Aspies For Freedom

I'm just ignoring it.

Batman55 Wrote:

I've been reading some of the recent discussions/threads on AFF (you probably know what I'm talking about) and find myself depressed/angry/at a loss for words. I see innocent people getting hurt in these discussions, and I would like it to stop.

Anyone else feel the same way? I don't think "dividing" the community is a good way to keep to peace.

Examples, please.

EvilZakkie Wrote:

Lucie1 Wrote:

I've read through his posts in the abortion thread. He is passionate in his belief - but I don't see that he wishes to engage in personal attack.

True - my point was that particular ideas can be offensive in their own right. Why is insulting a group (e.g. homosexuals, left-wing political parties, etc) any different to insulting a person? These statements are the equivalent of a personal attack on every single member of these groups.

For the record, I would have been happy to let the abortion thread go - it would have died once everyone stopped posting, and that would have been it.

It was the statements about gay and autistic people, and the way he used the abortion thread to insult other groups, that made me decide to write him off.

I agree completely with the post written above by EvilZakkie
SO MUCH
The point is that when someone is offensive, knows it, and thinks that debating is still fun, then I think that is offensive too. It certainly isn't respecting others viewpoints anyway.

ocampo Wrote:

Think its in the Autism vs Aspies crap he's came out with. Actually, yeah it is..

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthre...760&page=8

Quote:

On the whole gay thing...

How many of -insert- has aids, and where'd they get it? Lets check

452,111 - Male to Male sexual contact.
Unprotrotected Heterosexual contact - 61,438 male - 102,171 Female

This shows us at the very least that it definitely is their disease, considering their part of the population... does it prove homosexuals having sex with women? Probably not, but other studies do.

Minorities have been bullied collectively in their day to day real lives. LC can get a taster of what it feels like on an internet forum, where it doesn't risk real inequality, real violence and real fears for personal safety, til the cows come home as far as I'm concerned.

All these threads are so mixed up-it is hard to keep track! I just posted a reply to LC saying something like the above in a different thread-who knows which one Smile
In any case, yeah, ocampo. Smile

Lucie1 Wrote:

I agree Bella - hate speech falls under a different criteria - agree completely.

I will go back to the thread and read - but to memory without looking back - he didn't engage in hate speech - he stated his personal opinion, he also accepted the right of others to choose how they behaved.

but I will look back - hate speech is not acceptable.

Lucie, I do appreciate your position, and I am not attacking you personally of course.

There are alot of people in the world who think the same as LC, sadly.
  He is stating his own opinion and it is also a given that he is 'entitled' to his opinion.  Except....
that it is his opinion of gay people that is the hate speech.

Others disagreed with him about his homophobic comments, naturally, and he tried to persuade others to his point of view-in more than one thread and with many posts and with escalating feelings that were known to him.
He was, in fact, increasingly frustrated that people were not seeing his point of view and why not? he wonders.. as it is just so obviously right..  if the people who disagreed with him just knew more about science, more about what those gay people are doing, what a negative disgusting thing homosexuality is...et al....
so how is that accepting and giving them the "right to choose how they behaved"?
'He', 'His ideas', personally attack a group of people-gay people.

I am not saying that he hasn't been called names or been personally attacked himself.  He has. He isn't above making personal attacks on individuals either. I am wondering what he expected? It isn't nice, no. People get angry, tempers flare, we are all persons with feelings. (apparantly).
  LC stated that it was fun for him to debate this issue.  He has a funny sense of fun. It isn't fun for gay people to be bashed.
it is hateful.
I think you mentioned in another thread that if a bully keeps at you, just keeps coming at you- sometimes you just have to hit them back?
I am sure bullied is how ocampo, for one, felt.
Why not stick up for her too?

I find it deeply ironic that you have quoted Max the Bear's signature here. I like it so much I will quote it again! Smile

Quote:

Supremacist Ideology + Discriminatory Acts + Structural Dominance = Oppression.

ocampo Wrote:

I would say that referring to AIDs as a 'gay virus' is pretty inflammatory.

If people react, then they have every right to respond to something. Maybe you don't understand the concept of being victimised by society to the same degree that people who are noticably, visibly different. Maybe you don't understand the concept of being denied the same legal rights as a heterosexual for years, or consistently being stigmatised by the majority because of what you were born being.

Common sense dictates that if you want to be taken seriously, you don't constantly repeat the same errors. LC is incapable of doing that.

Can't wait until the idiot gets itself banned.

Why are you offended? You should think of "harsh words for gay people" in these terms:

Quote:

I could say left-handed people are inferior, and I doubt anyone would be offended or at all put off - they would simply think I was an idiot and move on with their lives.

Get over it and move on with your life, LC is the enabler of offense, not the cause.

(possible sarcasm alert)

pssvr Wrote:

Quote:

Do you really think that logicalconclusions right to spew out opinions that are highly abusive towards a whole lot of people is something do defend?

Yes.

Or, at least as much as the right of other people to openly insult him personally.

At 15 years old, I don't think you comprehend this situation as well as us older folks do, just to point this out...

EvilZakkie Wrote:

Lucie1 Wrote:

Saying a particular sexual practice between consenting adults is "wrong" qualifies as hate speech - regardless of how many standard disclaimers he tacks on the end of it.

I so agree with you... hatred should not be tolerated...  generally you don't incur violence against a group, without hatred there first...  we know what this leads to...  people need to learn tolerance for others.

He has a right to say whatever the hell he wants here...  those in the group(s) he is targeting, have a right to disagree and be offended...  if they are offended, I will not fault their self-esteem or self-control in their response.

Nobody likes to be shown hatred.  NOBODY does.

pssvr Wrote:

Because, when you get right down to it, 90% of this thread has been flaming. The fact that most of you agree with what is being said does not at all affect the preceding sentence.

That is why I chose not to name names. And there have been multiple threads causing a lot of users to be offended, and some of the offense is caused by people lashing back (not just LC). Basically, I opened the thread because a lot of people are getting hurt, not to attack LC.

Folks should give me some credit for getting him banned. Tongue

I PMed Gareth specificially about the bigotry LC was showing, got a response that said "I'm looking into it," and I find that since I've returned after a one-day absence, he is banned.

Lucie1 Wrote:

The only thing I do not tolerate is intolerance.

Quote:

The only thing I don't tolerate is intolerance, but I tolerate intolerance of intolerance of something that's not intolerance of intolerance.

Ah, the pure paradox of tolerance.
Smile
Not all behavior is, or should be, 'tolerated'
That which causes much harm should be opposed.
And it was.

Bella Wrote:

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?

No response from Lucie on this matter-of-fact recount here... interesting... Rolleyes

EvilZakkie Wrote:

If you do agree with anti-harrassment laws, why would you consider the same thing happening here to be more acceptable?

For some, the answer might be: Because the power-trip undertaken online causes many fewer consequences than it would in real life. And I'd venture to say that one who actively defends another who follows this train of thought--by spouting one-dimensional bigotry (claiming to follow logic, in doing so)--follows it too.

Lucie1 Wrote:

I align myself up against intolerance, rudeness, bullying and ganging behaviour, I will never back down when I see this.
Calling another person a "rabid mutt" - "who needed to put down on this forum" - is so intolerably rude and judgmental. This is the kind of attitude I rile up against.

Why don't you just "live and let live' and ignore it- instead of responding If you think she is a flamer or if you don't like or agree with her viewpoint, why don't you just ignore it? She is a woman with a view, after all.
This is the advice you gave on how to respond to LC:

Quote:

if he you thought he was a flamer - he should have been ignored.

Why the selectiveness concerning what is rude and intolerable?

I am sad that this issue still is unable to be resolved, that EvilZakkie's post was not responded to-it may have perhaps helped to come to some more understanding...
..and I am frustrated that there is an implication that I am part of some 'gang' here that is intolerant of others.. and that I 'gang up' on them because they don't hold my view point. !

LC may be the epitome of 'integrety and soul' for being nice to his girlfriend and for apologizing- as you put it,
and the pillar of his community-however
the admins of this community have banned him.
Are you saying that they are intolerant and have poor judgement?

'integrety:"
should be integrity, in all integritishness.
I have this, I think. Just can't spell it Smile

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SheWhoCan'tThinkOfAUsername

Simen

Mahler5

Mahler5

Mahler5

Batman55

Batman55

Batman55

Batman55

Batman55

Mahler5

Batman55

Batman55

Mahler5

Mahler5