The Standard Review

The Paper Factory

Originally posted on Eds autism page May 19, 2008

Sometimes agencies are developed and maintained for no other reason than to allow a certain part of the population or advocacy groups that represent that population to feel secure that what they are seeking help with is being worked on.

I have heard these agencies referred to as paper factories. The idea is that as long as they produce enough paper that contains the right words they can postpone (too often what seems like forever) doing anything about what they were assigned to do.

In order for a paper factory to really work some people's needs must be met. Politicians and political groups that create these paper factories try to appease a part of the population that will provide them with support and they in turn will assure them that some parts of their population that the agency is supposed to serve (and by that I mean the most visible and loudest part of that population) are given all they need and sometimes all they want as well.

This creates security for not only the politicians who create these agencies, but also for the agencies themselves to survive as an agency. Then the "one hand washing the other" and "political backscratching" creates a situation where the majority of unwashed hands and unscratched backs are ignored, blamed, and sometimes descibed as the casuties of a necessary evil.

I remember hearing Bill Clinton speak extensively about how many student loans go unclaimed every year. By saying that, the point that he was trying to get across was that the government was doing their part but that people were not making the effort to get these loans. What he failed to explain was how many other reasons there were for these loans and even similar grants not being applied for. The reasons are many and there are many barriers that the US government knowingly creates to prevent these kinds of programs from being accessed by the majority of the population. As is the case with agencies, the way to secure the false claims of unlimited access to these programs is by parading the few who have been successful at using these programs in front of everyone else and have those people tell everyone else how great these programs are and how anyone can access them the way they did.

The way such things work (or rather don't work) for those claiming to be promoting education are very similar to the ways things are tried with in these agencies or paper factories that I'm describing. Unfortunately they have been successful at preventing real progress by promoting the illusion of success for too long.

This illusion is also very prevalent in how many public agencies are claiming to attempt to serve the disabled. Acknowledging neurological difference is one of the biggest threats to hiding the failures of agencies claiming to serve the disability community in the United States and hiding how the old system that has not worked for so many for so long.

If the US government truly accepted that disability was, in most (if not all) cases, an issue based on a lack of an appropriate job being offered to a person who is capable in ways that were not being acknowledged by the government and the public at large, they would need to change the core of their belief system and how they do things.

I don't believe that the US government is organized enough to create the massive conspiracies that many people claim. I do however think that it is safe to say that somebody somewhere who is making major decisions about government policy knows that such things such as glamorizing mood disorders and blaming hyperactive kids while feeding them amphetamines will reduce the population of those they see as unwanted without being blamed for it.

But how can autistics who are known to have a neurological difference be contained and maintained by the old-fashioned governmental paper shuffling rules and rulers? There will need to be a strategy to train the next generation of autistics to accept what the rulers (so to speak) describe as being their defects before the older autistics get the word out and spread their ideals that describe an "autistic culture".

Of course behaviors have to be given pathological reasons and treated with behavioral therapies. Some of those therapies will be brutal but can be justified by claiming that they prevent self injury if enough influencial people describe them that way.

The claims of outside sources such as vaccinations and inappropriate foods causing autism will allow for the growth of the industry described as "therapies" along with marketing more of the lethargy and confusion causing toxic drugs that promote the pharmaceutical industry.

The one thing that will make traditional methods of isolation and exclusion look bad and ultimately less effective is allowing people to believe that differences can actually be accommodated. Tradition is protected by describing things as dis ease so that ease can be marketed based on the claim that this ease (or answer to the dis ease) will come in the form of fixing, curing, and possibly eliminating differences that we find it to be uncomfortable and/or inconvenient to support or encourage.

The accommodations that have been provided for people with all types of disabilities within the United States to be more productive has increased in an alarming slow rate in comparison to the rate of expansion and development of the products and services that we as a nation offers. Our traditional paper shuffling and ignoring people who are seen as inconvenient has created nothing but an enormous debt and a larger part of the population than ever who is seen as unproductive. While it may be difficult for some people to recognize, these kinds of inappropriate and irresponsible management practices have a way of catching up with everyone.

Determining the Future of Aspergers and Attacking Character

This is the link to a story about the future of Aspergers.

The industry of psychology has been encouraged by parents seeking learning accommodations for their children and adults searching for answers to why people behave improperly.

Society can't be very accommodating when industry and the politics that support it are dependent on showing the worth of products and people at the expense of defining products and people that are worthless.

These comparisons are often justified by claiming that this is instead a competition to find what is best and what is true. Unfortunately, that alone wouldn't stimulate the economy. Therefore, comparisons are made without the necessity for any of them being ethical or good. It is only important that something or someone is described as bad so that something or someone else appears better and can therefore, be marketed.

Thinking as it relates to either pathology, mental illness, learning disability, or neurological impairment has always been described by the degree of impairment as it relates to the fleeting, unrealistic, and unattainable definition of normal and is supposedly used to define whether someone needs nothing but care or is in need of (or able to receive) some type of therapy.

Due to the market driven mentality that creates these comparisons based on nothing more than popularity, different degrees of impaired thinking can only be given so much aid. If the solution to the problem ever becomes too attainable people will see the true goals of the industry and their stock will plummet.

In whatever way that Aspergers is now used to define a higher functioning level of autism a similar word or diagnoses will ultimately replace that word if it's taken away. We who are attempting to better define a social model for autism are fighting against an industry and a mindset that the industry uses to create profits. Politics is an extension of industry so the same exclusionary and discriminatory methods are used there as well.

In order to create a product/person that people will buy a determination must be made of what people don't want and how to get people to invest in preventing or fixing what is considered to be the problem. In psychology this product is basically defined as abnormal.

The two leading industries who make decisions about autism are the must-be-cured/must-be-fixed disease model and the behavioral deficit model defined by ABA/PBS etc. Most of the decisions I see being made in politics will create profits for one of those industries.

Like all other definitions of thinking impairments, it will not be profitable to encourage "treatment"to this population based on their impaired skills. People don't typically buy based on practicality but rather on emotion and impulse. Peoples character needs to be suspected for people to get emotional enough so they will buy something. If people believed that people were being mistreated based on their level of skill, they would see the injustice more clearly and work to end it. Therefore, the marketing campaigns are designed to describe the spectrum of skills as a spectrum of moral character as it can be associated with appropriate behavior.

Claiming that people are diseased and can't help what they're doing, people are misbehaving and need to have that misbehavior treated, and people are too lacking in self-awareness and empathy to be given respect, makes up a lot of how people are characterized and dishonored by the psychology industry, and it provides the justification for the neglect and abuse.

The most important way I can think of to encourage the respect of autistic people is to expose how the industry's are profiting by using the most convenient and effective way they know to assign what they claim is our deficit of skills an association between that and ugly stereotypes about our character.

In order for people to encourage autistic people they/we need to get away from the unfair commercially driven standards which are used as reasons for treating this population so badly.

Don't the Privileged Deserve Privileges Too?

There seems to be a theme in many of what are considered life's most important questions. The discussions and debates which focus on those questions seem to be whether or not we are striving for perfection and sophistication at the expense of our humanity.

What doesn't seem to be discussed enough is who is benefiting most from our desire to become better and more sophisticated and in what ways is the general public manipulated into chasing an ideal in a way that will ultimately lead to our demise.

There is no longer any way to track what is considered knowledge about most subjects and what isn't by anything other than popularity. Popular opinion is what gets written about most and therefore, the exposure defines its validity. The subjects that matter to the people with the most power are what gets written about. However, what this population is concerned with is mainly privilege and therefore, basic human rights are ignored by default.

The best way to protect this privilege and keep the focus on privilege rather than what will best provide basic human rights for everyone is for privileged people to use their resources to persuade the belief in whatever they claim is true and to get people to strive for the unattainable in a way that they exclude and even abuse the basic human rights of their neighbor. Once a standard is set that the majority of people don't have the resources to achieve the people with the resources to manipulate the standards can manipulate and enslave this population.

The way to create discourse among these people is to teach them that privilege is just normal (which means they are abnormal) and to focus their attention on the claim that society is overly concerned with providing for the poor and disadvantaged who are unworthy due to their bad character. As long as people believe the advantages are earned those who have them are enabled to believe in and abuse their authority over those who don't.

I often hear from people who won't acknowledge what I write, unless I validate it in their eyes by borrowing credibility from someone who has written the same thing. Thinking is considered mysterious and dangerous to many people. This is how many serious issues concerning human rights are treated as nothing more than a superfluous game.

Unfortunately, due to people with the experiences I write about being so discouraged from feeling that they will have any impact on changing things and due to them not having the knowledge of how to speak in a way that people are accustomed to hearing so-called credible people talk/write, they are silenced. The association of people with these experiences creates a force that society can easily be attacked and broken.

This means that no culture can be established, no pride in that culture empowers them, and ultimately no progress is made in establishing the respect that people look for when determining who has rights.

Education is not only a privilege, but it is the privilege of knowing how to sell particular knowledge so that you and the people you learned it from are accredited and revered for salesmanship skills. The freedom of information has been hijacked by people who decide what is and isn't information.

Although most educational pursuits may have been liberating to others in the past it is now too often nothing more than an industry (as well as a part of and beholden to many other industries) who use their product as a means of oppression.

Many types of intellectual disability as well as other labels that describe how people are excluded from education are associated with ugly stereotypes and this population is silenced in a multitude of ways.

Neurodiversity as a movement cannot build and sustain momentum by showing how some autistics are able to achieve an education thereby separating themselves from the plight of the intellectually disabled. People showing how they can meet standards that are exclusionary is fine for individuals but true liberation of a group cannot come at the expense of other groups.

Education is also not just a road to academic pursuits. Many other vocations and achievements that socially validate people are based on the same exclusionary standards.

Too many subcultures are describing their oppression based on specific means that target their specific groups rather than accepting a broader systematized attitude and by doing so they often unknowingly adopt the same attitude. Of course people can change and of course humans are very resilient and able to overcome great obstacles. However, if the standards don't change for how standards are arbitrarily made and changed due to privileged whims  then whether or not any of us are liberated will be decided by the view of those with the resources who do not need to be concerned with our welfare.

Incomplete Assignment

The judgment of how people think as in good vs. bad and smart vs. not smart is how the terms high vs. low functioning are justified.

When it comes to types of thinking (in three divisions of intelligence, pathology, and neurology) all labels are assigned in terms of severity by the amount which is determined that someone's thinking deviates from the norm.There is no diversity but instead only hierarchy.

People who are with the least resources will ultimately have all these divisions disappear and will be classified as simply having their thinking to be wrong and bad. The only reason the divisions exist in the first place is so that supposedly there will be therapy and/or accommodations but once someone has reached a level of convenient isolation from the public, they are all placed in one group who are simply seen as bad and a drain on public resources.

Sometimes that includes warehousing with walls and sometimes the warehousing that is isolating and abusive by the same institutional methods is without the walls.

Advocates often dismiss this population in the same way as public programs do. People who have attempted to create advocacy movements or a culture who speaks on a behalf of a group that includes this population have been every bit as exclusive.

Debates are held within a realm that discounts every statement made by them and demeans them as much and sometimes more than those who were considered their oppressors.

One of the ways people in the United States declare a democracy is by those who have the power to do so assigning a false label of power to oppress populations so that they will seem justified in further oppressing them.

It's sort of like planting a weapon on someone after they've been killed by someone else with a weapon. The weapon really never did them any good, but now it can be seen as though the killers aggression was justified by needing to protect themselves.

This is the largest group of people and yet those who claim to be helping them never encourage them to have independent thoughts or to share what they have learned from their experience.

For whatever reason they have become isolated, they are now seen as the craziest, the dumbest, or those with the greatest impairment in thinking for whatever reason in order to justify the original false hierarchy of judgments that divided them in the first place. My experience is that these judgments are due only to their circumstances and resources and serve only to "protect" the public from having to acknowledge their existence by conveniently making them invisible.

The moral justification for excluding this group has no basis in fact. Yet they are further labeled as having rights and being empowered in places where they are not. The claim is that the standards are the same for everyone, but it is not factored in how most people who have no way of determining our fate do not have anything like the level of resources as those who speak on our behalf.

The claims I have seen of creating an autistic community have not accepted any responsibility for avoiding this injustice as they move forward. Instead I see political pragmatism as being a guide for all decisions made on behalf of the autistic population. I sincerely hope this will change.

I have never seen a political effort to liberate this group. I have never seen a culture who aspired to include them. Many who are part of this group at this point will tell you that they don't care. Many are also accepting of the value judgments of others who see them as unworthy of encouragement. For this group to be encouraged the standards that exclude them need to be reviewed. The walls created by privileged peoples attitudes need to be torn down and then people will see this otherwise invisible group and hear from them as to what they want and need for true inclusion to occur.

Ghosts Matter; Autistic Inclusion

There are many reasons that so many people in our society are silent or are hidden. As I have written about in previous posts one of the reasons for this is that forms of media, which are considered mainstream encourage a narrow set of unattainable elite standards, which encourages people to want to achieve what they can't and are reminded of how they are seen as unimportant until they do. However, the main reason for this group's exclusion (which most other reasons can be attributed to) is the lack of encouragement.

It's not just that this population is fed a constant stream of images, which reminds them of what it takes to be considered important but everyone else in their environment is fed the same. This is how people draw conclusions about themselves as well as how they judge and often discount others. Oppression is most easily achieved when the oppressed accept standards that can be used to discount each other.

I'm glad that something I say on the internet sometimes seems to be important to others. If I was required to say these things by being directly in front of someone rather than writing them (even if I could string words together) many things about my appearance and my presentation would remind people of how unimportant my thoughts were. I have found though that there is enough lacking in how I present myself on the Internet also which reinforces the same standards.

I have heard that even the Internet may become much more exclusive soon. It seems to me that it would of course become that way. This means that more of a financial investment would be required to have a website that the general public can access. This means that this medium (the Internet) will become more exclusive, more commercial, and the commercial interests of those who run the websites will demand the same typical unattainable and exclusionary standards of those who present their message.

I don't believe that anyone ever thought that the Internet would be used much as a tool for liberating oppressed minorities. To whatever degree it has been used in this way I imagine this window of opportunity is quite limited by time.

I'm very appreciative of others who have spoken up on the internet before me about the things that I feel are important and those who continue to do so. I especially appreciate when they've done so in an environment where it wasn't popular.

What is considered truth and even the so-called facts that we use to determine what is logical are tainted by a set of values, which excludes the worth of most people.

At times when I was hospitalized, I would see someone who was being treated badly by a staff member fighting back in a quite unfashionable manner. I look back at that now, and I consider that to be advocacy. The only place that advocacy may have really changed things is in the mind and heart of the person who is being abused by helping them to realize that they didn't deserve to be treated that way. However, now for those who read what I write I can tell you that you also benefit from what those patients did because what I saw ultimately affects what I write. It also affects why I write.

Too often I hear people speaking of solutions to oppression by means, which are less-than-radical when they aren't considering how unreasonable that it is to expect in some places and by some people based on how they have been treated, and what they have been taught about their personal worth. If we wait until everyone meets the typical standards for expressing themselves before they are listened to those standards will continue to become narrower as will our version of the truth.

Whatever I have felt I needed to do to get heard is something that I hope others won't need to do. All the abilities I have, which are the result of extreme pressure and abuse (which pretty much includes all of them) are worth very little to me except for how I'm able to protect myself and others.

I appreciate hearing comments on blogs from people who are speaking up and speaking out more than I do from what is otherwise considered a formally educated opinion.

The autistic people that aren't being heard right now are most likely not formally educated nor do they most likely appear fashionable. Sometimes they are people who have put up the worst shit and told more often and more strongly than anyone, of how they are viewed by society as worthless. Typical standards are not likely to encourage these people and adhering to those standards is not likely to encourage them to begin to feel empowered and to speak out.

Without what I am suggesting autistic people will have a few (or only one) political groups with very narrow views who speak on our behalf and those groups will not be required to accept much if any alternative opinions.  Like most political groups the objective will be pragmatic and momentum will be protected at any costs to the population being advocated for. Autistic people will continue to be divided between the high functioning token performers and the low functioning who are considered to deserve pity and treatment by whatever means necessary.We will have one monopolizing commercial method of control used by schools (sometimes referred to as  educational supports) and all other public institutions which will define us as behaviorally challenged and will set and change the rules at will by which we are restrained and punished.  We will need to qualify our every statement and refer to how it qualifies as valid based on the statements of celebrities whose accomplishments set the standards by which we are judged.

This is the future I want to avoid. Autistics just like all minorities need to speak out with whatever means they have available. Even more importantly I hope those who can see how these voices have been suppressed will be encouraged to find more ways to include them. The standards and values we show appreciation for are what will determine our future and the typical standards we have now were not created with these voices in mind.Our inclusion won't be created without work, and if we want a society that includes more people we need to include those who are now excluded in the decision of what the society we hope for will look like.

Convenience and Expediency Rarely Promote Human Rights

Too often when people speak about human rights they are speaking of them as if the words were a brand name rather than what the words really mean. People do that sort of thing when they speak of Kleenex and mean facial tissue or Band-Aid and mean adhesive bandage.

It is all too common that we speak for people when making political decisions rather than speaking with them. In the United States, this is the result not only of the fewest people being the ones that vote, but it is also a result which comes from the extremes of capitalism and the unregulated and therefore often unethical hierarchical standards which extreme capitalism has been shown to promote.

I have heard it said that people who aren't in step with the ideals of pragmatic politics and the "reality"which people who operate within this realm demand are egotistical, and what they say is nothing more than a superfluous distraction to people who are "really" trying to get something done.

The problem with this is that what gets done claims to be for many people who have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I was recently reminded of this when I read about the protest from the disability advocates who are part of the group ADAPT. I strongly believe that many things that this group has accomplished would not have been accomplished without the organization and diligence of ADAPT. That is not at all the same though as this group or any other political group doing their best to make the changes that are needed.

In discussing the recent health care system in the US, I have heard some suggest that an unregulated market would ultimately create an ethical system. The problem I see with that is that there are no allowances for the fact that most people in the United States do not speak up and much about the current system and our culture strongly discourages them from doing so. A truly free system would make changes based also on what these people have to say and would therefore, not be an exclusionary system (as it is now) regulated in a way that was even harder to define and therefore, harder to combat.

I think this is very important to realize also when discussing disability rights. It's not just a problem due to those who are most capable of being involved being the ones who get involved and change things, but this problem is also the result of how our hierarchical system of doing things promotes its own brand of exclusion within even the disability rights' community.

Most all of what I write about on this blog is based on the fact that most people are excluded from having any say in the standards and laws that affect them and the reason for the majority of this is not due to physical limitations or even what is claimed is their legal right to vote and have a say in these matters. The reason is that the culture itself strongly discourages them from doing so even to the point that I would say the culture prohibits them from doing so.

This is very important to remember when considering disability rights and when considering what laws are being challenged by disability rights advocates. ADAPT is now challenging the state of Georgia's refusal to close their institutions. Institutionalization is a major problem in the US and the attitude behind the problem is what needs to change.

Institutions have always included autistic people.There are many reasons why autistic people have some of the worst civil rights violations in such places. Generally, everyone from the broader group of people who are most affected by the problems that occur in these human warehouses (not just autistics) have always been the least heard of any group when these problems are politically addressed. Having more of these people speak out in a way that they can better determine their own fate is the most pressing issue regarding these problems. Solidarity just for the sake of closing the institutions continues to discourage the more in depth look that is vitally needed.

The political pragmatism of groups claiming to aid with these problems contribute most to this population's silence. In cases where institutions have been closed down for dehumanizing conditions and treatments some of the patients (or who would better be defined as inmates) have been sent into other horrifying situations due to the attitudes that were present in those institutions not being addressed along with not addressing how they would be expressed in places that were considered alternatives.

I believe based on the unwillingness political groups to listen to alternative views (mine and others, which are unpopular) that don't fit into their political agenda that most people who are most affected by the political decisions regarding institutionalization would not be listened to by them either. The restraints this type of political pragmatism has caused has really hurt this population for a long time, and I find it quite disturbing that their voice is not respected.

There is a reason that people do not hear from this oppressed group and that is the what I have always felt was most important to address on this blog. In a similar way, those who are most affected by ABA programs (including ones such as PBS) are the least listened to regarding decisions affecting their lives. It is not good enough to say that these people don't have an opinion or to accept that a broader set of societal ills is the reason that oppressed groups don't feel empowered enough to speak up. In order to make a real difference, we need to place the majority of our efforts on empowering these people and hearing what they have to say rather than simply accepting that the oppression caused by societal ills must be pragmatically accepted in political matters.

VERY IMPORTANT:It also needs to be understood at this point that the way people among this group  may originally respond when being asked will not be nearly as polite and refined as typical standards demand of those who are allowed to voice their opinions.

The institutions must be shut down. Those walls have created and continue to sustain a very ugly culture of abuse and shame.There would be more than enough power to also change the prevailing bad attitudes that will be present in what are considered alternatives if more people who are directly affected are empowered to speak up and get involved.

The attitude behind political pragmatism has prevented the acknowledgment of the voices of people who are most affected by the decisions these groups make, and they aren't encouraging these people to speak up.

This is the same attitude which promotes the myth that adding people to a spectrum of people (as some have claimed is the case with the autism spectrum) who need aid will allow people who CAN speak to do so for those who CAN"T. Actually, can and can't have never been the problem. The real problem is how standards discourage these people from participating. I recently addressed that problem here in my post about a Rethinking Autism video.

For example, people advocating for disability won't do anything to help change Autism Speaks by getting them to hear from autistics who are the most capable of sounding good by typical standards. The only way we can really help is by showing them how many voices are being ignored because they aren't being acknowledged due to the problems that result from typical standards. Otherwise the standards won't change and all liberating efforts will be useless.

To further promote the ideal of "nothing about us without us" I would hope that ASAN also (now speaking politically on behalf of the Neurodiversity movement) will be more willing to listen to a broader diversity of people so that their claims of supporting ideals of inclusion and neurodiversity will not be regarded as hypocritical.

Exclusion is a movement. Able-ism is systematic exclusion. People fighting for civil rights cannot afford to allow these bad set of values to determine our direction. If we do it will produce the same bad result as it has in the very society that we want to change.

Individuality & Respect

 

This is cross posted at Turner & Kowalski

Individual people and individual thoughts are very important to recognize and respect in order that a civilization that still includes ethical boundaries is protected from corruption. No group can effectively fight for the civil rights of some at the expense of the civil rights of others. The number one concern of any civil rights group needs to be the encouragement of individuality. Otherwise their message will contradict itself.

The denial of civil rights is based on exclusive standards that empower some at the expense of others so in order to combat this it won't work to discourage individuality and individual expression. Individuality is validated when it is seen as diverse rather than being ranked by typical hierarchical standards.

A society that discourages regulations can allow power that does not need to be earned and the corruption that follows it to exclude and even destroy those who cannot or choose not to defend themselves by unethical means. This denies people their civil rights by encouraging people who have attained and established power by unfair means to continue in their oppressive ways.

Those who are considered disabled have often had their rights denied because others chose to (in a way they often call charitable) reinforce the standards by which disabled people were oppressed while at the same time claiming to be helping them. Doing this seems to suggest that somehow oppressive means are not systematic in nature and that what needs to be overcome is simple. It is also a way of validating the standards that exclude most disabled people by showing how their favored few are worthy of the elite's acceptance. This ultimately excludes more people than it includes.

Oppressed people are exploited and otherwise used to support a very few with their excessive consumption. The only way that this consumption is ever justified is by how people who would not otherwise be employed are given the opportunity to benefit by serving this insatiable apatite.The justification isn't valid because this servitude displays and promotes a class system that continues to oppress the majority. People are formally and subtly educated to believe in revering specific symbols of class status that are unattainable to them. They are not taught to be the best that they can be and to accept themselves as valuable. All they see are unattainable images that discourage their security and self-worth.

Once people understand and are educated in the way that they unknowingly promote standards that exclude and demean them, they will hopefully stop fighting against each other by either claiming they deserve assistance while someone else doesn't, or that they are further up the ladder of being someone that deserves respect due to status they have fairly achieved. Either way, this is reinforcing standards that exclude all of us.

In the US where commercialism is king, celebrities and the commercially advantaged are our royalty.The disability community has recognized that oppression is the result of a set of values and has attempted to assert themselves as who they are rather than attempting to present themselves in ways that compliment exclusionary standards. This unapologetic expression is done as a sign of unity and respect for each other.

Since autistic people have now been recognized for being able to assert themselves against their own oppression some seem to want support from the disability community while at the same time separating themselves as better than "those" people.

The disabling ways that society treats autistic people are now being fought in commercial and political arenas by a movement defined as (you guessed it) neurodiversity. It is an unfortunate trend among some within this movement who not only don't want to be associated with any type of disability, but they don't want to be associated with other autistics whose abilities are less respected.

They use words like Aspie, spectrumite, and spectrum people, which show (in ways they may not be fully aware of) how some autistics are more worthy of respect than others in a similar way that broader exclusive standards show admiration and respect for one group at the expense of another. Anyone without a valid societal classification is often seen by the majority as deserving of charity and sometimes even unethical treatments.How society interprets these terms is most important in how they are publicly used.

I can't imagine any other group defined by their classification of disability aligning themselves politically with groups that encourage a treatment that is as harmful and disrespectful to those within that classification as ABA is to the autistic population.

When such a group also demands absolute solidarity and will target and exploit any individual who is seen by how their questions and concerns may compromise the momentum of this group, they are hurting themselves and their cause. Individuals who are only seeking validity often have their valid concerns dismissed and/or attacked by those who are seeking power and who will only regard any dissent from their following as a threat to that power.

A civil rights group that goes by the name Neurodiversity and yet discourages individual expression along with only listening to people who have attained celebrity status (in their group or the broader public) is a bit of ironic to say the least.

Exclusion is no more advantageous for a civil rights group than it is for an exclusive broader public. Exclusion is not practical and the few that may be served originally will ultimately be hurt just as bad.

If people allow for and participate in unregulated and unethical methods of thinning the herd and promoting exclusive and elitist standards they need to be very careful to recognize, they too will ultimately be rejected by the set of values they have encouraged.

The Allure of the Dragon

One of the most important ways to empower yourself and others who are categorized in the same way as you is to avoid being defined by people in authority who are not looking out for your best interest.

When someone you don't know does not appreciate you because of your style or lack of it, and you change in order to impress them, they have often taught you to appreciate a standard that makes them look better at your expense rather than encouraging mutual respect. When they then decide to change their style based on what is considered the new trend, and you again change yours to show yourself worthy of their pointless attention you have reinforced a standard of trend chasing where any relationship (however casual) of mutual respect and honor are ultimately impossible.

When someone says you are not as valuable as this other person who does or has something (which is a relative and fleeting standard designed only for exclusionary purposes), and you respond by attempting to show that you are more valuable because you do or do have that something, you are reinforcing that standard and aiding in the oppression of all those who will never be able to meet it.

When people fight viciously about an issue that they really aren't too concerned about they reinforce the standards of unattainable debating success which associates peoples worth so closely with what they think that it will ultimately consume and break everyone involved. Also, the back-stabbing, innuendo, and undefinable subtle attacks associated with many debates will never promote fairness or empowerment. These methods can only be used to tear people down.

All this is not just how people lose their individuality and their right to be individuals but this is how exclusive standards are praised and oppressive methods are reinforced for entire categories of people.

The people who wrote the criteria for the DSM-IV which defines autism had little or no experience in diagnosing people for better educational opportunities and more inclusion in their community. They are closely associated with the treatment industry. The dominant current standards this industry adheres to discourage products and services that are attainable and promote security along with a sense self-worth because they are seen as the enemy of economic stimulation. It is thought that we have to keep chasing the carrot and therefore, the carrot cannot ever become too attainable.

Based on the credit that is given to the typical ways of stimulating the economy, what do you think would happen if autistic people were empowered and given more educational and training opportunities? What if the dominant view that autistics need to be put in normalizing programs and classrooms was accepted as false and degrading.? Some very large financial investors would no longer be able to define autistics so that we can be exploited. They would have to find someone new to exploit. People need to be careful of how their views are influenced by elaborate ad campaigns.

It would be good for autistics and those who advocate on our behalf to be careful of personality entanglements that show the principles we believe in to be less worthy of respect. It's important to be careful of exclusive standards that alienate some autistic people for the glorification of other autistic people. In whatever ways we need to get involved politically, it's important to (as individuals or as a group) be careful of blind loyalty to political predators who will chew us up and spit us out.It's good to encourage diverse forms of involvement among ourselves and protect our right to question what is done in our name above all else.

Impulsively chasing dragons is how people who deserve respect lose their human rights. People who think they won't get burned are underestimating the beast and its fury along with the abundant resources it can afford to use against us.

Supporting Your Own Oppression

(I am posting this video here again because it is so representative of so much that I want to discourage, and I'm discussing it again in this post)

Autistics Speak Video

Obviously there certainly is a great deal of new thinking about autism that is very important.The problem is that the exclusivity and ablest views that have made teaching others to respect autistic people so difficult are too often being blatantly (and even proudly) reinforced by those who claim to be advocating for us. The video is an example of that.

ABA should never be confused with what neurodiversity is. That doesn't mean that anyone who agrees with one can never agree with something about the other, but they are contradictions. Neurodiversity means liberating people who think differently by discouraging exclusive standards. ABA endorses a brand of psychology that demands a type of hierarchical standard of behavior that compliments what autistics are typically not. The video does the same thing but glorifies an even broader and even more exclusive set of typical standards.

The goal of ABA is normalization or the promotion of societal standards. It is often mistaken as an educational approach. It is not and because it's popular to call it that doesn't make it true. It is the presumption of behaviorists that all human actions can be categorized as behavior. The idea that "When you're a hammer, everything can look like a nail" describes a marketing technique that is used by the industry of ABA. If all actions can be described as behavior then each behavior can be judged by how a behaviorist defines it.

With enough power companies are able to create demands rather than just catering to the demands that already exist. Wherever there are few or no regulations a company can prey on peoples fear and insecurity by displaying images and sound that show that if they don't look or act the way that the purchase of their product will better enable them to then society will exclude them and severely devalue their existence.

What's the difference between the term behavior modification and the term manipulation to promote exclusive standards? The answer is that the difference is that the term manipulation to promote exclusive standards is not as effective at promoting ABA.

You see misunderstood or alternate forms of expression are how ABA is shown to be less valuable so the standard expressions they promote must be very narrow and must appeal to peoples emotion rather than reason in order to sell the ABA product.

A product that is used to control others is much easier to market than one that takes time and effort to understand and encourage people. This is how impulse fear-based buying is promoted.That is part of the frantic lifestyle of the modern society that considers itself sophisticated and how fear-based marketing is justified. Psychology as something that claims to aid people in countering their dysfunctions often has a built in justification for products that can be of used to control and herd groups of people. Ridding yourself or your children of what society views as dysfunctional is very fashionable and the over-emphisis is often very destructive.

Of course this is the way that the brand of psychology known as behaviorism was bought by public schools and the schools have further justified this controlling "psychological" tool by describing it as "educational support". This controlling tool aids teachers as well as further allows them to better herd children, exclude many of them by glorifying a narrow set of typical standards, and justify how they continue to not take the time and effort to understand and empower unique expressions and unique individuals.

Once a company is resourceful and powerful enough to create a demand rather than find one to fill the cycle that leads to them having more resources and power will include political backing and the right to use pseudoscience to prove what doesn't exist otherwise.

All this begins by selling people on a narrow set of exclusive standards that can then be used to control them. Unregulated commercialism sells people on the idea that a narrow set of exclusive standards is how people should be controlled by encouraging them to have aspirations that promote products and corporations who then buy their rights and liberties.

The ABA supporters who made this film not only showed their support for a set of values that inspire this type of oppressive and exclusionary elitism and ableism by the way the film was made, but they stated clearly in words that the marketing means they were using were justified by what they hoped would be the result. Claiming that the ends justify the means is a short term impulsive emotional decision at the expense of the long term more important but more complicated goal.

As a political group ASAN who is aspiring to advocate for the neurodiversity movement (who has also shown their support for ABA )and who helped to make and promote this video needs to be careful of how they might promote ableism so as not to offend the broader disability community to which autistics belong. It's important that they show a willingness to understand the views of as broad of population of disabled people as possible so that it doesn't appear that their political aspirations as a group outweighs the needs of the people they aspire to be helping (since so many other political groups are doing just that).In other words, it's important to show that you are not impulsively claiming that the end justifies the means at the expense of those you're advocating for.

Behavior modification has always been a tool used in marketing to create demands for products and services that the public would not otherwise see a need for. The more sophisticated marketing techniques become the less subtle they need to be. That's how behavior modification and conditioning works. Once the demand has been established for a particular product or service the marketing means don't need to be nearly as subtle for people to accept them and the values that are being sold along with the product or service (no matter how corrupting) don't require nearly as much justification.

The following comment by Sadderbutwisergirl on my last post concerning this video put so much of what believe in so few of her own excellent words:

"Sadderbutwisergirl said...
Vector: The whole point of this post is that the Rethinking Autism people are speaking up for neurodiversity, which is a good thing, but they're only using people who can be confident, sexually appealing actors for the video to spread their message. It's a few non-autistics speaking for a large population of autistics who have lots of needs. You could argue that they don't want to stereotype autistics as being less than confident, but I say that that plays right into the hands of people who believe that autistics are just a population who should be kept around so that they can learn appropriate, non-autistic ways of behaving from their non-autistic peers. And, to bring up the Animal Farm analogy again, if a small elite is given the power to speak for the many, it has the potential to turn into that elite becoming our new oppressors. We'll be left outside in the cold and stables while the elite of our non-autistic spokespersons are in a comfortable house, playing cards with our old oppressors. And it'll be hard for us to tell which is which"

It has already been shown how elitist values that ultimately serve a minute portion of the population who can actually meet the standards these values promote can and do lead to harsh methods of excluding and disrespecting disabled people as well as even eugenics. This set of values cannot go unchallenged. Autistic people will not be liberated or empowered by showing that some will be able to meet already established unreasonable standards. The arrogance of believing that anyone other than the already established elite will ultimately be able to survive the ever-changing demands that large corporations are given the power to make is very self-destructive. I hope the people will be careful to not promote someone's agenda that ultimately does not empower or promote them.

Not Rethinking Autism

Autistics Speak Video

This video is soooo bad. This is NOT a parody. Promoting diversity means advocating for new more inclusive standards. There is nothing new about the standards promoted in this video.

Their message is clear. There is no nuance or subtly involved and no indication of this being a parody. The video says that we are using sex-appeal and celebrity as tools to promote what really matters. It states that people who sell pseudoscience and have personal agendas are benefiting by further marginalizing and disrespecting autistic people BUT their sales technique must be copied in order to combat that marginalization and disrespect. The problem is the sales technique not only sells the product, it sells a set of values. In this case, the values being sold go against all that those who have struggled for their civil rights stand for.

This video is not promoting civil rights for autistics or anyone else. They are promoting elitism for a select few autistics. There is nothing new about having other people who display the achievement of meeting all the bigoted and prejudiced standards speak for those who don't. This is "about us without us" at its worst.

Nothing about this video challenges typical ablest standards. There is no ethical or moral code promoted here. This is cut-throat crass commercialism at other peoples expense.

This message gives the impression that sexuality is for a select few who are able to follow the latest trends of the rich and famous. They don't just not show the autistic people while their words are being spoken, they show close-ups of the crotches of models in tight fashionable jeans while the words of autistics are being spoken.

Few will ever meet the standards this video promotes while many waste abundant resources in the attempt. That's how exclusivity is protected. If people believe they have or can attain the resources needed to make the cut and be included into the small minority of people who are glorified in this video, they need to reevaluate the odds and fight for more inclusive standards. It would be even better if they would  just be civil and fight for more inclusive standards to avoid excluding everyone else.

There really is no rethinking autism in this video at all. It displays the method for marginalizing and excluding people that has been around all along. Repeating such mistakes are a bad idea.