Are assumed dog whistles considered bigotry under WP rules?

Post Reply New Topic

If I posted white males are more violence prone because of the environment, (society, entertainment etc), I would not be literally saying white males are born violence prone. Many if not most people would assume that statement was a dog whistle for my misandry and that could be used as a reason to lock that thread.

But how does one know that was my intent, especially in an autism forum? You have moderators with a condition known for theory of mind issues making a judgment about a person with a condition known for being "overly" literal.

You read my mind dude , I'm glad you said it as I wouldn't of brought it up.

"If you keep hearing dog whistles, that mean you're the dog."

that is the inherent problem with this site.


do you have alternatives?

Be Autistic about it, if the wording used does not specifically violate the rules don't lock the thread. Another way of putting it is err on the side of free expression of ideas.

agreed, that is the approach i like to take personally.

Ass backward question. But reasonable answer.

Its not the mods who lack theory of mind, but the members who make posts. A member maybe a bigot sending coded words, or a member maybe an innocent socially inept autistic who doesn't understand how his words will be taken. If this site were some kind of online college writing class (English 101, or Journalism 101) then it would up to the member posting (ie the student) to be aware of how their words would be taken, and their responsibility to choose their words wisely ( and they would have no right to complain about getting their asses kicked by authorities of the site for failing to do so).

But since this is not English 101, and further ….because this IS a support site for folks who are often blind to social nuances then you cant expect that much responsibility taking from posters. So yes you do have to give posters the benefit of the doubt. But at the same time you have to educate posters as well ( if someone is so socially impaired that they don't know when they come off as a jerk, then its criminally negligent of a support site NOT to educate the person when they do that). So...give folks a warning when they appear to be laying things between the lines...but don't ban them?

This sounds wise to me. Especially about the issue of a greater degree of blindness to social nuances here and as such, sometimes people coming off as being a jerk (not exclusive to males here) or people not caring if they come off as a jerk in "splaining" things to people (not exclusive to males here).

The site rules are a bit fuzzy to me. I get that a direct attack on someone shouldn't be allowed (e.g. "You, sir/madame are a [ insert derogatory or defamatory remark here ], and I fully support and agree with that.

I'm fuzzy on whether or not the following would be against the rules and if so, would be counter to what you suggest here (ie calling attention to how someone is coming across to others):

Is this example wrong according to forum rules? "I can only speak for myself and I don't know if this is your intent, but often when you post, you're not respectful of others, you come across as a judgmental "know it all", putting other people down as some sort of self proclaimed authority on [ whatever the issue or topic is ], "mansplaining" (or "womansplaining"). I'm getting that you're angry toward [ whatever the topic is ] and I accept that you are, but I think you could be more mindful about how you express your opinions. Your veiled digs are very obvious. If you think it's OK for you to come across that way, then don't get "triggered" when other's do as well. If you "dish it out", you have also be able to "take it".

Would the above example be against forum rules? I'm assuming not, since Goldfish21 in a current thread said that it was his opinion that alleged comments from Ezra make Ezra seem "kooky"? I want to make sure though.

Last edited by Magna on 22 Jan 2019, 10:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Males as a whole are more violent though so it wouldn't be misandry to state the fact, white people are not more violent though.

The whole dog whistle thing is dishonest its just an attempt to straw man the arguments of someone you disagree with by claiming their opinion are secretly different to what they are actually saying.

opinion from a new mod:

Why would you post such an eloquent post and risk it getting removed by provoking when you could edit the post and not lose the message.

"I can only speak for myself and I don't know if this is your intent, but often when you post, you're not respectful of others, you come across as judgmental. I'm getting that you're angry toward [ whatever the topic is ] and I accept that you are, but I think you could be more mindful about how you express your opinions. "

As for Goldfish's comment about Ezra , report it and see what happens. No one else has reported it so clearly Ezra appears to be ok with it.

Thanks, Ferris. Your edit seems reasonable and sensible. I'm putting the concept in my stores for when I find that it's needed.

Educate and communicate. If the poster can't accept your guidance, then they are cruising for a bruising.

Magna , forget my edit and post your original comment in reply to Bea

what about writing a disclaimer first regarding your intentions.

i've already hit the report button regarding similar 3 or 4 times recently. what i am the least okay with is threads being derailed to talk about me off topic. just send me a pm ffs.

as for goldfish's comments, he alluded it's because he's upset with the fact that i consider him unqualified to have discovered the cause of autism and unqualified to have discovered an ultimate treatment for autism. umpteen other people have expressed a similar opinion as well of course. but for whatever reason he's apparently decided to put the focus straight onto me. and it's been longer than i can remember since i ever addressed the subject until recently. although to his credit, he did at least send me one pm about it a couple of months ago. to which i replied, that i was no longer interested in talking about it.