Tuesday, February 24, 2009

All Autistics Who Oppose Neurodiversity are High Functioning

A common observation about the neurodiversity movement is that its vocal proponents are all "high functioning."

This is technically true. Consider the definition of "high functioning" used in research. Any individual who does not have mental retardation, i.e. anyone with an IQ of 70 or higher, is considered high functioning. Based on this definition, I believe all of the prominent proponents of neurodiversity or autistic rights are in fact high functioning.

Whatever other challenges autistics who are part of the neurodiversity movement might have now or might have had in the past, critics can always fall back to complex written opinion and proclaim "this person is obviously high functioning, intellectually."

This observation is usually made as if it were a curious and surprising discovery. "Of course they don't want a cure! Look at them, they are all high functioning!"

What is never mentioned is that all autistics who are vocal opponents of neurodiversity, and all autistics who write in length about the need for a cure, are also high functioning.

Is that also a curious discovery? Can we infer from this that only high functioning autistics would want a cure? Can we say that these high functioning individuals don't have a right to speak for all autistics?

It's true, though. All the vocal pro-cure autistics I know of are clearly high functioning. Let's go through a short list.

Jon Mitchell.- He's clearly high functioning, as he himself admits.

Sue Rubin.- She has written about her being pro-cure. While she calls herself "low functioning," she's mistaken about that. Her IQ is reportedly 133. Intellectually, she functions at a much higher level than most NTs.

Raun Kaufman.- He's so high functioning that he even claims to have turned into a non-autistic. (I realize he works for his parents the organization his parents founded [corrected 2/27/2009] and is apparently single in his late 30s or early 40s, but he obviously wants to market himself as non-autistic.)

Thomas McKean.- I know of him from his article titled A Danger in Speaking. He's clearly high functioning.

Then I've also heard of Asperger autistics who speak from time to time at rallies organized by the anti-vax autism community. Those autistics are clearly high functioning as well.

So there you have it. Prominent anti-cure autistics are high functioning. But so are prominent pro-cure autistics. Is that surprising? Not in the least. Yet, it's used as an argument against anti-cure autistics exclusively.

Anti-cure autistics, given they are high functioning, are told they should not speak for all autistics (even though there's no evidence that any of them claim to speak for all autistics.) Parents of autistic children, on the other hand, can apparently speak for all autistics (see Autism Speaks), even though the parents themselves are high functioning and non-autistic. That is, unless the parents are also autistic, in which case they again don't have a right to speak for all autistics.

212 comments:

  1. Hi Joseph: I would agree that I am high functioning as defined by most standards. Yet I have not worked in over two years, i never really had a girlfriend except for light dating stuff. Yet compared to you and many in the ND movement I would be considered not so high functioning. Many (though maybe not all) persons in the ND movement hold down jobs and have spouses.

    I have met Sue Rubin. She is unable to speak and will probably never work. I would disagree with your assessment of her as high functioning regardless of her score on an IQ test.

    Tom Mckean, I believe is also living on SSI and has not worked in a long time so he would be lower functioning than many in the ND movement. Though I suppose according to your definition and the standard definition of high functioning he could be considered high functioning yet relative to many in the ND movement he might not be so high functioning.

    Raun Kaufman is claiming that he no longer has autism if I am remembering correctly. He alleges the options program cured him and can cure others so he would not count in your assessment.

    So high functioning could be used as a relative term and the pro cure autistics you cite and others may not be so high functioning if you are talking in relative terms.

    The lower functioning autists who would test at IQ below 70 and cannot talk might also be for a cure, but they are not going to be able to write about it on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Jon: If you change the definition of "high functioning", you'd have to admit then that not all neurodiversity proponents are high functioning either. We end up in the same place.

    Many (though maybe not all) persons in the ND movement hold down jobs and have spouses.

    I'm not sure that is close to being correct. I'm married and have a job (I work from home) but I wouldn't say that's the norm around here.

    The lower functioning autists who would test at IQ below 70 and cannot talk might also be for a cure, but they are not going to be able to write about it on the internet.

    They might also not care about a cure, but they are not going to be able to write about it on the internet. It goes both ways. That's the point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good point about pro-cure people being high-functiong, too, but I disagree with your functioning label being solely based on IQ.

    First, a learning disability isn't even evaluated by IQ alone, but on a combination of IQ and executive functioning, and then Autism and mental retardation are two seperate things.

    Non-Autistics sometimes have learning disabilities, too, this can't be cured, but with support these people can live happy and meaningful lives.

    The official definition of functioning labels, also goes by verbal abilities, so non-verbal Autistics with a higher IQ, like Amanda Baggs, or Sue Rubin are low-functioning.

    In reality, the level of disability in Autistics can not be defined by the functioning labels, because a lot of higher-functioning Autistics have problems due to executive dysfunction, and intelligence does not necessarily mean someone can live independently without support.

    To Jonathan and his predictable whiny self-loathing:
    I haven't had a regular job ever, if you consider full-time work for longer than 3 months "regular".
    I also can't live independently without the help of a caretaker, I've been homeless and it's been suggested many times, that I'd be better off in an institution, (I say no!!)

    This silly "I'm-lower-functioning than-you-because-I-can't-get-laid" game, is getting boring.
    Your immature attitude towards women might be the reason for this, a problem a lot of NT men have, too.

    Also I remeber how you insulted Socrates as "harry you are homeless, you don't even have a loo to crap in" (all your insults are conveniently listed in your hall of shame.)

    Your argument that the ND movement is oh-so high-functioning by your personal definition becomes obsolete, when you call someone you disagree with, a loser for having more difficulties than you.

    One final point, being against a cure has nothing to do with being only marginally disabled, but proposing a social model of disability, that will benefit everyone.

    Waiting for a cure for something that cannot be cured is like waiting for a happier afterlife.
    Better to make social changes that'll benefit all people with disabilities, whatever the level, or label.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To be honest, one would be very hard pushed to name a major player in the pro-ND world who has a job and a spouse.

    Of the very few that I know of, they are overwhelmingly employed in a posistion that is related to thier special interest, or which is significantly incongrous with thier verbal ability or general IQ.

    People tend to forget that we, as the audience for autism advocacy, tends to only listen, or only be exposed to, those that can support themselves and thier advocacy career and who present as competant and confident.

    This has a tendancy to exclude those with the most obvious disabilities, which - as pointed out and as fellow OT's and other professionals should know - are not always the most severe or most impairing traits.

    In essence, people will look at the HFA ND crowd and never assume what they see is all that they see because - by the nature of how they look for it - it's all they have the ability to look at.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Quisling: "Hi Joseph: I would agree that I am high functioning as defined by most standards. Yet I have not worked in over two years, i never really had a girlfriend except for light dating stuff. Yet compared to you and many in the ND movement I would be considered not so high functioning. Many (though maybe not all) persons in the ND movement hold down jobs and have spouses."

    You're high-functioning to knowingly tell lies about people. Stop using your autism as a fucking excuse for failure: that's down to the person you are, which is someone I'm glad I do not know face to face.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I still would associate being high-functioning with being pro-ND, because out of all the high-functioning who have talked about the ND issue, I've only seen relatively few of them being anti-ND. This pattern can't be further elaborated on considering it isn't certain what proportion of the low-functioning are anti-ND as many of them don't have the means to speak out about the issue.

    I still associate HFA with ND as ND serves the interests of the HFA only. And those pro-ND HFA aren't just high-functioning - being above IQ 70. I've found many of them to have extremely high IQs, highly verbal, with virtually no impairments in doing basic tasks, and who have had great success in academics, and who have great jobs that they can hold, which are things many HFA aren't privileged with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Miss Gonzo that functioning labels are not helpful for determining what support a person needs. There's also the problem that IQ tests are notoriously unreliable in measuring the abilities of autistic people. It's quite possible that an articulate and intelligent autistic adult might have had a low score on an IQ test as a child, simply because the test was administered before he or she developed sufficient verbal abilities to understand it. So a comparison of a "low functioning" autistic child to a "high functioning" autistic adult doesn't mean much, no matter what political views the adult in question may hold.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I still would associate being high-functioning with being pro-ND, because out of all the high-functioning who have talked about the ND issue, I've only seen relatively few of them being anti-ND.

    @Lurker: I've observed the same thing, but I don't see how you arrive at your conclusion.

    If anything, the lack of very many anti-ND autistics is simply an impediment at making a proper comparison of characteristics. For example, Jon complains about marriage and employment. Unfortunately, there aren't too many anti-ND autistics for us to say, see, an exceedingly small percentage of them are married, and this is clearly a difference with the pro-ND autistics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I should note that I'm well aware of the problems with functioning labels, as I wrote here.

    The point is that people can and do make claims about "high functioning" status, and these claims are supported by official, accepted definitions of the term, as used in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

    Yet, these claims don't show what people intend them to show. That's where the application of those same claims to anti-ND autistics comes in.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joseph, I don't think that many anti-ND autistics need to be seen to draw conclusions. I think in general, it's obvious that the anti-ND autistics have more weaknesses to deal with than the pro-ND ones who don't have a lot of impairments to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is this an invitation to a whine fest?

    I realised that even I can be as whiny as Jonathon on occasion, does that make me honorary low funtioning then?

    I reviewed one of my Youtube videos to show it to a friend and I thought "What a miserable old git" I sound like.

    IQ is an elusory entity, I am apt to paraphrase Shakespeare here

    "Wit, and it be thy will, put me into good fooling. Those wits who think they have thee do very oft prove fools, while I, who am sure I lack thee, may yet pass for a wise man."

    I am not married, nor I guess likely to be, certainly not going to raise a family, but hey I would not call my parents relationship successful even if they were married for nearly thirty years before they split up, so what does that measure?

    Does self employment count as employment or does that mean I am the only person fool enough to employ myself? I was not very successful at the social side of maintaining and recruiting clients and nowadays the only hope of actual employment I have is in a narrow academic field related to my expertise in autism and disability studies. What does that say?

    It's all a pissing contest in reverse innit?

    There are some folk who don't like it if you are taller than them, I wonder if Jonathon would be one of these? I see Jonathon as a species of terminal malcontent, and it has nothing to do with autism whatever, it is simply negative attribution.

    Economically I am low funtioning, and that is a different thing entirely, because most folk around here in this sink estate are economically low funtioning, it is only the drug dealers who drive big cars :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good point about pro-cure people being high-functioning, too, but I disagree with your functioning label being solely based on IQ.

    I disagree as well; but, for all the talk of "so-and-so must be high-functioning to think that way," etc., etc., etc., "IQ > 70" is the official definition of "high-functioning autism." No more, no less.

    The problem is, a lot of people think that "high-functioning" and "low-functioning" mean a bunch of things they don't mean. (And what they *do* officially mean makes no sense--since when does your score on tests in a highly-controlled environment solely determine how well you "function" in real life?).

    To me, science's very simple definition of functioning labels in autism is more evidence that the entire concept is flawed.

    Functioning labels remind me of "mental age," actually. The idea that someone can be, say, 20 years old and have a "mental age" of 8 is thought to have scientific validity. But the people who invented the concept basically just said: "How can we categorize kids who learn slower than other children? I know! Let's just think of them as...younger kids! Dang, that was easy!" (Unsnarky primary source in Mental Retardation in America: A Historical Reader, eds. James W. Trent, Stephen Noll).

    Personally, just telling me that somebody is "high-" or "low-functioning" tells me nothing about the person. It assumes that "high-functioning" autistic people all have a bunch of traits that they may not necessarily have, and that all "low-functioning" autistic people have traits that they may not necessarily have.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Andrews: The feeling is completely mutual, I am glad I don't know you face to face and I feel sorry for anyone who does. You were only able to get a masters degree because you could not cut it in a doctoral program. You are the one who lies about my work history and lies about everything else. It is pathetic disgrace that anyone would employ you as a psychologist, pending or otherwise. Even if I am not happy about my life, I would not trade places with you for millions of dollars and I am very glad I am not you with your anger management problems.

    Larry Arnold: I don't think you should be talking about whining and complaining. You have to put down Stephen Shore because you are so jealous of what he has accomplished and you are so insecure about being a nobody who no one wants to pay any attention to as far as anything they have to say about autism. You disrupt meetings inappropriately and complain about trivial things like control subjects in autism studies being referred to as "healthy". and you insult and trivialize the problems that my friend Matthew Belmonte has of having a low functioning autistic brother.

    Even if i talk about how bad it is for some autistics including myself at least i don't whine about trivial things like you do and have to be obstreporous or disruptive the way you do.

    Miss Gonzo: You are a truly pathetic human being having to hurl insults and cheap shots against me and present the absolutely one-sided account of what happened with Socrates and the other people who were being abusive to me to whom I responded to in kind.

    You three are so typical of what is wrong with neurodiversity

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would have to admit, I find this continued insistance that pro-ND autistics are 'obviously' less-impaired than anti-ND autistics to be rather curious, as the system which allows us to be aware of advocates of any condition or disability is systemically biased in favour of people who are more presentable and self motivated - i.e. we only get to see the less impaired people from any group unless someone else gives additional support.

    I must also repeat that I am personally and professionally aware of several of the most prominent pro-ND autistics. Very few - if any at all - would meet lurkers description.

    Many of them are successful only within areas concerning thier special interest.
    Many are single, with the very few that aren't being on thier second or later marriage.
    Many have trouble finding jobs, even when (if) qualified, and they overwhelmingly end up vastly under what would otherwise be expected of thier qualifications or intelligence.

    I'm not aware of any such pro-ND autistic who does not have clear impairments when compared to the typical person of their age, gender, education and intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon, what do you consider a prominent pro-ND autistic? That successful in areas of interest idea doesn't hold up or prove what you contend, and doesn't fool me. I've looked at the pro-ND autistics/aspies, and many of them are geniuses, aren't disabled, and I've heard about the great careers they have. They don't seem to be underemployed. Anyway, lots of people are underemployed these days. These cover-up tactics of the awful reality aren't impressing me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stephen Shore is an honourable man, who can take things in the spirit they are meant. As it happens I asked Stephen for his criticism of my presentation at the NAS, because I am not actually as confident as I seem when I am holding court in my internet domain.

    Matthew Belmonte on the other hand is an extremely immature individual and full of Bile, he was out of control at IMFAR and showed himself up, I was in control, I had an agenda, and I accomplished it, What I ask are legitimate questions, and if you had any experience or background in the wider disability movement you would realise the importance of all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Some arsehole:"You were only able to get a masters degree because you could not cut it in a doctoral program."

    Wrong again... obviously lying. I went specifically for a Masters. You wouldn't be able to do one.

    "You are the one who lies about my work history and lies about everything else."

    Lie about me, you get lied about... or do you not understand the notion of 'of you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else'? Evidently not.

    "It is pathetic disgrace that anyone would employ you as a psychologist, pending or otherwise."

    Been sucking up to that wanker too much, have you? You and him should go to a state where you can get married.

    "Even if I am not happy about my life, I would not trade places with you for millions of dollars and I am very glad I am not you with your anger management problems."

    I'm actually quite calm when I write this. You, on the other hand... I doubt it.

    Like I said - simple rule: if you don't want it done to you, don't do it to them.

    I know people who do not have even a 'mediocre' degree, but they understand that principle better than you seemingly ever will.

    deal with having been wrong, Mitchell, and stop being a little whinging arsehole who can't take responsibility for his own bloody actions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "That successful in areas of interest idea doesn't hold up or prove what you contend, and doesn't fool me."

    It's irrelevant wheter you agree with it or not, people with autism are much more employable in their area of special interest than not. Much like your average neurotypical, people who are motivated, interested and knowledgable in an area are more likely to be successful if they seek employment in that area.

    This isn't even contentious or unknown amongst autism services.

    "I've looked at the pro-ND autistics/aspies, and many of them are geniuses, aren't disabled, and I've heard about the great careers they have."

    Which is odd, I've met several pro-nd autistics, yet not one has 'not been disabled'. Very few have 'great careers'. The few that do are employed in their areas of special interest.

    You'd be very hard pushed to name more than 5, and I've already indicated that those would be the ones you see most of because they're also the ones most able to get noticed.

    This is no different to advocacy for any condition you can name. The ones that get noticed and listened to will be - by the nature of the system that allows you to notice them - the ones most capable of doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  19. L. B. Arnold FRSA: "I see Jonathon as a species of terminal malcontent, and it has nothing to do with autism whatever, it is simply negative attribution."

    As do I. His issues are not about autism in particular: many people are in a similar boat, circumstances-wise, and they complain. But when they do, they make the right attributions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Being employable in an area of interest like an NT would, doesn't prove anything either. Those high-functioning autistics with their careers wouldn't have had them if they didn't have the ability to pursue their interest. "Areas of interest" cannot bring success unless there is sufficient intelligence to pursue them. I don't think those super-high functioning ones are very much more likely to be noticed than those who are only minimally high functioning. I haven't seen many pro-ND autistic bloggers who aren't high achievers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Funtioning is actually a rather meaningless descriptor without its referents.

    It is not even an official category of autism in DSMIV (not that DSMIV is much use as a taxonomy anyway)

    I have a wind up alarm clock, I could say it is a high funtioning clock, hey it wakes me up as well as tells the time, how smart can you get?

    It is definately smarter than a dumb sundial that does not even work at night, and certainly can't wake me up, but then you would not want to rely on my old alarm clock if you were up in the space shuttle, you would need something that funtions more appropriatly to that degree of accuracy. (though reputedly the Russians don't use computers, they make do with a barrel with pins sticking out to operate there soyuz)

    Autistic is not a good referent for high funtioning, because nowhere is the funtion of an autistic described, an autistic is not a description of funtion at all, because it does not describe ones social, economic, physical, geographical, historical, narratological or chronological situation.

    funtion is not an absolute nor much of a scalar either but a trope or conventional usage applied with respect to the question in question, that is to say it is a rhetorical device used in arguments such as proceed in these particular fora, and more of interest to literary and critical scholars than anything practical in this world.

    Oh yeah and I can out whinge anybody, the sky is falling, beat that!

    ReplyDelete
  22. ""Areas of interest" cannot bring success unless there is sufficient intelligence to pursue them."

    But ability to persue an area of interest does not mean ability to persue all areas. This is the key point, in that many people with autism can be successful in one area without the typically attendant success in other areas, sometimes being as simple as having an ability to follow a bus or train timetable from memory, but not having the ability (or interest) to travel on a bus without assisstance.

    Success in one area is not an indication of lack of disability in another area.

    Again, this is not contentious in autism services.

    "I haven't seen many pro-ND autistic bloggers who aren't high achievers."

    It is at this point that I must question your definition of 'high acheiver' as it describes very few people in the ND blog community, who I have already indicated are the ones you would pay disproportionate attention to, as they are also the ones most capable of getting that attention.

    It describes even fewer people in the overall ND community, as there are many who lack the specific functions needed to blog, often in spite of having a pronounced ability in another area.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I haven't seen many pro-ND autistic bloggers who aren't high achievers.

    Where exactly do you hang out, Lurker?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "It is at this point that I must question your definition of 'high acheiver' as it describes very few people in the ND blog community" Why would you question that? I don't think it's very few. Who else is pro-ND besides the bloggers etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joseph, where do you think? What could you possibly say to refute me?

    ReplyDelete
  26. lurker said:

    "I haven't seen many pro-ND autistic bloggers who aren't high achievers."

    How are you defining "high-achiever"?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tera, as in having basic skills, getting and holding great jobs, academic achievement, etc. Why would you ask?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think the high functioning Aspies who are anti-cure need their parents to speak for them. They're obviously too fucked up to know what's good for themselves so they should be told to shut up so sane people can unscramble their brains for them.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I think the high functioning Aspies who are anti-cure need their parents to speak for them. They're obviously too fucked up to know what's good for themselves so they should be told to shut up so sane people can unscramble their brains for them."

    Some imbecile can't hide behind an anonymous entry beause his style is so well known!!!!

    How thick can he be with just one head?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "[A]s in having basic skills, getting and holding great jobs, academic achievement, etc."

    At this point in my life, I've only met one of your criteria unequivocally** (i.e. the "academic achievement" one, although I do have a learning disability in math). I support neurodiversity, and the larger concept of biodiversity.

    "Why would you ask?"

    So I understand your argument.

    **the "having basic skills" criterion is the least clear. I can always/consistently walk, talk, see, hear, read, write, bathe/shower by myself, brush my teeth and hair, feed myself and use the toilet independently. I can also vacuum, mop the floor, and wash the walls. And I'm sure I've forgotten some. There are supporters of neurodiversity and biodiversity who have difficulty with one or more of these.

    I can also do laundry, though I don't consistently remember all the steps involved in doing it. As in, I will know all the steps for several weeks in a row and then suddenly draw a blank of what to do next. So I compensate by having notecards with all the steps taped to the washer and dryer. I cannot do this with every type of sequence I might forget, but it helps a lot when I can.

    I am not consistently aware that the universe has a left side. This can make finding things take a long time, and crossing streets potentially dangerous.

    I have difficulty dressing for the weather.

    I have a great deal of trouble knowing how to get from one place to another. I'm slowly learning how to get to a few places around town, but I was not cognitively ready to learn until my early twenties. I need assistance to get to many places I need to go. I don't drive, and can't take a bus alone. (Which is partly related to poor public transportation where I live). This difficulty traveling alone is part of why I am unemployed.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Parents of autistic children, on the other hand, can apparently speak for all autistics (see Autism Speaks), even though the parents themselves are high functioning and non-autistic."

    Excellent point, Joseph. I've been thinking about this recently myself. See, I'm in the relatively unusual position of being an autistic parent with a neurotypical child. So I've recently decided that since parents with autistic children are entitled to speak for all autistics, that means that as the parent of a neurotypical child, I'm now entitled to speak for all neurotypicals.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "There are supporters of neurodiversity and biodiversity who have difficulty with one or more of these." Tera, I doubt that there are that many of them. I don't get how someone with so many of those difficulties could condone neurodiversity. I'm not yet sure why someone like that would be so complicit with the oppression promoted by neurodiversity pushers, who are privileged with huge amounts of ability, and why they would support neurodiversity's propaganda.

    I'm perplexed as to why someone with so many impairments would support an idea that would do nothing for them and keep them down, and oppose cures which would remove so many difficulties of theirs and bring so many opportunities to them.

    I know what it's like to have mental weaknesses as I have impairments in most of the things you mentioned and many more. So I despise neurodiversity and its proponents for talking about impairments as if they aren't awful, for ignoring them at other times, and for obscuring the nature of impairments at yet other times. My thoughts about it aren't turned around by their "tolerance" and sensitivity rhetoric, and other patronizing nonsense. I hate the diversions they make while I suffer the catastrophic ramifications that my impairments have on every aspect of my existence, and while they do close to nothing for those with huge impairments.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I propose to seperate this argument from autism and intelligence alltogether and once and for all dispose of the notion that somehow "severity" or "effect" of autism governs ones response to the "cure" movement.

    As I have stated before, long before there was a neurodiversity movement, there was a disability movement, comprised of a pan impairment spectrum of people with very diverse range of impairments from all out quadriplegia, to epilepsy.

    In every case the same arguments could be heard parralel to those taking place here.

    It is attribution that makes the difference to how one responds to ones impairment, albeit that there are strong cultural pressures usually to adopt a negative attribution style.

    Now the most vigorous arguments for the social model of disability do not necessarily come from the least impaired people, or the most high funtioning, nor for that matter only those who are verbal.

    Autism is not the only condition that can lead to lack of speech!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Another thing that sets those who wish for a cure apart and that is delusion and wishful thinking,

    To wish for a cure for oneself, a magic bullet is about as unrealistic as wishing to live 200 years, not medically possible.

    If you lose a leg, you have the same two responses, regret it forever and curse the circumstances that caused you to lose it, or realise that you cannot grow it back and make the best of what is possible given the current state of prostheses.

    It is attribution that seperates the two groups not "severity" of autism or "funtioning" level.

    It is in reality no more difference than being a republican or a democrat, Tory or Labour, these things are not wired in, they are choices, albeit heavily socially influenced ones.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm trying to think who the high achievers of the Hub are. Larry? Socrates? Amanda? Joel? Abfh? Me?

    I think Joel has a really good job. I have a relatively good job, too. I don't think I'll ever be in a management role, though, nor do I want to be.

    If you mean academically, I guess that's possible.

    Otherwise, I don't think autistics are known for their ambition.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Joseph, that depends on what's meant by a good job. Is it a job that the person enjoys, and that is well suited to the person's skill set and particular interests? Or is it any high social status job that pays a lot of money, regardless of whether it's a good fit for the person?

    Dora Raymaker was very happy to get a job blogging on the Change.org autism page. The pay isn't much; but then, she doesn't have a lot of bills either. Would you say that she has a good job?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I guess so. If the person is happy with their job, then it's a good job.

    If the job is well paid, that can also be called a "good job." But if you have a well-paid job that you hate, then no.

    I don't know what Lurker means by "high achiever." Does he mean that the person has achieved a lot? Or does he mean that the person is driven to financial success?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I must admit, I'm struggling to think who these "high acheivers with no problems" could possibly be.

    About the only one that comes close is David N Andrews, who (surprise) works in his area of special interest.

    I get the suspicion that lurker ONLY hangs round the bloggosphere , which I've already indicated would give him/her a distorted picture because of what skills are needed to get on it.

    There are many in the ND movement who acheived at school, sometimes gaining multiple degrees, yet they are overwhelmingly underemployed, often only made it with academic assitance, often lack the functions needed to drive or live independantly, many are in debt or have additional disabilities.

    I'm curious how someone can bitch and moan about "ND's ignoring those with impairments" and then go on to ignore the impairments that many ND's have, falling hook, line and sinker for the idea that being successful is a monofaceted binary thing.

    The autism community - of all levels of ability - have had trouble with services and professionals judging global ability (or inability) from basic appearances, and then refusing needed services, or delivering services way below the persons ability.

    This is only just becoming a recognised problem even within autism services.

    The last thing we need is people like lurker falling for that line of thinking too.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "I don't get how someone with so many of those difficulties could condone neurodiversity."

    The work of many such persons provided the models for neurodiversity.

    As Larry said, the neurodiversity movement is part of the disability rights movement. And people in the disability rights movement have been looking at how impairment interacts with society for a long time.

    One person who examined these things was Paul Hunt, who had muscular dystrophy. In a book published in 1966 he wrote:

    "ALL MY adult life has been spent in institutions amongst
    people who, like myself, have severe and often
    progressive physical disabilities."

    ...

    "Being cheerful and keeping going is scarcely good enough when one has an illness that will end in an early death, when one is wasting away like some Belsen victim, when one is incontinent, dependent on others for daily needs, probably denied marriage and a family and forced to live out one's time in an institution. In these circumstances the most acute questions arise nd the most radical 'answers' are called for."

    ...

    "I want to look at this special situation [that disabled people have in society] in terms of our relations with others, our place in society. This is essentially related to the personal aspect of coping with disablement, which I hope it will at the same time illumine, since the problem of disability lies not only in the impairment of function and its effects on us individually, but also, more importantly, in the area of our relationship with 'normal' people. If everyone were as disabled as we, there would be no special situation to consider." (PDF here).

    (Emphasis mine).

    So, a disabled person is talking about impairment, and saying that impairment is important, but that impairment is not the whole story.

    More recently, disability advocates with Down Syndrome have protested genetic screening for DS, abortion and murder. Advocates with muscular dystrophy have been protesting Jerry Lewis's pity-based "advocacy" for years. (Most recently, protesting the humanitarian award the Academy was giving/gave Lewis at this year's Oscars.

    Are there supporters of neurodiversity who take impairment out of the concept altogether? Yes. Are there some who separate it from disability and then say a bunch of ableist crap? Yes. Are there some who think that neurodiversity is only for some kinds of people and not others? Yes.

    Do I agree with them? No. I also find many more of them posting in online forums rather than writing blogs, but then again I don't seek them out on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  40. My thoughts are similar to Larry, Tera and Anon.

    I have often seen how the disabled have fought against an unreasonable and oppressive set of standards only to set up a similar but opposing set that does as much or more damage.

    Once a persons worth is described by the skills which are attributed to them by what they are seen to be able to repeat because of their habits (and what gets recognized due to what their environment temporarily honors), they are likely to begin to veiw the world in this way.

    Then their success is often dependent on those who are oppressed by the standards that ensure *their* success.

    Undertaking the creation of setting up standards of skill levels to define and redefine peoples worth rather than reorganizing priorities and first teaching the value of compassion, empathy, and growth and how that then promotes more valuable skills as well as recognizes more....by showing it to others, seems futile at best.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. nonymous: "About the only one that comes close is David N Andrews, who (surprise) works in his area of special interest."

    Indeed I do, but the work is individual jobs and or short-term contract work; and - in Finland - having a foreign degree creates the opposite of the mystique that would be imagined (foreign = exotic, usually). There is, however, the record I have of coming up with the goods: when people have had experience of the public system and then come to me, they've left knowing what to do to take more control of the situation for themselves. And - often - the pay is very low (wages are generally very low in Finland, compared to the rest of the world); but, even with that, the work can be quite satisfying. Given that many people in this country actually hate their jobs, maybe that is one way in which my job (as a freelancer) is a 'good job'. Notwithstanding, of course, the lack of predictability involved in that way of working. At least I get to choose what work I eventually do.

    Life is definitely not easy; and I can tell you now that the support that I could legally expect has been very much lacking over the ten years I've been here. One thing I won't do, though, is to blame autism for the problems of finding any work: I make the correct attributions and identify the correct sources of the problem in order to be able to rectify situations as well as is humanly possible.


    Anonymous: "There are many in the ND movement who acheived at school, sometimes gaining multiple degrees, yet they are overwhelmingly underemployed, often only made it with academic assistance, often lack the functions needed to drive or live independantly, many are in debt or have additional disabilities."

    I am one such person. Like I say, life has not been easy. But by identifying the sources of problems correctly, I've managed to get at least some sort of change in my life circumstances, which has even included change in the behaviour of the local Social Welfare Office (considered to be a very hard thing to do here in Finland).

    Anonymous: "I get the suspicion that lurker ONLY hangs round the bloggosphere , which I've already indicated would give him/her a distorted picture because of what skills are needed to get on it."

    I've had that feeling myself. Some people come in to stir up a fuss but refuse to learn anything from the discussion and take that away with them. No matter how much things are explained to them, they refuse to understand it and resort to the use of fallacies to base their rejections on.

    Anonymous: "The autism community - of all levels of ability - have had trouble with services and professionals judging global ability (or inability) from basic appearances, and then refusing needed services, or delivering services way below the persons ability."

    This has been my experience, certainly. I'm actually considering writing a paper on it.

    ABFH: "Is it a job that the person enjoys, and that is well suited to the person's skill set and particular interests? Or is it any high social status job that pays a lot of money, regardless of whether it's a good fit for the person?"

    I would say that it is the former... many people I've seen have been in high status jobs and the job has been something they have hated doing, even with the status and income; and in the end, many actually (this is Finland, remember - high suicide rate) actually burn out and (in some cases) kill themselves. Not a good situation. Very few people - to my knowledge - with the former type of job experience that high-pressure atmosphere and burn out in that way. They may get somewhat jaded about things, but suicide is rare in that group. Like I say, this is based on an observation of people I have known or seen, or read about in the local and national papers, so it isn't exactly scientific. It would be interesting to study that in a more rigorous way. Another possible Ph. D. topic, depending on how easy the funding is to get (here, the funding is given to the professor leading a project, rather than to the individual researching his/her Ph. D., so such study places are much harder to find and then get).

    ReplyDelete
  43. I would consider Joel, Abfh, Joseph, and David Andrews as high achievers, and not just them. I don't know enough about some of the others. Joseph, don't pretend to be so clueless about what high achiever means. I'm talking about HAVING LOTS OF INTELLIGENCE and getting to use it academically and in skilled work, whether the work is liked or not. I'm sick of the attempts not to talk about the real issues.

    Anon, who outside the blogosphere even knows what ND is? Who with significant impairments favors ND?

    "The work of many such persons provided the models for neurodiversity."
    Tera, who?
    "the neurodiversity movement is part of the disability rights movement" I don't think there are any mainstream disability advocates who endorse ND. I'm convinced the neurodiversity movement is part of the "self-esteem movement". That latter one, which has been around longer, which tries to get children to think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do, and is responsible for people not keeping track of score at little league baseball games, and granting trophies just for participating so everyone can be considered a "winner", is one of the only movements that I can imagine to engender the mindset for neurodiversity.

    Physical disabilities aren't relevant to neurodiversity, and aren't comparable to mental disabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Lurker: "I would consider Joel, Abfh, Joseph, and David Andrews as high achievers, and not just them."

    In one specific area or across the board? Think about this: you know none of us in person and have no real idea about the difficulties we face. Bit presumptious, no?

    Lurker: "I'm talking about HAVING LOTS OF INTELLIGENCE and getting to use it academically and in skilled work, whether the work is liked or not."

    That isn't necessarily achievement defined. An achievement is simply something accomplished and does not necessarily require 'having lots of intelligence and getting to use it academically and in skilled work'. And achievements are viewed relative to ability. So, for someone whose scores on ability tests (either intelligence or aptitude tests) were low, achievement at levels compatible with the band of average achievement scores would legitimately be laudible.

    Lurker: "I'm sick of the attempts not to talk about the real issues."

    Quit the attitude, okay?

    As if your issues are the only ones!!!

    Lurker: "I'm convinced the neurodiversity movement is part of the 'self-esteem movement'. That latter one, which has been around longer, which tries to get children to think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do, and is responsible for people not keeping track of score at little league baseball games, and granting trophies just for participating so everyone can be considered a 'winner', is one of the only movements that I can imagine to engender the mindset for neurodiversity."

    Drop the strawman shite off with the attitude, okay? And show me how that ridiculous statement relates to the real world! Or shut up...

    ReplyDelete
  45. "I would consider Joel, Abfh, Joseph, and David Andrews as high achievers, and not just them."

    Amongst them, only David Andrews would really be regarded as 'a high acheiver' by the typical standards.

    None of this adresses the issue that one can be a 'high achiever' and still have significant impairments. Arnold and Miller are both examples of people who could be regarded as 'succesful' yet who both have difficulties that are both typically autistic and obvious after a few moments interaction.

    "Anon, who outside the blogosphere even knows what ND is? Who with significant impairments favors ND? "

    Off the top of my head, the list can include, but is not universal amongst:

    NHS staff who have recieved autism training.
    Members of private autism care organisations, including, but not limited to Brookdale and the like.
    Members, volunteers and staff of autism charities, including, but not limited to, the NAS, Autism Concern and Umbrella.
    Members of Wrongplanet, Aspies for Freedom and similar.
    Readers of AU and Communication magazine and similar.
    Providers of low-arousal training, such as, but not limited to, Studio 3 and the like.

    This does not include the significantly more extensive list of people who are pro-diverse for learning disabilities, learning differences and general mental health disorders.

    "Physical disabilities aren't relevant to neurodiversity, and aren't comparable to mental disabilities."

    Except values are placed on disabilities (and thus the people who have them) that aren't inherent in the disability, also the 'value' of the disability and the inabilities that make up the disability change according to wheter or not they can be accomodated for. Mobility impairments are an example of this - zimmers, sticks, delta's and rollalongs are now now longer as much a negative symbol as they were considered to be.

    "....is one of the only movements that I can imagine to engender the mindset for neurodiversity."

    Here in lies the problem. You can only see it one way, so you (very very incorrectly) assume it's the same for everyone else.

    You have been given multiple references in this thread and in previous discussions. You have been provided, yet again, with the link between ND and the modern movement towards client-centeredness and positive conditional identity. Every question you have asked has been answered, and could have been so had you done your own competant research.

    I'm not sure why you think it's big hard or clever to fuck around in this way but your repeated accusations and misrepresentations of the ND movement are neither logical, ethical or supported by evidence.

    As Joseph points out - it's fairly irrelevant anyway , as most anti-ND/pro-cure people are not (officially) even mildly autistic. Also, other conditions have the same thing going on, those most likely to have attention paid to them are also the ones most likely to be able to attain it.

    Stop blaming people for having the ability to attract your blame and come up with something substantial.

    ReplyDelete
  46. David, across the board. I don't need to know you in person, and none of you demonstrate one shred of impairment. I know what capabilities some of you have.

    "That isn't necessarily achievement defined. An achievement is simply something accomplished and does not necessarily require 'having lots of intelligence and getting to use it academically and in skilled work'." Don't split hairs with semantics. And I did say high achievers.

    I will not get rid of my attitude. Whose issues matter? What "strawman" are you talking about? You can't refute anything I say so you make dismissive responses that don't address what I say. How should I show you how my statement relates? That "ridiculous" statement has really happened. And I think it is responsible for the conditions that make neurodiversity possible. That ridiculous nonsense that I explained is being perpetrated. What do you think about it?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Tera, who?"

    I gave you one--and a very influential one, at that. Many, many more can be found at the Disability Studies Archive.

    "I'm convinced the neurodiversity movement is part of the 'self-esteem movement'."

    You can be convinced of that--but you'd have to ignore what Miss Gonzo, Larry, Anon, abfh and I (as well as others in this thread) have said.

    "That latter one, which has been around longer..."

    Since the 1960's (at least)? Really?

    "which tries to get children to think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do, and is responsible for people not keeping track of score at little league baseball games, and granting trophies just for participating so everyone can be considered a 'winner', is one of the only movements that I can imagine to engender the mindset for neurodiversity."

    So, people who believe in neurodiversity are high achievers, but "think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do"? Am I the only one who thinks these ideas contradict each other?

    "Physical disabilities aren't relevant to neurodiversity"

    Only if you are convinced that neurodiversity has nothing to do with the disability rights movement at all and learned nothing from it. (Such as the medical and social models of disability, for instance).

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lurker: "I don't need to know you in person, and none of you demonstrate one shred of impairment. I know what capabilities some of you have."

    Bullshit you 'don't need to know us in person'!!!! You do not know what's in my file with Disability Services for a start. And, like it or not, it's presumptious and fucking stupid to assume that you 'know the capabilities some of (us) have'! Have you actually conducted an assessment? if not, you do not know. FACT!

    And by attitude, it is exactly that presumptiousness that I'm referring to.

    Lurker: "Don't split hairs with semantics. And I did say high achievers."

    Firstly, that was DEFINITION. Get used to being wrong. Secondly, achievement at the population average level is HIGH achievement if ability is below average. That is how it is rated... because that is what it is. Again, deal with being wrong.

    Lurker: "I will not get rid of my attitude."

    Don't expect me to respond, then. Clear from this is that you're a troll.

    Lurker: "Whose issues matter?"

    For me, just now, yours are becoming less of a priority for consideration.

    Lurker: "What 'strawman' are you talking about?"

    You can't spot your own strawmen? Are you THAT stupid?

    Lurker: "You can't refute anything I say so you make dismissive responses that don't address what I say."

    You give NOTHING SPECIFIC to refute. That's why dismissal is warranted.

    Lurker: "How should I show you how my statement relates?"

    You don't know? You really don't know?

    Lurker: "That ridiculous nonsense that I explained is being perpetrated."

    Give a specific. Something I can give a proper bloody response to. Something that I can tell you was done wrong and WHY it was wrong.

    Lurker: "What do you think about it?"

    I think you're full of shit, really. Anonymous has some good advice for you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "and none of you demonstrate one shred of impairment"

    How utterly ridiculous. By this statement you make it completely clear that you do not know the real world identity of any of the participants - or if you do - that you have never met them.

    There are several people involved in this conversation who have official diagnosis of not just a ASD but also of other learning differences and/or physical disorders.

    When you make such silly statements you should expect to be seen as silly.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Lurker: "David, across the board."

    And another thing...

    I am not a high achiever across the board. I have actual evidence of this, which you are not privy to. I do not achieve very highly in many issues involving organisation of time, for example; I also have considerable difficulties in many areas of planned-motor skills, hence a diagnosis of dyspraxia.

    Assuming that you don't need to know those things in order to know what difficulties I face is nothing short of either stupidity or willful ignorance. Which one are you going with?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Amongst them, only David Andrews would really be regarded as 'a high acheiver' by the typical standards." Not true.

    Out of all of those people from organizations you mentioned, who of them are autistic and pro-ND?
    "This does not include the significantly more extensive list of people who are pro-diverse for learning disabilities, learning differences and general mental health disorders." Where could I see statements from such people?

    "Except values are placed on disabilities (and thus the people who have them) that aren't inherent in the disability" That's not central to this issue.
    Mental disabilities can't be accommodated, especially when they're severe.

    "Here in lies the problem. You can only see it one way, so you (very very incorrectly) assume it's the same for everyone else." There is no more than one reality, even though others experience it differently. What are things like for everyone else? Since when do those like you even care about what things are like for others?

    "You have been provided, yet again, with the link between ND and the modern movement towards client-centeredness and positive conditional identity." I don't know what those latter two things are, and they don't justify keeping people mentally impaired and calling it great.

    "repeated accusations and misrepresentations of the ND movement are neither logical, ethical or supported by evidence." How much logic is needed? Ethics? What is so taboo about what I'm doing? Evidence? Where is your evidence? I don't need anything more than common sense as evidence. I don't have a lot of respect for propaganda, which is all I usually see from ND. I haven't misrepresented, as my interpretations of the propaganda haven't been contradicted by ND's adherents elaborating on ND. It's up to you and other supporters of ND to lucidly explain what it is. I'm not going to assume it's something decent or helpful because of it's benign facade, when details and elaboration are absent.

    I doubt one has to be as capable as the super-high functioning to get any attention in which it could be determined if they're pro-ND or not.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "There are several people involved in this conversation who have official diagnosis of not just a ASD but also of other learning differences and/or physical disorders."

    When Anon said that it includes me weather they meant it to or not and doctors and specialists have filed their findings on me going back to 1963 as a person with a developmental disability.

    Like David said I think you set up strawmen arguements so I don't see the point in responding to you.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "So, people who believe in neurodiversity are high achievers, but "think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do"? Am I the only one who thinks these ideas contradict each other?" They don't even match. The perpetrators of neurodiversity, the high achievers, aren't the ones to be duped. I think they're trying to dupe the people who actually lack ability.

    "You can be convinced of that--but you'd have to ignore what Miss Gonzo, Larry, Anon, abfh and I (as well as others in this thread) have said" What have they said that is believable?

    I heard the social model of disability came out of physical disability activism, and that academia extended it to mental disabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The social models come out of society. They become a means for intellectual debate when enough people within society recognizes them.

    Things often don't get recognized (even though they are true) until someone whose intellect is recognized says it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lurker: "The perpetrators of neurodiversity, the high achievers, aren't the ones to be duped. I think they're trying to dupe the people who actually lack ability."

    Prove that statement with a fact... something tangible. Something that can be seen as a concrete 'thing' that can be discussed. You're not providing discussable things: just general and vague accusations against woefully inaccurate depictions of what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lurker: "'Amongst them, only David Andrews would really be regarded as 'a high acheiver' by the typical standards.' Not true."

    Then...

    Lurker: "I would consider Joel, Abfh, Joseph, and David Andrews as high achievers, and not just them."


    ... in which you assert in that I am a high achiever. Know what? Make your fucking mind up!

    I think your only purpose here is as a wind-up merchant (I'm being nice here: I could say much more harshly what I think you are).

    ReplyDelete
  57. "You do not know what's in my file with Disability Services for a start. And, like it or not, it's presumptious and fucking stupid to assume that" David, your impairment can't be that significant, or you wouldn't have been able to do what you have done.

    I don't need to do an assessment. I've read things on their blogs and seen how they nonchalantly revealed all of the abilities they have. Look up achievement in the dictionary. Your contention about its meaning isn't exclusively supported. I don't think the issues that matter should be restricted to either mine or yours.

    I haven't used any strawmen. You're doing nothing do refute what I say and are barely commenting on it. You're not debating me. I'm not impressed by your tempter tantrums at what I say.

    "Give a specific. Something I can give a proper bloody response to. Something that I can tell you was done wrong and WHY it was wrong." Why don't you read it and think. What about my previous statement are you not familiar with?

    "Lurker: "What do you think about it?" I think you're full of shit, really"
    If you already made up your mind, you wouldn't have considered what I said in the first place. Why do you bother to keep asking?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon, out of the people I revealed as high achievers, what significant impairments do they have? What things aren't they able to do? What are their real identities? How do they manage to fake being smart (which isn't possible) if that is what they are doing?

    Ed, there are no social models in society to correctly recognize. The people in academia who made the social model aren't in touch with society.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Lurker: "I don't need to do an assessment. I've read things on their blogs and seen how they nonchalantly revealed all of the abilities they have."

    You'll be hard pressed to find much on my blog! I hardly have time to write on it.

    Lurker: "Look up achievement in the dictionary. Your contention about its meaning isn't exclusively supported."

    Actually, I did. And I also know the definitions we have in psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and in other educational and social and health care disciplines. My definition works because it came from a dictionary! Tell you what ... I'll give you the OED one... will that get you to stop being an arse?

    Concise Oxford English Dictionary -

    Achievement: completion, accomplishment, thing accomplished;

    Achieve: accomplish, carry out; acquire; reach (an end).

    None of those definitions insist on what you chose to include in your - quite restricted and fatuous - definition.

    "I don't think the issues that matter should be restricted to either mine or yours."

    Nor do I. But your assumption is clearly that yours are worthy of consideration and what issues I tell that I face are irrelevant. Your insistance that you don't need to know the particulars of those issues says exactly that. It's just an idiot's way of trying to ignore evidence that counters your own prejudices.

    Grow an IQ now. You're really not worth my patience or my time: you've already abused these before on other blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  60. An incredibly 'dull' lurker: "Why don't you read it and think. What about my previous statement are you not familiar with?"

    Lurker: "I'm convinced the neurodiversity movement is part of the 'self-esteem movement'. That latter one, which has been around longer, which tries to get children to think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do, and is responsible for people not keeping track of score at little league baseball games, and granting trophies just for participating so everyone can be considered a 'winner', is one of the only movements that I can imagine to engender the mindset for neurodiversity."

    You mean that vague set of accusations against nothing/nobody in particular that can be criticised? You want me to say something about it? Give me actual events. Something concrete to actually refute!

    You don't do it, and that's because you can't.

    What bit of that can you not understand?

    You're a timewaster.

    Note to commentators: Lurker is here to waste time and has nothing to contribute. May be best to ignore until s/he actually gives somethign specific to criticise, instead of vague statements with nothing in them.

    I'm going to bed, Lurker. I have a life. I suggest you get one and stop trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  61. David, I think that with your abilities and what your abilities have brought you, you should be considered fortunate, despite the impairment you mentioned.

    Tangible? I'm referring to the non-impaired HFA bloggers who have been railing to get autistics in general to think they don't have to worry about their impairments, that if only society changed and "accepted" them, they would be fine. I'm referring to those same bloggers who frequently ignore the impairments involved for many autistics through their propaganda. Autistics in general includes a majority who are very impaired, who I'm convinced are the targets of deception by the HFA. I doubt they didn't intend for other autistics to listen to their blog posts. Don't deny that this has been happening for the past few years. Don't evade what they have been saying. You don't need anything else to know what I'm talking about. There is no other proof necessary.

    "Lurker: "'Amongst them, only David Andrews would really be regarded as 'a high acheiver' by the typical standards.' Not true."

    Then...

    Lurker: "I would consider Joel, Abfh, Joseph, and David Andrews as high achievers, and not just them."


    ... in which you assert in that I am a high achiever. Know what? Make your fucking mind up!" I meant that NOT ONLY you would be regarded as a high achiever.

    ReplyDelete
  62. David, I think that with your abilities and what your abilities have brought you, you should be considered fortunate, despite the impairment you mentioned.

    I've told Jon Mitchell that with his abilities and intelligence, he should consider himself fortunate, despite his complaints about not dating women, and having only had an average performance in college. That is, compared to everyone else in the world.

    Last night Obama gave an speech, and he said that only half of Americans have more than a high school education.

    I'm referring to those same bloggers who frequently ignore the impairments involved for many autistics through their propaganda. Autistics in general includes a majority who are very impaired, who I'm convinced are the targets of deception by the HFA.

    So it's like a little conspiracy in your view. Yet, the most prominent philosophers of autism rights and disability around here are those who prefer to use a keyboard to produce speech. Someone like me, who contradicts a major stereotype due to being married, hardly discusses neurodiversity or disability. I focus on scientific topics. I think there's a bit of a kink in your conspiracy theory there.

    ReplyDelete
  63. That isn't an extensive definition, and doesn't support your idea that achievement is accomplishing something above what is expected for one's capability. Look at this one: something accomplished, esp. by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.

    "But your assumption is clearly that yours are worthy of consideration and what issues I tell that I face are irrelevant. Your insistance that you don't need to know the particulars of those issues says exactly that."
    Again, this is not all about you. I've concluded you're not that impaired. I don't need to know many more particulars because of the education and career you have. Your type of situation is not characteristic of the issues I'm talking about. I think it's very ironic that you tell me to grow an IQ.

    "You mean that vague set of accusations against nothing/nobody in particular that can be criticised? You want me to say something about it? Give me actual events. Something concrete to actually refute!" The statement I made wasn't so much of an accusation as an observation about things. Why does it need to be concrete? Why should I name names? This isn't a trial! What type of events? Look at all the filth written on the autism hub blogs and in their youtube videos. Consider the people who composed their messages. What are you not aware of about this?

    "You don't do it, and that's because you can't." I'll do it if I have a reason. You shouldn't talk about timewasting. Think of all the time wasting done by people who should do other things with their time instead of causing chaos for those who are actually trying to cure autism.

    "I'm going to bed, Lurker. I have a life. I suggest you get one and stop trolling." If only you cared about those who don't have lives. How am I supposed to get one? How am I trolling?

    ReplyDelete
  64. "So it's like a little conspiracy in your view" Sorta. I think it's kind of a subconscious impulse to oppress and keep themselves more privileged and better off than others.

    "Yet, the most prominent philosophers of autism rights and disability around here are those who prefer to use a keyboard to produce speech." Around where?

    "Someone like me, who contradicts a major stereotype due to being married, hardly discusses neurodiversity or disability" Joseph, you made this post, and you're not the only one that pushes ND to contradict the stereotypes. This is not refutable.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Many of the autistic board members of AutCom are so-called "low functioning" -- they don't have verbal expressive speech, they don't live independently without the help of support persons, etc. They deal with much the same set of handicaps as Sue Rubin. Many of them seek mitigation of specific handicaps they live with, but none of them seek a cure for autism itself.
    There are pro-neurodiversity people at all points on the spectrum.
    There are pro-cure people at all points on the spectrum too.
    It is just plain *stupid* to believe that pro-neurodiversity autistics are all high-functioning and that pro-cure autistics are all low-functioning.
    It just ain't so.
    If you choose to *propagate* such a fallacy, you either have ulterior motives, or personal problems you are projecting onto the issue. Or both.
    But you are on the losing side of the battle.
    You will go at the end of your days to a lonely grave, remembered by no one. Relegated to the ash-heap of history.
    Regardless of how much you rail against me for saying this.
    Mark my words.
    Wake up and change course, before that happens.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Lurker: "How am I trolling?"

    Um ...

    Aside from making generalised statements about what people are capable of, for which you have absolutely fuck all evidence, you mean?

    Even Anonymous has seen your pathetic tactic:

    "'and none of you demonstrate one shred of impairment'

    How utterly ridiculous. By this statement you make it completely clear that you do not know the real world identity of any of the participants - or if you do - that you have never met them."

    Let's see...

    Strawman arguments (and premises given without proof), with denial of making them when you've been found out:

    "I don't think there are any mainstream disability advocates who endorse ND. I'm convinced the neurodiversity movement is part of the 'self-esteem movement'. That latter one, which has been around longer, which tries to get children to think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do, and is responsible for people not keeping track of score at little league baseball games, and granting trophies just for participating so everyone can be considered a 'winner', is one of the only movements that I can imagine to engender the mindset for neurodiversity."

    I've asked for specific examples of where that has happened and you have refused to give a single one. You're expecting me to criticise everybody/thing on the basis of a generalsation that I myself know to be complete bollocks! You see, unlike you, I've worked in special education, and I've seen what really does happen there. So I know when someone's made a generalisation and how much it that generalisation is bollocks.

    What about your refusal to even do your own research on things properly? Anonymous has seen this:

    "You have been given multiple references in this thread and in previous discussions. You have been provided, yet again, with the link between ND and the modern movement towards client-centeredness and positive conditional identity. Every question you have asked has been answered, and could have been so had you done your own competent research."

    Signs of a troll.

    Stop being one.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "Aside from making generalised statements about what people are capable of, for which you have absolutely fuck all evidence, you mean" David, why not read the blogs for evidence? How much of those blogs do you usually read? Look at the evidence that many of those HFA can speak, write, read, go to college, drive, and have jobs. You can't refute it. Period.

    I'm not using any strawman arguments. Stop covering for the propaganda spewers.
    "I've asked for specific examples of where that has happened and you have refused to give a single one. You're expecting me to criticise everybody/thing on the basis of a generalsation that I myself know to be complete bollocks"
    Examples of what? What am I supposed to say to back up a comparison if you know about the things that are being compared already? What specific examples? Why should I cite writings of ND people which show the nonsense I'm talking about? What more do I need to tell you about my statement other than that ND tries to get people to feel it's OK to be a failure and blame it on others, as other phony self-esteem groups do? What generalization am I using?

    What research on what? There is no reputable research to be done to validate manipulative propaganda. I haven't been shown any references of relevance as Anon claimed. What does that matter anyway, when it can't refute the pathetic reality of ND that so many of its proponents want to back away from acknowledging, when they're confronted with realistic interpretations of it? You people should clearly state what you believe or stop telling anyone what to do ever again.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Lurker you don't get it at all.

    What point is served by teaching autistics, and other impaired people that they are lesser specimins of humanity, not wholly human, diseased and in need of a cure so that they can become properly self loathing and miserable subjects who know there natural place low in the order of society?

    Same arguments are made against Women by the Taleban

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lurker: "You people should clearly state what you believe or stop telling anyone what to do ever again."

    Come again? As far as I can see, you're a troll. You're not here for discussion... you're here to hold discussion up.

    Lurker: "Examples of what?"

    Are you really that stupid that you don't know what I want examples of?

    Okayu... I'll assume that you are and I'll spell it out for you.

    Lurker: "I don't think there are any mainstream disability advocates who endorse ND. I'm convinced the neurodiversity movement is part of the 'self-esteem movement'."

    Give me three good reasons (based on actual EVIDENCE, citing that evidence) why you are convinced of that.

    "That latter one, which has been around longer, which tries to get children to think highly of their aptitude regardless of how well they can do, and is responsible for people not keeping track of score at little league baseball games, and granting trophies just for participating so everyone can be considered a 'winner', is one of the only movements that I can imagine to engender the mindset for neurodiversity."

    Give me at least two examples FROM REAL LIFE (meaning: things you have seen - either in the papers/news, or from your own experience!).

    If you cannot substantiate anything after having things so clearly spelled out for you, you're a troll. Even Best actually gives concrete examples, and he's just a fuckign stirrer. What does that make you?

    EXAMPLES PLEASE, OR PISS OFF!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Lurker: "Why should I cite writings of ND people which show the nonsense I'm talking about?"

    Holy fuck... you ARE that stupid.

    If you can't think of why you should provide such examples, you really shouldn't even be reading a blog like this!

    ReplyDelete
  71. "What point is served by teaching autistics, and other impaired people that they are lesser specimins of humanity, not wholly human, diseased and in need of a cure so that they can become properly self loathing and miserable subjects who know there natural place low in the order of society?"
    laurentius, I don't like your strawmen argument there. If they were "lesser specimens of humanity" or not human, why would I or others think they deserve a fair share of the abilities that people get to have? And what would a cure have to do with becoming self-loathing and miserable? Who is it that is trying to keep impaired people in the low place of society? Me or you?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Lurker: "David, why not read the blogs for evidence? How much of those blogs do you usually read? Look at the evidence that many of those HFA can speak, write, read, go to college, drive, and have jobs. You can't refute it. Period."

    I do read them. Many of them. But it's up to YOU to provide evidence of what it is that you're accusing them of. And you're just not doing it.

    Your issue, your problem. Get a life. I've already told you how that can be done, so I don't see why I should do anything more for you. You're a timewaster.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  75. David, quit making dissent out to be the same as being a troll, and the act of discussion to be only the incessant agreement with your ideas.

    "Give me at least two examples FROM REAL LIFE (meaning: things you have seen - either in the papers/news, or from your own experience!"
    Very little of what I see about what I'm talking about is in the news, or anywhere else besides the internet. Not many people would spew such views in public. I don't get out at all so I don't have many personal experiences. Don't try to corner me with those demands.

    I do not need to cite examples of widely known things to back up premises. What about Ari Neeman who was sorta in the news as he was on t.v. once being interviewed, talking against cure with no regard for impairments. Why the hell isn't referring to what is on these blogs valid, even though it's where most of this rhetoric I mention is from?

    If you are truly incapable of composing a thought about an abstract observation and opinion, and even have the background knowledge of the issue being talked about, then you shouldn't be involved in any such career you're involved in. But that's not the case, as you are just trying to defend something that you know is detestable, and don't want to acknowledge the vile truth about it. I consider defenders of such horrible things no less culpable than the perpetrators of them.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Had to delete my last post after seeing Lurker's latest... OMFG!

    Lurker... seriously, you shouldn't be here. You're practically word-salad when you post. There's hardly any continuity to what you're saying... internal contradictions in things you say and so much fuckng strawman-building that I can't take you seriously now.

    Not as a poster on this blog, anyway.

    I'm not sure that you're actually mentally able to handle a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  77. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Dissent I can handle.

    You're a troll.

    I want you to provide specific examples of things you think back up what you say: specific examples of what people have actually said. I might not see it as you do. To be honest, I'm glad about that. But if you have a problem with specific thigns that people have said, it is YOUR FUCKING JOB to bring those items into a discussion. Not mine.

    Now, stop being a paranoid twat and bring some fucking examples!

    (word verification describes Lurker: codster)

    ReplyDelete
  79. David, I don't see why I should spend the time to put up quotes from the bloggers I'm talking about to back up my point, when you already know what kinds of things are said on those blogs. Kev Leitch once had me doing the same shit, but he still wouldn't address my points and kept being snotty and stubborn, and shameless at his lack of honor.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Lurker: "David, I don't see why I should spend the time to put up quotes from the bloggers I'm talking about to back up my point, when you already know what kinds of things are said on those blogs. Kev Leitch once had me doing the same shit, but he still wouldn't address my points and kept being snotty and stubborn, and shameless at his lack of honor."

    I'm not Kevin. And my own knowledge of him is that he usually does try to answer points given to him.

    You won't provide specifics for me to comment on.. you won't get anything from me. Simple as that.

    No fuck off and stop bothering me. I have more to do than keep you fucking entertained.

    ReplyDelete
  81. David, you haven't addressed one damn thing I said. I haven't seen anything but childish temper tantrums from you as responses. It's ridiculous I have any patience for you at this point. Name one strawman of mine. Name one contradiction. You demand I pull specific examples out of my ass while you won't even elaborate what you detest about things I just said.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Lurker... if you are THAT stupid, then I have no time for you.

    Fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Lurker - you'd know the answer to your questions if you bothered to look. This is the third time I'm aware of you having this discussion, it's always you that spoils it. You seem to feel obliged to be spoon-fed detailed facts without offering any tidbit yourself.

    Are there non-blogging autistics that support ND? Of course there are, which you would know if you spent time at the place I've already indicated.

    Are there non-autism related organisations that support ND principles? Of course there are, MIND and Hearing Voices and the NDA are but 3, not including the rumblings of ND in NICE, CSCI and the DoH. But you'd know this if you looked.

    Is social value relevant to disability? Of course it is, one only needs to look at the massive change that has been afforded the average person with dyslexia, which is no longer as crippling as it was.

    It has been explained to you how all these things inter-relate and what relevance they have, yet your only reponse has been to scream "I don't think so, I don't think so" again and again. You clearly cannot be arsed to take a look at anything that might challenge you.

    The disability movement chewed up people like you and spat you out. People like you are rightfully now seen as out-dated and out-thought.

    Nothing can now be salvaged from this thread. Well done - you managed to make yourself feel bigger at the expense of what could have been a decent conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joseph, the overall neurodiversity perspective you advocate has a lot of merit. Unfortunately, in your desire to make your point about the stereotypes that are sometimes made about neurodiversity advocates, you made some offhand statements about Raun Kaufman that I must take exception to. I know Raun personally, and he is about as neurotypical as they come. He’s just a regular guy, but I imagine that it must be frustrating for him to have to hear lots of claims made by people who have never even met him. You know, I read another blog where someone even tried to claim that he had a shaved head because he still had autism and couldn’t groom himself! Sheesh, where do people get this stuff? Also, I don’t think you are aware of what it is that Raun and the people at his organization (including his parents) teach. One of their biggest tenets is to cherish and accept children and adults with autism as they are rather than judging them or demanding that they be different. So I am concerned that someone in a position of advocacy such as yourself doesn’t seem to have the most basic information concerning the people and events about which you speak. I have no problem at all with neurodiversity and your advocacy of it. In fact, I applaud you for this. In the future, though, can you please advocate for your position based upon its merits instead of arguing your point by making false and borderline slanderous comments about someone you’ve never met and know nothing about?

    ReplyDelete
  85. wow.... "Can't we all just get along?" I guess not. I got your point Joseph. No matter which side they stand on, if autistic people express an opinion RE neurodiversity (more specifically an opinion about ND as a movement or group) they are relatively high functioning compared to those who express no opinion either way.
    Or MAYBE the highest functioning choose to stay out of the whole mess. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  86. @Adam: If anything I said is untrue, point out which part is not true. I'll correct it if you show me that something I said is inaccurate.

    There's a huge difference between sterotyping a whole group of people, and having opinions about one person.

    I know very well that Raun Kaufman claims to be neurotypical, and I know that other people claim he's in fact neurotypical. I've seen him on TV and so forth. You've told me nothing new.

    Are you saying that suggesting someone might be autistic is slanderous? Explain why.

    I also know what Son Rise is. I know acceptance is part of Son Rise, but not exactly as something that is desirable in itself, but as a method of making an autistic person stop being autistic. Clearly, that's fake acceptance.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "No matter which side they stand on, if autistic people express an opinion RE neurodiversity (more specifically an opinion about ND as a movement or group) they are relatively high functioning compared to those who express no opinion either way."

    Yes, this is what people like lurker don't get.

    We only tend to see the highest functioning people (many of whom are still significantly and noticably impaired when compared to people of equivilant education and intelligence) because the nature of the medium requires a minimum level of certain basic skills, thus excluding those that do not have those certian functions, regardless of thier global capabilities.

    People then assume from these specific skills that the person also possesses the global skills that would normally be present if the writer was a typical person.

    From this they assume that every person openly ND (or anti-ND) is 'high functioning', not realising that this is a artifact of the process which allows us to know that they are openly pro/anti ND.

    I've certainly worked with people who have made distinctely pro-nd remarks, yet still require 1-to-1 assistance in daily tasks.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anon, I don't know how to look at those places you listed for other pro-ND autistics.

    "Are there non-autism related organisations that support ND principles? Of course there are" I guess I'm not surprised. Well, I won't deny you're telling the truth about that.

    "one only needs to look at the massive change that has been afforded the average person with dyslexia, which is no longer as crippling as it was." What have those like you ever done for anyone with dyslexia?

    "The disability movement chewed up people like you and spat you out." I won't deny that either.

    "People like you are rightfully now seen as out-dated and out-thought." Who are you to say what is right? I think you're out-dated.

    You and others haven't elaborated on the relevance of the things you claim in a way that could be looked at to see if it has practical validity. I don't see neurodiversity as much more than an all rhetoric and do nothing attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "Anon, I don't know how to look at those places you listed for other pro-ND autistics. "

    If you're incapable of doing the research, why do you think we should pay attention to what you say?

    "What have those like you ever done for anyone with dyslexia?"

    Urrr, let's see. Changed academic attitutdes towards dyslexia, motivated institutions to provide accomodations thereby directly increasing academic success of people with dyselxia, lead and delivered dyslexia friendly classroom changes, including assistive devices and teaching methods.

    You could have got all this from a dyslexia advisor.

    " I don't see neurodiversity as much more than an all rhetoric and do nothing attitude."

    Yet there are pro-ND people who can and have instigated such things as: research and trials in making public transport more autism friendly,
    directing and lobbying government(s) to introduce initiatives to provide non-verbal autistics with alternative communication devices and/or alternative communication modes,
    involvement in campaigning for services or assisstance.

    ND does not advocate 'doing nothing'. One would have to be ignorant or delusional or a liar to claim that the ND movement advocates this. This discussion alone involves people that research or deliver autism therapies/services right from the support worker level right up to the professional and directorate level.

    But you would know all this if you looked.

    As I've said before, you have been repeatedly been given references and explanations. You have been given repeated directions on where to find information on the concept and data behind ND including ones you can access in your local area.
    None of your objections have ever been based on anything other than "it's not what I see" when it has already been pointed out to you that you are fairly ignorant about this subject and that you willfully remain so.
    You dismiss any advice or reference, not from having legitimate concerns, but becuase "I don't think so".

    There is no point debating with you, especially not as you demand a much higher standard of response than you manage in your replies.

    YOU start giving us names.
    YOU start giving us references.
    YOU start naming organisations.

    As you admit that you have not, will not and indeed, cannot do the basic research into this , there is no point wasting further time with you.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "If you're incapable of doing the research, why do you think we should pay attention to what you say?" I think because you're the one making the claims about those things to be researched, with not even indicating how many of those entities have pro-ND autistics that are LFA/significantly impaired.

    "Changed academic attitutdes towards dyslexia, motivated institutions to provide accomodations thereby directly increasing academic success of people with dyselxia, lead and delivered dyslexia friendly classroom changes, including assistive devices and teaching methods."
    What do different academic attitudes do? What kind of accommodations and teaching methods increased academic success?

    What does ND advocate doing? What services/therapies have these people ever administered, considering ND doesn't want therapies?
    How do you make public transport more "autism friendly"? Facilitated communication isn't always reliable and doesn't work for autistics who lack language skills. Services and assistance aren't enough. Why should anyone be grateful for such charity?

    What information is there to look into the concept behind ND? I already know where the social model of disability came from, which is what ND can't seem to do without.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Lurker, you cannot make a arguement by simply repeating niggly questions ad nauseum.

    You have already been told where you can find your information. You should not be expecting us to spoon feed you every detail of every answer, as you do not deliver detailed answers yourself. To expect us to input the time into this that you clealy have not is both rude and selfish.

    "What services/therapies have these people ever administered, considering ND doesn't want therapies? "

    Off the top of my head:

    Autism education, TEACCH, makaton, singalong, social stories, occupational therapy for sensory integration and executive dysfunction, autism day services, music therapy, SaLT, direct care in group homes, access to community services, assistance with accessing local services and benefits.

    Advocacy for any other condition will be full of people who have it, or treat it or research it. What makes you think autism would be the odd one out? It's a ridiculous assertion that has no basis in the real life comparables.

    I highly doubt you'd be able to find a ND adovcate who has declared that no treatments should ever be given to any autistic person.

    All of this you would already know, had you bothered to look in any of the places you've already been repeatedly reffered to.

    You'd be well advised to stop asking pedantic questions and start looking where you've been told to look.

    But you won't, because you never have and never will. You're too comfortable just expecting people to drop the answers right into your lap.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @Lurker: You should see what ASAN is doing. Whatever else you might say about them, they get things done.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anon, I don't think many ND advocates approve of treatments that will substantially increase ability. I think you're the one who is pedantic.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Anon, I don't think many ND advocates approve of treatments that will substantially increase ability. I think you're the one who is pedantic"

    Yet - as already pointed out - that's exactly what people like Millar, Turner, Murray, Arnold, Stanton et al are doing, and that's just in the UK.

    You can argue that they're ineffectual, but it's totally wrong to declare ND avocates as being against treatment when that's exactly how many of them make their living.

    You fail. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Joseph, I'm disgusted at some of what ASAN (whose directors are very high-functioning), has tried to do, such as basically recommending the government not do real autism research.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Not mention people like Baggs, Chew, Leitch , who all access services, thus cannot logically be anti-treatment.

    You fail again.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anon, what therapies have those 5 people endorsed? What about the ND people that don't condone therapies that really increase ability?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anon, services don't count. They are not treatment. You are using no logic. You fail.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Well I have just returned from a meeting of the Coventry Neurodiversity group tonight. It is a group I founded back in 2001 way before all these false anti neurodiversity hysteria was started by people like John Best who simply do not have any real idea what it is about.

    You don't have to be anti cure to come, but everybody is, and this isn't an attitude that is forced on anybody, what we have is a sort of concensus of common experience and social cohesion around mutual support in the face of inadequate provision.

    The neurodiversity movement has been going a lot longer in the Uk than the internet presence, the autism Hub is not neurodiversity, nor is neurodiversity.com, we have been around before that, not as one monolithic party but a people who have adopted the banner as a reaction to the medical model, as an alternative way of looking at ourselves.

    Self esteem is very important, vital to mental health, we are not the enemies of anything but ignorance, and many people do react to there Hi Funtioning neurodiversities by volunteering and working with people who would be considered as lower funtioning, it is our way of giving.

    This isn't a propaganda war, we have already won.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Well I have just returned from a meeting of the Coventry Neurodiversity group tonight. It is a group I founded back in 2001 way before all these false anti neurodiversity hysteria was started by people like John Best who simply do not have any real idea what it is about.

    You don't have to be anti cure to come, but everybody is, and this isn't an attitude that is forced on anybody, what we have is a sort of concensus of common experience and social cohesion around mutual support in the face of inadequate provision.

    The neurodiversity movement has been going a lot longer in the Uk than the internet presence, the autism Hub is not neurodiversity, nor is neurodiversity.com, we have been around before that, not as one monolithic party but a people who have adopted the banner as a reaction to the medical model, as an alternative way of looking at ourselves.

    Self esteem is very important, vital to mental health, we are not the enemies of anything but ignorance, and many people do react to there Hi Funtioning neurodiversities by volunteering and working with people who would be considered as lower funtioning, it is our way of giving.

    This isn't a propaganda war, we have already won.

    ReplyDelete
  101. laurentius, ND hasn't been around longer than you imply. You don't care about ensuring real self-esteem for all. Self-esteem based on nothing isn't real. I've seen almost nothing but propaganda from those like you.

    "and many people do react to there Hi Funtioning neurodiversities by volunteering and working with people who would be considered as lower funtioning, it is our way of giving" I don't think they're giving enough of what they should be giving.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Lurker: I think you would be hard pressed to find a single example of a pro-ND individual who opposes a treatment that they believe increases ability, without creating more problems than it solves. Treatments are not opposed just because they are treatments, AFAIK. They are opposed either for scientific or ethical reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Anon, services don't count. They are not treatment. You are using no logic. You fail."

    What are these services delivering then? Puppylicks?

    A service can include the treatments I've already listed, and treatments can include non-medical treatemens, such as SaLT and OT.

    You can argue that they are not effective, but to argue thay aren't treatments requires a bizarre redefinition of the word.

    You have been shown to be wrong or an outright liar in your claims. You don't get to redefine words on a whim - you either stick with reality or you don't.

    You clearly don't.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "laurentius, ND hasn't been around longer than you imply"

    Actually he's correct, the movement has already been going in regards to Down Syndrome, CP and similar for a number of decades. As, of course, you would know if you had bothered to look into the diability movement since the 60's. So actually earlier tha Larry implies.

    It might not have been called ND, but only an idiot would demand something openly and obviously self-declare itself ND when the term wasn't even around then.

    ReplyDelete
  105. "a treatment that they believe increases ability, without creating more problems than it solves" Joseph, I'm not going to fall for that nonsense. I don't think their slander of ABA is genuine as they never request anything to be done to improve it.

    Create what problems? For who? They don't even want research into cures which would increase ability. What "scientific" reasons? I'm sick of this perversion of ethics on their part. There is nothing to show that they aren't determined to keep impairments in place.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "There is nothing to show that they aren't determined to keep impairments in place."

    Yes, except being involved in the treatments listed above, which includes both delivery and recieving.

    Why do you continue to insist ND'ers want nothing to be done - when several have been involved in 'doing something' for years? You have already been provided with lists of treatments and ND'ers who are involved in treatments.

    Stop this ridiculous charade of naysaying everything that goes against your point, and start coming up with some cold, hard facts to back up your assertions.

    It's put up or shut up time.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I think you're being paranoid, Lurker.

    I've suggested, for example, that ABA needs randomized trials of various quality levels. The only randomized trial that exists suggests that, as study quality improves, the observed effect fades. This is not good news for ABA. It needs better evidence to be taken seriously.

    Additionally, there needs to be an adult follow-up, which for whatever reason doesn't exist in the peer-reviewed literature. Plus they need to study specific potential side-effects, like anxiety, PTSD, self-esteem changes, etc.

    There's not a single treatment of autism that is what we might call evidence-based. When there is one, let's talk.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anon, I'm sick of your semantics. If those treatments were so effective and helpful, I think there would be a lot more talk of them and urging for them. You can't argue a damn thing without being a liar. Laurentius is not telling the truth. What evidence is there of ND for Down Syndrome in the past?

    When did the disability movement bring about ND? I've only heard that the social model of disability, which started among the physically disabled, was extended to the mentally disabled by academia, which is so not in touch with mental disability.

    If any precursor was around for ND back then, I doubt it was as radical. I don't think they had conditions ready yet to spew the perversions of ND. I'm already convinced ND didn't come onto the scene at once with nothing to nourish it beforehand, because of all of the nonsense that I've heard of before it.

    ReplyDelete
  109. "Yes, except being involved in the treatments listed above, which includes both delivery and recieving" Anon, quit ignoring that I already pointed out those treatments to be minimally effective. Maybe some of those people who condone some treatments don't pose a threat.

    I don't consider them to be doing much of anything when they advocate therapies that won't do a lot. Small concessions don't make them in favor of progress. You won't say anything about the ND people who haven't endorsed any treatment, yet I expect you still would kiss up to them.

    If you don't know enough about what has been going on with this issue for the past few years that you would ask me for hard facts about it, then you shouldn't even be discussing this.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Joseph, there are no such side effects of ABA. If the other ND advocates are aware as you are that there are no evidence-based treatments of autism, how pro-treatment can they be if they endorse only such existing treatments? How can they be approving of increases in ability when they only advocate unproven therapies and don't condone research into strong therapies?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Lurker, you have already been told that "I don't think so" doesn't cut it.

    Where is the evidence that OT is inappropriate for people with autism?
    What about SaLT? Who says TEACCH doesn't work?

    Your posts contain none of the content that you demand of others.

    It looks like you can neither put up or shut up.

    "If you don't know enough about what has been going on with this issue for the past few years that you would ask me for hard facts about it, then you shouldn't even be discussing this."

    Simple, there has been a backlash against 'curebie' treatments such as ABA and biomed.

    So far most of this backlash has consisted of critiquing the clinical and ethical basis of ABA and the like.

    At no point (hence your failure to provide even a simple quote or reference) has the ND movement said "We oppose all treatements".

    To turn "we're not to keen on these treatements" into "we deny the validity of all treatments ,including the ones we research, recieve and deliver, is an act of pure malicious bullshitting.

    "If those treatments were so effective and helpful, I think there would be a lot more talk of them and urging for them."

    What a idiotic claim! There already is urging for TEACCH, SPELL, makaton, OT, ACD, SaLT etc! They already are discussed internationally, with many in place even at the national level, far in excess of what ABA has acheived.

    I noted how you dodged my pointing out your desperate last gasp redefintion of 'treatments'.

    You either have a really, really odd definition of 'treatment' or you're clutching at straws.

    Stop throwing accusations around and start ponying the shit up. So far you've done nothing but sling pessimistic self-referential bullcrap around.

    We won't take your word just because you say so, especially not when in contradicts observable reality.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Word on Lurker.

    Lurker is a troll. Sh/ has no business here other than to fuck the flow of conversation and discussion. The questions posed by that person have been answered or requests have been made for reasonable elaboration and that person has failed to come back with this. Despite his/her failure/refusal to do so, s/he has insisted that we do all the proving to him/her. S/he likes to redefine things at a whim to suit him/herself, and insists that s/he doesn't need to know what our real difficulties are before making claims that are - as we all know - blatantly false.

    I see a lot of very nasty projective identification going on from Lurker's side of things, and I am willing to bet that Lurker isn't even autistic. The possibility - based on the very evident paranoic tendency and the overwhelming projective identification - is that Lurker has a borderline personality disorder and will always behave this way, regardless of however much we try to convince him/her of the validity of what we say.

    Joseph, we are wasting our time dealing with that person. S/he is disrupting the flow of discussion. Any ideas what to do? I want no truck with that person. S/he is looking to be entertained.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Lurker, have you heard of people like Ronald Coleman, and Peter Beresford? psychiatric survivors who are listened to by the professionals these days.

    Have you ever campaigned alongside people with learning difficulties (that is there prefered terminology ATM for what the US would call retarded)

    I have, and yes I have seen the same prejudices and nonsence spoken that has tried to deny them an authentic voice of self advocacy by implying that they have been parroting the voice of people who have been coaching them.

    Spend some time with people who do not have this buffer you have of a high IQ, and see that they are fully human, and not at all ignorant of the sort of shit they have to face because of paternalistic society and the narrow construction of there disabilities and imposed limitations.

    Yes there are people with intellectual impairments who embrace neurodiversity, and why not? Because it gives hope.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "Where is the evidence that OT is inappropriate for people with autism?
    What about SaLT? Who says TEACCH doesn't work?"
    Look at this evidence: Joseph said: "There's not a single treatment of autism that is what we might call evidence-based"

    Why would the anti-curebies be criticizing ABA and biomed on the basis of ethics and clinical aspects? If they condemn it on the basis of lack of evidence, how couldn't they be hypocritical in their endorsement of the other non-evidence based treatments?

    "At no point (hence your failure to provide even a simple quote or reference) has the ND movement said "We oppose all treatements"." It doesn't matter because they don't have the courage to say what they really mean, instead of using propaganda to oppose substantial treatment.

    If those treatments are so helpful and have more evidence behind them than ABA, why do so many parents advocate for ABA more than anything, why is ABA said to be the only evidence based treatment, and why do parents still urge a cure to be researched?

    You won't stop dodging the fact that those treatments aren't shown to bring enough ability.

    ReplyDelete
  115. David I am about to disagree with you and upbraid you.

    You should NEVER attempt to diagnose people over the internet or imply an alternative diagnosis such as borderline personality in a pejorative sense.

    It is an old game to say that so and so is out of the argument cos they are not autistic, be that Raun the buyer, or Temple the cow sage. It just does not work as an argument and does not cut mustard (not that I ever tried such a dissection myself)

    It is unfortunate, but real, that some people will not concede arguments not becaue they have lost them but simply because they are ill informed and do not have access to all the data sufficient to make an informed decision.

    I have this frightening ability to mnenomical concordance that although I may forget names, dates, page numbers and such, I very rarely forget anything I have read or seen at some time, I have the ability when I am fully charged enough to apply it to wrongfoot anybody, and have used it academically and politically before now.

    I can be accused of name dropping as much as you like, but the facts are that I have been around with many key people in the disability movement including those who have gone native and joined the establishment these days.

    I have earned my place in the disability community (notwithstanding I have physical impairments these days too and have always had a visual impairment)

    My mum who was a very prominent disability campaigner, and who was responsible for getting me involved in the first place recognised that her disabilities were aquired, but that I an my brother were born with ours.

    ReplyDelete
  116. David, there's nothing respectable about the discussion that goes on here without anyone on my side. You aren't any more legitimate. I have no respect for the discussion of anyone who won't deal with the idea of dissent and won't recognize it as dialogue. You've ignored enough of my points. You haven't addressed my elaborations.

    I think your demands for irrelevant evidence were things asked just to avoid addressing my points. I've had enough of your whatever you say is right, whatever I say is wrong attitude. What the hell kind of entertainment is this for me, addressing reality here as I do? This is almost all I have left.

    Laurentius, I don't know those two people. What prejudices and nonsense? I can't think of anything more paternalistic than ND and the social model of disability. What do you care about recognizing humanity? Mental impairment isn't diversity. Period. Screw false hope derived from demoralization.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Joseph, we are wasting our time dealing with that person. S/he is disrupting the flow of discussion. Any ideas what to do? I want no truck with that person. S/he is looking to be entertained.

    I'm not going to ban him/her. That I reserve for horribly unmanageable trolls. Feel free to ingore, though.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Larry,

    "You should NEVER attempt to diagnose people over the internet or imply an alternative diagnosis such as borderline personality in a pejorative sense."

    I'm not actually doing that. I'm actually giving the idiot at taste of its own medicine. It thinks it can diagnose my issues without an assessment so I wanted to see how it felt about someone doing the same to it. And, actually, I wasn't using that term in a pejorative sense, but that term is one that actually fits with the way this person behaves (at least on here!).

    I want that person to think: "Shit, he did that and it wasn't a nice feeling! So, maybe when I did a similar thing to him, he didn't enjoy it much either! Maybe I'd better apologise!"

    Not that Lurker ever would. Lurker is perfect in Lurker's eyes.

    Maybe narcissism, then? I don't know and frankly I don't fucking care. Lurker gets a diagnosis from the UDM (USENET Diagnostic Manual): 'fuckwit'. Personally, I think it suits better than anything ICD or DSM, and has no disability label attached. And quite frankly, having tried to be reasonable with Lurker and got nothing except shat on, I do not feel any obligation to that person to be nice or otherwise positive. At least with Best, there's actually something to contend against. Lurker is vacuous.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "I'm not going to ban him/her. That I reserve for horribly unmanageable trolls. Feel free to ingore, though."

    Let us know when this person has managed that.

    Personally, I'd rather the person just fucked off and left us all alone.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Lurker, the original point was that ND people do not support treatments.

    You have been shown that they do. Everytime you repeat the old anti-ND mantra of "They support nothing" exposes you as a liar.

    Your attempt at using Joseph an authourity just because he's also ND was laughably incompetant.

    You have yet again supplied nothing more than "I don't think so" to anything that is said to you - then you have the audacity to criticise David Andrews because he alledgely "won't deal with the idea of dissent and won't recognize it as dialogue".

    This is exactly what you have been doing. You have been trying to hold court over this discussion, believing that you can dismiss dissent because you "Don't think so" and then say nothing else.

    No references.
    No quotes.
    No elaboration (despite your insistance).
    No explaination behind your idiosyncratic use of basic terms.

    You have provided us with nothing, yet you demand everything.

    Fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  121. David, I never tried to diagnose you with anything. Don't compare what you said about me to what I said about you. But really, the last thing I fret about is having borderline personality disorder as I don't care either way.

    What more than common sense is needed to think that someone with your education and career is mentally fortunate, despite the few difficulties you said you had? At least I acknowledged what you said about yourself and even revised what I had previously said. I have seen none of that from you.

    "Not that Lurker ever would. Lurker is perfect in Lurker's eyes." I think you're projecting. You haven't said one reasonable thing here besides telling me things about yourself.

    "At least with Best, there's actually something to contend against." You don't show respect to anyone who fundamentally disagrees with you.

    "Personally, I'd rather the person just fucked off and left us all alone" I'd gladly do that when those like you leave alone the mentally disabled people who can't defend themselves from the things you say.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Lurker, the fact that you don't know either of those people or even one

    Peter Beresford is chair of "shaping our lives" http://www.shapingourlives.org.uk/ and is also a University Professor, does not say much for your knowlege of the field or your competence to engage in the discussion so far as providing real citations and evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Alright Anon, so they do approve of some therapies. I want it to be known that they don't approve of therapies that amount to much. I don't want them taking excessive credit for approving of therapies that will leave a lot of disability in place.

    I'm trying to point out that what Joseph says doesn't nicely match with what you said about ND advocates who approve of the therapies that you mentioned. IF they agree with Joseph about the lack of evidence, then there's no way they can be in favor of improvement through treatment unless they just wish the therapies will work. If that's the case, what is their approval of treatment worth? ,I am not repeating this. Respond with a rebuttal or don't dispute me.

    "You have yet again supplied nothing more than "I don't think so" to anything that is said to you" No, I didn't say that and stop repeating your nonsense!
    Oh, how dare I criticize or question the high and great David.

    Anyone familiar with this issue should need no quotes. You couldn't tell me how many people in those entities you enumerated are pro-ND LFA/impaired autistics. You didn't prove a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Larry said:

    "You should NEVER attempt to diagnose people over the internet or imply an alternative diagnosis such as borderline personality in a pejorative sense."

    Quite right, (as usual), that's something that should not be done. But has anyone actually ASKED him?

    How 'bout it, Lurker, what's your story, what's your Dx, just what IS your major malfunction, son? Maybe we can help you, or at least understand where you're coming from. From what I've read of you, it seems like a very dark place. If you were to reach out for help, we won't turn our backs on you. But if you just want to continue to be a major irritant, we can deal with that too.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Clay, I can't be helped. Let me be clear that I wouldn't accept help in exchange for me shutting up and ceasing to push the truth as I see it. I don't know how much detail you want me to go into. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to tell you all that about me here. If you want to know, I'll tell you.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Lurker said:
    "Clay, I can't be helped. Let me be clear that I wouldn't accept help in exchange for me shutting up and ceasing to push the truth as I see it."

    No one suggested such an exchange, and it seems to me that the process would probably take awhile, so there's no quid pro quo deal offered.

    "I don't know how much detail you want me to go into. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to tell you all that about me here. If you want to know, I'll tell you."

    I would like to help, if possible, and it might help if there was just someone who could understand. I'm an old Aspie, nearly 63, retired, and if you write to me privately, I promise to keep it private. I'm known some places as mooncatadams, and I use gmail.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Nice try, Clay, but that one isn't here to seek explanations. Just to stir shit.

    File under vomit.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "Only messages that violate Blogger's content policy or are written by John Best Jr. will be deleted."

    What about those by people acting on his behalf? Just curious....

    ReplyDelete
  129. John Best is a different kind of troll. It didn't make sense at all to continue to let him post comments.

    I'm not aware that Lurker is acting on John's behalf either.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I'm trying to point out that what Joseph says doesn't nicely match with what you said about ND advocates who approve of the therapies that you mentioned.

    About that, I should point out that speech therapy and OT are not autism treatments. They are more general than that. There's evidence that they work, from outside the autism world. I'm not all that familiar with the quality of the evidence and so forth.

    You won't hear a lot of objections about TEACCH, because it doesn't have the potential problems of ABA. It actually sounds like a reasonable method of teaching. But again here, there's no high quality evidence that it works. I failed to find a single randomized TEACCH trial.

    There are some promising approaches, with evidence from randomized trials, though. See Dr. Gernsbacher's overview.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "I'm not aware that Lurker is acting on John's behalf either."

    I've had a tip-off to suggest otherwise...

    ReplyDelete
  132. Joseph: "You won't hear a lot of objections about TEACCH, because it doesn't have the potential problems of ABA."

    The potantial problems would seem to be correlated with the people who practise it at the individual and organisational levels. In Finland, for example, there are people billing interventions as being 'ABA' and they are indeed informed by a behaviour analytic orientation; but they actually look more like TEACCH!

    "It actually sounds like a reasonable method of teaching."

    Given that it is aimed at creating an environment for learning in, it agrees with the most fundamental issue in teaching: modifying the environment so that it provides as much of the necessary reinforcement as possible.

    "But again here, there's no high quality evidence that it works."

    Sadly, this is one of the things that the ABA-Autism lobby always push as a reason for ignoring it... notwithstanding the very glaring methodological problems with the original Lovaas study!

    "I failed to find a single randomized TEACCH trial."

    That would certainly go towards quantifying the extent to which it might be working. I'd also suggest that a serious qualitative investigation would be useful... that would give information on both the hows and whys of what it was (or wasn't) doing.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Notwithstanding my agreement that internet diagnosis is inappropriate, I woud guess that many autistic people who oppose neurodiversity are clinically depressed and that their feelings of hopelessness conflict with a neurodiversity POV. I'd say more, but my cat is trying to type right now.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Hi, Joseph,

    Thank you for responding to my post. You had some good questions, so I will do my best to answer you. You said, “If anything I said is untrue, point out which part is untrue. I’ll correct it if you show me that something I said is inaccurate.” Thank you, I appreciate that. You said, “He’s so high-functioning that even he claims to have turned into a non-autistic. (I realize he works for his parents and is apparently single in his late 30s or early 40s, but he obviously want to market himself as non-autistic.)” Okay, where to start. First, saying he’s high-functioning means that he has autism. There’s nothing wrong with having autism, of course, but you asked for inaccuracies, and here’ the first one. Your statement is also laden with implied statements. Saying “he claims” means that you believe that what he is saying is untrue, which also means that you are calling him a liar. When you say “I realize that he works for his parents and is apparently single in his late 30s or early 40s, but he obviously wants to market himself as non-autistic,” you are again implying that he is a liar as well as implying that there is “something wrong” with him. It would be like if I said about the president, “Barack Obama claims he is a family man, but he didn’t kiss his wife during their last interview and he was seen talking to a 21-year-old model last Sunday.” Surely you can hear the implications in a statement like that. Also, factually, your statement is incorrect. Raun is 36 years old, he has a girlfriend of 2.5 years, and he doesn’t work FOR his parents – rather, he is the CEO of the organization that his parents founded.

    You also asked, “Are you saying that suggesting someone might be autistic is slanderous?” That is an excellent question. Of course, saying that someone has autism is not slanderous at all. Implying that someone is a liar is. Also, although saying that someone has autism in and of itself is not slanderous, imagine this: Imagine I said about you, “Joseph’s hands shake.” Now, certainly, there is nothing slanderous about saying that someone’s hands shake. But if you were a respected surgeon, and what I said was untrue, you could sue me – and you would win. You see what I’m saying? Again, I would say that you could make your very valid neurodiversity argument without making implied derogatory statements about individuals you don’t know and have never met.

    One final note. You said at the end of your reply to me: “I know what Son-Rise is. I know acceptance is part of Son-Rise, but not exactly as something that is desirable in itself, but as a method of making an autistic person stop being autistic. Clearly, that’s fake acceptance.” So here is where I get most concerned, because you appear not to have any idea what The Son-Rise Program is and how it works. Acceptance is absolutely something desirable in and of itself. The Son-Rise Program tells parents all the time that the most important thing is to accept their child exactly as they are without needing (or demanding) that they change one iota. This is not to “make an autistic person stop being autistic.” Rather, as is always explained to every single parent, it is for 3 reasons. One, because this is so much more satisfying to the parent – to love and cherish the child they have rather than wishing for a different child. It creates such a sense of closeness. Two, it is so much more pleasant for the child – to experience being loved and accepted for who they are. And three, it offers the child a choice – to decide if they want to connect more to this person who is accepting them or not. Yes, it is more appealing for more children to connect with someone who is accepting them, cherishing them, and not demanding things of them, but what’s wrong with that? It’s more appealing for a spouse to stay married to a person who talks lovingly and respectfully to him/her, doesn’t demand things, and doesn’t cheat, but are we now going to say that every spouse’s love, respect, and fidelity are somehow fake?

    ReplyDelete
  135. @Adam: Saying that someone claims something is most definitely not the same as calling them a liar.

    Here's an example: Simon Baron-Cohen claims autism is caused by a extreme male brain.

    Am I calling him a liar?

    It's true that working for his parents is not exactly the same as working for the organization his parents founded. I'll correct that.

    I still completely disagree that suggesting someone might (still) be autistic is slanderous. Would it be slanderous to speculate whether Darryl Hannah is still autistic?

    These are perfectly valid questions, scientifically and philosophically.

    It's well known that some so-called classic/Kanner autistics have a successful outcome. It's valid to question whether they should be called "successful autistics" vs. "recovered former autistics." There are non-trivial implications to this wording.

    To put it another way, what's the difference between Raun and the autistics from Kanner (1972)?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Plus a technical point: "high functioning" does not apply exclusively to autism by any stretch of the imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "You couldn't tell me how many people in those entities you enumerated are pro-ND LFA/impaired autistics."

    And theres no rational way I could be expected to keep a tally, without expending significantly more resources than that data is worth. Thus your 'challenge' is meaningless and worthless.

    Wow, you really will try anything. I can't provide 100% detail so therefore I'm wrong? (but you who provide no detail are somehow right).

    "I'm trying to point out that what Joseph says doesn't nicely match with what you said about ND advocates who approve of the therapies that you mentioned."

    Irrelevant. I am not obligated to agree with Joseph, nor is he an aboslute authourity. Thus, quoting him is not a arguement, nor is anyone within the ND movement obliged to agree with anyone else.

    No point was made, thus, no rebuttal is needed.

    Like it or not, you do not respond with anything more than "I don't think so". Your opinion of your argumentative style is vastly different from the observable reality.

    Again, you have been given names, place, names of concepts and models, names of therapies and treatments, all of which you can easily find and look at from your chair.

    You have provided nothing in response except self-important, self-referencing, pessimisstic nay-saying.

    You will not recieve a response from me, as you did not have the decency to provide the same logic and evidence that you demand.

    We are not here to spoon-feed you and respond to your every command. A discussion is supposed to be a two way sharing of opinion and inofrmation, yet you have done nothing but demand, demand, demand, take, take, take.

    You might not want to shut up and sit down to get help, but help is what you obviously need.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Sorry, but I just can't give over anymore time to someone who needs every brick to be pointed out to them before they will see the wall.

    At some point, people who are truly interested in learning take responsibility to find things out for themselves, they don't sit around waiting for it to be dropped in their laps.

    People who are truly eager to learn don't try every trick in the book (irrelevant questions, demand for perfect answers) to avoid learning.

    ReplyDelete
  139. "And theres no rational way I could be expected to keep a tally," If you can't point any out, then don't dispute me.

    "Again, you have been given names, place, names of concepts and models, names of therapies and treatments, all of which you can easily find and look at from your chair."
    Yet all of that didn't prove your point and disprove mine.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I have visited two mental health institutions in my province of New Brunswick where various mentally challenged individuals reside for their own care and protection. None of the residents I met will be visiting this internet site and commenting.

    My son is "low functioning" whether anyone here likes that term or not. He has limited understanding of language and limited ability to communicate.

    He does not understand "neurodiversity" and can not form an opinion for or against it. The most low functioning autistic persons, the ones living in complete institutional care are not involved with this internet phenomenon of neurodiversity.

    This whole discussion is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Smarmy git: "He does not understand 'neurodiversity' and can not form an opinion for or against it."

    Has he had it explained to him in language he'd understand? If not, that ... DAH!

    Smarmy git: "This whole discussion is absurd."

    So fucking what?!

    You're another one I've lost fucking patience with.

    You contribute fuck all to any discussion anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Anonymous: "At some point, people who are truly interested in learning take responsibility to find things out for themselves, they don't sit around waiting for it to be dropped in their laps."

    I agree entirely. I did my own learning and supported it with proper university-based learning, checking out theory against my experience and the experiences of others in similar positions to mine. I didn't wait to be fucking fed it all on a spoon.

    I dunno what Lurker's background is and - quite frankly - I couldn 't give a shit, after all the crap he's given to me and the total bloody hypocrisy he's been pumping out of his fucking cretinous arse on here.

    He wants to grow up to be the first commenter here, that's his own choice and people are going to quite rightly get very fucked off with talking to him.

    He could of course go the other way and stop being a prick; and actually start taking responsibility for his own fucking life. THEN I'll respect him.

    Not until.

    ReplyDelete
  143. @Harold: Unless you thought the topic of the post was "all autistics are high functioning" or something like that, I fail to see what your contribution is about. That's the same thing you say everywhere.

    Do you take issue with any claims in the post or claims made by readers?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Joseph said:

    "@Harold: Unless you thought the topic of the post was "all autistics are high functioning" or something like that, I fail to see what your contribution is about. That's the same thing you say everywhere."

    All Harold wants is to tempt people to click on his name to get some traffic to his blog. Then, when they try to leave a comment there, he quickly deletes it if they don't agree with his views. He's come out as an anti-vaxer on EoH, something he's always denied on the Hub, I think. He's a useless, limp prick! I think his wife would agree. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  145. Anne said:

    "I would guess that many autistic people who oppose neurodiversity are clinically depressed and that their feelings of hopelessness conflict with a neurodiversity POV."

    I think that's a really good guess.
    In fact, I know it is. I'm sure it's too late for Jonathan, as his attitudes have been reinforced by his mother's influence. It may not be too late for Lurker, if we try to be patient. He just hasn't been on the right forums.

    (Yes, I say "forums" and not "fora". I piss on Latin plural forms.) ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  146. Harold's repertoire of talking points can be summarized as follows:

    1. Self injury.

    2. Bernardine Healey believes the vaccine-autism link needs to be studied further.

    3. You are trying to speak for my son.

    That's it.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Sigh.
    In the *good old days*, public discussion forums were done via Usenet News, and any Newsreader app worth its salt had something sorely missed in this day and age of blogs and comments-on-blogs: a killfile.
    If a troll showed up on a Newsgroup, you could stop having to listen to him by adding him to your killfile. Et voila, your Newsreader would no longer display any messages from said troll.
    Old-timers know the word "plonk". That's the imaginary sound made by yet another troll as he lands in your killfile.

    @"Lurker" (who does not lurk, as advertised, for if he did, he would sit down and STFU): *plonk*

    ReplyDelete
  148. Clay: "It may not be too late for Lurker, if we try to be patient."

    Actually, Clay ... it is. He doesn't want to be helped. He's made that clear. Water, horse, drink.... remember?

    Clay: "All Harold wants is to tempt people to click on his name to get some traffic to his blog. Then, when they try to leave a comment there, he quickly deletes it if they don't agree with his views."

    Indeed that's what he's all about...

    ReplyDelete
  149. Phil Schwartz: "(who does not lurk, as advertised, for if he did, he would sit down and STFU)"

    If only he fucking would!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  150. Everyone,
    Last night, after I wrote a couple of posts to Lurker, I thought I had a clue to find out who he really was, because I had noticed some writing similarities to one "JosephS", who'd been posting on LB/RB. This led me to believe his name was Joseph, and I put a few other things together, and came up with Joeker, a person on a2p2.

    In the meantime, he wrote to me and told me some of his long sad story. After a couple of exchanges, he denied that he was Joeker, said his name was Andy. Okay, I can admit when I'm wrong.

    But unless Andy is his middle name, he was lying about that.

    Tonight, just a little while ago, I happened to send out invitations for an action on change.org. A new name appeared on my address list, with the same address of this person - Billy Cresp!

    Those of you who have wasted time arguing with him on change.org or LB/RB will recognize this name. All his comments on those forums will quickly come up on Google. Including the one on change.org where he welcomes pre-natal tests for the purpose of aborting autistic fetuses.

    Bottom line, meet Jon Mitchell Jr!
    Another hopeless case.

    (plonk)

    ReplyDelete
  151. Billy Cresp?! Well, fuck me sideways with a stick o' toffee!!!

    That explains why the slimy fucker was so bloody shit-witted with me... I fuck up his argument for aborting autistic foetuses if he thinks I did THAT fucking well in my life!!!!

    As I said, on 11th Feb this year:

    "I’ve got a feeling that Billy Cresp is a concern troll: someone who puts forward ‘concerns’ but refuses to take on board anything put forward be others in the thread as information to answer or counter those ‘concerns’.

    Such a person is likely to be wasting our time."

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1835&cpage=3#comment-56345

    Same pattern as Lurker.

    How pathetic does one have to be to be like Billy fucking Cresp?!

    ReplyDelete
  152. Lurker Billy said (way upthread):

    "I'm perplexed as to why someone with so many impairments would support an idea that would do nothing for them and keep them down, and oppose cures which would remove so many difficulties of theirs and bring so many opportunities to them."

    This presupposes that such "cures" exist. They don't. Someone much wiser than you said: "Waiting for a cure for something that cannot be cured is like waiting for a happier afterlife. Better to make social changes that'll benefit all people with disabilities, whatever the level, or label."

    And that's the Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  153. What does the question of the existence of cures have to do with the merits of what I said there? It doesn't presuppose the existence of cures.

    I detest it when one of you claims cure isn't possible in order to demoralize those who want a cure. Even if it takes too long to devise a cure in time for some people, why not pursue a cure in hopes for a better future, for those in the future who can benefit from it? Think of all the progressive things that needed many generations to be achieved.

    Social changes can't do a whole lot. Who that is mentally disabled would be happy about the social changes implemented by a bunch of snooty, arrogant people like you. The job is not done and the goal will not be achieved until impairments are removed, as it's not fair to have to lack basic abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Lurker Cresp...

    Do the world a fucking HUGE favour, you arrogant piece of shit. Take your eugenicistic fantasies ... and shove them as far up your arse as you fucking can.

    And then... fuck off!

    ReplyDelete
  155. David, where did I ever express eugenicistic fantasies?

    ReplyDelete
  156. Billy Lurker said...

    "David, where did I ever express eugenicistic fantasies?"

    I'll take that one, as I just recently researched it.

    Change.org - 12 Jan 2009 -

    "There is no justification for sugarcoating what reality is like for autistics, to prevent people from using a prenatal test to selectively abort when it becomes available. I don't see how a negative portrayal of autistic reality is anything but realistic and practical. How dare anybody claim that their "positive" outlook on autism is accurate/ objective." Billy Cresp

    ReplyDelete
  157. Cresp... that's eugenics.

    Like it or not, that is eugenics.

    Get used to being found out.

    Even John Best isn't as stupid as you, and he's stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  158. That doesn't mean I condone prenatal test abortion. I didn't think that any claimed happiness was needed or should be needed to have an argument against such abortion. The argument against it should be considered valid on its own. I don't want those who overstate the happiness of autistics to use the argument against prenatal test abortion, as an opportunity to mislead about that happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "That doesn't mean I condone prenatal test abortion."

    Have you actually STATED that clearly alongside the statement that: "There is no justification for sugarcoating what reality is like for autistics, to prevent people from using a prenatal test to selectively abort when it becomes available."

    Well?

    Not as far as I've seen. So we don't know if your statement of "That doesn't mean I condone prenatal test abortion" is anything other than one of your feeble attempts to get out from having been sussed out. Personally, I wouldn't trust you to be telling the truth after the shit you were telling Clay.

    Why are you still hanging around? Fuck off!

    ReplyDelete
  160. So I didn't say it then. I don't include detailed explanations of all the things I say when I make comments in different contexts.
    What the hell kind of an argument is it to condemn prenatal testing for abortion, based on the claimed happiness of those to be aborted?

    Consider that that argument nearly implies that happiness would be needed to justify protection against prenatal test abortion. What does that argument say about whoever uses it? What if people convinced of such an argument realize that the claimed happiness isn't had by many autistics? What will they think of prenatal test abortion then?

    I think ND's use of the prenatal test argument has been out of hand with their doubtful and overstated claims that autism research would lead to a prenatal test. I don't like that they do that to try to deter people from favoring autism research which could lead to a cure.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Ou sont les Trolls d'antan?

    I suppose they all got bored with the diminishing returns of usenet, as the usage declines in proportion to the number of ISP's that support it, and they wandered off for pastures new. In the old days they had to write letters to the newspapers and actually post them, now that was dedication.

    (Every provincial daily will have it's list of confirmed malcontent's battling it out via the correspondence pages)

    I guess that the only Trolls left on Usenet are those who are so totally mentally deranged that they are unable to do anything else, with terminal OCD.

    Whoops I am still posting on Usenet, ergo I must be OCD. (ok folks I admit it)

    Some create an argument for the sake of it, switching allegiances and changing ideas just so they can continue to stir up a proverbial hornets nest, they don't even believe what they are writing. I wonder sometimes if our favourite JBjnr is one of these, even David Icke would not believe some of the conspiracies he subscribes to these days.

    ReplyDelete
  162. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  163. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Tosspot: "What the hell kind of an argument is it to condemn prenatal testing for abortion, based on the claimed happiness of those to be aborted?"

    Um... and you can tell - without knowing what a child's likely developmental path is going to be - which child will or won't grow up to be happy enough to meet your
    VERY ARBITRARY criterion for having a worthwhile life? Can you fucking hell as like? Medics can't and nor can psychologists. So a totally useless internet troll like you has fuck all chance.

    You still favour eugenics, like it or not.

    Now fuck off and spread your hatred of disabled people and disabilities somewhere the fuck else.

    You're PNG for many of us here....

    ReplyDelete
  165. Harold Doherty.

    I turn to someone who is not quite a Troll just a serial believer in nonsence.

    Your post does not say much for the quality of care in Canadian Institutions (sadly that part is probably true, in the UK as well)

    Institutions are not about bettering or improving there inmates welfare or educating them, they are warehouses. It certainly is seen as counterproductive to encourage any ideas that challenge the status quo and cause more trouble for the "keepers"

    If it is true that your standard trope of the LFA does not care about neurodiversity because they cannot understand the language, does not mean you are any fitter than me to represent.

    As David has pointed out some of us are educated to a professional standard with regard to Autism, indeed have a higher level of training and experience than the average care worker in an institution.

    Being a parent is not enough in itself. I'll give you an everyday example.

    Harold you certainly know your son best in terms of everyday seeing him, but the you still take him to a Dr if he is sick, I guess. You realise there are limits to your knowlege.

    Well there certainly are limits to your knowlege with regard to Autism, given the selectivity of everything you write.

    Yes there are autistics out there who don't care for the politics and the interactions of neurodiversity, the thing is if you listen to what they say nonetheless, they are saying the same things about positive self esteem and worth, but without the ideology.

    You pick on us because we are the visible tip of a rather large and moving iceberg out there.

    ReplyDelete
  166. That doesn't answer my question, and you don't make a lot of sense. The criteria aren't arbitrary. I'm not in favor of eugenics. I don't hate the mentally disabled. Think about YOUR hatred of the mentally disabled through your views on mental disability, and the incessant insults you hurl at people, implying they're stupid, in order to demonize them.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Cresp... I got tired of talking to you ages back. Fuck off.

    You lied to Clay about a shitload of things... you're a lying twat, and you could be lying about not hating... I don't know and I don't fucking care.

    You're a waste of everyone's time.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Yeah, now he's telling me offlist that Billy Cresp isn't his real name either. The Google entry was made last year, so he knew then that he was embarking on a course of malicious trollery. Look at the time he's wasted here, or on that LB/RB post that David linked to last night. He had Dedj practically pulling her hair out trying to reason with him. Look at his posts on Change.org, where he had everyone all upset.

    I've traded 12 posts with him in the last 24 hours, and he won't listen to anything I say, but keeps making unsubstantiated allegations about some "hidden evil agenda" of Neurodiversity. It's all crap. Let's not waste any more time arguing with him, whatever the fuck his name is.

    That's his game.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Harold said "The most low functioning autistic persons, the ones living in complete institutional care are not involved with this internet phenomenon of neurodiversity"

    Except they are, through client centered programs and user forums.

    Even the clients I work with on a regular basis (24/7 care with 1-1 for most community activities) get invited to expressly autistic friendly events. Staff training is based around low-arousal client centered techniques and adapting the environement to suit the person - concepts most likely used with your 'low functioning' son Connor.

    Hell , even people like CSCI are trying (not very well, but trying) to get in the act.

    If you can't see ND in evidence offline, then you either aren't looking properly or wouldn't recognise it unless it was openly stated (which it isn't - why say something that is implicit through your words and actions?).

    Women don't declare belief in womens right to vote because it's implicit in the actions of voting.

    The same goes for ND. ND describes something that is happening now, at all levels. This moaning about not giving all the details (an idiotic claim when one considers that ND is descriptive not proscriptive) is just distraction from the key issue:

    Curebies like lurker only want the perfect solution. They cannot tolerate - because they cannot understand - any opposition at all. It's a sad, sad day that attempting (no arguements here - it's already been indicated strongly that many ND people are directly involved with treatments and services) to help people with autism is devalued, rather than appluaded and encouraged, because someone would much rather have their favourite therapy in place instead.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Anon, what is so deplorable about a perfect solution? I want a real answer. I honestly don't think your efforts to help autistics should be applauded at all if you're against what would bring the best circumstances for them. Who likes the idea of applauding you to help you pat yourself on the back? I think those who are genuine that help autistics should be applauded rather.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Well Clay me old old pal me old beauty, you can't reason with some people, take me for instance :)

    I don't suppose Cresp is it's real name at all, so many pseudonyms abound on the web never mind usenet.

    Laurentius is not to be found on my birth certificate, but then Desiderius Erasmus isn't either :(

    However I don't hide behind anonymity, I am real I have an offline presence far more influential than on line and solid friendships amongst neurodiverse folk, and my friends are really doing something in this world, not in online debates and forums, but engaging with organisations like the NAS, and Autism West Midlands, and Mind, and others challenging the construction of our disability.

    And yeah we are not perfect, we have pretty shitty and disadvantaged circumstances, but we are alive and kicking, kicking mostly.

    Why does anyone think we are less caring or capable of engaging with so called Low Funtioning Autistics?

    Why are we so far away from parents who quite often are only concerned (they can't help it, it is genetic programming) with there own offspring, when we want to engage all of our kind without those blinkers.

    I will tell you why, because even though we are "high funtioning" that very designation in itself as much is an accusation of "failure" a cutting accusation that we are still less than NT, we are still impaired, in ways that society is less likely to have sympathy and tolerance for than the thoroughgoing bliss of being natures "innocent"

    We are not less than anybody, and no matter what your IQ is you are not less than anybody.

    There is this whole social construction, this whole value system that surrounds the construction of people like Harold Doherty. (The troll can irrumate himself if he has either the endowment or the agility)

    Harold you think you are it?

    Well I have eaten people like you for breakfast, there was a guy, a parent like you on the NAS who said that he would see people like me on the board of the NAS over his dead body. He was absolutely correct in that, unfortunately for him in that he expired before I was elected.

    Think on this, in order to be elected onto the NAS Council, and in order for my fellow spectrumites to be elected, we have had to appeal to what is still a majority of parents out there.

    I am not a self appointed advocate in that sense, because I am elected, and when Canada can see the same sence as the UK then perhaps Harold you too will learn a little more than you currently know about what we are about and what we campaign for.

    You can call me, and those of us who put our heads above the proverbial parapet what you like, we have endured bullying and some of us what amounts to outright torture in the past and we are still here to challenge you not just at a visceral level but an academic one.

    Why am I high funtioning?

    Well the truth is I actually to use another metaphor, punch above my weight, and why? Because life has been a struggle and there is something in me at least that endures and persists, and would do never mind my intellectual ability.

    I got to where I am against the odds, but that does not make me happy, because I am not satisfied, I want to make those same opportunities and better ones available to my kindred all over the spectrum, your children and your children's children. I am an evangelist, a fighter, who will put up with suffering, stress, pain, because like my mum I have sight of a greater goal.

    Jonathon Mitchell, what is stopping you being like me? it is not autism, my friends tell me that I am one of the most obviosly autistic of people that they know on the spectrum I don't see it, but they do.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Clay: "Yeah, now he's telling me offlist that Billy Cresp isn't his real name either."

    Seems I was right about Lurker. I'm fucking good, me!

    I may be a psychologist but I do NOT tolerate shit from pieces of shit like Billy Cresp oe who-the-fuck-ever-he-want-to-be-called-by-now.

    Fact is... I WAS FUCKING RIGHT! Trollus maximus faecibus!!!!

    Billy Cresp or whatever you want to fucking call yourself now... YOU WERE FUCKING RUMBLED! Get used to it, you little shit. You are THAT shit at being a troll that even the people you think should be killed before birth can fucking OUT you!

    LoL!

    I own your fucking arse!!! I tell you when you can shit or not!

    LoL

    ReplyDelete
  173. Larry said:
    I got to where I am against the odds, but that does not make me happy, because I am not satisfied, I want to make those same opportunities and better ones available to my kindred all over the spectrum, your children and your children's children. I am an evangelist, a fighter, who will put up with suffering, stress, pain, because like my mum I have sight of a greater goal."

    Yup Larry, it's been all of nine years since we first met, and we've had some differences, but I credit you with all you've accomplished for your goal. I salute you, and wish you continued success. Great post, all of it.

    Poor Jonathan and "Billy" just want to wallow in self-pity and cry about how life is unfair, instead of working to make it more fair. They want someone/something to blame, as if that would help them! They need to accept what IS, and then accept responsibility for their own lives. They're the only ones who can live it.

    ReplyDelete
  174. David, so what I don't use my real name on these forums? I'm not going to use my real name when dealing with a bunch of out of control aggressors like yourself.

    I've had it with your pompousness and slander of me. I wonder when you'll be done with your cocky temper tantrum and outburst, so you can get back to having your hand kissed repeatedly by the people who like to put their heads in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Clay, I want to make things fair, unlike you. Making things fair doesn't include accepting what is. The status-quo won't allow progress. Don't act like you, or the other hardly impaired brilliant people, wouldn't be self-pitying and complaining about unfairness if they had the same problems that I had.

    Why the hell should anyone like us accept that responsibility? When did I ever have a choice or a chance to attain success, considering the disabilities of mine that are out of my control?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Jonathon Mitchell, what is stopping you being like me? it is not autism, my friends tell me that I am one of the most obviosly autistic of people that they know on the spectrum I don't see it, but they do.

    Larry, nothing is stopping me, it is that I choose not to be like you. I don't want to stoop to name calling because of petty jealousy of others whose writings have been more well read than mine even though, like yourself, very little of my writings have been published. But I would never call someone a "token autistic" or any other slur that you do just out of jealousy.

    I also want to be polite and good mannered as my mother taught me. Even if Clay Adams wants to believe my mother taught me to hate myself, at least she taught me good manners. So, I won't be disruptive at meetings just to get attention the way you do. I also won't trivialize the problems of people like Matthew Belmonte's brother the way you do. I will remain quiet at a meeting and not be disruptive or heckle people. It is bad manners, but I don't have your pathological need to be the center of attention, because I hate being a nonentity in the world of autism to whom people will pay no attention to. That is why I am not like you, Larry.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Jonathan said:

    "Even if Clay Adams wants to believe my mother taught me to hate myself, at least she taught me good manners."

    I can see it all now - "Sit up straight! Don't slurp your soup! Don't scrape your fork on your teeth! I don't want people to think I'm raising an animal!"

    Did you ever break away from her, Jon?

    ReplyDelete
  178. why don't you practice what you preach clay? Why don't you do something to make your life better instead of being abusive to people because you loathe yourself so much?

    ReplyDelete
  179. Jonathon, it is because I have never been able to be quiet at meetings that people have eventually listened to what I have been interupting about all this time.

    Sure it annoys some people, and to some people it is rude, but figure this, sometimes you need to be rude, and I have had to put up with the unpleasant consequences that brings from(expletive deleted) bigots like Matthew Belmonte. I do not enjoy that, and if I were merely an attention seeker I would be looking for other sort of attention than that.

    (Such as you do by kow towing to those who want to keep us down)

    Unlike you, I do take the consequences and put up with it, because in the long run the message is getting through and it is not just me who is putting it about, it is getting repeated.

    There are quiet people and there are noisy people and I am one of the noisy ones, who finds it easier to interupt simply because I don't have the social nous to stay quiet, I guess I am blessed in that way because no campaign was ever won by merging into the wallpaper.

    If I were merely making a noise and spouting crap, rudeness or not, attention seeking or not, rather than saying something which has eventually got people agreeing with, do you think the NAS would have made the changes it has?

    As I said, I was elected not by a fanatic minority, but by the "silent majority" out there, and never did I pretend to be anything other than abrasive or challenging.

    I have admittedly only met Matthew Belmonte on two occasions (he was so ignorant that he did not appear recall the first occasion when I was a co presenter at a conference he was attending as a presenter.

    I have however met people with his same outlook, who have started out as oppositional to me, but have later accepted me alongside them, and that includes some of the founding members of the NAS who just accept me as part of the landscape now, even if my erstwhile opponent Mr Kieth Benson is spinning in his grave now to see me on the board.

    The question has to be asked sometimes who is a pot and which of us is calling the kettle black when you talk of resentment and jealousies.

    I take back what I said about Stephen Shore, and the fact is I would not even have said it were it not for your provocation in the first place, so there you go.

    And yes I did set out publicly to challenge Temple Grandin if ever I met her, though I regret I failed to recognise her when I did meet her, being somewhat drunk on free hospitality at the time. Nevertheless the following day when I was sober, I did privately put my point to her, and not through interupting her speech, though she proved to be just as free and easy with her interuptions during the session I was chairing.

    I reserve the right to disagree with anyone on the spectrum if I think what they are saying is incorrect or has harmful consequences, and it is just my lot in life that I do, because like many things, you don't have to like me any more than you like the refuse collector, but there are jobs that need to be done, and I try my best to do them in the only way I can.

    And I still have a damn site more civility than certain notorious curebies that is for sure.

    I may even have interupted committee proceedings in the House of Commons, but I have not yet been ejected for it, so you see that how and when I say, what I say might be by conventional standards rude, but what I have to say still commands enough attention for that to be overlooked at times when it matters.

    But then I don't really need to be saying any of this, this is just a blog, and people who know me, know me, and not what they think I am on the blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  180. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  181. I guess you haven't heard, Jon, but I'm retired, since before Thanksgiving. Not collecting unemployment, not collecting Social Security, just living off my savings until my birthday next July, when my Social Security payments will be larger. (You get more the longer you wait to file.) I ain't waiting until I'm 66 to retire, screw that.

    Make my life better, how? I think this is as good as it gets. I don't have to deal with people, talk with people, do anything for anyone. (I was a Health Aide for 16 years, so I did a lot of unpleasant things for a lot of people.)

    So, wasn't your mother just like that, and did you ever break away from her? Inquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  182. LoL

    Oh Fucking Boy!!!!

    Cresp/Lurker/Andy: "David, so what I don't use my real name on these forums?"

    Cos you're a fucking chicken unless you're the one terrorising people with you inane fucking paranoid rantings. Get the fuck over yourself!


    Cresp/Lurker/Andy: "I'm not going to use my real name when dealing with a bunch of out of control aggressors like yourself."

    I'm not out of control. But you are... you can't cover your fucked up filthy little tracks, can you???? LoL

    I'm loving this!

    Cresp/Lurker/Andy: "I've had it with your pompousness and slander of me."

    What fucking slander???? LoL

    You've lied about me and I could prove it any fucking time. I have not lied about you: you are a troll. Nothing other than. You were traunced, let alone rumbled. Get the fuck over yourself, snivelling shit! Don't like being called names? Stop deserving them!

    Cresp/Lurker/Andy: "I wonder when you'll be done with your cocky temper tantrum and outburst, so you can get back to having your hand kissed repeatedly by the people who like to put their heads in the sand."

    Okay, dipshit... I haven't had a cocky temper tantum (you have had a few!) and I'm not having any outbursts! I'm not happy about your presence here but I'm not going to have a melt down off of it. Why should I? Especially knowing what I now know about you, you dozey piece of scum!

    As for kissing my hand and all this shit you've used about me before: evidently you fucking envy me, or you would have no problem about it. That is your issue to deal with, not mine, so either go and deal with it or go and fuck yourself... whichever you enjoy the most. I don't care.

    I really don't give a toss! :)

    I'm really happy because I know what kind of arsewipe you really are, and no matter how desperately you try to hide yourself, you know damn well that you've fucked up!

    LoL

    Happy as a pig in shit!

    ReplyDelete
  183. Quisling: "Why don't you do something to make your life better instead of being abusive to people because you loathe yourself so much?"

    LoL... we loathe YOU!

    You loathe you and you've inspired us to do the same. Get the fuck over it. Projective identification will do exactly that for you.

    Want to not be hated?

    Stop fucking hating!

    Until then, be happy with being hated. At least you know people have feelings for you. And if you want nicer feelings, stop being the twat you've become.

    Twatbollock: "Even if Clay Adams wants to believe my mother taught me to hate myself, at least she taught me good manners."

    She taught you to hate yourself, basically. Good manners is fuck all when she taught you to hate who you are.

    Get used to it. And shut the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  184. David, I'm talking about the slander against me when you said I was a eugenicist. What have you done besides lie about me? When did I lie about you?

    "I haven't had a cocky temper tantum (you have had a few!) and I'm not having any outbursts!"
    Yeah, sure you haven't:
    "I do NOT tolerate shit from pieces of shit like Billy Cresp oe who-the-fuck-ever-he-want-to-be-called-by-now.

    Fact is... I WAS FUCKING RIGHT! Trollus maximus faecibus!!!!

    Billy Cresp or whatever you want to fucking call yourself now... YOU WERE FUCKING RUMBLED! Get used to it, you little shit."

    "I own your fucking arse!!! I tell you when you can shit or not!"

    I have no shame in envying you or others like you.

    ReplyDelete
  185. I take back what I said about Stephen Shore, and the fact is I would not even have said it were it not for your provocation in the first place, so there you go.

    Larry you are lying and full of shit the way your pals Adams and Andrews always lie and are full of shit. You are the one who called stephen shore names and said how much better you would be then him before I even posted anything on your blog. It had nothing to do with provocation from me and you know it so why don't you stop lying about that. You have been spending too much time with David Andrews and Clay Adams and picking up their bad habits. I had nothing to do with your attacking Stephen Shore, you did it because you are jealous that he is a published writer in the autism world and a conference superstar and no one in the autism establishment will even give you the time of day even if you gave them a rolex. You are so insecure and have such an inferior complex you will do anything to get attention, even not telling the truth.

    I am still waiting for anyone from the ND movement to tell the truth about anything.

    ReplyDelete
  186. "I have no shame in envying you or others like you."

    So you DO envy me???

    LoL

    Watch yourself, arsehole. You're going to knot yourself up.

    And no... I can be asseertive without having a tantrum. Unlike you.

    At this point particularly, I'm as happy as a pig in shit.

    Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  187. "I am still waiting for anyone from the ND movement to tell the truth about anything."

    And we're still waiting for you to stop being a lying twat.

    We have food and beer and other things... we anticpate a long wait LoL

    ReplyDelete
  188. We have food and beer and other things... we anticpate a long wait LoL

    Yeah, I know, Andrews. That is why you are so obese and why you are constantly drunk and writing the deranged drunken tirades that you constantly write on the internet. I really don't care if someone as disturbed as you hates me.

    ReplyDelete
  189. "Yeah, I know, Andrews. That is why you are so obese and why you are constantly drunk and writing the deranged drunken tirades that you constantly write on the internet. I really don't care if someone as disturbed as you hates me."

    LoL

    This is for tonight only... let's goad the living fuck out of Quisling Mitchell night!!!!

    And I probably weigh less now that you fucking do... I'm not afraid of a couple of mile walk into town... you're afraid of your-fucking-self!

    LoL

    All you do is try to emulate JBJr so he'll let you felate him. You don't have to do that. I've seen the pic he had there... he can felate himself!!!!

    You're a sad individual, Quisling Mitchell... and you always will be.

    And I know I'm ugly, but you make me look like fucking Harrison Ford!!!

    Know why?

    Because you're ugly in your very fucking soul :)

    And I'm not the only person to notice this.... so ... LoL

    I'm as happy as a pig in shit.

    Why?

    Because Mitchell-shite is agitated.

    If he weren't, why would he have to be so ... childishly nasty towards me?

    :)

    And I am not disturbed. Except that shit like you exists. Otherwise, I have a happier life than you do... because I choose to!

    You are too stupid to even do that.

    Now... remember what you told Cube Demon to do? The Smith and Wesson or what-the-fuck-ever... basically telling himself to kill himself?

    That is when you demonstrated that you are one of the shittiest people on the net.

    No matter what I do or say, I can't get that fucking low! :)

    I love not being you. More than you'll ever love not being me!

    ReplyDelete
  190. Jonathan said:

    "Yeah, I know, Andrews. That is why you are so obese and why you are constantly drunk and writing the deranged drunken tirades that you constantly write on the internet."

    You're calling Andrews obese? Looks like you got room to talk. Y'know, "wedgies" weren't even invented yet when I went to school, but the way you act makes even me want to grab onto your size 54 Fruit of the Looms, and give 'em a yank!

    Since you won't answer me, can we assume that you still live with your mum, still dependent on her for so many things, never being free to think/do/feel what you want?

    I guess it's better than paying rent, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  191. This is just getting bizarre.

    A few points to make:

    Seeking a 'perfect' solution is fine, as long as it exists and one recognises that others disagree with what constitutes 'perfect'. Failing to recognise legitimate effort by others just because it doesn't meet your idiosyncratic standards isn't positive or furthering the discussion. It's called being a pedantic prick.

    Larry IS part of the autism establishment, and has a posistion of recognition far in above that usually afforded people of his mannerisms, which conincidentally are archetypally and endemically autistic in thier nature.

    In contrast , very few people outside of the autism bloggosphere appear to know who either JM or HD are, with very little objective information being available in regards thier contributions to the autism community, unlike Larry.

    One will also note that efforts to refer to "ND lies" or "ND hypocrisy" resulted in a combined might of 4 references, none of which meant what the referee's said they did. If Cresp, Mitchell and Doherty are the ND movements most intelligent, educated and devoted rivals, then it's going to be a damn easy ride from here on.

    ReplyDelete
  192. So I am the Peter Cook of the movement now eh :)

    ReplyDelete
  193. So, Larry...

    ... wots the worst job you've ever 'ad?

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  194. I LOVE doing that :)

    Should be doing a little bit when I do my gig on the 11th .

    ReplyDelete
  195. Well Joseph is the one I really feel sorry for in all this, the response to this blog may be really bumped up but the quality of the debate is not high, and in reality it is not much more than a slanging match between people who do not have much first hand access to each others reality.

    If you want to believe I am a non entity who wants to be as famous as Temple Grandin you are mistaken. I wanted to meet her, and having done that, she can go her own way, which is rather different from mine.

    As for Stephen Shore, I met him and I liked him. I don't necessarily agree with all of those platforms he attends, but hey Jerry Newport has said a lot worse of him than I ever have.

    This isn't about becoming autism conference circuit 'superstars'. The status is meaningless and only brings with it the sort of resentment that it is actualy expressed more by Jonathon than anyone else. I get by on the Disability Conference circuit anyway, and the sort of Autism events that TG and SS go to are not the ones I would ever want to be seen at unless it were outside with a placard.

    What I do want however is influence, and that I have been working hard to get.

    Why it is that Stephen Shore has had less influence on the ASA than I have had on the NAS may be nothing to do with either of our personalities but be inherent in the differences between US culture and the UK in the way that we deal with autism as an issue.

    As for books. what Jonathon does not know unless Stephen has told him, is that I have been approached over a book, but the facts are I do not have the spare time to research and write it at the moment.

    And the topic, well none other than the ethics of autism research. I hope to do it one day.

    The books I do resent are those written by Sociologists and Anthropologists who are writing for us what we are capable of writing ourselves, but taking advantage of there academic connections to do that, being as the material for that has come from out internet debates. That is exploitation as I see it.

    Not that I do not agree with the arguments in such books, how could I not being as where the material came from.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Right, I haven't been blogging a whole lot lately, yet this is probably one of the posts with most comments in this blog. If there are any that surpass it, they are no doubt posts where John Best made an irrelevant yet disrupting appearance.

    Beyond the fact that technically it's not easy to control trolls in Blogger, I still like my blogging policy of no comment deletions except for spam, pornography, death threats, and such. I don't like blogs where commenting is a hit or miss exercise (ahem, Doherty) with no clear criteria on which comments are approved and which are not.

    I do ask readers, however, to try to keep their comments civil and reasonably on-topic. It's pretty easy to turn a post that otherwise makes a relevant point into an eye sore. We're talking about posts that will probably be here for many decades, assuming Blogger survives that long, and they reflect the current thinking of the various factions within the autism community.

    ReplyDelete
  197. An interesting archive for future historians and researchers when the history of these times and these struggles come to be written.

    They say history is written by the victors, but then it gets revised later on, that is the way.

    At least the evidence I leave behind me is consistent and correlates.

    ReplyDelete