Lindt Logic: How the Autistic Community United with Humor in the Face of Ignorance and Dismissal

On March 10, 2015 Lindt Chocolate posted a tweet from Autism Speaks (@autismspeaks) on their US Twitter account (@Lindt_Chocolate) that they would be hosting their 6^th annual Gold Bunny Celebrity auction in support of the organization. Autism Speaks has received criticism from primarily Autistic activists as well as some non-Autistic allies for its rhetoric regarding Autism and its allocation of its funds in the ten years of its existence.

(For more information on some of the reasons Autism Speaks is criticized, Boycott Autism Speaks has a list of reasons on their website: http://www.boycottautismspeaks.com/why-boycott-1.html )

For the most part, Autism Speaks has been silent towards its protesters, an irony when their motto proclaims that “It's time to listen.”

One method of protesting the organization is contacting corporations who sponsor it and informing them of the actions the organization has taken. Most sponsors have taken to ignoring the boycotts entirely, but Lindt decided to take an odd turn; they technically responded to some of the protesters, but showed that they clearly were not aware of the content of their messages.

@appleshoelace Thank you for your perspective. Please contact @autismspeaks with questions.
— Lindt Chocolate USA (@Lindt_Chocolate) March 10, 2015

@alaskkkaaa Thank you for your perspective. Please contact @autismspeaks with questions.
— Lindt Chocolate USA (@Lindt_Chocolate) March 10, 2015

Both messages are identical, aside from the Twitter handles of the persons involved: That Lindt Chocolate “(Thanks us) for (our) perspective” and that we should “contact Autism Speaks with questions.” This demonstrates a lack of attention to the protests in question, as the people who were contacting Lindt were not asking questions about Autism Speaks itself but were either asking why Lindt supports them or explaining that because Lindt supports them that they would no longer be purchasing their products. Contacting Autism Speaks would do nothing to resolve either of those points. I myself demonstrated the audacity of shifting the responsibility to the organization being sponsored in one of my responses:

So let me get this straight, @Lindt_Chocolate: You want @appleshoelace to ask @autismspeaks why -you- support -them-. Right.
— Cisco Buitron (@AskCisco) March 10, 2015

The fact that Lindt showed ignorance, willing or not, to the parties in question shows, to me at least, that they are not truly compassionate or attentive towards the autistic populace, and merely seek a mutually beneficial commercial relationship with Autism Speaks for a tax break and public relations purposes, as the organization still has a large public footprint as an organization related to autism.

This is a major problem with corporate sponsorship: Very rarely do corporations demonstrate any kind of ethical analysis when donating to charitable organizations. If the organization has a high profile and is tax-deductible, that is all that is needed for the corporation to donate to it, no matter where the money goes or the actual message the organization sends. And in the case of Autism Speaks, the organizations donating to it ignore the very voices of the people the organization claims to represent.

In reponse to Lindt's absurdity in their response to the autistic protests, I revived a tag called #LindtLogic and purposed it for humorful demonstrations of the meaning of Lindt's response.  After a while, another autistic commenter joined in.

I've got an idea, #ActuallyAutistic friends: #LindtLogic can be a HT where we demonstrate the logic Lindt just demonstrated today.
— Cisco Buitron (@AskCisco) March 10, 2015

Example: Someone asked me why I like cats so much. I told them to ask my cats. #LindtLogic
— Cisco Buitron (@AskCisco) March 10, 2015

@nappeapproves That's #LindtLogic for you. "This person is harming me." "Cool story bro, go talk to them."
— Cisco Buitron (@AskCisco) March 10, 2015

"You support a harmful organization." "Thank you for your perspective. Please contact the organization about it." #LindtLogic
— Cass (@nappeapproves) March 10, 2015

According to #LindtLogic, if I donate money to an organization, and someone tells me they are bad - I should tell my friend to contact them.
— Cass (@nappeapproves) March 10, 2015

Me: You give money to an organization that said I was cancer. Lindt: I'll just keep giving money then while you go talk to them. #LindtLogic
— Cass (@nappeapproves) March 10, 2015

@AskCisco Exactly. And meanwhile, I will just keep giving the organization money as usual. #LindtLogic
— Cass (@nappeapproves) March 10, 2015

"But that organization is really bad because-" "Then you should contact them, not me. I don't know or care where my money goes." #LindtLogic
— Cass (@nappeapproves) March 11, 2015

"Why are you paying for that person's gas? They're trying to run me over with their car!" "Talk to them about it." #LindtLogic
— Cisco Buitron (@AskCisco) March 11, 2015

The fact that the autistic community has rallied together in support of each other and against organizations that seek to speak for them rather than with them is an amazing phenomenon, and I hope to see it continue in the future.

Celebrity, Autism, Oppression by the Oppressed and Public Opinion

Edit 7/8/2012: Curtis has finally posted an apology.  The wording is a little strange; after all, didn't he mean to offend the person he was replying to? "I realize my autism comments were insensitive, however it was not my intention to offend anyone and for this I apologize." (found at https://twitter.com/50cent/status/222033753386647554 ) 

Edit 7/5/2012: Curtis has deleted the tweets, but has still made no public acknowledgement of saying them or an apology for them.  More edits as the situation changes.

On the second of July, the rapper, producer and businessman Curtis Jackson, known to many as "50 Cent", posted two posts to his Twitter account that enraged the Autism community:

"yeah i just saw your picture fool you look autistic ‪#SMSaudio‬ RT @yung_raditz @50cent Release the album or get shot again" ( Previously found at https://twitter.com/50cent/status/219978810689470464)

and

"i dont want no special ed kids on my time line follow some body else ‪#SMSaudio" ( Previously found at https://twitter.com/50cent/status/219980077855809537) .

He followed up with an "apology" for the Special Ed. remark that seemed more like a jab at how the program worked than an actual retraction of his opinion:

"just kidding about da special ed kids man, i was in special ed day said i had anger issues lol" (Previously found at https://twitter.com/50cent/status/219983198527045633 ) .

As many people have already talked about the event itself, I would rather springboard this to a discussion on how celebrity status seems to affect public opinion. Why is it that a good many people take the advice of a celebrity in fields they have no knowledge about? From the posts, it is clear Curtis knows nothing of autism; there is no autistic "look", after all, and the idea of "looking autistic" being an insult is absurd when any of the world's greatest innovators were on the spectrum. Yet people will fight his opinion, myself included, because we know there are people who will hold it as gospel if unchallenged.

This provides a catch-22: a few bloggers have said that there are better things to do than fight one man's opinion, and they are right. It is, after all, the opinion of just one man. The issue, however, is that if we do not fight it, those that hold his opinion sacred will spread it. If we do fight it, the fight will spread the discussion to people who would otherwise not have heard it, and thus we spread it ourselves. Either way, an opinion that quite rightly should just die out spreads. I choose to speak out, however, because at least speaking out shows that this view is not universally held and has opposition. And that, hopefully, will discourage other people from actively expressing such views. I would wish people did not respect celebrity views just by virtue of their celebrity, but until people take positions based on actual merits, others must fight back in order to show those views are wrong.

One of the greatest ironies, however, is that the person this insult is coming from, Curtis Jackson, is a member of a race and culture that in his very lifetime experienced and experiences systematized discrimination. He knows what it is like to be insulted for an attribute he is born with (the color of his skin), yet chooses to propagate discrimination for another born trait (autism). If he does not know autism is a born trait, it makes him ignorant. If he does, it makes him a hypocrite, especially after promoting a book against bullying. Either way, I hope the community continues to push for an apology and retraction until it gets one.  Nobody deserves to be insulted for how they were born, be it sexuality, race or neurotype.

War on Autism?

Being an advocate for autism I find myself perusing a great deal of message boards and websites in general to get some idea of the zeitgeist surrounding the condition. What saddens me even more than the stories of children having to cope with the social isolation more often than not inflicted by their fellow children which society deems “innocent” and “precious” is the attitude most adults have towards autism and the wording they use for their struggles with it.

Too often the words “cure”, “defeat” and “fight” are used in terms of helping children with autism. While I am sure most of these parents and other adults mean well and only want the best for these children, the usage of these words tends to betray the stigmatization that autism has. By using these terms, there is the connotation that autism is a curable ailment, something that needs to be removed much like polio, smallpox or leprosy. Autism is more than a set of symptoms: it is an entirely different way of viewing the world. Perhaps it is a bit in the way of hyperbole, but when I hear people talking about fighting autism I cannot help but think of intolerance in the past.

For example, take the word sinister: Most people connote the term as meaning evil, untrustworthy and conniving, and due to the way language evolves, that has become the accepted meaning; however, the etymology of the word is a translation of “left-handed.” During the Middle Ages, people actually believed that being left-handed was a sign of demonic possession, something to be exorcised and cured. Even in my lifetime, being both left-handed and autistic, the schools attempted to drive traits of both from me; however, thankfully they did not believe me to be possessed by demons.

I have a feeling much is left to be done in the way of autism advocacy: I want society to eventually learn to have both parties come together in the middle, to accept the benefits autism has and cope with the drawbacks. But so long as words that divide the autists from the neurotypicals are used, words that imply autism is only bad and has nothing good to offer, that day will likely creep further and further away.

Some of you are probably asking, “Cisco, How do I indicate I want to help the autistic people I know while fostering a bridge between the two?” Well, the wording can change while keeping the intent; instead of cure, help can be used; instead of defeating or fighting autism, integrating and supporting could transmit the proper intentions. I, for one, fight for the integration of autists and do what I can to support the autists I know; what we need to defeat is not autism, but ignorance.