This is an expansion of my post on why I signed the Petition Against Autism Speaks, which anthoskate published this morning in the General Autism Spectrum Discussions>General Autism Discussion. As usual, my first effort always benefits from editing; there was more I could have done, and much I could have done better, now that my engine's kicking in.
The chance to supplant someone else's description of me with my own words is not to be missed. I think that's true of you, too.
I know from experience that a pithy personal perspective outperforms propaganda. I know from corporate marketing studies how high a return on testimonials and references is. I know that commingling respect and humility with short, sharp words are the modern equivalent of gypsy speech: easy to write, easy to read, easy to remember.
The petition's cover note speaks truth pithily. It was probably hard to write. Pithy is not easy. It is not easy to read: who reads bare-bones criticism riddled with judgment and without teeth? And if it is remembered, it will be with mixed feelings, and, I fear, minimal curiosity.
Lots of emotion. Lots of judgment. Rather like some of the worst posts on many web forums, in fact.
But passion is not persuasion.
Philanthropy is the bribe corporations pay to get good PR. Corporations aren't people and they don't have consciences, so appealing to moral attributes they don't have isn't a winning strategy. To leverage a change of position, marketing tools come into play, and in the case of a petition, one of the very best is the testimonial.
In an era where we've discovered that airlines actually do know the price of a human life, that meddling with the food chain is profitable, and ethics is just another word for the price of getting caught, I question the persuasiveness of a hectoring approach.
And that's why it's important to add a personal note to a petition. They'll stop reading the petitions. But few write the testimonial that gives a personal human voice to the petition. Even fewer write it to be read, and of that fraction, fewer still write a note that motivates the reader to pass it on.
The optional notes get read. They put the person back into the petition. They testify that this petition matters.
Our testimonials are better. Here is the human being that replaces Autism Speaks's simulacrum of a human being. Here are the words that truly are autism, speaking. And they are interesting because they are personal: this is the connection for the actual readers. These readers are bored from collecting and counting and cross-tabbing the numbers of pulsing screeds of outrage that can only make them feel bad if they actually have a reason to believe them. They want to distinguish themselves, and a personal note gives them a chance to feel good about doing what you want.
What we really need is a sound bite with a positive message. If we don't have a sound bite, then words that can be made a sound bite will do. That is what puts teeth into a petition: the fact that it gathered too many signatures to ignore, and it gathered a few soloists who can draw blood while making their pitch.
Best of all: we need not contribute reverse propaganda to Autism Speaks. We can focus on the positive: how do we want to be treated? How is what's happening failing the corporate objective of purchasing good PR?
This could have been quite a bit better:
Hi.
You do good and you mean well. What if your support could more closely match your intention?
It's easy.
Ask yourself how you'd rather hire: focused, work-loving people with a passion for detail and a need for vision? Sure.
Ask yourself who you'd rather help. People whose communication skills are as diverse as they are, whose intelligence is unfathomable, whose diversity is as great as race and ethnicity and gender identification.
Or you could just pity them.
Let me ask you: would you rather be respected? Or pitied?
Would you rather support an organization that respects autistic people? Or one that makes a living out of pitying them?
Please reconsider your support of Autism Speaks. Ask your diversity director to compare them to other autism networks--ones run by the very people they represent.
It's not so long since "diverse" meant "damaged" or "deficit"--when the standard was color and gender.
It's very sure that when research is funded to maintain beliefs about people, and not about what's so about people, the research isn't helpful.
Please. Ask yourselves why "Autism Speaks" thinks it speaks for people who speak for themselves: by voice, by hand signs, by TTY, by typing.
Do deaf people need a "Deaf Speaks" association that won't let them talk?
No.
Please stop funding autism organizations that depend upon autism being treated as a problem...so that they have a reason to exist.
Thank you for considering this. I have a personal interest in your thoughtful response.
What it does well:
What it could do better:
What's your take? Are you also willing to tell your truth in your own Petition Against Autism Speaks?
Please help make a difference.
Thank you for reading my post.
The chance to supplant someone else's description of me with my own words is not to be missed. I think that's true of you, too.
I know from experience that a pithy personal perspective outperforms propaganda. I know from corporate marketing studies how high a return on testimonials and references is. I know that commingling respect and humility with short, sharp words are the modern equivalent of gypsy speech: easy to write, easy to read, easy to remember.
The petition's cover note speaks truth pithily. It was probably hard to write. Pithy is not easy. It is not easy to read: who reads bare-bones criticism riddled with judgment and without teeth? And if it is remembered, it will be with mixed feelings, and, I fear, minimal curiosity.
"While Autism Speaks has a long and sordid history that we would be willing to discuss, we would like to focus your attention on the recent Policy Summit hosted by Autism Speaks in Washington D.C., November 12-14...
Given that you are visible and trusted companies, we are appalled that you would continue to endow Autism Speaks given the nature of the atrocities that Autism Speaks has committed many times over against the very community it claims to represent. We consider your unceasing support of this organization as a poor reflection on your corporate values given that the information about the malfeasance of Autism Speaks is readily available. As trusted companies, it is your obligation to conduct due diligence prior to entering into a partnership. Further, when your partners commit verifiable cruelties, the onus is on you to sever your relationship or risk being associated with the perpetration of these acts. To date, you have disregarded the many attempts made by the Autistic community to bring the unethical behavior of Autism Speaks to your attention."
Given that you are visible and trusted companies, we are appalled that you would continue to endow Autism Speaks given the nature of the atrocities that Autism Speaks has committed many times over against the very community it claims to represent. We consider your unceasing support of this organization as a poor reflection on your corporate values given that the information about the malfeasance of Autism Speaks is readily available. As trusted companies, it is your obligation to conduct due diligence prior to entering into a partnership. Further, when your partners commit verifiable cruelties, the onus is on you to sever your relationship or risk being associated with the perpetration of these acts. To date, you have disregarded the many attempts made by the Autistic community to bring the unethical behavior of Autism Speaks to your attention."
Lots of emotion. Lots of judgment. Rather like some of the worst posts on many web forums, in fact.
But passion is not persuasion.
Philanthropy is the bribe corporations pay to get good PR. Corporations aren't people and they don't have consciences, so appealing to moral attributes they don't have isn't a winning strategy. To leverage a change of position, marketing tools come into play, and in the case of a petition, one of the very best is the testimonial.
In an era where we've discovered that airlines actually do know the price of a human life, that meddling with the food chain is profitable, and ethics is just another word for the price of getting caught, I question the persuasiveness of a hectoring approach.
And that's why it's important to add a personal note to a petition. They'll stop reading the petitions. But few write the testimonial that gives a personal human voice to the petition. Even fewer write it to be read, and of that fraction, fewer still write a note that motivates the reader to pass it on.
The optional notes get read. They put the person back into the petition. They testify that this petition matters.
Our testimonials are better. Here is the human being that replaces Autism Speaks's simulacrum of a human being. Here are the words that truly are autism, speaking. And they are interesting because they are personal: this is the connection for the actual readers. These readers are bored from collecting and counting and cross-tabbing the numbers of pulsing screeds of outrage that can only make them feel bad if they actually have a reason to believe them. They want to distinguish themselves, and a personal note gives them a chance to feel good about doing what you want.
What we really need is a sound bite with a positive message. If we don't have a sound bite, then words that can be made a sound bite will do. That is what puts teeth into a petition: the fact that it gathered too many signatures to ignore, and it gathered a few soloists who can draw blood while making their pitch.
Best of all: we need not contribute reverse propaganda to Autism Speaks. We can focus on the positive: how do we want to be treated? How is what's happening failing the corporate objective of purchasing good PR?
This could have been quite a bit better:
Hi.
You do good and you mean well. What if your support could more closely match your intention?
It's easy.
Ask yourself how you'd rather hire: focused, work-loving people with a passion for detail and a need for vision? Sure.
Ask yourself who you'd rather help. People whose communication skills are as diverse as they are, whose intelligence is unfathomable, whose diversity is as great as race and ethnicity and gender identification.
Or you could just pity them.
Let me ask you: would you rather be respected? Or pitied?
Would you rather support an organization that respects autistic people? Or one that makes a living out of pitying them?
Please reconsider your support of Autism Speaks. Ask your diversity director to compare them to other autism networks--ones run by the very people they represent.
It's not so long since "diverse" meant "damaged" or "deficit"--when the standard was color and gender.
It's very sure that when research is funded to maintain beliefs about people, and not about what's so about people, the research isn't helpful.
Please. Ask yourselves why "Autism Speaks" thinks it speaks for people who speak for themselves: by voice, by hand signs, by TTY, by typing.
Do deaf people need a "Deaf Speaks" association that won't let them talk?
No.
Please stop funding autism organizations that depend upon autism being treated as a problem...so that they have a reason to exist.
Thank you for considering this. I have a personal interest in your thoughtful response.
What it does well:
- Terse personal greeting.
- Acknowledgement. "You do good and you mean well."
- Cites the civil issue: discrimination and diversity, and connects it to a corporate process: hiring people.
- Contrasts civil issues that have already made progress--and news recently: race, gender, ethnicity.
- Specific call to action. "Please stop..." and "consider this."
- Expresses gratitude for time. Reiterates a tactful "I'm paying attention to you."
What it could do better:
- Use a respectful address, say, the CEOs, or diversity directors of the companies. List the company names, even, which says "I know who you are."
- Acknowledgement could actually cite other programs that do work that the corporation backs. "I not only know who you are, I have favorable opinions of you." Who doesn't listen to flattery?
- Link the civil issue to a personal story. My previous blog, condensed into a personal story of 5-7 sentences, would have been better.
- Contrast personal icons for civil issues, preferably ones that are themselves on the spectrum, but not the usual suspects (Grandin is expected; surprise them).
- Specific call to action should be positive: "Fund ASAN."
- Express gratitude for specific things one or more corporations had done that is better and ask for more of the same. It's easy to decide to continue doing what you've always done. Reward a good direction.
What's your take? Are you also willing to tell your truth in your own Petition Against Autism Speaks?
Please help make a difference.
Thank you for reading my post.
