HUGE DOUBLE STANDARD ON WP

Post Reply New Topic

I feel the same way. When I talk about my criteria, I get bashed for it, but when others talk about theirs, they are not bashed.

I don't remember being gone o_O. Not sure what you are talking about but I don't have any PM of yours in my inbox.

If YOU are being bashed, report it. If you are being told your criteria are unrealistic - that isn't bashing. I know I've seen the later but I don't read everything and may have missed the former. For the record, I can remember times the moderators have gone to great lengths to stick up for you, so I'm not sure your perception here is accurate.

Stop people from calling people names. If some does not consider himself a socialist, it becomes offensive when people insist on calling him a socialist. If some does not consider himself a racist, it becomes offensive when people insist on calling him a racist. If some does not consider himself a sociopath, it becomes offensive when people insist on calling him a sociopath. etc. You get my point.

However, when someone calls himself a socialist, a racist or a sociopath there should be no problem when other people call him that.

One can argue in a similar way about statements on race, ideology, religion or sexual preference. If someone can quote a scientific publication stating that black men on average score less on IQ scores even when comparing lower class whites with upper-middle class blacks, that's not an issue of racism but an issue of accurate science. However, when someone just says that someone is stupid for being black, that someone is greedy for being a Jew, that someone is promiscuous for being homosexual, that all Muslems are terrorists or even that someone is racist or fascist for being oposed to "democracy" and "multiculturalism", then this is a clear case of prejudice unless some rational arguments can be brought forward to prove one or more particular cases, however this would still not allow and generalisations of this kind. Do you see the difference?

Basically the difference between defamation and rational argument can easily be made and any moderation should be based on that, rather than on the political correctness of whatever particular age we're in and whatever cultural bias the admins may have.



Strip the emotional content and leave the rational debate when one deals with sensitive topics that may be at a risk of getting out of hand. There really is no need for a censorship of opinions if just negative emotional responses are censored.



I can buy my pot locally from several sources and while not exactly legal, posession of 5 grams is not prosecuted in my country... and since I live close to Holland, I also have access to "coffeshops" and through a friend of mine I can get anything from LSD and GHB to designer drugs like 4-FL or 2-CB. So yeah, I guess I'm a bit spoiled.

I just don't get what's the fuzz about drugs? So what if people tell about the experiences they've had in a country where they cannot be prosecuted for using something? Some what if someone confesses about his wonderful experience when high on pot or tripping on acid? It's not like any crime is being commited or encouraged by just sharing experiences.... It might help people who are curious about certain substances but don't have a clue whether it suits them or not. It's better to be advised on what drugs are more dangerous than others and what drugs are less risky than others to try and never use drugs in your life than to be eager to try something without having a clue what effect that particular substance has on your brain and your body in general. One better is informed on this matter, even if it's illegal to use certain substances in most countries. Hell, I'm even convinced of the therapeutic benefits for Aspies of drugs like LSD, MDMA (XTC), 4-FL or Mescaline. Even marihuana is said to have had some positive therapeutic effects on people with Asperger's.

By the way, that friend of mine went to a meeting of psychonauts a few weeks ago in Holland and he told me that most folks present were either chemists (who brew their own psychedelics) or philosophers. So it's really not like all illegal "hard" drugs turn people into junkies.



Read "Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe" by Roger Pearson. Read "The Diversity Myth" by David O. Sacks and Peter A. Thiel. Read "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" by Philippe Rushton. Read "Culture of Critique" by Kevin MacDonald. etc.



Whether you're Black or White, Hispanic or Asian, we are all balanced in some way. Some races are better at some things while other races are better at other things. And of course, we're talking about averages here. Within every ethnic group, there exists a variety organised much like a Bell Curve with the largest subsection matching the average, but with extremes on both sides that vary extremely from the average. This makes the idea of a "master race" only valid when holding a ranking system ot traits, with some traits (like intelligence or beauty) considered more valuable than others (like agility or physical strength)... and such a ranking system is obviously very individual and therefor leaning towards prejudice.



What country are the servers of these forums based on and what sort of speech is considered unlawful in that country?!?



Some other black Aspie might come to think that his chances of pursuing a career in science may be smaller than a career in psychology or economy. If it turns out to be true that blacks on average do in fact not have the natural aptitude for science, it would benefit every black person to be aware of such information as it can be usedful for their own choices in life.

As an Aspie, I also need to be aware of my limitations to advance in life. If I know that I'm bad at taking one particular approach to a problem, I have to find another approach and may have to abandon the old one altogether. It is not racist of prejudice to recognise the imperfections in oneself or another. If science shows that some people are better at some things and worse at other things, it serves all humanity of that knowledge is known to all.



As I said, each ethnic group has its own particular diversity ordered much like a Bell Curve. The average IQ for blacks being 20 points lower than the average IQ for whites even under similar living conditions still doesn't mean there aren't any blacks with an IQ of over 130, perfectly capable of doing quality scientific research and lecturing a crowd of college students on electromechanics or advanced mathematics. So I see no reason for him to be offended any more than I should be offended by people referencing to the many 35-year-old socially inadequate Aspie virgins out there who still live with their parents.



That's just silly, because there is no reason for political correctness to dominate science other than the desire to hide valuable information that might threaten the current political establishment.

yes, that is what "since deleted" means.

Trying to be encouraging and even helpful to others can be extremely challenging, and especially in a setting like this where everything posted is "open discussion". Nevertheless, that is why WrongPlanet exists, and that is what we should all be here to do.

More is fair in Love and Dating.

Everyone should feel protected, in The Haven.

There will be disagreements about point of view, but not the person holding that view.

Comments can be ignored, answered with your point of view, without directly attacking someone for just having an opinion.

I do not believe in uniformity. If there was a MODBOT built to UN standards, with a blue helmet, we would have lost something in the range of mods. One standard Modbot, with one program of rules.

The best I have seen here is any subject can be aspied till a circle of views express all about it. The whole circle is important and valid.

My own view, is the behavior of hairless ground apes. Also called Anthropology, when it only applies to non whites. Kinsey and Masters and Johnson did not make up their works, ape social and sexual behavior is documented. The DSM has tried and failed to account for thier mental range.

What leads them to hold one view above another is not understood, and is a strong and unchanging force. Some were born and raised in a world view, others found one later. Some are just looking to disagree with anything, some are seeking a single higher truth to club people with.

This is the Alien Anthropoligist problem. Everytime they kidnap an Earther, it is no guide to the species. It cannot build tall buildings, factories, and knows little about history, goverment. Any one is just a hairless ground ape. Hundreds of abductions later, they may as well be hundreds of species, but put them in a group and things change. Their herd intelligence is higher.

Herds, schools of fish, flocks of birds, likely have a few moderators. Cattle follow one female, there are structures we cannot see, but they are there.

Alex has said, The mods are not police, they are the fire department. I think it wise system, and problems do get hosed.

The glory of this place is we all are known for a lack of social development. Self help has not lead to NT lessons, just working with what we have. The world is not a good model for us, there have been problems, but a community has been formed, and those outside rules do not apply, with aspies, on the net, and the world being formed is going to spread as technology spreads.

Several have said, I came to learn about autism, and found the most civil, intelligent, and helpful people on the web. Wise King Alex understands, "He who rules least rules best."

Other sites have stricter rules, mods with guns, and lose members. Wrong Planet grows.

There will be all points of view, and very few get hosed.

I read the linked page of the OP, the last four pages, and saw nothing wrong with the opinions expressed. I do not visit Love and Dating.

I would object to the use of names, and everyone's opinions are self defeating. No need to connect the two.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and that is the problem."

This is frustrating, because I want to jump in in support of some people, but I know that anything said can be considered offensive.
Rules on discussions cannot be completely black-and-white because such rules would perpetuate bureaucracy, and lead to the kind of environment where there is no discretion. Different things are appropriate in different situations. And, as Pandd pointed out, we don't know when something has been done or not.

The last time somebody quoted a PM into this forum I supported it, because I thought that in light of the discussion that had been going on it was understandable-- one person said that they weren't going to reveal the content of the PM for the privacy of the other person, and so that other person took that statement to mean that since the confidentiality was for their own benefit, they could waive that confidentiality. This time, the person who posted the content of a private message blatantly specified that they knew what they were doing was inappropriate.

After reading the disputed portion of the thread being complained about, I find this thread rather ironic. The "attack" looks to me like an attempt to point out a double standard. So if this thread is appropriate, so was the other comment about a double standard. If the other comment about a double standard was an attack, then the posting of this thread is an attack too.

I don't agree.

If someone writes provoking messages in the haven, I don't think thats acceptable.

The haven should never be a safe sheild to be a complete arse and get away with it. If I made a thread in the haven about all men burning in hell, I will sure as hell expect warrented hostile reponses.

The haven shouldn't be somewhere where you have to agree and suck up to people. I think thats wrong. I think peoples opinions should be allowed but I guess maybe less agressive?

Wait, what is it that you don't agree with? What you said makes sense, besides the "I don't agree" part because I don't know what it's in reference to. Inventor said that everyone should feel protected in The Haven, but allowing provoking messages or threads about all men burning in hell would do the opposite of making everyone feel protected. I'm also not sure what you mean by "sucking up to people" in The Haven.. it's purpose is support, right? Being as non-judgmental as possible? If someone says something horribly offensive in their post, it doesn't belong in The Haven to begin with..

Sorry I think it was to a post a few before yours, should have made it clear.

I believe this to be very true.

Someone can go on a forum and claim all kinds of reasons for the most outrageous behaviour and get away with it and others, maybe more mild mannered only have to do the slightest thing, and, being seen as weaker (whether consciously or not by others) will be allowed to be hassled. It happens everywhere, it is a fact of life and all I can presume is that it is the same as in the NT world, make friends with the right kinds of people or get in with the 'in crowd' and you can get away with anything.

Of course, you may not wish to sell your soul because the price of being authentic and acting with integrity can be costly.

Not only that, try being positive and cheerful and if you are surrounded by people who are filled with self-pity, self-loathing or some other negative thing at the time, then they will punish you for it as if somehow, you are actually, and in reality, harming them on purpose.

So again the rule is run with the crowd or be an outsider.

Its just a choice.

Make the choice that you can live with and the one that allows you to sleep at night.

Life is a b***h, then you die (so people keep telling me).

The problem is that there is no place I'm not an outsider besides among my very best friends. Sometimes I really long for a community of people where I can just say what I think on any topic and express what I feel in any situation without any fear of repercussions. It's frustrating to know that such a community may not exist.

Yes, it may not exist. I have only ever heard of that kind of thing in Evangelical books where someone converts to Christ and then later tells the story of their journey in which everyone was so accepting, so nice, so welcoming, so this, so that. I once mentioned this to a clergyman friend who said the reason why it is written about is because it is so rare.

Sometimes it's really hard not to become utterly mysantropic and avoid people altogether, but unfortunately you need other people not just to survive but also to stay sane.

Yes I know, that is why I always go back into the world and try again. I know several people that don't mix often and their thought processes range from paranoia to just plain wrong.