What is sexist, racist, transphobic content & cross posting?

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I don't consider anything I posted either sexist, racist or transphobic content, but I guess the admin in question disagrees with that. Therefor, could any of the moderators please explain what exactly qualifies as sexist, racist or transphobic content? Could anyone explain to which degree educated, rational opinions are allowed if they deviate from a mainstream, politically correct POV? I don't have any problem with following rules, but I find "sexist, racist or transphobic content" such subjective, vague and ambiguous terms it could be used to silence almost any opinion a particular Liberal moderator disagrees with.

Much the same way, I'd love to know what exactly are the conditions for content to be considered "cross posting? Am I not allowed to post the same content twice, even when they content is relevant for multiple threads? If yes, what exactly qualifies as "cross posting"? If not, are there any recommended ways to post content that is relevant for more threads in a way that is not considered "cross posting"?

Just for the record, this is a serious question. I'm really just trying to make sense of the rules and find a way to spend time on this forum without the constant feeling of suffocation or the fear of being banned.

Cross posting is pretty clear, posting the same thing in multiple threads or forums (it usually isn't called out unless it's become a problem though), while the other stuff is purely the interpretation of the currently serving mods. You can try and make your case via PM or in public (though you risk thread locks), but those definitions are so ambiguous that they really do change significantly every time there is a shift in the makeup of the mod team, which has been a problem over the years.

What if two threads deal with the same topic?
Or what if they deal with a very similar topic?
Is the same content EVER allowed for two different posts?
How different do two posts need to be for them not to be considered "cross-posting"?

I don't find the answers to those question clear in any way...



At what point does it become a problem?
In what way are the posts mentioned a problem?



I find this level of subjectiveness, vagueness, ambiguity and arbitrariness disturbing... especially for an Aspie community. If there's any place where I'd expect objective, concrete, non-ambiguous and consistent rules it's in a community run by and for Aspies. Is it odd to have such an expectation?

When it's spammy, and people start to complain. Generally speaking, don't do it, the situations in which it's acceptable are rare exceptions, not the norm.



Remember, Alex was a teenager when he created this site, and if there's one thing teenagers don't do, it's write long, complex sets of rules when a generic boilerplate ToS is widely available, and there are much more pressing issues in need of his attention on the site. Besides, how would you even go about making non-ambiguous rules about subjective things like offensiveness? Go too far one way, and the place turns into /b/, go too far the other way and the whole site gets banned for sexism and the only acceptable posts are cat videos; suddenly, flexible standards don't look so bad.

Cross-posting has to do with submitting posts in one thread in response to posts in another thread. Spamming has more to do with posting the same topics in dis-similar threads and obsessively derailing threads toward a single topic. When cross-posting and spamming occur together, that is a particularly egregious offense.

Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's ancestry, parentage, and/or cultural identity. Racism can be expressed by people of any ancestry, parentage, and/or cultural identity against people of any ancestry, parentage, and/or cultural identity, even their own.

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can be expressed by people of any gender or gender identity against people of any gender or gender identity, even their own.

Trolling has to do with being persistently contentious - among other obnoxious behaviors - and attempting to justify those behaviors with fallacious personal beliefs.

I would call what you did the other day "spamming." You posted in at least 3 or 4 threads nearly the exact same thing, about autism not being a disorder or disability. Some of the threads were long dead before you posted. Most of the posts were extremely long. And many posts contained multiple images, including a chart showing "Worldwide Average Differences Among Blacks, Whites, and East Asians" which really had very little to do with the point you were trying to make.

The chart you posted many people would also find offensive, and it could easily be considered to be racist as well. The graph showing IQ differences between men and women could be taken as sexist. Neither of those charts have anything to do with autism.

You repeatedly posted the same information in response to other posts that refuted your arguments, which does nothing to further discussion and makes the thread ultimately pointless. It seems that you are only interested in trying to force others to agree with you, instead of having actual discussions.

I'm thinking that it was these behaviors, among others that I didn't witness, that caused you to get into trouble.

I often feel like the same image, video or quote is relevant in different contexts... and I feel like this "cross-posting" rule is an unnecessary restriction in such cases.



As an Aspie, I don't believe there's anything more important than concise, unambiguous, objective rules of engagements for ANY context.

It's been a while since I was a teenager and my memory of when I was a teenager is rather blurred, but I'd be very surprised to learn that I felt differently about that when I was 17.



Personally, I would allow ANY opinion, no matter of much some people might be offended by it. I don't believe in censorship of any kind.

I would merely ban the use of slurs or other comments that don't involve opinions but explicit insults.



What's /b/?



Is it that easy to get a site banned for "sexism" these days?
Have we really entered that stage of totalitarianism already?



I expect an Aspie forum to be a place where I can freely express myself, unrestricted by the social norms of the batshit crazy Neurotypical world.

By being even more restrictive than the social norms I experience in real life, Wrong Planet is the very opposite of that.



I get the concept. It is not clear to me what is the expected behavior when the same content is applicable to multiple threads.



I get that. I've not been accused of spamming though, so I don't consider this relevant at the time.



I reject prejudice or discrimination of any kind. Yet, content I posted has been labeled "racist".



I reject prejudice or discrimination of any kind. Yet, content I posted has been labeled "sexist".

See the problem?



I know. I also know it can be easy to mistake someone who just happens to hold a controversial opinion with a troll, because controversy does often lead to conflict, even when unwanted. The more controversial your opinions, the more people tend to take offense, whether that offense is intended or not.

Anyway, I've not been accused of trolling, so I don't consider this relevant at the time.



I guess that means "necro-posting" is frowned upon here, right?!

I can't find anything about that in the posting guidelines.



And that's a problem?



Actually, that chart is totally to the point.

The argument I was making was this :
1) Each gender & each race comes with its own weaknesses and strengths, when compared with the others.
2) Autism comes with its own weaknesses and strengths, when compared with non-Autistic people
3) We do not consider a particular gender or race disabled due to their weaknesses.

This, I believe, is a good argument for the position that Autism (like membership of a particular race / gender) should not be considered a disorder, a disease or a disability.



Those are the results of a scientific study. Science is "racist" now?



Again, those are the results of a scientific study. Science is "sexist" now?



Like gender and race, Autism is defined by genetics.
As with gender and race, Autism genes give us certain inherent strengths and weaknesses.
Autism is NOT a disability, just like gender and race is NOT a disability.

That's the point I was making. Please explain to me how those charts are not relevant in that context!



Posts that refuted my arguments? Posts that ignored my arguments, you mean?

When I repost a part of an earlier post in response to another post, it's because it's obvious when reading that other post that that particular part of my post was not read, ignored or misunderstood.

I repeat only to clarify, not to obfuscate.



When I'm the ONLY one referencing off-site source material (including references to scientific studies) to make a point and my arguments are consistently ignored, I feel like I'm the only one trying to have an actual discussion.



Did this post at least clarify what I was trying to do?
Does the behavior you're refering to make more sense to you now?

I agree this is all confusing because I think anything can be seen as that. But sexism just means stereotyping men and women. Like saying women should stay at home and take care of the kids and the men should be supporting their families. That would be en example of sexism because it's a stereotype about how men and women should be living when it's not that way anymore. But if you said that was how people lived in the days, that is not sexism because you are stating a fact about our US history about how women were treated then and what society was like and how things were in families then.

Example of racism is stereotyping people based on their race or nationality. Another example of racism is saying someone did that crime because they are black or blaming a crime on someone being black and connecting it to their skin color or basing your judgment on a person based on their race or nationality than on them as a person for their behavior. If your thoughts don't change about a person based on their skin color or nationality, then you are not racist.

Example of transphobia is saying how trans women are not actually women and they are just men who want to be women and live their fantasy as one. I don't see anything in the rules about transphobia so basically it isn't against the rules or has that been added in?

If you are not sure where the line is drawn and you fear of being banned, just stay away from these topics. Do not post your opinion or nothing in those threads.

Ahh, see the problem here is that you're posting a lot of video and pictures, which feels spammier than if you were just writing similar responses or posting the same link, since it's much more noticeable. You're of course free to feel however you want about the rule, not that that counts for anything.



Other Aspies feel differently.



So when you travel back in time to create your own AS support site before WP and thus erase it from the space/time continuum, you can instruct your teenage self to write the kind of rules you'd prefer.



4chan and Reddit are awaiting you.



The friendliest place on the internet. Be sure to tell the /b/tards that you're there to form an Autism support community free of censorship, I'm sure they'll be thrilled to have you.



Thankfully, we're not there yet, though efforts have been made. I don't think we're due for another round of that for a few months, judging from the non-activity in the Women's forum.



That sounds good in theory, but in practice, it looks like constant trolling and personal attacks. You might see if Intensity Squared is still around, they had forum rules that might be more to your liking.

Really, I'm all for open expression of ideas and unrestricted discussion, and will push back strongly if I think there's an ideological finger on the scales of moderation, but what you want is not going to happen, and the sooner you understand that, the more pleasant your experience here is going to be.

My girlfriend is a scientist who teaches at a university... and I'm pretty proud of that. In fact, I find intelligence one of the most attractive attributes in a woman. Also, most of my friends are women these days... including a few gay Aspie women.

I guess the reason I've been accused of "sexism", is for posting politically incorrect but factual data like this :



Would you argue that that graph is sexist?
And if your answer is yes, does that mean science is sexist?



I guess the reason I've been accused of "racism", is for posting politically incorrect but factual data like this :



Would you argue that those stats are racist?
And if your answer is yes, does that mean science is racist?



If the gender between your ears does not correspond with the gender between your legs, there's an obvious inconsistency.

Until recently, I'm pretty sure most people would argue the whatever is between your legs defines your gender and any inconsistency with what's between your ears is caused by some kind of mental instability. Somehow, this (in my opinion perfectly reasonable and valid argument) has become so politically incorrect one is not even allowed to voice that anymore and one is accused of "transphobia".

This is something I find a disturbing trend and one of many indications that Western civilization has become batshit crazy!





One thing I hate about Neurotypicals is that many of them are so freakishly hypersensitive about everything. I expect better from an Aspie community.

In fact, if I have to weigh every word I say because I might offend someone while at the same time people are free to voice opinions that offend me, what's the point of a forum like this? Aren't Aspies supposed to feel more free to be themselves here than among Neurotypicals? Maybe for you that's the case, but I feel far more suffocated and muzzled out here than I do anywhere in real life...



I guess so... which is a shame, as I truly believe that one image (or one video) often is worth a thousand words... and thus allows far more efficient communication.



I guess so... which is probably one of the reasons I don't relate with other Aspies as much as I would like to.

Even among fellow Aspies, I feel like an outcast most of the time



Something tells me I'm too old for those places.

Then again, if those really are the only places left on the Internet where free speech is allowed...



I'm not sure why, but my sarcasm meter just started tingling...



I used to be very active on The Phora. They literally allow anyone from radical Anarchists and Marxists to radical Zionists and Fascists. As far as I remember, any opinion was allowed to be expressed there and personal attacks were about the only thing they didn't allow.

Precisely because of both the great diversity and the great freedom out there, the atmosphere out there is far more light-hearted and colloquial than on Wrong Planet. Out there, it's perfectly normal to be exposed to ideas that are contrary to mainstream opinion and/or very different from their own. Unlike Wrong Planet, they don't have a bunch of trigger-happy little dictators just waiting for somone to express an opinion they don't like so they can punish them with a permanent hellban. Unlike Wrong Planet, you can just be yourself out there and express your opinion without worrying about how politically correct it is or whoes feelings you might offend.

That's this kind of diversity and freedom that I'm looking for in an Aspie forum and that I really miss whenever I'm here.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. In your case, I noticed that you had necrobumped threads with essentially the same topic that you were already discussing in another thread. The point I was trying to make was that you found threads pertaining to the idea that you wanted to push, and unnecessarily brought them back from the dead so that you could discuss the same thing that you were already discussing. It was pointless, in my opinion.

It also seemed very "spammy" because you were posting the same thing in multiple threads. I don't see why you would do something like that unless you wanted to make sure you got everyone's attention no matter what. It's pointless to discuss the same exact thing in more than one thread.




Yes, making extremely long posts can be problem especially when they have multiple images, quotes, or videos. It's often confusing, and it makes posts harder to read. The major problem that I had with what you were doing was that you kept posting the same images in multiple threads, and even in the same thread. You also had posts that were nothing but huge quotes from an online article. If all you wanted to do was have people read the article, you could have just posted the link. Or you could have summarized it in your own words while also providing a link.




I know the point that you were trying to make, but you really ought to consider what effect it might have on other people reading it. And no matter how many times you try to use that argument, I am not going to agree with it, because I think that your logic is faulty. So I don't see the point in trying to argue the same thing in the same way.



Science isn't racist, but scientists can be. I have no idea whether the scientists who did the study were racist or not. I also don't know how old the study is, or whether or not it's a valid study. People try to use bad science to justify all kinds of claims, and many studies contradict one another. Either way, I don't think the study does anything to further your argument, and it's likely to offend people.



See above.



I know what point you were trying to make. Gender and racial differences have a purpose, and are found across each population. They are meant to be there. Two people of a particular race will have children of the same race. Babies are born one gender or another. These are things that occur often and normally. Autism does not work that way. There is no autistic race or gender.

You could also say the very same thing about other genetic disabilities. So no, I do not think that what you posted was relevant in the sense that it actually had anything to do with autism.



You are assuming that people ignored your arguments and overestimating the strength of your arguments. They were illogical. Repeating things does nothing to clarify. If people weren't swayed by your arguments the first time, it's not going to work the second time. Everyone has the capability to go back and see what you had written before, so it's not like in spoken communication where repeating oneself may be necessary. If you want to clarify things, you ought to come up with some new points or evidence instead of repeating the same thing thinking that people are suddenly going to change their minds.



Nobody was ignoring your arguments. They were illogical, and the sources you used were not good. You didn't seem as though you were trying to have a discussion; it seemed as though you were trying to force others to agree with you by repeatedly posting the same things in response to others' posts instead of coming up with another argument directly addressing what others had said.

A case wherein it makes perfect sense to "cross-post", because a post almost certainly applies to both threads if the threats deal with essentially the same topic.



I disagree. If you believe you have information that may be valuable to the people who started those threads, then why is it a bad idea to revive those threads?



I understand that it may be better that there's but a single thread on a particular topic, but isn't it up to the moderators to merge threads in such a case?

How does anyone benefit from not allowing people to post information relevant to a thread that might be useful to the people involved, just because someone else at some point in time decided to start a thread on the same topic?



So what are the alternatives?

Considering a case where all of the information is relevant to the topic and even essential to making a particular argument, what would you recommend to make a post easier to read & less confusing?



I only re-post content in the same thread when it's obvious that the original content wasn't read.

I guess making my posts shorter would make it more likely for certain content to actually be read, but it would also force me to leave out content that's essential to make my point.



The article you were referring to was a very long article. What I did, was copy an excerpt from that article. Merely providing a link would make it difficult to get people to focus on a specific part of the text. Also, people are more likely to read an excerpt from an article than click a link to an article.

As the copied content from that article matched my own views, there was nothing for me to add. Anything I would have added, would just have been noise that would distract from the very content I wanted people to focus on.



Where exactly is my logic faulty, in your opinion?!



... because I don't see any faults in my logic and I haven't seen any argument thusfar coming even remotely close to debunking my arguments.

If you believe my logic is faulty, then please try explaining where my logic goes wrong... which steps in my arguments you believe are problematic.



I posted a link to the paper.

If you believe the science is bad, then try pointing out the flaws.

If you don't know whether the science is bad, then you cannot just assume it is just because it happens to contradict your prejudices. In that case, the proper response would be to start questioning your prejudices.



... which is one of the many reasons why I try to live by these principles :







Then point out the flaws in my argument. If you believe there are flaws in my argument, you should be able to point them out.

Just saying that I'm wrong because you happen to disagree with me is not productive and doesn't lead to any greater understanding for either of us.







Whatever race we belong to is defined by a certain configuration of our DNA. Also, you cannot define eg. Whiteness by the lack of Blackness, as there is a gradient of many shades of grey in between different races.

Which gender we belong to is defined by a certain configuration of our DNA. Also, you cannot define eg. Femininity by the lack of Masculinity, as there is a gradient of many shades of grey in between the two genders.

Being Autistic or not is defined by a certain configuration of our DNA. Also, you cannot define eg. Autism by the lack of Neurotypical thinking, as there is a gradient of many shades of grey in between the Autistic mind and the Neurotypical mind.

Finally, note that the entire configuration of your DNA defines you as an individual, and that each of the aforementioned subsets of that configuration (race, gender & Autism genes) typically come with both inherent weaknesses and inherent strengths that can only partially be overcome by culture / education.

Belonging to a particular race or gender is really much more similar to being Autistic than you seem to realize!



A disability implies the existence of an inherent weakness, an inherent flaw.
Not everyone with Autism experiences their Autism like that.
For some, the only weaknesses they attribute to their Autism can also be perceived as strengths in an often slightly different context.



Then, some part of my argumentation must not have come across, or it would have been obvious how gender, race and Autism are correlated.

I'm not sure how else I can explain it, though...



If you believe they are illogical, then you should point out at which logical flaws are made and why they are logical flaws.

That's how a discussion works. If you fail to do that, you're ignoring an argument... an argument that may or may not be valid.

Sure, there's nothing inherently wrong with ignoring an argument, but can not expect someone to see any flaw in his arguments if you fail to point out the flaws... or if you don't back up your own position with arguments that make at least as much sense.



Then don't ignore arguments you disagree with. Address them. Try to debunk then.



How can I know anyone actually read an argument when that person don't address it... at all... in any way or form?

Must I just assume that people read everything I write, even when it's clear from what they're writing that either they didn't read the argument or that they failed to grasp it? Is that what you're saying?

Everyone has the capability to go back and see what you had written before, so it's not like in spoken communication where repeating oneself may be necessary. If you want to clarify things, you ought to come up with some new points or evidence instead of repeating the same thing thinking that people are suddenly going to change their minds.



I fully, completely, utterly disagree with that.

If you believe my sources are not good, why don't you provide sources you consider more reliable?
Why don't you point out why my sources are unreliable; what makes them unreliable?

Just saying they are doesn't mean they are.



That's exactly how I perceive what you're trying to do. Nowhere in your posts do I see any attempts to point out whatever flaws you think you see in my arguments. All I see is you're saying that my arguments are illogical, but at no point do I see any explanation on which logical steps, which parts of my arguments supposedly are flaws.

That, in my opinion, is a totally pointless and nonconstructive way of discussing differences of opinion... but maybe that's just me...

This thread has gone on long enough. Seeing as discussing locked topics is (clearly and objectively) against the rules, technically, I shouldn't have let it stand in the first place, but, alas, I was feeling generous.

Additionally, don't repost content that was already deemed unacceptable in one thread into a new thread.

Anyone who has an issue with the rules of this website, or the moderators who enforce them, needs to take it up with the site owner, Alex.