Being banned from the chatroom

Post Reply New Topic

That is exactly how I see myself. But Brina Siegel in 1997 told me I was mild, hence I have this obsession why am I supposed to be mild yet I am more severely affected then most ppl in this board. Also back in 1997 I was told I don't look autistic whereas as of now ppl are more than convinced that I do. It must either be that times have changed and/or severity of my symptoms have changed.



My IQ is 126 but my savantish side is the logic and over analyzing (as opposed to memory or rote calculation).



I don't get along in real world at all.



I don't see why physical disabilities or sensory issues would help anyone (it seems like that is what you are suggesting?) But in either case I don't have either of the two.



It is possible that upbringing might play some role. I am the only child, and both of my parents were only children. And my parent's life is basically focused around me. But then again you can't rule out biological differences either.



Its not true that everyone can contribute to them -- I can't -- which is precisely why I decided to think of some more involved topic and the word "diversity" was all I could think of on the spot. I dont know how to do small talk or to follow a chat log.



Well I am not doing it in order to say "look at how smart I am". I simply want to discuss topics and then others are lead to the idea that I am "too smart for them". On my end I wasn't trying to be "smart" I simply was trying to find a subject I can actually participate so that just for once I don't have to sit silent the whole entire time.



I don't care what standards they hold themselves intellectually. All I want is to find people I can connect to -- whatever way I can. It just happens that I dont know how to engage in small talk no matter how hard I try, hence I resort to more involved topics.

Once again, people are not mind readers. They can't possibly judge me as racist unless I actually say something out loud as opposed to think it inside my head. And like I said the only two times it happened in face to face interaction was in 2006 and 2009.

Now, I realize that you were more referring to online. And I agree it is quite possible that online I have missed some possible friends over this. But I recently came to realize that face to face interaction is a lot more important than online. In fact, it was my mistake I was overfocused on the internet when I first came to this institute which ultimately isolated me from others. I now wish I can "undo" it and talk to them but they have their mind made up that they wont talk to me.

Now, the part that might be linked to prejudice is the fact that I am in India (I couldn't get post doc in the West) so I was assuming that interacting with Indians is "less important" than their European counterpars (which I meet online), hence my tendency to neglect face to face in favor of internet. That, plus also when I see some traits that I can identify as distinctly Indian I would be more irritable about it (for example I was irrate when Indians don't speak English while I was a lot more tolerant about it when I went to Germany). Also Indians are a lot more prying than most. This however does not include all Indians, only some of them. For instance I am a lot more irritated with Indian males than Indian females when it comes to above issues. But recently I changed my mind: I now think that face to face is more imporant than online, period, regardless of any other considerations. But unfortunately it is now them who won't talk to me, hence my complaining.

But on any event, I don't think any of them view me as prejudiced. They simply interpretted my lack of communication in terms of me being "out of it". I mean they were reminding me about group meetings even though I dont have to be reminded of it. And also during a certain bus ride they were deliberately making fun of me (they were naming a bunch of movies which I never heard of and also they were calling me string theorist which I am not -- I only did string theory for a couple of months -- and finally they told everyone how I was keeping the bus awake with loud voice -- when in reality it was THEM who were making me talk so much not to say that they were talking in the loud voice from the beginning of bus ride while I only started talking half an hour later when they started asking me these stupid questions). Then when I asked someone why they made fun of me he told me that it was because they were surprised I went to the trip to begin with since I never talked to anyone until then. So its like they have to place me into a box, since I didnt fit in before they should make sure I wont fit in ever since.

Well still gays are the only ones who have to confess to the sin of being gay, while straight ones don't have to confess to that particular sin. That is why as a straight man I don't want to be lumped together with gays.



By itself yes it sounds this way, but there are other verses that speak to the contrary,



Now as a Christian I know Bible is consistent so if there is seeming contradiction it is probably interpretational issue. But still it implies that it is not that simple, you actually have to sit down and decide which of the two verses is misinterpretted and how. Different denominations come to different conclusions so you can't just say you are smarter than most by deciding something like that on the spot.

But regardless, if we are not to judge, then no one can judge you positively for ccomplishments either. But then what is the point to even bother with life? I mean we all want to be appreciated don't we?

Or maybe the doctor was wrong. Doctors sometimes base on the severity of your condition based on if you have ever had a relationship, job, finished school, married.

Why did he say you were mild?

And your being lumped together with gays and black people (I'd like to emphasize that those were NOT the words you used) - because you are a part of a *diverse* world population. By extension, that means you are also lumped together with serial murderers and satanists. It is an immutable fact that you occupy the same world as these people. Deal with it.



As a pragmatist I know that the Bible was written thousands of years ago in a language that has been dead for thousands of years - so I know the word as it was written can't be even remotely close to what exists on paper in English now - but I do know that anyone or anything that esposes hate is inherently immoral.



Judgement is not the same as recognition or condemnation. I condemn you for believing, in any way, that you are better than anyone else, much less gay people or black people. I, however, don't judge you for your beliefs. You have every right to believe anything you want - but I want nothing to do with you. And other people have expressed the same condemnation. If you can live with that, then that's fine. However, for you to go into a chat room, berate the people of that chat room for their beliefs and spout racial epithets, get banned - and then come here to *whine* about it? You either need to re-evaluate your beliefs, or live with the consequences of your actions.

I am not complaining about occupying the same world. I am complaining about being lumped together in other peoples heads. As far as I know, no one has ever compared me to either murderers or satanists. But if they did, then yes I would be objecting to this too.



As a mathematician I know every reasoning starts from the axioms. So your axiom is anything that espouses hate is immoral. My axiom is Bible is the word of God. The two axioms are not compatible because the second axiom implies that you have to read Bible objectively for better or for worse. I chose my axiom on a basis of Pascal Wagar, so I see that going off from other axioms would lead you to other conclusions.



From this point of view I am no different. I dont go out and harass blacks or gays. I simply want them to leave their separate lives from me. On the other hand, when I get compared to them, then I get defensive. If I dont, then I am just fine with them occupying this earth.



If the chat room looked professional, I would not be using racial slurs -- as you see my posts here sound a lot less aggressive then what I said in chat log. The reason I said what I said is because everyone were chatting off some nonesense I couldnt even follow so I decided to just say something to get their attention since I couldnt get any attention otherwise -- I was ignored both when I said hello and also when I asked Anon to change to Roman. I mean I dont understand what was the point of whatever they seemed to be doing there to begin with. So if they can be so unprofessional I figured it was fine for me to be unprofessional too.

It was she, not he -- her name was Brina Siegel, she is actually quite well known.

Back at that time I was 17 so my mom talked to her not me, my mom just informed me what they told her over the phone about me being mild. The way they evaluated me is they gave my mom a long questionare to fill out about my childhood as well as current situation, they also got a letter from my psychiatrist describing my behavior, and finally they had interview with me when they asked me few questions about how I interpret hypothetical social situations as well as few questions about my own life.

The reason I didnt challenge the mild part is that I didnt have insight into my own condition back at the time. I was under impression that I didnt want to have friends to begin with since they were just disractions from my studies and I was thinking I could easily make friends if I were to choose to do so. Now this perception changed when I was 21 when I have, in fact, decided I wanted to make friends and I couldnt. So after 21 I viewed myself as more severe than I did previously.

The other thing that changed my mind about severity of my own condition is that back at 17 I was only reading about Asperger from DSM 4 and other books I found in Barns and Noble. So when I read about how aspies always insist on taking the same rout to school every day or how they have sensory issues my immediate reaction was that I am a lot milder than that. On the other hand, at 21, I started interacting with aspies online and then I saw that none of them would measure up to whatever I was reading in books, either -- their spontaneous behavior on a chat is a perfect example of that. So then I realized that in comparison to the actual aspies I am severe; but there was no way for me to konw it back at 17 when I didnt even use internet yet.

So to make long story short, when Brina Siegel said I was mild back at 17, it sounded about right. But then when I was 21 and I decided I was severe, I couldnt go back and ask Brina about it since she was not my permanent doctor, it was just one time appointment.

I will forever think of you when I hear someone say n----r or f----t. Object all you want, it's my f----n' mind and I'll do with it what I please.



I'd submit that using language that demeans them is pretty harassing. And while you haven't openly said it - you've certainly implied that you believe that you are better than gay people, or black people - in that you've admitted that you "hate" them. Hate is a very strong word, and it's meaning is not open to debate.

[/quote]

Ohh - so because people were talking about things informally, that must mean it's ok to use racial epithets. So, the next time I walk into a bar, I think I'll get everyone's attention by saying "hey sheep f---ers, whats up?" - and see where that gets me. My guess is I'll end up thrown out on my face - which is the exact same thing that happened to you.

If you join a conversation - you either join the conversation that's there, or you move on. You don't just decide to make everyone abandon their conversation to pay attention to what *you* want to talk about, and you *certainly* don't do it by insulting people.

Just a note: premarital intercourse is a sin, most straight couples have to confess this sin too.
However a lot of "religious " people overlook this. Its interesting to see how so many people only apply the parts of the bible that explain their bad actions...

Also interesting:
<< Matthew 7:2 >>
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Are you ok with a god judging your every action the same way you judge others just by their preferences?
No need to answer, just something you may want to look into

Roman, it speaks volumes that you are trying to use religion to justify your hatred of others. You are clearly not a very nice person and I want nothing more to do with you. I reiterate that if you make one more homophobic or racist comment on this site you will be banned immediately and without any more warnings. You have run out of warnings. I've said all I'm going to in this thread, so this is my final post.

Self-admission to hate is not the measure of actual hate as evidenced by the following comparison:

1. David Duke makes it a point to claim that he doesnt hate anyone

2. A liberal might claim to still have a taint of hatred he is desperately trying to uproot

Yet we both agree David Duke is more hateful than liberal.

The point is that most people are not being honest with themselves. For instance, a lot of Christians claim that they know for a fact that they are going to heaven when they die. Now, if thats the case, why are they afraid of death? Perhaps they will answer they are not. Well, if they are not, why are they trying to stay away from car accident? They will say its just the matter of obedience to Gods command not to kill oneself. Well if so, why do they have all that fear when they are in fact in an accident? Why dont they view trying to save oneself as a simple chore and not worry about the outcome of success or failure of such chore?

The point I am trying to make is that Christians are, in fact, scared of death, yet they will deny it. The same is true regarding hatred. Of course we both agree that David Duke is an excellent example of hater-in-denial. But I believe that there are far more haters-in-denial than just him. Most people do show prejudice in their behavior yet they wont admit to it because it is not politically correct. For example, overwhelming majority of straight people will dislike it if they are labeled as gay, yet they wont object if someone mistakenly thought they have blue eyes when they have brown eyes. So clearly they do see it as a negative in some way. Yet they dont admit to it. Well in my case I am being honest and I dont play all the denial games, hence my admission.

Now, on quite a different point, it is possible to argue that I dont hate anyone based on a fact that if I were to see them in an accident I will save their life regardless of their race or orientation. But if you are using this kind of standard, then no one will hate anyone either with the only exception being Hitler. So we have both extremes. We can say that everyone hates everyone or we can say that no one hates at all. And then of course we have a lot of freedom to be anywhere we like between the two extremes and draw the line as it suits us.

People who hate more, like David Duke, would tend to draw the line in such a way that the number of haters will be smaller in order to deny their own hatred; people who hate less like liberals would draw the line in a way to show that there is plenty of hatred out there they have to fight. As for me, I simply dont want to play these word games. So I dont make it a point to either say that I hate or that I dont hate. I will simply use whatever conventional standards are. If I have a point to make I can make it without having to manipulate the language in order to do so.



Actually I wont be surprised at all if that is what they all do at the bar, after all they are all drunk and their behavior is bizzare anyway. But then again, I never been to the bar in my entire life. So perhaps THAT is my problem. Since I am so far away from being bizzare, I dont see a difference between appropriate bizzare and inappropriate bizzare. Thats probably why when I entered bizzare chat room I said the bizzare thing I did.



Actually I remember a couple of examples when I joined the conversation from the past couple of weeks. Namely

1. Some guy had phone interview and the phone had microphone on so I was hearing everything the boss told him. I heard that boss response was overwhelmingly negative. So then after the interview I asked that person whether he thinks he will get the job or not and discussed how it went. As surprising as it might be, he actually appreciated my feedback. In fact he kept asking me to tell him what his mistakes were and how can he improve -- and I was at loss as to what to say since I didnt hear him saying anything wrong, I only heard boss reaction, although at the end when he pressed me I made a guess that perhaps whatever he was suggesting seemed too inflated to be believed or perhaps hard to relate to.

2. I entered a caffee and there were a bunch of girls sitting and discussing some psychological issue. I couldnt really make out what it was. But I tried to listen for few minutes and then when they reached a pause, I asked. They told me that what they were talking about was when one is outside a certain social situation, whether that person is being objective in the evaluation of the situation or whehter that person sides with one party. I asked them whether it was for a psychology class or a project, or what the context was. They said it was neither class nor project, just an abstract discussion without any context. Then they asked me how do I see myself in this abstrat situation. I told them that actually few hours ago I was at a certain restaurant and they have shown a movie in which cops were chasing some woman. There was no sound and I came there in the middle so I had no idea what the context was. But, despite not knowing the context, I naturally identified with the woman and was hoping she will escape. They responded that yes some category of people are like that, but then there are others that will simpy be indifferent if they dont know facts. I asked them if there wer statistics they said no.

Now, the common denominator between both of the above conversations is that these were intellectual topics So you see, when the discussion involves something involved like that then yes I try to join it. But on the other hand when it is just random small talk then I simply dont know how to join it -- I mean I can desperately try to but I will fail. My problem is that the intellectual conersations as above are rare and far between, while majority of the time ppl are just random and spontaneous. That is probably the main thing that isolates me. And being isolated for so long time sometimes I am desperate to do *something* that will enable me to participate -- hence the bringing up of my own topic out of the blue.

Incidentally, in my case, I avoid sex before marriage because of the above verses. I realize a lot of Christians dont, but I am not them.

You cant judge whether i am nice or not just by one aspect of me. Here is an example when I was nice. So my ex-girlfriend Jennifer was very sick back at the time when we were dating and she could barely walk due to her excessive bleeding. I invited myself to take care of her and was helping her for like three months which is when she was really really sick. I sacrificed my studies during that three month period and never had a second thought about it.

Later on when she was no longer as sick she became grouchy and it started to wear on me. Nevertheless, I didnt break up with her because I remember how sick and vulnerable she was so I didnt want to betray her. This was the only reason I was staying with her because, on my end, I was feeling that I would be better off single than with this kind of emotional stress. Yet I wanted to stay around just for her.

Clearly, this has nothing to do with race or sexual orientation. But that is just to illustrate a point you cant simiply say I am not nice just because of how I am on one topic.



So what do you expect me to do when others challenge the things I said previously. Do you want me to simply not answer them at all? In this case it should be understood that the reason I am not answering is not because I have no answers but rather because I have to refrain from saying certain things I might be forced to say if I do answer.

This is one reason I am against censorship of this kind. And no it is not just in the context of these issues. I am a believer in freedom of speech IN GENERAL, with any and all topics, not just these. But oh well ...

Do you have to say the n word and the three letter f word? How hard is it to not say them?

He can, and he did. And I concur with his assessment.

So you're saying you are in disagreement with the rules and terms of service of this site then, is that correct?





If you are in disagreement with the rules, you agree not to use the site.

What then, are we to do?

You can't have it both ways.

It's very simple. Follow the rules or begone.