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.

 

[Misery]

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.

Here's a question though: what if there's some thing that falls into the category of "political" that is causing someone a lot of personal trouble, like escalating towards a panic attack or depression or something, and they end up needing help for it? But they wouldnt be able to turn to what is normally a support forum for it and may not have any other outlet.

I'm not quite sure I'm explaining correctly, but it's something I've seen happen recently (not here, I mean elsewhere) after certain recent events.

I know what it's like to have to just hold certain things in because everyone else might detonate if you voice it (or that you might just be told to shut up) and it feels *horrible*. I'm fortunate enough to have a variety of places/people I can go to for help, but for others, this forum might be their only option. Particularly considering how the internet is these days... it used to be that there were lots of similar places all over, but social media and Reddit seems to have eaten all of that, making it very hard to find places that arent already hyper-toxic.


Other than that part though I tend to agree with you. I used to moderate for a forum years ago, and pretty much the same thing happened: every now and then a subject would suddenly get all political and then everyone starts screaming, and it was just happening too often. Even individuals who were normally very calm and friendly could totally freak out during that type of subject. We ended up deciding to just knock out political discussions entirely, just wordlessly remove them if they showed up. It was much better than having to deep-dive into each one to handle moderation and whatnot. The admins were way too busy to do that and there really werent many mods there.

But then, that forum had a wildly different focus and was not a support forum of any sort, so banning that type of conversation was pretty easy.

 

[tree]

I thought the idea of discussion of legislation regarding ND/ASD was workable.

Particularly toward relieving, when possible, anxieties and misconceptions people
have about such legislation.

 

[Misty Avich]

I agree with Misery. A lot of my anxieties are tied with politics and I feel that by banning even the slightest hint of anything political here (even just a name of a politician) make people like me feel unable to express ourselves. On the other hand, for the sake of the mods, I think we should just ban political discussion altogether, even if it's autism-related, because it can still drift into more common politics even without members in the thread intending it to.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

Questions:

Does AF have a standard or set of standards regarding the intrinsic human worth of all people with autism? What about the intrinsic value of all neurodivergent people? What about families of ND people? What about all people with disabilities? What about all human beings?

My guess, although I could be wrong, is that AF and all participants could agree that all human beings have intrinsic worth.

If this is true, I’d like to see the discussion begin with what we all agree upon.

We may have wildly different opinions on how to treat others or solve problems with various diagnoses or lack thereof. Does AF guidelines allow all participants to express their wildly different opinions as long as it is done politely and respectfully? I believe it does.

I believe I can safely say that right now, in the USA, there are bitter differences concentrated in the political arena. Some of the new policies or policy changes have a direct effect on people with autism. I believe this forum can do good for all of us to allow the discussion of these policies and their real or imagined or feared effects.

As others have pointed out, there may be participants who are afraid of losing their benefits, or their jobs. Or are just scared in general by all the changes. Certainly dislike of change is a common trait in autists.

We are an international forum. Also important and informative are views, information and suggestions from around the world.

My opinion is that continuing the political subforum as it relates to policies affecting people with autism should remain.

I would suggest the formation of a small committee 3-5 people) appointed by the moderators, to brainstorm to come up with a recommended plan for keeping it civil and useful. This plan would be submitted to the moderators for consideration.

Just a suggestion. I have no ego tied up in it.

 

[Nitro]

Someone might want to repost this, but if not, here we go...


If I can have the table, I would like to share an admission here.

I really went off the rails here last night and blew a gasket over political posts I perceived as negative.
There was no excuse for that and it was very harsh.

We all joined here either for support or for knowledge.
Some pass the knowledge out, while others gather it.

I was one who came here seeking knowledge.
I stuck around until Brent brought me on as an admin.

Early on it was a lot of work until things got settled down.
We had some messes to clean up and ropes to learn, but eventually we got it sorted out.

A few years have passed, and we got to welcome @Satal here as our new owner/IT professional.

Times were looking great and we had a firm handle on things.

Then I started to see posts that I didn't like.
The ones that got my ire.
I considered those types of posts spreading fear and panic, which they feel like to me.
Most of the time, I rarely react with more than disappointment and shrug it off.
Sometimes I get kind of irate.
Last night, I blew a gasket and went off the rails.

It wasn't until I had a conversation with @tree that I realized that my irrational reaction was the result of a trigger that escalated into a meltdown over political differences.

What?
No way!

Yeah, way

So here I am, trying to explain all of this to those who might listen and humbly asking if I can get all of you to try to understand that this Superman found his kryptonite.

 

[Nitro]

I guess what I was trying to say is that the stuff I felt would be triggering to others was actually what was triggering me.

 

[thejuice]

For me the status quo seems suitable, which is having the option of hiding the autism politics section if it makes you uncomfortable.

I would also suggest waiting for emotions to settle before any decision.

 

[Nitro]

The people my rant was directed towards were likely in fear of uncertainty and not expressing it in a way I understood.
I didn't like the sources they used which to me were ones I would avoid, so I laughed them off.
My place to get my news is better than yours.
I was reacting to them because I felt they weren't properly informed.
I needed to correct it.
Try to get them to see my point of view.

Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.

Last night it pushed me over the edge.
Can I take it back?
Nope.
Will it happen again?
Probably if there is still politics.
This stuff has been building up for a while, and my thoughts were that things needed changed.
I still do.
My vote is for no more politics

 

[Jonn]

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

People already have the option of not viewing the political section.
If it triggers them, it is simple to unsubscribe.

From what I have seen, people rarely create threads in the political forum in any case.

 

[Jonn]

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?

There is already a function to "de-bark" individual people from individual threads, while allowing others to continue the discussion.

 

[Nitro]

Years ago, I took the helm of a Polish club in a neighboring town.

When I took my seat there, our club was called the blood bath over the numerous times the local authorities responded there.
We were about financially ruined and it was looking like we would get shut down if we didn't clean up our act.

The first meeting we sat down with the barkeeps, they told us that all of the fights in there were either over politics or religion.

The rule was posted on the entrance door proclaiming that one peep at the bar about them got you banished for life.

Things really calmed down afterwards.