Wrong Planet is Wrong!

Post Reply New Topic

I would class that as janitorial. I have 2 dogs and hundreds of unwelcome wallabies here so feel free to come around with yer shovel and sack.

But I don't know any disreputable tanners. Or any reputable ones, for that matter. And I have to keep on cleaning up after the ducks who view our pool as a ensuite bathroom, complete with commode! (This is in real life, mind)

That was almost amusing... there has not been, to my observation, any sort of claim of infallibility - those are your words, your assertion, and I'd like an example if you could. The subjects that are not permitted are there for you to read; if you have a problem with enforcement, then you are entitled to ask and/or complain. Here, this is becoming more diatribe to me than substantiated argument, as the actual complaint about the thread has slipped around a bit. But in regards to the original post, there was no censorship, only a reminder as to appropriate behavior. No censure, no warning. If that is problematic for you, then I am not sure what to advise other than an assessment of what is important to you.


M.

BTW to clear things up I had no problem with the reminder in the thread mentioned.

After reading the other thread i'm somewhat confused to how this thread came into existence. Noone was accused of breaking rules, the community as a whole were just reminded not to insult groups of people (which is always a possibility in such a thread.)

A member was banned from here and he keeps coming back.

yes, I questioned whether that was a rule or not and I still don't think it is, given that Alex regularly insults Autism Speaks. The other point would be that the 'groups' nominated in the TOC (racism, homophobia) are general human rights categories of people regarded as in some form of danger or discrimination - NTs are not of that ilk. Also as I have already pointed out, NT culture and practices are part of the subject matter of autism, along with pro cure/anti cure, and are always going to be a subject of discussion here. It will attract both positive and negative opinions. For a moderator to say that no one may express a negative view of NTs or NTism is censorship.

This is not dictatorial, you should see another board I go to, well actually I don't even bother now, if you so much as sneeze, they hear it and declare a disaster zone and lock down.

well that is why i am speaking up now. this has never been an issue before here and i see it as a shift in the ethos of the site engineered by (some) mods with designs on changing the nature of the site.

If some of the mods here want to make it part of the rules, then you should consult Alex about having it added to the TOS as a category.

These rules don't specify "unless you are neurotypical" and the subject was not locked or restricted. There was a reminder that attacks on others are not allowed, as a preventative measure. If you can't get past this point of fact, then I do not know what to suggest to you. The caution stands, and I find that proactive commentary does much more than after-the-fact warnings and reactions, and I will continue to interject as appropriate. If you have issue with me specifically, I invite you to contact me directly.


M.

A group of people includes the majority. In this case, NT's. It is never appropriate to generalize broadly and insult any group of people, although the moderators here have made a point of noting the understandable anger many have against NT's and trying to be tolerant of some venting. Still, insulting a group of people is insulting a group of people, and it does violate the stated rules. It will probably always be an ongoing debate here as to when the venting is going to be allowed and when it's going to be reigned in; entirely subjective, I guess, because otherwise it wouldn't be allowed at al.

But some of it IS funny. I can laugh at myself (um, I consider myself more NT than AS, although there is a mix there). Promise Just gets tough to always be sure of the difference.

Autism Speaks is an organization and it's policies are fair game, as are the opinions of it's leaders and members. Attacking their policies and opinions is different from saying, "anyone who would ever support Autism Speaks is horrible," or "every member of Autism Speaks supports eugencis." Either of these would be criticisms of broads groups of people instead of the organization of it's policies and, then, would break the rule.

When someone makes themselves into a public advocate, or becomes a public figure - thinking Jenny McCarthy or the US President - they also become fair game, to the extent you're discussing their public persona. Unless they are a member here. That would break a different rule

I realize that some of these distinguishing factors may seem a little fuzzy and confusing if you are not used to them, but it's pretty much the way informed PC runs here in CA, so I'm pretty comfortable with where the lines are. And it's consistent with the way litigation in these areas will fall. Just hope I've explained it well enough.

as I have already said:

yes, I questioned whether that was a rule or not and I still don't think it is, given that Alex regularly insults Autism Speaks. The other point would be that the 'groups' nominated in the TOC (racism, homophobia) are general human rights categories of people regarded as in some form of danger or discrimination - NTs are not of that ilk. Also as I have already pointed out, NT culture and practices are part of the subject matter of autism, along with pro cure/anti cure, and are always going to be a subject of discussion here. It will attract both positive and negative opinions. For a moderator to say that no one may express a negative view of NTs or NTism is censorship.

But in the interests of getting back to the same old same old stuff. Here is your official WP face saving mask. <proffers 'thing'>, should you need to use it. I believe it's an NT custom with authority figures.

No. I mean you have painted the picture of the unwilling moderator doing something you felt pressured to do, rather than being asked and given the chance to decline, which you say you would have done.

Well, yes, while you get to decide if you want to use the tools or not once handed to you, ie decide to "accept" the job in that way, when I found myself the next morning facing a 40 post spammer and no active mods around, I reluctantly decided I should just do the job handed to me. I was and am reluctant and conflicted about it. I've accepted a lot of obligations in my real life already. But I can't just leave it, either, when I see a need and have the ability. WP needed more mods, and I frequent boards that other mods don't. Point being, I guess, that I can hardly see myself as being on a power trip, as Postperson suggested, when I'd rather run and hide in the first place. For me, it really is about simply being a janitor, and helping make sure the floors around here aren't dangerous.

My point was that I think the logic in your paragraph is flawed. Alex's positions on Autism Speaks cannot be equated to insulting NT's as group. Different animals. And no one has suggested that you can't express any negative views of NT's. Caution was requested. That's all. There can be a point where it crosses the line.

Yes, very. And it doesn't seem people who were wrongly banned get a chance to come back. Even though I was banned, but now i'm suddenly back. Am I allowed to talk about myself cause I was banned at one time?