I received an e-mail regarding a fundraiser a local toy store is having regarding Autism Awareness. Unfortunately it was being sponsored by Autism Speaks. I sent them an e-mail explaining some of the problems with that organization and a link to ASAN as an alternative. I just received this e-mail back:
I found your email enlightening. After reading it I did some additional research including your suggestion to check into t
he Autistic Self Advocacy Network. The difference in the approaches of each organization is remarkable. As Autism Speaks seems to approach Autism as something that needs to be cured, the organization you suggested ASAN works to empower Autistic people to be self-sufficient. I think you make a very valid point with your comments and I sincerely appreciate the feedback. I will continue to do further research and I will definitely consider switching to
the Autistic Self Advocacy Network if we have the opportunity to have another fundraiser for Autism in the future.
Compare to the response Lindt gave my sister: http://demidevl.tumblr.com/post/81420618087/geekdame-skyliting-far-too-rad
This local toy store, The Learning Express, actually read my e-mail and the information provided.
friendly reminder not to support lindt this easter season, or apparently ever again, because they support autism speaks.
can someone please explain why autism speaks is so bad?
because they’re adamant that autism is a disease that can be “cured”. They don’t have a single autistic person on their board. Autism Speaks produces advertisements, small films, ect. about what a burden autistic people are to a society. They only spend about 4% of their money on “family services.” They create a stereotype that makes it hard for actual autistic people, like myself, be heard and recognized as actually autistic. I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder before they realized that I actually showed signs of Asperger’s. They don’t actually help us.
That’s the problem with Autism Speaks.
(tw for violence, ableism, abuse, murder, and death)
It goes deeper than not having any autistic board members. Many of the allistics running the organization promote the horrific notion that you’re better off dead than autistic, and their influence and “activism” only supports the ideology resulting in the continued murder of autistic children and adults by their parents and caregivers.
Former Autism Speaks board member Harry Slatkin, whose wife, Laura, continues to serve on the Board of Directors, stated in an interview with Town and Country while still a board member that sometimes he hoped their autistic son David would drown in the backyard pond rather than “suffer like this all his life.” Evidencing a pattern of similarly violent rhetoric, Autism Speaks is also responsible for the 2006 PSA “Autism Every Day" in which their then Vice President states on camera that she considered putting her autistic daughter in the car and driving off a bridge, and that the only reason she refrained from doing so was because her other, non-autistic daughter would have been waiting for her at home—her autistic daughter was in the room as she made these statements. Furthermore, the producer of this PSA explicitly admitted that the film was intentionally staged to portray negative images of autistic people and their families.
Only four days following the release of “Autism Every Day,” pathologist Karen McCarron smothered her autistic daughter with a garbage bag. McCarron stated that she murdered Katie because her “autism had not been improving,” had thought about killing Katie, that made an earlier brief attempt at suffocation, wanted to cure Katie, thought killing Katie would make her “complete” in heaven, and wanted to live without autism and thus had to kill Katie. Investigators found that McCarron was obsessed with different treatments for Katie. (See People v. FRANK-McCARRON, 934 NE 2d 76 - Ill: Appellate Court, 3rd Dist. 2010.) Though it is not presently possible to draw a direct connection between Autism Speaks’ PSA and Katie’s murder, this crime and dozens like it only underscore how the kind of rhetoric that Autism Speaks favors only serves to recklessly endanger the lives of autistic people.
Autism Speaks also publicly supports the Judge Rotenberg Center, a group home for autistic and neurodivergent students that uses “treatments” like food and sleep deprivation and electric shock to try and train the residents into acting neurotypical. The center has changed states three times in an attempt to bypass regulation against abusive treatment, and their practices have resulted in the deaths of more than one student.
It’s not just an issue of Autism Speaks making it harder for us to get proper diagnoses and treatment. Autism Speaks is actively killing us.
Yeah, I used to support them until my brother, who has Asperger’s, explained to me what a terrible organization they are. Please do not support this group if you can help it.
Toys R Us was having a buy 2 for $15 sale on basic Hero Mashers, I decided to pickup Doctor Doom and Spider-man. These are my first Hero Mashers and I have to say I love them. First picture is just the figures as themselves, The second shows their different parts, I appear to have missed Spidey’s webbing. Strangely Doctor Doom has two right thighs, I thought this was a packaging error at first, but the box confirms that he does have two right thighs. Last picture shows me combining at random, I call them The Doom Spider and Doctor Parker.
Overall I love these, and will be very happy once the Transformers Hero Mashers come out since they have been confirmed to be compatible. Imagine Doom with Megatron’s Fusion Cannon, or Springer with Thor’s cape, or even Hulk with Grimlock’s T-Rex head and feet.
now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes
The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.
But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.
The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!
Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.
BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.
Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?
Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo?
So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.
Thank you for your time.
Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.
Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.
And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.
So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.
hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.
I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe
Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.
The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog?
On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.
Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?
Actually, Mr. Godot!!
Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…
If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!
Aah… these M&M’s droplets
So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!
the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*
I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!
This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s… The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.
This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.
It is clearly a fraud!
You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat.
To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..
With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!
Hold it right there everyone.
A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.
I cannot, not reblog this. It is amazing!
OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD.
I read this entire post every time it crosses my Dash. Just amazing.
iCoffin Alert: Another Freaky Fab Reblog Contest is alive! Reblog by 8 pm ET on March 18 for a chance to win a Monster High® Create-A-Monster Starter Pack and Add-On Pack! Purchase not necessary to enter. Ghouls must be 18 years or older and a US resident to be eligible to win. Official rules: http://freakyfabulo.us/XNXCwl.
Why not enter this contest? I enjoy the web series.
Ninja Update: Wanna see something fun? Mention Shakespeare in a sentence and see what happens.
Poe kept writing distinctly into my sentences so I wrote ”Edgar, you’re not funny” aND HE BLATANTLY DELETED THE NOT I AM SO DONE WITH THIS ASDFKJL
OH GOD IF YOU TYPE “EDGAR ALLAN POE” POE ADDS A :( AFTER HIS NAME PRECIOUS BABY
Dickens made a reference to Oliver Twist and I wrote “Alright I know Dickens” and Emily Dickinson erased it and wrote “Dickinson” AND THEN DICKENS ERASED THAT AND REWROTE HIS NAME AND IT WENT ON FOR LIKE A WHOLE MINUTE
I started bashing Shakespeare (I don’t like him) and this is what happened.  is the original
To be or not to…
who the embrace gave you permission to type?
that doesn’t even make sense. Thou [you] don’t make sense Shakespeare.[and] As well as your poetry sucks. (that’s Poe correcting me)
About me: I was born May 28 1988. I am an Aspie. I love to read and play video games.
I have never really grown out of things I liked as a kid such as Thomas the Tank Engine.
This blog is where I talk about things that are on my mind at the time. And maybe show off new toys.