The future of Political Discussions on AF

[Jeff T]

A quandary!

As I am not a paying member (and therefore do not see the political stuff), my opinion is rubbish.

However, I'll give it anyways!

Instead of shutting down a whole section of this forum, eject the offending members From That Portion of the Forum!

 

[Jonn]

Instead of shutting down a whole section of this forum, eject the offending members From That Portion of the Forum!

Or just "de-bark" them for a period of time in the thread until they have calmed down.
The mechanism is already there, to my shock when it first happened to me.

 

[Cutesie]

As someone who never enabled the politics section, my only concern is what others said - that eliminating the section could lead to politics being discussed elsewhere on the site.

I've not followed the news at all (save for sports) in five months and don't have intention to resume any time soon. My participation here is predicated on not seeing anything about politics.

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

@Satal do you see how divisive this is? I really believe that for the best interest of this community, politics should be removed from the forum, permanently.

People are banned or leave permanently because of this. I'm sure that at least a quarter of people who block each other on here are because of political arguments.

Please get rid of the politics forum. It's not a good thing for this community.

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

No worries, I have taken it upon myself to resign and never subject anyone to my thoughts again

This makes me terribly sad.

 

[Cryptid]

In My Opinion . . .

If politics (and any mention thereof) is to be removed from this website, then it's half-sibling -- Religion -- should also be removed. My reasoning is that both involve the worship of a person and/or ideology, with the inherent assumption that anyone who does not believe as "we" do is not only wrong, but criminally so and deserving of nothing less than contempt, derision, and exclusion/expulsion from "our" good graces and consideration.

Such cruelty is antithetical to the purpose and spirit of this website.

Thank you,
Cryptid

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I'm agnostic, have one thread in the religion section, Never used the politics section, crossed over to it a bit once, got edited. no issue.

 

[thejuice]

As someone who never enabled the politics section

I like to see people using their personal agency!

 

[thejuice]

@Satal do you see how divisive this is? I really believe that for the best interest of this community, politics should be removed from the forum, permanently.

People are banned or leave permanently because of this. I'm sure that at least a quarter of people who block each other on here are because of political arguments.

Please get rid of the politics forum. It's not a good thing for this community.

Part of freedom of speech is being mature enough to disagree amicably with those that hold opposite views to you. Makes me think of the Sun and North wind fable. Persuasion beats force every time. If you can't get them to change their mind, just let it go. Nothing we say here makes the slightest difference in world affairs, the best we can hope for is to learn something, even from a mortal enemy.

 

[Judge]

Another issue we members must contend with is that in the most fundamental sense, this website is a proprietary domain of private ownership.

Translation: Our gracious host is free to establish any terms and conditions he wants. That while we can discuss freedom of speech, it doesn't mean we actually have it while within this online domain. -We don't.

Not to mention that within the context of American law, that as this community has all the trappings of a social club with members who contractually agree to terms and conditions. Meaning that our constitutional protections of civil rights and civil liberties don't actually apply. At least not to a social club, which is free to establish policy which may or may not parallel our civil rights and civil liberties as prescribed constitutionally and by case law.

And of course there still remains basic jurisdictional considerations regarding whose laws (if any ) even truly apply here. Which in itself is one enormous headache, even though the Internet has been around for some time now.

Leaving any tangible semblance of "freedom of speech" entirely in the hands of our host. Who is free to establish any rules of conduct he wants.
____________________________________________________________________________

What really does concern me at this point, is the gravity of the subject that initiated this thread. That in the last week, I have learned that autistic persons in particular have great reason to be concerned over government appropriations geared for the welfare and education of autistic adults and children. That they are indeed technically at risk, with great cause to be concerned about. And that it is impossible to truly distance this issue from the polarized political environment which created it.

I can go on and on about an interpretation of constitutionality over this issue. Knowing in principle that any program legislated through an act of fiscal appropriation is an Act of Congress- not the Executive Branch.

In earlier times I would have confidently stated that this Executive Order is patently unconstitutional. And of course, the minute the president put his signature to it, the wheels of justice churned, generating immediate litigation resulting in a federal judge placing a writ of injunction, temporarily keeping this Executive Order from being implemented.

Meaning the matter must be officially adjudicated at a higher level. But given the nature of this particular Supreme Court, and their recent action of repealing a settled law, it leaves me and many others to be unsure of what should be a "slam-dunk" decision in declaring the order unconstitutional.

However that is not the end of it either. In the event it is declared unconstitutional, it will not preclude the president from pursuing the matter. However as an appropriation, it will still have to be legislation originating from Congress and not the Executive Branch. Yet with no clear understanding that such legislation could easily pass through both houses of Congress. And even then, if such a law was passed to terminate all that funding, it remains a question of whether the Supreme Court would care to hear it all over again, or how they might adjudicate the matter a second time.

In as much as many of our autistic mindsets want a clear and concise answer, none is to be found at the particular moment. That we must wait and see what happens as a result of the wheels of justice. That there's no point in attempting to debate the issue any further that I see.

 

[Judge]

In My Opinion . . .

If politics (and any mention thereof) is to be removed from this website, then it's half-sibling -- Religion -- should also be removed. My reasoning is that both involve the worship of a person and/or ideology, with the inherent assumption that anyone who does not believe as "we" do is not only wrong, but criminally so and deserving of nothing less than contempt, derision, and exclusion/expulsion from "our" good graces and consideration.

Such cruelty is antithetical to the purpose and spirit of this website.

Thank you,
Cryptid

As I recall long ago, when the decision was made to establish a politics section, it paralleled the creation of a religious section as well. No surprise, as both subjects offer the likelihood of unhealthy contentious debate happening at a moment's notice.

From the perspective of this community at an earlier time, it was indeed considered to be that "half-sibling" you mentioned.

 

[tree]

As I recall long ago, when the decision was made to establish a politics section, it paralleled the creation of a religious section as well. No surprise, as both subjects offer the likelihood of unhealthy contentious debate happening at a moment's notice.

From the perspective of this community at an earlier time, it was indeed considered to be that "half-sibling" you mentioned.

Yes, at that time that's the way it was.
The *Poli-Rel* section.

Then they got separated.

And eventually it was clarified that 'politics' on this forum
was to be confined to what pertained to autism/neurodiversity.

 

[Misty Avich]

I had to untick the politics section because it was frightening me seeing too many threads about autistic people being assassinated or whatever, it's a bit too cynical to just jump to that conclusion like it's really going to happen but nevertheless it still frightened me, as I can get very easily triggered by anxiety and my hatred of being diagnosed against my will anyway and now having that pasted on my medical records all my life. It ain't just me who feels like this, it's triggering for other members too, and then it just ends with people arguing and walking off the site or getting themselves banned.

If you really need to discuss politics so badly then creating a private chat group with others who share your worries and views could be the better alternative to discussing it publicly on the forum with sensitive members who wanted to take part in autism political discussions but didn't want to see all this doom and gloom and "all autistics are gonna die" stuff. It's frightening us all.

So yeah, scrap all political discussions even if it's autism-related. It's probably the fairest way.

 

[Judge]

Yes, at that time that's the way it was.
The *Poli-Rel* section.

Then they got separated.

And eventually it was clarified that 'politics' on this forum
was to be confined to what pertained to autism/neurodiversity.

That's right! Glad we still have members who also recall the forum's past.

Ironic to recall how both subjects were in fact approached as one and the same in terms of volatility as opposed to content alone.

Though sadly outside this forum, such contentious subjects appear to be even worse as time marches on.

 

[Alexej]

I am pleased by the quality of the conversation in this thread. I see it as open, honest and respectful.
Thank you all for this!

 

[Richelle-H]

I, for one, do not take part in political discussion because of the devisive nature at the heart of such discourse. It has been my experience is that most people are ill informed and believe the most ridiculous things, and that goes for more than just politics. Things tend to escalate much too quickly, even between two individuals with differing points of view. If there isn't an open mind at both ends, civility tends to erode.

I would not be disturbed in any way if the Political forum just disappeared. I am not even sure I have visited that forum in the entire time I have been here; and if so, there is the expectation that what I might have posted would have been excised or deleted.

If it is not apparent, I hate politics as much as I do any institutionalized hard wired system. Discourse generally changes no one's opinion and usually leads to emotional distress on some level.

 

[tree]

To clarify, the area being discussed is not *politics in general.*

It's meant to be a discussion of laws affecting neurodiverse
populations. Not tooth and claw arguing about politicians
or party matters.

 

[Cutesie]

As @tree said, no one is advocating for all political discussion to be allowed on the site. The argument that we need to have a place to talk about how autistic people are affected by government decisions is a good one.

What does that tell us about religion? On the one hand, unlike with politics, there's no compelling reason that we need to talk about religion here. On the other, it's a topic that some members are passionate about, and there doesn't seem, in my experience at least, to be such a problem of the discussions becoming heated and quarrelsome.

 

[vergil96]

I, for one, do not take part in political discussion because of the devisive nature at the heart of such discourse. It has been my experience is that most people are ill informed and believe the most ridiculous things, and that goes for more than just politics. Things tend to escalate much too quickly, even between two individuals with differing points of view. If there isn't an open mind at both ends, civility tends to erode.

I would not be disturbed in any way if the Political forum just disappeared. I am not even sure I have visited that forum in the entire time I have been here; and if so, there is the expectation that what I might have posted would have been excised or deleted.

If it is not apparent, I hate politics as much as I do any institutionalized hard wired system. Discourse generally changes no one's opinion and usually leads to emotional distress on some level.

100% the same here

 

[stevens]

Normally we do not have a political environment wherein high profile individuals are using autism as a subject for political gain. No doubt that has caused problems. This site is remarkably non-political. I read political subjects elsewhere, but I'd never argue that politics is separable from autism as a public health and welfare issue.

We also must recognize that we are not at our best when we are being attacked, which is to say that our personal envelope of security is threatened.