Aspies For Freedom

I strongly disagree.  I do not believe AFF should publicly call for a boycott.

You admit that it's a stretch Ellen, and you admit that the motivation, at least in part, is to get publicity for AFF.  That's the wrong kind of motivation.

Why call for a boycott when there's such a tenuous link between AFF and what's happening in Tibet?  It's even a stretch for you to come up with a link.

It's silly to hop on any passing bandwagon, it doesn't do your own cause any good, because you just get known to be a rent-a-protester who hops on bandwagons.  And there's also the fact that if you're hopping on any old passing bandwagon you dilute your own message.

If people want to boycott the Games, boycott Chinese goods or join pro-Tibet groups, that's their prerogative, but AFF is about aspergers and autism spectrum.  If I wanted to boycott China or join pro-Tibet protests or whatever, I'd join a group/forum relevant to those activities, not try to usurp or dictate the agenda of a totally different group/forum.

Then surely the answer is for you to do something as an individual, or join an anti-China/pro-Tibet group, or a Boycott the Games or human rights organisation or whatever?

Why should it be done under an AFF banner when it's nothing to do with Asperger's or autism rights?

There's a snag with adopting such a self-righteous tone...

Guantanamo Bay.  Extraordinary rendition.  Death penalty.  "You're either with us or you're against us."

Union Carbide (Bhopal), Dow Corning (Breast implant litigation), Coca Cola (take your pick: check out KillerCoke website about anti-union activities in South America or siphoning off scarce water resources in India) or look up Victrex/Dupont for an example of American corporate espionage.

This lecture coming from the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons - Hiroshima, Nagasaka, not to mention using nasty chemicals during warfare (the iconic image of the burned vietnamese girl anyone?) and is so frightened by any alternative culture to the extent that if you're not cheerleading for the country you're "unAmerican".

Ooh, the delicious irony!  Illegal wars/invasions, threats of trade wars and sanctions... yes, we know a bully when we see one!

Signatures of other random unrelated associations and organisations wouldn't lend any additional credibility.  What's wrong with being nameless protesters?  Or is protest only worthwhile if you get some kind of credit and brownie points and recognition?

Very.  Not least because I, for one, won't be lectured to by an American about human rights when a cameraman colleague working for the same broadcaster has been on hunger strike for months in Guantanamo where he has been held for more than six years without charge or trial.  His offense?  He was arrested in Pakistan en route to Afghanistan with a legitimate visa to cover the story.

Seriously Ellen, so many people could make the same arguments against American imperialism that you're making.  Someone else has already mentioned the plight of native Americans.  How many of them were massacred in the interests of 'civilising' them?

Ah, right.  I understand you better now.  

I agree. (I think, if I understand you correctly)  Because the thing is, I also condemn injustice perpetrated by the UK, I condemn certain British actions and hegemony.  Diego Garcia.  The Empire.  Blair's Iraq war.  I could go on.  

There are a number of specific issues I get wound up about, deaths of women in prison and the number of women prisoners and how the justice system treats women generally, for one, and also the issue of young people in care, how shoddily they're treated, what few rights they have, how they're basically kicked out when they reach a certain age and have little to no support... but those are entirely separate to what I'm here on AFF for, and I wouldn't dream of coming here and dictating that AFF should join in with my other interests and issue public condemnation on completely unrelated subjects.  I might, if people expressed an interest, point them in the direction of other groups or organisations related to those issues, but it seems a bit 'off' to me, to be virtually insisting that AFF has some kind of moral duty to weigh in on an unrelated issue.

If people get all hypersensitive and assume (or project onto me) simplistic anti-Americanism, they just don't get the whole picture.

Admittedly, yes, I do have in the back of my mind the things about 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone', and 'people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones'.

But by that I'm not saying one should never speak out, because yes, there's lots of injustice in the world, but I do think it's beneficial to reflect, research the facts, and not be one of those rent-a-protesters who hop on every passing bandwagon.

I mean, why Tibet?  A hundred or so people were killed (I'm not saying that's acceptable in anyway, just about to start playing the numbers game again).  Why aren't all those protesters lining up outside the White House and U.S. embassies demanding troops out of Iraq, where at least a million have died?  Why aren't they protesting about the way all these countries that are getting so het up about Tibet are virtually turning a blind eye to what's happening in Somalia, and Sudan, and Zimbabwe?  Comparitively speaking, why is the life of one Tibetan seemingly worth more than the lives of dozens or even hundreds of Sudanese in Darfur?

It was more a device.  I was using like-for-like.  Ellen was arguing with crude stereotypes and I just mirrored that straight back at her.  She was basing arguments on nationality, is that not equally ignorant?

I mean, it starts out as asking people to sign up to support pro-Tibet anti-China Olympics protests, but then degenerates into broad unspecified accusations, asking China to stop terrorising its people...

... and what this:  

"We ask that you be a fair market trader rather than the industrial-secrets thief, shoddy-dangerous-products producer you now are"

has to do with pro-Tibet protests, I don't know!?!

I must admit though I was particularly ticked off by the comment about nuclear power (considering the context, i.e. the U.S. is the only nation that's actually used such devices in a warfare (not testing) setting), and also the comment about bullying, given American hegemony and the fact that Bush doesn't have a clue that 'imposing democracy' is an oxymoron.

If someone's going to use such blunt instruments in their arguments, why is it wrong if someone else uses the same tools to rebut those arguments?  And also, Ellen saying things like: "So how is it ludicrous again?" is mocking in tone and so again I reserve the right to mirror that right back and be equally mocking in reply.

All I did was mirror Ellen's use of stereotype, nationalism, and mocking tone.  I wonder if you're going to complain about Ellen basing her arguments on stereotypes and nationality?  Or is it only acceptable if it's done about non-Americans?  Is it only ignorant to base arguments on nationality if the subject of those arguments are American, or is it equally ignorant to base arguments on nationality when the subjects of those arguments are Chinese?

Have you been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome?