Aspies For Freedom

Are there any disciplinary procedures in this site? As descipable as I find the comments under discussion (and trust me, they go against my core philosophy), I was wondering if a temporary ban of say, one month, would be possible, with a guarantee that it would be made permanent if such behaviour continues. I don't exactly know why, but I always feel reluctant to do the proverbial thumbs-down at the arena...

(even though, if someone deserved it, this would be the case)

*grins* I've always loved your ability to get to the heart of an issue...

Tolerance is something that cannot be applied to bigotry, or deliberate offensiveness.

For example, we banned RichardL for posting pictures of diseased vaginas on the site - by this logic, he should have stayed, as he was only against "those who fit with the accepted norms - dictated by the majority".

I find Logical Conclusion far more offensive than RichardL - Richard was solely doing what he did to gain attention, whereas Conclusion says the things he does due to a genuine hatred of gay people.

His presence is detrimental to us all, and he should be banned.

From dictionary.com:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

In this case, the group he is intolerent of is gay people.

I'm one of the people ganging up on him, so his statement is probably correct. Nothing to do with bigotry - he's a bigot because of his anti-gay stance, not because he's not human.

People are ganging up on him because he's a bigot. I would expect and encourage the same if he were racist, sexist, or exhibited any other form of bigotry.

Intolerance is probably accurate - I am intolerant of his opinions in the same way that I was intolerant of RichardL posting pictures of diseased vaginas. Some types of intolerance are justified.

"Ganging-up" is simply a large group of people disagreeing. Nothing wrong with that.

Personal insults are only a problem if they are deliberately incorrect or misleading. Calling a bigot a bigot isn't a problem. Calling LC illogical isn't a problem. Ridiculing stupid statements isn't a problem.

Bigotry it isn't - if I practiced intolerance against him because he was white, straight, tall, a bicycle-rider, or any other grouping, that would be bigotry. Because I am actually intolerant of what he is saying, rather than a group he belongs to, it does not qualify as bigotry.

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.

*grins* I know - I think by this stage we can just keep it as given that we like each other. These debates are exactly that - debates.

I have a strong opinion about bigoted behavior, and I'll always debate it - it has very little to do with how I feel about the person advocating that bigots should be tolerated.

You're a friendly person that goes a long way out of your way to accept people - I just disagree that all people should be accepted.

I thought this was a good place to post a few pointers for debating with extremists, in case anyone wanted to try it.

Firstly, remember that you will not be able to convince them that their opinion is wrong - your goal is to point out to others the ways in which their opinion is stupid. What this means is that if they raise a point that’s blatantly ridiculous, don’t reply to this point – you’ve already succeeded. In face, if you don’t reply, they may even repeat their point, making them look even more ridiculous. In short, respond only to things that a reasonable person may have to think about in order to disagree with.

Secondly, many times they will offer figures and statistics that are blatantly flawed, or invent wild generalisations based on these figures. If it’s at all possible, try to find a reason that these figures are irrelevant, rather than attacking them on the accuracy of these figures, or the conclusions reached from the figures. They will always assert that figures mean more than they do, or that the figures from their http://www.funwithnazis.com  are the ‘true’ ones – by forcing the debate away from figures, they will be forced to debate with logic, which isn’t generally an extremists strong point.

Third, short sentences and paragraphs are good – if you explain thing in multiple sentences, then they will pick one sentence to debate out of context, rather than debating the point you have raised. Repeating the same statement works, but long explanations aren’t a good idea.

Fourth, if they try to talk around a point you have raised, then you’ve got them – they’re trying to get out of a question they can’t answer, or they’re worried that the debate will lead in a direction they can’t handle. Don’t debate the new things they’ve raised to avoid answering the question, no matter how incorrect they are – just bring them back to the question they’re avoiding.

Fifth – this one should be obvious, but I’ll throw it in anyway. Ignore insults. If they raise points at the same time as insulting you, address the points and ignore the insults – or report them, but don’t bring them into your reply. If there are no points raised, then you can move onto the step below.

Finally, if you follow the above steps, they’ll reach a stage where they will insult you without raising any points. End the debate here, and don’t reply - This means you’ve won. The mask has been ripped off, and everyone can see the person they are. Report them and move on.

Hope this helps!

I don't think the forum should be supportive towards bigots - that's kind of the point of this thread.

I'd agree that much of it has been flaming - and I have no problem with that.

Absolutely - everything but the first sentence, at any rate.

I know you probably meant exactly the opposite, but the above line pretty much sums up my feelings.

After all, there is a reason that he was banned.

I feel this issue needs to be debated to a close this time, as I would like a united stance against bigotry the next time it happens.

I think most of us agree that there is a point at which an opinion becomes offensive in and of itself - in the case of bigotry, the point is when it becomes obvious that the person is attacking the group for the sake of attacking the group, rather than wishing to discuss the issues.

I think the easiest way to debate this would be to find out where you believe this point is.

For starters, do you agree with anti-harrassment laws? As an example, if someone in an office talked loudly about their belief that homosexuality should be made illegal, should that person be asked to cease this behavior? And if they do not, should they be fired?

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

Another thing to think about is this: How far would a person have to go before their opinion became offensive in and of itself? It seems you consider someone saying "homosexuality should be illegal" as acceptable. What if they were saying "gay people should be killed"? What if they were talking about gender or race instead of sexuality? What if they came on here to debate that autistic people should all be killed for the good of humanity?

There are many different cultural groups on AFF. An attack on a cultural group should be considered the same as a personal attack on every single member of that group. A person that attacks a cultural group repeatedly should be banned from the site.

The above was merely his opening "testing the waters" statement - over the course of the debate, he stated several times that he thought that homosexuality should be made illegal. I wouldn't have reported him for the above comment - it was afterwards that the trouble started.

Not that the above was acceptable, but I would have been happy to forget about it if he ceased mentioning it.

No we don't. *grins*

I'd hoped this thread was long dead too. It's long since served its purpose, and can only turn into a flame war from here.

I now proclaim this thread be dead.