I just read the first part, I had missed it. I did not think you were saying that you loved autism speaks. The simple fact that there are people who are getting something helpful, however small but is better than nothing, is just that, a fact. I am not a fan of autism speaks here in the u.s., but I know nothing of the Canadian one. It is true, when there are some helpful services provided (even among harmful ones), folks that depend on those helpful services will need to find them elsewhere when that organization closes. There is a diffference in advocacy between the all or nothing "this organization is pure evil and must be closed come hell or high water" and "this organization is mostly bad and needs to be closed... AND lets look at who is actually benefitting from what little good they do and help them get those needs met elsewhere.... really see everyone the organization effects and say to them 'we got you!'". I am trying to write some of what I got out of both your posts, not trying to deposit any of this as my own thoughts. Thanks for writing these. Nuance is important and the beauty of life, and also the ease or adversity, is in the details!
I don't think there's any organization that's 100% good or bad. There are good things and bad about all of them. If we continue to tear down all of them without providing alternatives, people in need are the ones who suffer. We are already in health care deserts. Let's not just continue to make things worse without replacing what we take away.
Thank you!
I just read the first part, I had missed it. I did not think you were saying that you loved autism speaks. The simple fact that there are people who are getting something helpful, however small but is better than nothing, is just that, a fact. I am not a fan of autism speaks here in the u.s., but I know nothing of the Canadian one. It is true, when there are some helpful services provided (even among harmful ones), folks that depend on those helpful services will need to find them elsewhere when that organization closes. There is a diffference in advocacy between the all or nothing "this organization is pure evil and must be closed come hell or high water" and "this organization is mostly bad and needs to be closed... AND lets look at who is actually benefitting from what little good they do and help them get those needs met elsewhere.... really see everyone the organization effects and say to them 'we got you!'". I am trying to write some of what I got out of both your posts, not trying to deposit any of this as my own thoughts. Thanks for writing these. Nuance is important and the beauty of life, and also the ease or adversity, is in the details!
+1 to this. This was basically what I was trying to get across in my original comment on part 1. I hope that was clear-sorry if it wasn’t.
I don't think there's any organization that's 100% good or bad. There are good things and bad about all of them. If we continue to tear down all of them without providing alternatives, people in need are the ones who suffer. We are already in health care deserts. Let's not just continue to make things worse without replacing what we take away.