Aspies For Freedom

Posting transforms the thought into an action. I don't throw everything I think at the world, I choose not to. And for actions, I do have the qualifier "unless these choices involve harming people". Verbally attacking certain people, especially for what they cannot change, falls under that.

And if you view the post in context, you can see I'm proposing a temp ban in lieu of the permanent ban that's being proposed here. I'm being pragmatic here, because I do suspect the ban will come in time. I'm actually appealing for mercy, not punishment.

I can appreciate your position Lucie.

I've observed the whole issue without actively participating (until now), and it's been sad to watch. His introduction made it clear that we are not dealing with a troll, but someone like us who probably sought this site for the same reason we all do.

It's been a bit of a chain reaction, and no one seems to know how to control it now. First he's put in some inflammatory comments, then he's been forced into a corner as such comments were attacked. And as is typical of a cornered creature (I mean no disrespect, just extending the metaphor), the attacks became even more vicious, and they've elicited a harsher response. The whole thing is really rather tragic.

That said, I can also understand the other side. I guess people expect a supportive environment in this site, and certain attitudes presented threaten this balance. I'd wager a lot of us know what being bullied feels like, and I can see how people might feel similarly because of certain posts.

So in a way, the idealist in me would like him to be given a second chance. I feel a warning, and maybe some time to cool down (which is what a temp ban really is, after all), might do just that. A permanent ban seems too final, and a bit of a loss, despite my great opposition to the content of many of his posts. Although if certain behaviours persist, then it might prove to be appropriate.

Hi Lucie - I want to point out that hatred towards a certain group DOES in fact breed violence.  Look at what is happening to some homosexuals in society, having their funerals picketed, being murdered for who they are... People who speak of them spreading AIDS and 'choosing the easy way out with sex' and being immoral are basically encouraging the views that lead to these violent activities.

Hate speech falls under a different criteria, because hate speech does lead to action.

The reason it is not acceptable to put hateful ideas out there about a particular group of people is that people do act on them.  For example - homosexuals get murdered because there is hatred encouraged amongst certain people.  The Klu Klux Klan spread hate towards Jews and African Americans which also results in deaths, beatings and all sorts of inappropriate action.

In conclusion - words are not just words.  They can and do influence people to act on them.  That is dangerous.

I think you misunderstand Lucie.  It was never just a matter of him having a viewpoint that the majority of the forum disagreed with.  Defending people from being unfairly grouped and attacked is an important thing to do.  LC was trying to say that pedophiles are predominately homosexuals, he was also saying that homosexuals spread AIDS and he thought that homosexuality should be illegal.  Try to put yourself in the shoes of a homosexual person for a moment and think about if you would be insulted by those comments?

There are other people who say those sorts of things about homosexuals as well and some of them are in the group that pickets gay funerals, even if the gay person was bashed to death for being gay.  It is VERY important not to let people with these opinions influence other people.  This is hate speech and it DOES result in violence and harm.  I'm sure you can understand someone being angry for being picked on for who they are.  This is what LC was doing.  Picking on gay people for who they are.

He had plenty of opportunity to back down from this opinion. I gave him chances, I gave him correct information, I pointed out the flaws in the sources where he got his information from (organizations that are against homosexuality and whose studies would therefore be biased).  He just kept insulting homosexuals.  How would you feel Lucie if someone just kept insulting something that you couldn't change about yourself?

Note: - I forgot to mention that there were quite a few people debating with LC trying to get him to see the flaws in his arguments, but he didn't want to see them

Lucie - the kind of freedom of speech you believe in would have people still talking about the inferiority of women and black people.

I wish I could edit posts, but I also wanted to say I don't dislike you Lucie. I just want you to understand that complete freedom of speech causes harm.  There needs to be a line that doesn't allow bigotry.

Fair dos.

Incidentally this comment - before that gets twisted out of context - is for those people I have no opinion of. I have people here that I like and have much time for. Those people know who they are, and I can accept personal criticism from them because I engage with them on a personal enough basis. On the other hand I don't know you Lucie and to be quite frank, you don't seem like the kind of person I would try and connect with. If you want to take that as a slur, go right ahead. What you think of me isn't going to put me up or down because you don't know me, and lets face it, you're never going to know me.

If you want to think that your disliking me has any negative impact on my day, week, month or life then that is completely your choice. However I can tell you now that it doesn't, it never will, and if I really worried about people disliking me, I'd not be alive today. I am not so blown up in my own self importance that those I dislike should automatically be negatively affected by my disliking of them.

However what I will stand by is that, on reflection, your apology comes across marginally insincere after that little PM below. Which, strangely enough, I never got an 'apology' for. I do not appreciate random PMs from individuals I have no time for, and I have no intention of responding to you privately as I prefer to keep my dirty washing public, or non existent.

I have a lot of respect for EvilZakkie on the other hand, and whilst I can assure you now, I have 'went easy' on you, I respect his apparent words. However, I can also assure you that what you see is very much what you get with me, and the day I resort to PMing people with vaguely passive aggressive nonsense is the day hell freezes over.

Why should I have to put you on ignore? You're old enough to control your temper enough to not send PMs. Why should I go out of my way to avoid you?

I called LC names. Justifiably. No-one else.

Lucie can interpret whatever she feels as an insult; she's done that already and decided to try and start via PM. And got it posted publically. When you make reference to 'name-calling', please bother to get it straight, erkolos.

I have a lot of time for you Erkolos - however I refuse point blank to be accused of something that I have not done to anyone besides LC.

Good, if you can't be bothered to get your facts straight.

It is a good thing logicalconclusion got banned.

He was madder that I was!

I just refuse point blank to be accused of 'name-calling' when the only individual I called names was LC - and that, in my opinion, is completely and utterly justifiable.

I'll quite happily admit to criticising Lucie's behaviour and actions, because I do feel concerned that anyone would defend a hate-mongerer's 'freedom of speech' despite the obvious amount of offence being caused.

If you can confuse criticism of behaviour with name-calling then I am completely confused as to why, and refuse to be tarred with some brush of a name-calling bully because of someone's lack of clarification.

I do not like nasty little PMs in my inbox and also refuse to leave that kind of crap private. If you have something to criticise about me, you can do it publically - and you can also get your head around the fact that I have much better things to do with my life than to make a point of 'name-calling' an internet random (i.e. Lucie) because she disagrees with me. If I passed Lucie on the street I wouldn't have the faintest clue who she is, and thats okay with me. It happens. Thats also how little I think of her (take that how you will - I mean it in no negative way, I mean it to say "she is one of billions of people on a planet, one of billions I do not care to know" - but people will interpret things however they see fit.). I have no hidden agenda of sorts and if I dislike something I will criticise the behaviour and explain why I find the behaviour worth criticising. I speak as if people are aware of the fact that I have little thought of the individual concerned and my criticism is of the behaviour of that person, and how it reflects on their character. If I could be bothered to resort to criticism of the person, then I would never have time for anything else. There are people here I dislike; just as there are in real life. I, for the most part, either avoid or make do with them. If their behaviour/actions do something I disagree with, I will say that. Re "I hope you're not in management", that can be taken however anyone wants it. To me thats saying "your behaviour unsettles me... for x, y, z reasons". Not "you are a f***ing c*** and I wish you misery in your life".

Criticism of behaviour and expression of that criticism are completely different to calling someone names. If someone can't get that, thats their problem. Not mine.