Semantics....
Oct. 15th, 2003 11:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
"TOMLIN HOSTS AUTISM BENEFIT
Comedienne LILY TOMLIN has teamed up with a host of celebrities to perform an evening of one-act plays to benefit autism.
The NINE TO FIVE actress will act as the host of ACTS OF LOVE, which will feature performances from such stars as ANNETTE BENING, BEAU BRIDGES, GIL BELLOWS and DANA DELANY.
The event, to benefit the CURE AUTISM NOW FOUNDATION, will take place at the CANON THEATRE in Beverly Hills, California, on Monday (20OCT03)."
Okay, first off, NOBODY holds "autism benefits" or wishes to "benefit autism". That's like benefiting red hair or blue eyes. You might try to benefit autistics (or people with red hair/blue eyes) but benefitting autism is meaningless.
Second, come off it. You can't benefit autism (let's pretend that were possible) or autistics by trying to "cure autism now". That's called "benefiting the organisations which wish to cure autism". Not quite the same thing.
If those organisations were more capable of working more to help people the way they are rather than only if they're willing to completely change, I wouldn't make that same case. But any organisation which believes the only way to make any autistic (which would probably include me, though it might not, I'm hardly severe, you know that) function better in society is to get rid of the way his/her brain functions... no. I don't think that's an achievable goal, even were it desirable. And before anyone asks, no, don't think it's desirable. You should know that by now, listening to me! Getting rid of strong sensory issues, great. Helping it so that all autistics can communicate, wonderful. Helping us all learn self-control, get jobs, etc? No argument from me! But don't go messing with my mind, 'k?
Comedienne LILY TOMLIN has teamed up with a host of celebrities to perform an evening of one-act plays to benefit autism.
The NINE TO FIVE actress will act as the host of ACTS OF LOVE, which will feature performances from such stars as ANNETTE BENING, BEAU BRIDGES, GIL BELLOWS and DANA DELANY.
The event, to benefit the CURE AUTISM NOW FOUNDATION, will take place at the CANON THEATRE in Beverly Hills, California, on Monday (20OCT03)."
Okay, first off, NOBODY holds "autism benefits" or wishes to "benefit autism". That's like benefiting red hair or blue eyes. You might try to benefit autistics (or people with red hair/blue eyes) but benefitting autism is meaningless.
Second, come off it. You can't benefit autism (let's pretend that were possible) or autistics by trying to "cure autism now". That's called "benefiting the organisations which wish to cure autism". Not quite the same thing.
If those organisations were more capable of working more to help people the way they are rather than only if they're willing to completely change, I wouldn't make that same case. But any organisation which believes the only way to make any autistic (which would probably include me, though it might not, I'm hardly severe, you know that) function better in society is to get rid of the way his/her brain functions... no. I don't think that's an achievable goal, even were it desirable. And before anyone asks, no, don't think it's desirable. You should know that by now, listening to me! Getting rid of strong sensory issues, great. Helping it so that all autistics can communicate, wonderful. Helping us all learn self-control, get jobs, etc? No argument from me! But don't go messing with my mind, 'k?
