This article picks apart a bunch of biases by the researchers of a given paper. The object of study was the differences in behavior between a group of autistic people and a group of non-autistic people when choosing between prioritizing value for oneself or value for the community.
I recommend reading the paper itself too. If that is, understandably, too much for you, I suggest you go for the introduction, the conclusion, and the segments mentioned in the article.
I just want to point out that this article also says that autistic people bad for not supporting autism speaks, btw
“This can be seen in autistic people’s stance against ABA for example, which decreases speaking opportunities for autistic advocates.”
imagine not supporting abuse, nor an organization that wants to eugenics people with ASD…
You have misunderstood that line. The line is linking to this tweet, which says:
> Wanna know a why many “big” advocates won’t talk about ABA in a bad light?
> The ABA lobby is huge. If you are a public speaker in the autism world being antiABA closes a lot of doors.
> I have been uninvited to speaking events because of my views on ABA.
> No regrets.
Which the article sums up as, as you quote:
> This can be seen in autistic people’s stance against ABA for example, which decreases speaking opportunities for autistic advocates.
This is a true statement. If you publicly criticize ABA, certain institutions are going to close their doors for you. The article is saying that autistic people are going to criticize ABA nonetheless when doing so is in line for their values, as the paper suggests, despite the authors wacky interpretations, and I think both the writer, you and I agree that making that criticism of ABA is indeed good.