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.

Autism and Speaking: Speeches versus Conversations

Growing up, I never had an issue with public speeches like most of my peers did; I prepared my speech, got up and read it aloud for everyone to hear. I was never nervous, never thinking about the judgment people might place on my words (At the performance anyway; writing the speech, however, was a different animal altogether.) I simply spoke the words and asked for input after the fact.

Conversation, however, was a different animal altogether; if I wasn't anxious, I would stutter, I would not know what to say or how to respond to a question. For years I was a poor conversationalist, even with a high vocabulary and command of several subjects. Now, one may be asking, how could someone who is so good at speeches be a poor conversationalist?

The answer lies in the fundamental difference between a speech and a conversation. A speech is a prepared document, something where the presentation has been practiced and polished. In speeches, interruptions are rare and frowned upon, the signal to start is clearly given and the end dictated by the completion of the material presented. More often than not, the speaker has a decent command of the field of study presented in the speech as well. Finally, speeches are structured, and people on the autism spectrum do very well with structure.

Conversations, however, are random discourses of words, phrases and nonverbal cues, each having to be interpreted to see which idea is being conveyed. The opportunities to speak are often not seen, and interruptions are quite frequent. Trying to find that opportunity to speak becomes a chore in itself and the thought the autist may have had as well as whatever ideas the other people in the conversation may be conveying are often lost in the focus on that moment to speak. In short, a conversation is the worst way for an autist to convey an idea.

Unfortunately, most of the world operates in the conversation manner of speech, and this will be something that ultimately will take work on both sides to bridge. The autist can benefit from training in discerning nonverbal cues, and the neurotypical can benefit by verbally announcing when they have finished communicating their idea. Both sides, of course, benefit from allowing the other side more opportunities to speak in general.