the treatment of women on wrongplanet

Post Reply New Topic

Dox asked me why I brought up the 1st amendment. That is a good question by Dox. Here is my reasoning. I have noticed a strange phenomenon here and other non-autism forums. People claim they're being censored and they have the right to free speech. I've have seen this played over and over again even here. The assumption is that freedom of speech can't be abridged here. That assumption can be proven as not true. It is true that government can't abridge freedom of speech here unless one is threatening murder or something.

The thing Alex can because he does not belong to the government but is a private owner of this website. He can set rules how ever he wants as long as he is not doing anything illegal. Our free speech which is not abridgable by government can be abridged by Alex on Wrongplanet.

Those who claim censorship and losing their rights on wrongplanet are wrong because private owners can set rules on their property including curtailing sexism. Censorship is allowed by private owners.

On the other hand one can make appeals to Alex and/or go to another forum, or create a new forum. To use free speech as part of one's argument is erroneous thinking because it is only applicable to Governmental entities that only exists in the USA.

I personally agree with Alex's stance on the matter; leave them be and let them look stupid. You know why? Because it works. Do they or do they not look incredibly stupid?

When formal punishment (ie. banning, PM warnings) is unachievable as a type of consequence, the other type of consequence is the social one. Rejection, alienation, losing friends. The seemingly unfair social and romantic rejection they complain about eventually evolves into a just consequence of the attitudes they develop. Let them dig their hole deeper, and then maybe when they're so deep there's no sunlight perhaps they might learn. It's the only way to learn. A ban hammer or a sternly worded PM won't teach them.

My philosophy here has been to sit back, post in random and just let it all happen. Only problem Alex should worry about is the image of WP it's projecting. Which isn't a good way to appear considering recent news events.

I've never heard of something called "Men's Rights" until I read about it on this Forum.

It's a total absurdity. It makes men look foolish.

It's like "white rights." White people in the Western World, in the vast majority of cases, do not need to be advocated for. All they have to do is exist in the world amid normal competition.

There's a reason for "womens rights," organizations which advocate for the rights of minorities, disability advocates: they are dealt a deck which is somewhat, or very much, skewed against them. They HAVE to advocate for themselves, in addition to experiencing normal competition. Otherwise, their outcome will invariably be less positive than those people who benefit from being in the majority. It's a matter of equality really--they want the same chances for success as anybody else.

Aye. Count me in. I'm sick of this place. This site is (AFAIK) the biggest forum for people with AS. It makes people with AS as a whole group look hateful, spiteful, immature and misogynistic. I've been posting here less and less because of this reason.

As for letting people look stupid - The Daily Mail makes themselves look stupid, and yet lots of people follow it and believe it. The argument to let people look stupid doesn't make any sense. Letting hate fester is harmful, and feeding it more fuel spreads it and intensifies it.

Considering recent events, this thread is super interesting. On one hand, we have all sorts of autism advocacies scrambling to prevent the actions of one autistic individual from negatively affecting the general perceptions and treatment of autistics. On the other hand, right here on Wrong Planet, we have a group trying to negatively influence the perceptions and treatment of some men, based on the actions of one man. Founded on a set or subset of coincidental similarities, what leverage is provided to predict the likely capabilities and intentions of other individuals? Which similarities are rightfully comparable and conclusive? What is included and what is excluded? What are the interests and which of those interests are competing or contradictory? How can matters be prioritized? What are the implications and insinuations? What are the principles and how can those principles be applied? Later, if questions are asked, - both questions of principle and application - what answers will be available? At this point, I'm going to stand back and watch.

when I read the manifesto of that guy, i found it almost hilarious how his thoughts reflected things I read on WP and the whole "mra" thing. it just that it was stated so much clearly.

wp has to be moderated more.. the misogyny is just too much, I dont need another place where disrespect is a casual occurrence..