

>

> email: Switch delivery to Daily

Digest<AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse-digest ?subject=Email+Delivery:+\

Digest>| Switch

> format to

Traditional<AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse-traditional ?subject=Change\

+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>

> Visit Your Group

>

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdThtZWQ3BF\

9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM5ODQwMDgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwMDYyMjE1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZg\

RzdGltZQMxMTU3ODM0MjA2>| Yahoo!

> Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe

> <AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse-unsubscribe ?subject=>

>

[Guest guest]

> if we go with just picketing outside (logistically easier, in any

> case!), given the need to do it carefully (as Parrish points out),

> just HOW do we " do it carefully " so as to create a good first

> impression among folks who (probably) haven't even heard of any such

> thing as autism self-advocacy? (Specifics, please?)

Well, that's kind of the thing, isn't it? I have a pretty poor

understanding of psychology, so I'm not a great person to be asking

beyond the basic generalities I've already offered. Most people will be

presupposing that autism is a disorder that needs to be wiped out and

will probably have never even considered that there might be any other

viewpoint. A sympathetic tone, rather than a polemical one, is

definitely important. Probably also a focus on highlighting the

positives of autism (e.g., perseveration, when focused). And a

thought-provoking title, preferably in the form of a question, since

that kind of title tends to make people mentally think of an answer.

Maybe something like, " Does autism need to be 'cured'? " Or " Autism:

isn't there a better way? " Those are just half-assed ideas, but you see

my point... you want to get people thinking about alternatives, and you

won't do that if you print something like " 'Autism Speaks' for

genocide! " with a picture of their logo superimposed on a swastika or

something.

--Parrish

[Guest guest]

I agree but the fact is, sometimes just to break through all the

informational noise that people must deal with today, using a baseball bat

over the head gets that first look.

>

>

> <snip>

>

and you

> won't do that if you print something like " 'Autism Speaks' for

> genocide! " with a picture of their logo superimposed on a swastika or

> something.

>

> --Parrish

>

> _

>

[Guest guest]

> I agree but the fact is, sometimes just to break through all the

> informational noise that people must deal with today, using a baseball

> bat over the head gets that first look.

That kind of approach doesn't just get people to look at you, though.

It gets them to look at you and immediately make a number of assumptions

about you, all of them negative, and that's exactly what we neither want

nor need.

[Guest guest]

I have a busy enough week that I just cannot write pamphlets (not this

week, anyway) — who else here can do it, with inspiration from those

animal-rights sites and other protest-information sites?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Re:

> something like, " Does autism need to be 'cured'? " Or " Autism:

>isn't there a better way? "

When the " average Joe/Jane " in the street sees such a pamphlet

(after — probably — having earlier seen one or more of those

" sob-story " / " ain't-it-awful! " -style TV announcements and documentaries

on autism),

s/he will probably throw away unread anything that starts off " Does

autism need to be 'cured'? " — because (thanks to all those sickening

sob-story things in the media so far) s/he will regard any such

question/pamphlet, right off, as " obviously " the work of some lunatic

saying that " diseases don't need curing " !

The other suggested pamphlet-headline ( " Autism: isn't there a better

way? " ) has more potential (at least, people who had heard

something-or-other about autism wouldn't just immediately throw this

one away as an " obvious nut-job. " However, " isn't there a better way? "

sounds sort of wimpy: we need something stronger — much stronger.

Why not headline the pamphlet this way:

" Autistics Speak About Autism "

?

Perhaps have a picture on it: NOT the typical " sob-story "

washed-out/grayed-out snapshot of some miserable, weakened,

sick-looking kid stashed in a corner — but one or more strong, happy,

attractive, confident-looking adults (perhaps operating computers)

photographed in vivid color?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

It was 10 Sep 2006, when Joe Mele commented:

> I agree but the fact is, sometimes just to break through all the

> informational noise that people must deal with today, using a baseball bat

> over the head gets that first look.

Yeahbut, the first look may be through the eyepiece of a sniperscope.

Wouldn't want one's first meaningful dialog to be with a hostage

negotiator or a SWAT team, doncha know. <grin>

I noticed from that Indian animal rights thing the mention of a manifesto.

Sad to say, the term " manifesto " tends to be associated with particularly

radical groups, in particular Communist groups. Might want to think in

terms of, say, " Talking Points. " Politicians and journalists both

recognize the term and are comfortable with it. It sends a whole 'nother

message than " manifesto. "

And I haven't heard any earth-shaking success stories coming out of the

Indian Animal Rights movement, or any animal rights movement, for that

matter. Best bet to effectively communicate as a group is to look at

groups that have effectively communicated even in small numbers, and look

closely at what worked for them.

Radicalism is only effective in convincing other radicals, who don't need

convincing.

--

Pegasus Mail is free software, committed to the notion that

communication is as basic a right as free speech, since free speech

without a medium by which it may be heard is as loud as silence.

-- , author, Pegasus Mail <http://www.pmail.com>

[Guest guest]

A very good point. It's important to keep in mind that whatever is written

should keep in mind its audience. I think that if appropriate examples can

be found, inspiration from American history would be an excellent idea.

>

> It was 10 Sep 2006, when Kate Gladstone commented:

>

>

> > I have a busy enough week that I just cannot write pamphlets (not this

> > week, anyway) - who else here can do it, with inspiration from those

> > animal-rights sites and other protest-information sites?

>

> How about inspiration from, say, the US Bill of Rights instead? The

> Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps? The " Four Freedoms " speech?

> Jefferson's Inaugural Address?

>

> I don't intend to endorse anything that quotes from Mao's Little Red Book,

>

> for example.

>

>

> --

>

> Pegasus Mail is free software, committed to the notion that

> communication is as basic a right as free speech, since free speech

> without a medium by which it may be heard is as loud as silence.

> -- , author, Pegasus Mail <http://www.pmail.com>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It was 12 Sep 2006, when Kate Gladstone commented:

> Inspiration from US history can, I think, include inspirations from

> the opposers of slavery.

Or not.

> After all:

>

> /1/ The anti-slavery movement had to destroy the credibility of large

> numbers of slave-owners (many of them wealthy, educated, prominent

> people in their communities: " social leader " types) because the

> slave-owners claimed to " care for " and " protect " blacks - and even

> claimed to " speak for " blacks. (One very commonly accepted pro-slavery

> argument stated that whites could not possibly allow blacks to live on

> their own and speak for themselves in a white world, because - so the

> argument claimed - blacks did not have the intellectual ability/emotional

> maturity/understanding of the surrounding society that would allow them to

> know their own minds and to live and work within that society as equals.)

One of the most vocal and popular proponents of this view was Abraham

Lincoln. I refer you to the " Lincoln- debates. " Lincoln didn't

" free the slaves " till it served a military goal, namely to weaken those

who were trying to disolve the Union, his primary focus. And even then,

he only freed the slaves in the rebellious Southern states.

The voices of those who spoke for racial equality were only heard after

the slave owners were soundly militarily defeated, and deprived of their

ill-gotten wealth. More than a century after that defeat, the same

assumptions were still being made, often by those in states that

theoretically fought a war against enslaving these people.

Nobody ever fought a war to protect other people -- though their

propaganda said otherwise. Wars are fought to protect oneself and ones

friends and family, or to advance same. Likewise with political changes;

no such change takes place unless the people with the power to affect such

a change see a benefit to themselves.

During WWII, certain German scientists were the ultimate evil, because

they created the missle weapons that attacked London and (theoretically)

threatened the US. Once the war ended, Werner Von Braun (for example) was

a hero, because he benefited Us, the US. The fact that he had benefited

the Nazi cause in factories worked by enslaved Jews (and Christians, and

gays, and gypsies, and Communists, and other defectives) was beside the

point.

He became valuable to us, so he became a hero. A war to protect Werner

Von Braun and his ilk would have been acceptable, because he was of value

to us. Likewise, we need to demonstrate to the majority that we are of

substantial value to them, and they will fight so as to not lose us.

We are a genetic subgroup that produces a disproportionate number of

exceptional scientists, technicians, and artists. Not all of us, but not

all lottery tickets produce millions of dollars, either. The US

government bemoans the fact that we have a decreasing number of scientists

and technicians -- artists, not so much -- while promoting the destruction

of the group that produces the best of them. This, maybe, the people of

the US are likely to want to stop.

The rest of the world, that's somebody else's problem. <grin>

--

Pegasus Mail is free software, committed to the notion that

communication is as basic a right as free speech, since free speech

without a medium by which it may be heard is as loud as silence.

-- , author, Pegasus Mail <http://www.pmail.com>

[Guest guest]

Not just the audience. I would say, rather, that one should keep in mind

the context. Human rights, civil rights, rights in general, are a

political issue. Any political action has as a context any previous

political action. Communism and socialism -- and all the other -isms --

are part of that context. People remember the smell. Best not to smell

like the guys they hated a while ago, or still hate.

People like folks who remind them of old friends. Political " old friends "

have talking points, or Points to Ponder, or Wit and Wisdom. Old enemies

have manifestos. This ain't a jihad, neither.

One thing I've seen consistently forgotten in online discussions of any

political issue -- this going back to running my BBS in the early '90s, at

least -- is the need to CONVINCE those to whom one is speaking, and not

just bludgeon them over the head with a blunt instrument. While the blunt-

instrument approach can be personally and spiritually satisfying, it

doesn't serve well when one needs popular support. It is pleasant to

demonstrate how clever one is, but it doesn't convince other folks.

For Spectrum Rights to be achieved, they must " go without saying, " so

popularly accepted that one doesn't even consider there was a time when

they didn't exist. And that means convincing people, who will convince

other people, and so on. Bludgeoning people on the head with blunt

instruments makes them stupid, so they can't support you, or angry, so

they won't support you. Gotta keep your Eyes on the Prize.

It was 11 Sep 2006, when Ari N. commented:

> A very good point. It's important to keep in mind that whatever is written

> should keep in mind its audience. I think that if appropriate examples can

> be found, inspiration from American history would be an excellent idea.

>

>

>

> >

> > It was 10 Sep 2006, when Kate Gladstone commented:

> >

> >

> > > I have a busy enough week that I just cannot write pamphlets (not this

> > > week, anyway) - who else here can do it, with inspiration from those

> > > animal-rights sites and other protest-information sites?

> >

> > How about inspiration from, say, the US Bill of Rights instead? The

> > Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps? The " Four Freedoms " speech?

> > Jefferson's Inaugural Address?

> >

> > I don't intend to endorse anything that quotes from Mao's Little Red

> > Book,

> >

> > for example.

--

Pegasus Mail is free software, committed to the notion that

communication is as basic a right as free speech, since free speech

without a medium by which it may be heard is as loud as silence.

-- , author, Pegasus Mail <http://www.pmail.com>