Cat language

For any members who are interested in "trying" to unpick these responses - please know that my response that starts "Fwiw" was posted 1st - and it appeared for about 5 minutes, before being "disappeared."  I then made my second post that starts "My original" about 1 hours after my "Fwiw" post had been 'disappeared'........and then.....as if by magic, within 5 minutes of that second post, my 1st post "re-appeared."

Does NAS understand that WE ARE AUTISTIC......and therefore, that this "performance" is -at best- poor, and -at worst- DEEPLY damaging for us?!

My original response to your post here Craig has been "disappeared"!  I hope you (and others) saw the original.  AND FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT REQUIRED "CENSORSHIP" IN MY ORIGINAL POST HERE.

Something, is going BADLY wrong on this forum at the moment.

Oh my Goodness ....... I've just had another of my responses "disappeared" from here on this thread ....... and HONESTLY ........ that is not OK.

My post "appeared" here for about 5 minutes .... and was then "disappeared."

I'm not sure who or what is "punching" my buttons......but I will get to the bottom of it......whether here as a member....or by other means.

Fwiw.....I actually don't think there is any malice nor forethought on the part of NAS......I personally think that "events have simply overtaken them/us" and there is either insufficient resource and/or insufficient stomach and/or too rigid a "cloud" structure, to enable them to keep this as a safe and inclusive [AND HUMAN] place for human autists to reside within.

Like I say, it does make me sad - and like I say = I do wish you well!........but I also fear for the souls of people like me who came here in need of solace......I'm not sure that "solace-providers" can/will summon the fortitude to survive here for too much longer.

Godspeed brother.

Thank you but yeah, I'm not willing to be part of anything that censors free speech, I can accept that no swear words be permitted but being censored for words that basically are used in everyday comment is a bridge to far for me.

I do thank for the advice and support given when I first joined but it seems NAS is doing it's best to destroy all that.

Thank you for sharing your thought process - rather than just disappearing.  I fear that many of us may soon reach the same conclusion for similar reasons..........and yet.........if some of us don't stay to defend the perspective that you express.....then the whitewash is complete?!

Craig - I wish you well.......and am genuinely sorry that you feel "drummed out" of this place.  That makes me sad!

I've just logged on for the 1st time in a wee while and I looked at the heading "Cat Language" and thought, this sounds for good reading and I would post a comment about my cat.

Instead, it's mostly a topic of censorship around certain words that "someone" deems offensive and not permitted to use.

I didn't join this organisation and discussion forum to be under censorship and this, sadly is what it is. so for that, I'm removing my account, I do not wish to be part of something that censors people's use of words that is deemed to be offensive when it's not a swear word in any shape or form.

I hope you feel more yourself soon, its really hard supporting others and not taking their stuff onboard as your own, (( )).

Lotus said:

You give others much support and I hope you soon feel less overwhelmed. Take care of yourself.

Nicely put and seconded.

Hi Bunny, just to let you know I didn't take offence at your posts and to thank you for posting this kind and thoughtful reply. 

You give others much support and I hope you soon feel less overwhelmed. Take care of yourself.

I want to apologise to all concerned for the upset that I caused with my earlier posts in this thread. I’ve been reflecting on things for the last few days, as I felt very confused, upset, and disappointed with myself about it.

What I’ve concluded is that I spoke from an overly-emotional / unusually dysregulated place. I’m always concerned to support those whose difficulties are greater than mine. But this was particularly heightened when I wrote those replies, which, coupled with over-tiredness, regrettably led me astray.

Last weekend, I’d been involved in this community, including via private messages, in trying to support someone in crisis, which had included calling the emergency services for them. Unsurprisingly, this was a deeply unsettling experience. It was also a grim reminder of how many of us are desperately in need of being better heard, understood, and supported than we are - in some cases, including by medical professionals. It left me feeling very off balance.

Also, in respect of ableism generally, I just want to clarify: I have felt very surprised to see some clear examples of it elsewhere in this forum recently, but the clumsy way that I tried to introduce / mention the subject within this thread wasn’t fully developed and, in hindsight, was ill-advised - this wasn't the right time or place for it.

Although I didn’t intend any personal offence with any of my posts, I didn’t formulate them at all well, and can fully understand how they were taken that way. I again offer my sincere apologies.

Overall, I’m still feeling overwhelmed, and I know that I don’t have the capacity to discuss this further. So, without meaning to be rude, please don’t expect me to respond to any replies. I just wanted to apologise, and ideally to then move on from this. Thank you in anticipation of your understanding.

Bunny, I think you are very far off the mark in asking us if we have internalised ableism, I think most of us are aware of the differences in understanding, in mental ages as opposed to how many years we've been on this planet. I actually feel quite insulted that you feel the need to say this, you may be looking at statistics, and NAS may want to be as inclusive as possible, but its efforts to do so are alienating more and more users. This has been going on for the year or so that I've been here and hiding behind statistics and being an appologist for poor systems whether human or artifical does none of us any favours, maybe we need a fora for under 14's or something?

If some users have a mental age very much younger than their calendar years, or they are young people, then do thier parents or carers not have a duty of care to oversee their interent usage and make sure the material accessed is suitable? Parents and care givers in general are told to do this, for NT children, why should it stop if someone has a disability?

If a child saw a word like the feline related P word I used, would they see it as rude? I think often the rudeness or offence isn't in the mind of the "child" but in the mind of the adult. I remember years ago, being in a group of women who were trying to find acurate, unambiguous and non "rude" words to help their children identify their anatomy, medically correct words caused a lot of outrage, with some, particulalry older people being offended that a small child could refer to their genitals, instead of using euphemisms like "front bottom and back bottom". Language and it's usage are and always have been a mine field and of course there are plenty of people who are a sense of offence looking for somewhere to happen. Not being steeped in the American usage of words to describe body parts often, female ones, I often find myself wrong footed, when I use a word and somebody starts sniggering, I get offended at their childishness not the word itself.

I do appreciate that point Iain, but on this occasion the person lined three people up for admonishment and rebuke, and lumped them all together under the 'not listening' banner which provoked my initial response. It felt like my work was being graded by a school teacher who hadn't bothered to read it all, or employ context. 

The saying 'it's not what you say but the way that you say it' comes to mind. 

Of course these precise quotes do help when a thread gets busy, but it would also help if people made their explanations more succinct. Not everyone has the time to read through a data mountain to get to a point. 

That sounds fair enough and I don't see why the site can't clarify or expand on its definition of what is and isn't acceptable to avoid misunderstandings. 

Robert124 said:

Some AI filter decides that our posts contain objectable words and censors them.  The moderator agrees with the AI.

An important point is that the site sets the boundaries at which the AI intervenes in the first place. The AI is meant to make their job easier, and saving moderator action down the line. 

People start to think the AI is doing the controlling when really, humans program the AI. 

overwhelmed & underwhelmed ( O & U ) said:

Singling people out who you think aren't listening by picking out selected quotes can come over as dismissive, rude and haughty.  I try not to do it that way.  

It is often the case that only one small point the person has written is what the responder wants to talk about.

If we had to respond to every sentence in a longish post it would be unweildy which is why we often reply this way (like I am doing here - I have no issue or anything to contribute to the other points you are making).

It may help to see it in this context if you have found it an unpleasant experience - sometimes if it just used for economy of expression.

There is a bigger issue at stake here than the P word.  Some AI filter decides that our posts contain objectable words and censors them.  The moderator agrees with the AI.

In the near future an AI decides which benefit claims are fraudulent and terminates them.  The human civil servent agrees with the AI because it's the lazy thing to do.

You're probably correct, I expect the jokes come under the category of "implied rudeness". I wasn't intending to be "rude" though as I personally just find them amusing. 

I have no problem with rules - I've never broken any NAS rules previously and I didn't think I was this time. I think it just comes down to a misunderstanding about what exactly the rules cover.

Lotus said:

So as long as the context isn't offensive, I don't see any problem in that?

That seems to be the issue.

The NAS clearly has a definition of 'offensive' which others here don't agree with.   I am not going to speculate as to what it is, precisely, but I'd assume it centre's around no rudeness, implied rudeness and no impinging on any protected characteristics as defined in the Equalities Act 2010.  

Unfortunately, for some, this is their forum, so they make the rules, and if some keep breaking them they won't be here in the long term.  It may not seem fair, but life isn't fair.  


As stated before, anyone with the ability to search on the internet for the NAS, and then click on the community can read anything posted here.  Perhaps we all have a responsibility to moderate our output when we consider that fact.