All I'm saying is that in any scenario, there may be more motives to what you see than what would appear at first.
Personally, I liked the article a lot, but then again I got all the jokes, I often laugh at myself, and I don't take insults which were intended for comedic value to heart. Keeping in mind that it was intended to be a joke throughout the entire time I was reading the article, I honestly was not at all offended by what it said, in fact, I was laughing the whole time.
The motive was quite simply to annoy people with aspergers, and laugh at their reactions. I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion by reading the article.
If you don't like what the article says, or other articles on that site (have any of you even looked at any of the other articles to see if maybe there's one you like?), then don't go to the site, but trying to get it shut down basically says that you feel that not offending YOU is more important than other people having fun in their own ways. It's saying that if they are annoyed at the way you act, that they have no right to say so, but if you don't like their actions, blasting them to hell is perfectly acceptable because you have Asperger's and they don't.
If you re-read my earlier posts, I said that it would be a bad idea to try to get the site shut down - But if someone says that it's a "valid" or worthwhile form of humour, I'll debate them on it. See my earlier egg-throwing example.
I'm quite happy to avoid the site, but once a site is out there, there's often no avoiding it. These people have a "right" to say anything on their own site, just like extremist christians have a "right" to picket gay funerals - but I have right of reply, too, and I'm saying the article is offensive for no reason.
You'll also notice I haven't said "because I have Aspergers" anywhere in my debate. If I was part of a bicycle club, and they put an article up saying people in bicycle clubs have sex with goats, then I'd react to it the same way: Which is to say I'd ignore it, but if someone said that it "fulfilled a valid need to vent", or "it was funny", I'd point out that they were wrong.
Have any of you even looked at any of the other articles to see if maybe there's one you like?
I'm quite familiar with the site, and to be honest, the other articles are more the reason why I have such a problem with the site (have you seen the one on "rape", for example?)
I fully understand that many of you will not agree with the opinions I stated here, and it's your right to disagree with me, and to say so. Although I do have an official diagnoses of Asperger's Syndrome, from a fairly well known neurologist, I have been banned from multiple Asperger's based groups for my opinions, like that Aspies SHOULD NOT be exempt from the same insults, judgements, or jokes that everybody else is subjected to, not just from ED, but from everybody.
If you say to an NT who is making fun of you for Asperger's that they shouldn't be because you have Asperger's, that tells them that you don't have a sense of humor and take everything literally. Now I fully understand that taking most things literally is kind of what we do, it's not what most NTs do, so assuming that a joke is intended as a direct insult basically says to the NTs that you have no sense of humor, which is something that most NTs do not respect, and will probably entice them to continue trying to see how far they can get with you.
Rather than taking it all as a direct insult, try to consider that there may be a different motive to it. My suggestion would be to re-read the article, but rather than reading it while thinking of it as an NT trying to piss you off, try reading it but think of it as a fellow Aspie trying to get some humor out of their own life and that of others, you might even find it funny.
I agree that we shouldn't be exempt from the same insults as everyone else. This is not the same as saying that we should except every insult that is thrown at us. I wouldn't support an Encyclopedia Dramatica article of the same tone directed against any group.
It isn't anything to do with "taking things literally", either, or anything to do with the possible neurotype of the author. Show a random article to an NT, for example, and see if they're offended.
I dislike Encyclopedia Dramatica as a general rule, not simply due to the aspergers article.
The articles are designed to get an "offended" reaction from the groups being targeted. If there is an alternative motive, then it has failed - take the offensiveness out of the article, and it's still crap.
And, to restate, I don't think anything should be "done" about this - no petitions, no editing, no going to their site and stirring them up. But this doesn't mean that I have to agree that the site is "good" or "valid" in any way.
)