Do not discriminate - please, everyone, work to hold the line

I still don't know and as there's been no reply from the OP I wonder if we'll ever know?

"Wellbeing is a whole-of-society consideration". …

It should be but sadly is not

"Autistic community is richly and tolerantly diverse - long may it remain so"

Seems to me the Autistic Community is what it is… a community of Autistic people where normal people would not fit because they don’t think like we do. But that’s only an opinion.

Sorry Dormouse, but I really don't understand what you're suggesting?

Did you post this because you believe someone has broken rule 5 of the forum? Do you feel that you have been discriminated against? I feel that there is far less discrimination here than in real life, but of course I realise that the experiences of others may differ.

You mention the news and the doom mongering, people baiting and conflict it contains. I stopped watching the news a few years ago, but if people wish to watch it and to comment here on it, that doesn't necessarily mean they are discriminating. If you see a post that you believe is discriminatory, you can report it and the mods will decide if it breaks the rules.

DormouseAtRest_25 said:

Wellbeing is a whole-of-society consideration. 

In a perfect world it would be, but I believe that most people only really care about themselves and their own circle of family and friends, so we need to make sure we look after our own well being. This forum helps us do that - some of us don't have family and/or friends to rely on, and some members call.others their "kin".

DormouseAtRest_25 said:

Autistic community is richly and tolerantly diverse - long may it remain so.

I totally agree.

I have no idea if the original post was suggesting that, Cat woman, as I didn't understand it. 

If you want to post something about current affairs or a news article, go ahead. If you inadvertently break a rule, I'm sure the mods can explain how.

Are we not supposed to post about current affairs in case someone gets upset now? As a newshound I'd be upset and feel discriminated against if I wasn't allowed to post about the news, reading a post or a thread just because it's there dosen't mean that peope can't decide it dosen't interest them and to stop reading?

Me too, I don't understand this thread at all?

I have read your post several times and have analysed it bit by bit as I didn’t understand what you meant at first.

DormouseAtRest_25 said:

How do these suggestions sound to you?

I accept Rule 5. You are requesting that we all abide by that rule. I have no issue with that.

You explain how you understand discrimination; how it may be subtle and insidious. I agree that discrimination can be like that in employment and various other contexts, e.g., promotions overlooked, lack of accommodation of disabilities.  You have presented it as a fact but I think (correct me if I am wrong) you are suggesting that some of us could start discriminating against others in a subtle and insidious manner. I can’t think why you would have said this unless that is what you mean. I don’t understand how we would discriminate in subtle and insidious ways on this website. Examples I have seen some discriminatory posts about sexuality in the past, but they disappeared so I believe the moderators were effectively removing posts that broke Rule. 5.

DormouseAtRest_25 said:

I view "Rule 5" as a central tenet (main principle, or belief, that forms the foundation for a system of ideas, a belief system, or a movement) in supporting and maintaining that diversity of our community here (and in the real World too).

You are entitled to view Rule 5 in such a way. I would need to study and consider Rule 5 for more time than I can afford at the moment in order to offer my definition of Rule 5’s central tenet. I may well agree with yours, but that is of no consequence as we are all entitled to our opinions, so long as they cause no harm.

You have suggested that some people might wish to watch less explicit news stories on children’s TV. I do not wish to watch children’s TV, but others may welcome your suggestion.

DormouseAtRest_25 said:

maybe, as World events are wont to periodically rush to form their next maelstrom (a situation, or state of confused movement, or violent turmoil); we too can play our small part: by buffering (just a little) - the wholesale import of "the news" and the potential erosion of diversity, equity and inclusion that may involve.

World events and politics affect every one of us, whether or not we are actively engaged in the issues. I don’t believe we should limit the substance or amount of news that is discussed in our posts—that would be censorship and would be suppressing diversity.

Regarding your response to IntruderAlarmAbatis It would be a shame if you didn’t offer a detailed response. 

I hope that my difference of opinion does not cause you offence and I would welcome your response to my interpretation of your original post.

I don't think anyone is sure what the point of the OP was.

Right, I am very confused right now

Am I missing something here? I feel as though I'm reading a spat. 

There is no human right not to be offended. Posting or linking to things that might be "considered offensive to others" is not the same as discrimination. And who gets to decide what is "considered offensive"?

There are lots of things posted here that offend me, but they are not discriminatory or hateful, they are just the opinions of others. And there is a human right to freedom of expression. Just because we don't want to hear it, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to say it.

DormouseAtRest_25 said:

Discrimination may appear in many guises. 

Some forms of discrimination may more subtle and insidious (proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects) than others.

Some examples would be helpful. I don't really understand what you want to change, or what specific behaviours you want to avoid.

I would opine that it is you who have effectively shut down a valid discussion, by allowing your reaction to a difference of opinion to escalate so dramatically.

Shutting down a discussion, rather neatly illustrates your interlocutor's point. There is obviously an area that must be available that allows discourse, without overt discrimination, but that also allows that people might be offended to some extent by the views of others that differ from their own.

IntruderAlarmAbatis said:

So I’d like to understand more about your motives here.

My having been an active member here over the last 7 months; I would have hoped my record of best effort of peer support towards members, both in good times and in not so good times, ought to have spoken for itself.

"are you trying to shape the culture of the forum in a broader way by redefining what counts as discrimination?"; I have just made it clear that I fully support the definition of Rule 5.  (I think you know that is the case).

To have effectively called into question my record and intent to date - neatly demonstrates my point in an offensive manner.

I made no attempt to dilute the meaning of discrimination, quite the opposite (I am fairly confident you knew that too).

Congratulations; you have (yourself) just shut down valid discussion.

I shall not invest my efforts further.

Signing off.  DormouseAtRest_25.

I want to pick up on what you’ve said about discrimination, because I think it deserves some careful questioning. You’ve presented it as something that can be “subtle and insidious” and suggested that it appears in many guises, but the way you frame this feels so broad and undefined that it risks shutting down valid discussion. If “discrimination” is allowed to mean anything that someone might find offensive, then almost any disagreement or difference of opinion could be painted as harmful, which isn’t what the law or community rules actually set out.

Rule 5 is clear about protected characteristics under UK equality legislation. That’s an important boundary and one I think most people here would support. But when you expand the idea into something more nebulous, it makes me wonder whether the goal is to protect people from genuine prejudice or to discourage perspectives you personally don’t like. Discrimination is a serious issue, and diluting the meaning can make it harder to call out when it really does happen.

So I’d like to understand more about your motives here. Are you trying to strengthen the community’s protection against prejudice, or are you trying to shape the culture of the forum in a broader way by redefining what counts as discrimination?