The Hub and Ideas
So, it is an honor to write a blog included in the hub and yet…. It also is not. I think the “honor” is in the quality of our thinking and writing, it comes from us. It is not implicit; it can diminish or even go away entirely. The seeming goals of Hub; namely, the countering of bad autism science and promotion of autistic rights might be worthy goals, but not enough in themselves. I suppose then you could say that I find the Hub honorable, but only as long as we behave honorably. We behave honorably by neither sacrificing science, nor losing our strong ethical base. Also, by keeping our logic intact even on difficult issues and by carefully explaining in such a way that teaches others and not merely engaging in drive-by ethics or the scientific, intellectual variant of schoolyard bullying.
To challenge and substantiate, that is the direction I want to see us take….. and largely, we do.
Since its founding in 2006, the Hub has only gotten bigger. I swear, it almost seems impossible to keep track of all the newly added blogs. And with this expansion have come new faces, new ideas, and sometimes more disagreements. Sometimes I almost feel, as if I wish the Hub would go back to the originals. But not really…..
I think it was always the intention for the Hub to grow, and even important…. maybe even inevitable, that it do so. I also think that the neurodiversity movement, as it pertains to autism, to still be in its tumultuous childhood. This is in spite of it being at least 15 years old and the broader disabilities rights movement being older still. I think because this movement is still developing there are questions yet to be formally answered.
I am also going to offer a prediction. I predict that these questions below will not spontaneously go away. And that they will persist and be a continuing source of conflict among various persons in the hub (and not just a few individuals).
1. What constitutes respectful language toward autistics on the Hub.
2. To what extent is intra-Hub debate permissible, on what issues, and by whom?
3. To what extent is criticism of the Hub’s general direction permissible?
4. To what extent is one obligated to deal with unscientific or unethical comments that appear on one’s blog?
5. What are the goals of the Hub, stated more specifically than they are now?