The future of Political Discussions on AF

[Satal]

I want to open this thread for a brief but meaningful community discussion about the future of political discussions on Autism Forums. This is not a decision I want to make alone, as I recognise the importance of this space for many. At the same time, I also see the strain it places on the community and moderation team, which is why I need your perspectives.

My aspiration for Autism Forums is that it is a welcoming place for those who have Autism in their lives (either themselves or loved ones), with discussions around the day-to-day, people's interests, and such.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to completely separate these subjects from the impact of politics. In a time when politics seems more divisive than ever, it is hard to keep conversations regarding politics, even when limited to Autism, level without escalation. This creates a nightmare for our already hard-working moderators, who are trying to keep political conversations civil. We have tried to manage this previously by ensuring that political conversations are limited to things related to Autism. However, even this has proven highly challenging to manage.

I am, and I know many of you are, deeply grateful to our moderators for the dedication and patience they bring to keeping Autism Forums a safe and welcoming space. Moderating political discussions, even when focused on Autism, is particularly difficult because it often puts them in the uncomfortable position of being accused of bias when they are simply trying to uphold fairness and respect. They do this while balancing their personal views, which is no small task. I ask everyone to take a moment to appreciate the emotional labour involved in this role.

With all of this in mind, I am considering whether it would be in the best interests of the Autism Forums community to remove the political section altogether. This is not a decision I take lightly. I recognise that politics, particularly in relation to Autism, has real-world consequences and that some members find value in discussing these issues here. However, the reality is that the emotional toll, conflicts, and accusations of bias have made this section difficult to sustain in a way that aligns with the supportive and understanding environment we strive for.

This is where I welcome people's thoughts on the next steps as a community. Should we remove the politics section? Or is there a way we can work together as a community to create an environment where political discussions remain constructive and respectful without placing an increased burden on moderators? If you have ideas for solutions—such as new guidelines or alternative ways to engage with these topics—I would love to hear them.

I do not like the idea of removing a section of this site, especially one that I know has such a significant impact on people's lives. However, I can't let this continue.

Warning​

This thread is for discussing the future of political discussions on the forum—not for debating politics themselves or calling out individuals. Please keep comments focused on constructive ideas and shared concerns. Posts that veer into political debate or personal criticism will be removed to keep the conversation on track.​

 

[Mary Terry]

Satal - The current rules are fine with me as long as everyone complies. Sometimes you have to rap people on the knuckles to get their attention, and I include myself in that category. In fact, you might need to whack me in the head sometimes. I may be slow but I do learn.

The moderators are excellent, but no one is perfect. I couldn't keep my cool like they do. Give them a raise! I'm joking, of course.

 

[Alexej]

I agree with @Mary Terry in that the moderators are doing a great job. Thank you for that!

I do not see that discussions will not reference US politics, or be informed by what is happening over there. A arguement in favour of keeping the politics forum is that it is an optional Forum and if you do not wish to hear politics discussed then you can opt out of that Forum. (Not that I expect that the discussions wont seep over into other Fora).

Having a politics forum means that this type of discussion can be directed to that Forum and hopefully not elsewhere.

(Just my twopenceworth)

 

[Aspychata]

It seems to me that if the moderators are already taxed out keeping things in order, then the politics section is overload for them. If a moderator was brought on to handle the political section only, then the current existing moderators ,( thank you Nitro, tree, Rodfina for all you do), the political section would be more manageable

 

[TBRS1]

If an on-going, civil discussion can be completely destroyed because a single person is triggered, then, probably, that topic should be off limits.

 

[Tiffany Kate]

I do not have any magic solutions to this. I will say that I have great respect for anyone willing to moderate an online forum, and even more so for forums with hot-button topics allowed (such as politics). It's the kind of job where nobody notices what you do when it's going well, but people are quick to complain when something goes wrong.

The easiest option would seem to be to eliminate political discussion. The two problems with this are:
- As you say, some such discussions have value either in and of themselves, or because of the support they give to people.
- How do you define a "political discussion"? (You may already have rules for this depending on what is allowed on the general bits and what must be moved to the Political part of the forum.) Does the mention of anything remotely political make it Political? What about references to legal issues (like disability accommodations)?

But it would be understandable if you decided to eliminate Political discussions because the distress it causes to the moderators (and others) exceeds the usefulness of the discussions.

Forums like this are dependent on the goodwill of the people who do the work, and that goodwill can run out pretty quickly if the work gets too unpleasant.

If you are not keen on eliminating political discussion, are there any common themes in the problems? For example, specific topics WITHIN the Political genre, or specific people? (As a colleague of mine said, "Some people can start an argument in an empty church.")

If you have repeat offenders, I don't know whether it's possible to ban or "time-out" some people, or limit them to only posting outside the Political section?

Is it possible to time-delay a post appearing in the political section? Knowing that your post will not appear on the forum for another 15 minutes might slow things down a bit and may reduce rage-posting. (Or maybe not.)

The Rules say that religion may not be debated - any thread that turns into a religious debate will be closed. The same might be applied to Politics (if the problem is escalating debates rather than people blowing up out of nowhere or being impolite from the start).

Depending on what the problem is, a further limitation might be the discussions of the EFFECTS of a Political decision/situation on autism, rather than the rights and wrongs of the decision/situation itself. (Although this may be quite a fine hair to split.)

I'm sorry I can't think of anything better at the moment.

 

[Judge]

Over many years this isn't the first time such an issue has arisen for a consensus of the community. Ironically the last time my opinion was to pass on opening up a politics and religion section. And nobody likes a deep political discussion more than I do. I hold a degree in the subject.

1) However it is inherently problematic when in the course of discussion forum members manage to objectively violate the site's terms and conditions.

2) All compounded when staff members choose to weigh in with their own biases, but with a unique ability to leverage us in ways we cannot defend ourselves. That is outrageous and unacceptable.

Given these two problematic considerations, I recommend terminating any and all political discussions. Lest we repeat the same cycle over and over as some of us have seen over time.

A decision that reflects a sense of equity between both members and the staff.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

1. I agree that it is difficult sometimes for conversations NOT to take on a political slant.
2. I realize that we have members from all over the world. This is one of our strengths as a community.
3. One of the key things that I totally enjoy about this forum is that it is comprised of people on the autism spectrum, and with that, there tends to be a wonderful, yet stereotypical, trend towards some very well thought out posts. Sometimes those very same posts contain some bias and are missing some perspective and context, but part of the beauty of this forum is that WE CAN HAVE DISAGREEMENT. This is GOOD. Different perspectives on the same topic allow us all to learn that our little bubble is not someone else's and gives us a broader view of the world around us.
4. As a US citizen, and subject to a ton of media bias, where some people's views are that words are violence, that they can trigger negative emotions, this is a result of our mindset that in order for life to be "civil" and for us to live in harmony, we all need to agree, or NOT talk about things if we do disagree. This is NOT GOOD. (1) Not talking about uncomfortable topics is, in itself, a driver of misinformation and bias. (2) It weakens our intellect and emotional regulation if we are never challenged.
5. Preemptive maneuvers to censor and remove all forms of political content is not wise. It opens the door to censor and remove all forms of religious content and perhaps racial, ethnic content. These are all topics that we need to discuss, IN A CIVIL MANNER.
6. If there is any member that cannot manage to control their emotional behavior and keep their words civil, THEN step in. More specifically, deal with that individual, NOT with the group. Otherwise, there are plenty of people who do have the ability to discuss difficult and controversial topics with their heads on straight. You don't need to squelch their conversations, as they may be an example for others to learn from.

 

[Shevek]

I do my political stuff elsewhere, so I have not seen the problems here. However, after many years of trying to apply logic, etc. to politics, I have come to believe that it is generally futile, because nobody is stating their basic assumptions, confident that the other side shares them. However, I think that our range of political opinions is mostly set by our genes, about as firmly as our sexuality.
Ma Nature never wants to have all her eggs in one basket. Times change, and there always have to be people ill-suited to the current conditions but well set to thrive if they change. If our ancestors found a new flint mine or a new trick in agriculture, it was good news to all the tribes who were open to trade. If a new disease appeared, the only survivors might be the tribes with a strong majority of xenophobes. However, their children would still include many folk inclined to trade, because they would benefit from new opportunities and avoid inbreeding.
Cultural exposure lets people explore their range of possible opinions, but the basic attitudes on greed/sharing, fighting/talking, helping family vs refugees, and so on are almost immutable.
Maybe frequent reminders of this principle would help reduce the frustration we feel with others' opinions.