Published on 12, July, 2020
I don't know about others, but I'm getting a little concerned that the arguments will put off new members.
Quite often people join and then disappear quite quickly.
I've been involved in these myself on occasion, so I'm not innocent.
However, maybe the mods could create a section where these potentially contentious threads could be placed that had a heading like NSFW (a new one on me but it seems to be well known).
If a seemingly innocuous thread then turns into a constant argument, perhaps it could be moved to there.
It's sometimes interraction between older males and older females (or non binary etc) and comes down to very different relationship/*ex points of view but can of course stem from any subject and any set of contributors.
I think it happens more often than it once did, and I've not been here a year yet.
I have to say that forbes article is really bad. A hand full of cherry picked anecdotes about accounts that were banned with no real response from the social media sites that did the banning as to why they were banned. They could have at least looked at the banned content critically to see if it violated TOS but it seems they are willing to take the word of the users. That's very unbalanced journalism.
That social media advertising can be abused by companies to get around equality rules is no surprise. But it's also unrelated to censorship because it's not about limited what people can say but rather targeting who sees it.
As for government use o social media so far the governments message doesn't really seem boosted about the myriad of different opinions out there. Again a cacophony of divergent voices both extreme and not is helping to ensure people don't just swallow everything there read online. Including what the government posts.
I'll delete the duplicate, no idea why it was posted. I'll leave this thread now because it feels all that can be reasonably said already has been. Besides which I figure the longer we spend on this one now the more nicer threads and posts from people asking for help are being distracted from. So lets go make ourselves useful.
I tend to do that or general fun posts or about pleasurable things. I can't do long discussions or follow them.
Some days life has enough challenges so coming here to share with someone who may understand how I think is helpful.
Oh, and I think I do focus more on responding to "looking for help" posts than discussion posts nowadays.
I'm not sure how long I've been here, probably not much longer than you, but arguments do seem more common, and usually about the same topics.
I generally prefer not to discuss politics online, but I would be very scared to do so here, which saddens me, although to be honest, I would feel like that in most places.
I'm not hibernating, but I'm active less than I used to be, albeit that I do check in quickly most days.
Peter said:The issue you're highlighting is not 'hate speech' on some web forum but state / mass media propaganda. The real lesson is that its dangerous for centralised powers to have too much control of what people can and can't say or listen to.
They do it online now.https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-05-15/the-dark-ads-election-how-are-political-parties-targeting-you-on-facebookfor example Donald Trump admits what the GOP’s anti-trans agenda is all abouthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCmqDJixx94
and many other such examples
https://novaramedia.com/2021/07/26/the-tories-are-on-a-mission-to-destroy-black-lives-matter/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/01/08/social-media-continues-to-amplify-white-supremacy-and-suppress-anti-racism/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/solving-the-problem-of-racially-discriminatory-advertising-on-facebook/ https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin
🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:True civility is not just being "polite" using pretty words, it is doing no harm to one another and ceasing doing harm once made aware of it.
One poster here has done considerable harm to me.
Firstly, your definition is incorrect. An extremist is someone with extreme views, it is terrorists who commit acts of terror (the clue is in the name). Terrorists can be regarded as a subset of extremist who express their views in targeted violence, often to exert political pressure. For example, two bishops might take extreme positions about a doctrinal matter, in polar opposition to each other. They could be accurately called 'extremists', but it would be unlikely that they would blow anyone up over it.
Secondly, I have named no names, so from the action of logic, I have not 'name called'. If someone is innocent of having made baseless accusations, then I have not referred to them, even obliquely. Only someone guilty of verbally abusing anyone here would imagine that they were being referred to.
Anonymity can be useful, if it is not abused. It is the abuse that I am objecting to, people saying abusive things because they have anonymity. If you read my original post, you will find that I made no complaint about anonymity on this forum, neither did I make any appeal for it to be dispensed with, so your points on these matters are not relevant to anything I said.
Those examples aren't that good
The issue you're highlighting is not 'hate speech' on some web forum but state / mass media propaganda. The real lesson is that its dangerous for centralised powers to have too much control of what people can and can't say or listen to.
Peter said:You get in sticky territory when you start attributing harm to words with out having to point to where the harm falls. Who was injured, who lost money, how was their daily life limited or threatened? If it's just hurt feelings, well someones feeling can be hurt by almost anything, serious or trivial, reasonable or unreasonable, it can all hurt someones feelings somewhere. That's why crimes involving speech ought to be linked to tangible harm. Like threatening violence or defamation. You ought to be able to show some one actually spread missinformation about you not just that they expressed an opinion you don't like or a joke you felt that went to far.
A free education on how words turn into actual sticks and stones: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm
You get in sticky territory when you start attributing harm to words with out having to point to where the harm falls. Who was injured, who lost money, how was their daily life limited or threatened? If it's just hurt feelings, well someones feeling can be hurt by almost anything, serious or trivial, reasonable or unreasonable, it can all hurt someones feelings somewhere. That's why crimes involving speech ought to be linked to tangible harm. Like threatening violence or defamation. You ought to be able to show some one actually spread missinformation about you not just that they expressed an opinion you don't like or a joke you felt that went to far.
Now if we're talking about forum standards I'd say you can and should go further and also ban uncivil speech towards others on the forum. This for example is not illegal speech but it's not exactly civil. But we can and must distinguish between criticism of people and the lifestyles and identities people may espouse. And we also need to distinguish between criticism and hate directed towards people. There is a difference between saying "I don't agree with people doing X" and saying "I think X people should go die."
Martin said:What about a space where people are free to make reasoned arguments without being accused of crimes by extremists? A space where people who make baseless accusations are brought to book. A place where anonymity is not abused, simply because there are no 'real life' consequences. I would support that. It is shameful that the National Autistic Society does not police its forum effectively enough that people who accuse others, with no basis in fact, of crimes are not suspended or expelled.
What about a space where people are free to make reasoned arguments without being accused of crimes by extremists? A space where people who make baseless accusations are brought to book. A place where anonymity is not abused, simply because there are no 'real life' consequences.
I would support that. It is shameful that the National Autistic Society does not police its forum effectively enough that people who accuse others, with no basis in fact, of crimes are not suspended or expelled.
What "extremists"? Extremists commit acts of terror, nobody on this forum has done that. That is also name calling and accusatory. It doesn't only work in one direction you know. We are all equally subject to the same rules on this forum.Also NAS forum will never get rid of anonymity because we are not safe as autistic people to be open about it. Imagine all the potential employers that would look up people here then bin their job applications in secret. Anti-anon only serves the oppressor and never the oppressed. You wouldn't want your private life and all the things you've shared here open for all and sundry to read and attach to you either.
Peter said:I assure you if I set up such a forum it will be for everyone. EVERYONE.
The problem with this Peter is that a safespace for everyone must literally be for everyone...
Peter said:And a place of tolerance, including tolerance of views people don't like so long as they are made in a civil way.
... which it will never be if it is in any way acceptable to say "certain groups of people shouldn't exist or are undeserving of respect" or words to those effect just because it doesn't take a slur or swearing to say it.
True civility is not just being "polite" using pretty words, it is doing no harm to one another and ceasing doing harm once made aware of it.
You say that. The last time a thread was locked in relation to rule 7 was "Queer community vigil/solidarity space" 4 months ago and before that was "Pronouns..." 5 months ago. Since then we've had numerous threads locked for rule 5, quite a lot of them centred around one group of people accusing others of breaking rule 7. I do not wish to put words in the moderators mouths but evidence suggests their interpretation of rule 7 does not line up with yours.
Again I'm not qualified to speak for the mods but I think the evidence points more to, "the moderators simply don't agree with you about rule 7," than, "the moderators are overwhelmed."
I should probably add that I have only been occasionally active on the forum the past months so I cannot really judge if the tone has changed. I hope not.
I think the challenge is that everyone has different triggers and it is very hard to avoid all possible triggers, especially if this is to be a space where people can feel comfortable voicing their opinions- a comment that seems innocuous to one person might really offend someone else. Of course it’s not ok to be deliberately mean or insensitive. I just feel that is very hard to define what is ‘acceptable or not’. I personally just do not read or engage with posts that I think I might not feel comfortable with.
No, I don't even need to consult one. I have a retentive memory.
Did you swallow a thesaurus?
It is to be regretted that the apparent phobic state of certain posters on this forum makes them immune to logic and reason, and incapable of civility. Their virulent extremism makes them blind to the fact that they are verbally abusing others by making baseless, defamatory accusations of criminality.
Those who admit to crimes in the forum should absolutely be expelled, and an attempt made to reach out to their victims to offer help, yes. The moderation team is sadly too overwhelmed to do so.