Censorship of Ideas and Topics

[Cognisant]

Sounds like censorship to me, no matter how its dressed up. Sounds like just about any and all logic will be employed to justify it n all.

It was censorship, he deserved to be censored.
There's no constitutional freedom of speech here, this isn't a "public" venue, we're not even paying customers, nobody has an right to be here and the mods need no justification to ban someone.

But by all means continue with your anti-establishment soap-boxing, in the interest of openness I think decisions ought to be questioned and grievances publicly declared, though make no mistake being heard doesn't mean you'll be heeded.

 

[Sinny91]

The only people who make it a soap box are you people.

I was happy having a discussion in the thread I entered, which was open. Why have threads and leave them open if they are in actual fact closed?

I didnt want a new thread, otherwise I would have made one. Now you've used trigger words like soap box and brought greater attention to the subject matter than I ever intended.

 

[Cognisant]

Blarraun likely closed that thread to curb what he saw as an unproductive argument.

I created this one because I figured being more-or-less censored like that would just fuel your fire, which is exactly why I created this thread, to draw greater attention to the matter than you ever intended

If you legitimately feel this forum has an oppressive culture this is your opportunity to discuss it, otherwise your silence will speak for itself.

 

[Sinny91]

Ugh, well I was discussing it up until this Interruption. I don't agree your assessment on the finality of my silence - Which I will now plead like 5th.

 

[Cognisant]

Of course you can always come back, I doubt they'll close this one anytime soon

So things as they are we have established that for the time being at least you have no issues to raise regarding the censorship of ideas and/or topics, or you're keeping them secret for... reasons?

Well, until next time.

 

[TBerg]

I believe that strong American First Amendment protection should apply to all institutions all over the world. I just try to choose the most important battles that involve the most fateful outcomes.

I have no recollection of the issues involved with Da Blob, so I abstain from commenting on that specific situation. I don't know how fateful his banning actually was. All I know is that the patterns I have noticed recently around censorship on this forum do not particularly alarm me. It seems more in keeping with restraint of more general behavior, rather than the content of posts.

 

[Analyzer]

I believe that strong American First Amendment protection should apply to all institutions all over the world.

I believe in the idea of free speech as well, but why should I force all peoples to accept a law if people around the world have different understandings of what constitutes "free" speech and it's derivatives? This seems to go against the idea of free speech protection in the first place. Also I highly doubt the First Amendment actually works like it's believed to.

 

[Absurdity]

There's a difference between censorship and quality control.

 

[TBerg]

I believe in the idea of free speech as well, but why should I force all peoples to accept a law if people around the world have different understandings of what constitutes "free" speech and it's derivatives? This seems to go against the idea of free speech protection in the first place. Also I highly doubt the First Amendment actually works like it's believed to.

Are you saying that no one should defend another's natural rights? By that logic, would it be wrong for me to impose the natural right to life upon a murderer?

That makes absolutely no sense and would render hypocrites of all who claim moral responsibility.

 

[Analyzer]

Are you saying that no one should defend another's natural rights? By that logic, would it be wrong for me to impose the natural right to life upon a murderer?

That makes absolutely no sense and would render hypocrites of all who claim moral responsibility.

I'm saying "natural" rights such as free speech may be different depending on the individual and community. If someone takes someones life than they are taking his ability to live his life i.e. — Self-ownership which is wrong. The right to life is axiomatic or inalienable in my way of thinking. Speech on the other hand, along with other property rights may mean different things to different people. While the right to life may imply freedom of speech, some may view it differently.

If your enforcing a law to protect free speech in the whole world, you're forcing everyone to abide by some relative distinction of what constitutes free speech. Personally I wouldn't want to live in a community where speech was controlled, but it's not up to me to decide how everyone should live.

 

[TBerg]

I firmly believe that the freedom of speech is the expression of someone's life force in a manner consonant with free cooperation. I think that this understanding underpins the reality that sustainable political structures depend upon some outlet for everyone's life force, which prevents resentment from building and allows the political structure to correct any blind spots by incorporating all expressions.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I was happy having a discussion in the thread I entered, which was open. Why have threads and leave them open if they are in actual fact closed?

No. You derailed a thread from its original topic. Using Da Blob's case as support you tried to raise your mud stained pitchfork at this site's leadership posing questions about their supposed stakes in censorship and policing of ideas.

You were allowed to raise said muddy pitchfork in a separate thread which you didn't seem inclined to do.

I didnt want a new thread, otherwise I would have made one. Now you've used trigger words like soap box and brought greater attention to the subject matter than I ever intended.

Assuming the issue was never worth raising to public attention, was your goal to simply spread unfounded hostility?

There is a degree of responsibility that comes with saying things and now I would expect you to answer the basic question posed in this thread if you want to show that you were honest about solving the problem. (Are we dealing with censorship of ideas here? If so how and why?)

If you avoid explaining yourself now, you put yourself in a negative light as a person who stirs conflict from the shadows, but never reveals their intentions.

There's a difference between censorship and quality control.

Well said.

Blarraun likely closed that thread to curb what he saw as an unproductive argument.

It most likely would.

 

[Grayman]

There's a difference between censorship and quality control.

In concept yes but not in implementation. Often quality controls will diminish a persons ability to express themselves fully.

 

[Absurdity]

In concept yes but not in implementation. Often quality controls will diminish a persons ability to express themselves fully.

Diminishing a person's ability to express themselves fully is fine if that person's full expression prohibits others from expressing themselves at all, or if that person's full expression consists of spewing an inordinate amount of repetitive content in places where it is clearly not welcome or relevant even after being asked repeatedly not to do so for the good of the community.

You're going to have to do better than that.

 

[Dalyth]

The difference, as far as I can tell, is that quality control employs censorship to maintain a standard of quality. :P

 

[Absurdity]

The difference, as far as I can tell, is that quality control employs censorship to maintain a standard of quality. :P

Not really. Censorship is about preventing the propagation of certain ideas because of the nature of the ideas themselves. Quality control is about preventing certain means of propagating ideas because these means are undesirable.

There's a difference between saying, "No one can talk about pineapples," and "No one can derail multiple threads with discussions about pineapples when, in the context of those threads, discussions about pineapples are clearly not relevant."

 

[Grayman]

Not really. Censorship is about preventing the propagation of certain ideas because of the nature of the ideas themselves. Quality control is about preventing certain means of propagating ideas because these means are undesirable.

There's a difference between saying, "No one can talk about pineapples," and "No one can derail multiple threads with discussions about pineapples when, in the context of those threads, discussions about pineapples are clearly not relevant."

It seems a convenient view of what censorship is. By that I mean anytime 'your standards' deem it okay to censor it is then retitled as quality control.

I don't mind censorship to a degree that is necessary but I think that Cogs view of censorship is a little more honest. It is only honest to say that it is necessary to limit ones freedom of speech in order for this forum function and exist for what it was intended for. What is the point of a forum without clear defining topics? What would happen to this forum if you allowed people to post porn? etc...

 

[Absurdity]

It seems a convenient view of what censorship is. By that I mean anytime 'your standards' deem it okay to censor it is then retitled as quality control.

I don't understand what you're saying here or how it relates to the text you quoted.

 

[Grayman]

I don't understand what you're saying here or how it relates to the text you quoted.

I missread your definition of quality control...

So I guess the only two ways for censorship to appear as 'quality control' is when quality control is more often enforced when certain 'ideas' are brought up and not other times. Another is to prohibit or provide no outlet in which an idea might be need to be expressed. By prohibiting the means in which to express the idea you have prohibited the idea itself.


But none of this addresses a form of speech, self expression. Which is much more impacted by quality control.


****
In regards to the idea that THE FORUM HATES RELIGIOUS PEOPLE:

A religious person often has many opinions, ideas, and views that are based on their religion. Many topics and discussions are bound to go back to this persons core beliefs.

This can be viewed as proselytizing their religious beliefs because when discussing multiple topics they eventually have to go back to their core beliefs(religion) in order to defend or reason out their ideas or opinions.

I often hear religious people feeling that they are being attacked for their beliefs but this is because every opinion is based on their belief and therefore questioning their opinion resorts to questioning their beliefs.

The defense of their religion in multiple threads can then be viewed as proselytizing. I think a clearer indicator of a christian who is proselytizing is where they continuously state that you are 'going to hell' or 'you are a sinner' etc... The casting of judgments on others is a very strong indicator.

I don't remember what was going on in regards to this but I do know that religious people do not stay here long or are banned for proselytizing. There are a few who are spiritual but not religious and they seem to be more accepted.

 

[kora]

I'm kind of religious/theistic sometimes (not consistent in my faith, it's more like a sort of vague feeling mostly). Also a weird personal religion and not really christian, though it could in some ways integrate christianity... I really don't feel I could not talk about it here if I wanted to in an appropriate thread. I'm sure I wouldn't get censored or banned if I did.

 

[Tannhauser]

You people banned Da Blob very much like they put Socrates to death for posing too many questions.

Spoiler

I'm joking, I have no fucking clue who Da blob is.

 

[Black Rose]

Multiple topics should have separations by their theme even if a persons opinions of that theme stretch to encompass the same response for all of them. But instead of relying on that theme arguments suddenly becomes a clash of ego's. That is where the responsibility of the moderators must step in. I am not saying the motivation of both parties presume this as censorship. What it represents is a targeted effort to get a rise of how they respond on the part of some or all parties involved. A refusal to end those conflicts requires how those interaction have evolved into the refusal to talk freely came from. Sinny refuses to respond to Redbaron and Brontosaury so they mock that refusal of Sinny. I do not side with one side. Sinny has not refused to answer my questions. And I have not refused to answer questions of anyone here. The only person who I could not communicate with was SpaceYetti. Not that he was antagonistic, he just did not understand what I was saying. I kind of have a woo woo style of communication / religiousness / thought processes. WankaVisson felt that he had to respond to people in a negative (I need to tell everyone to believe what I believe) way. That is not how I come across. That is not what Sinny is doing so she is still here on this forum. She just will not answer people who insists she must answers to them. Thread splits just happen when they are in the same thread. RedBaron and Sinny could not agree what the meaning of metaphysics is in my thread about A.I. Redbaron does not think that Metaphysics means anything in a not even wrong short of way. I was receptive to what he was saying but I agreed more with Sinny. I think that was the starting point of the breakdown of their communication. Sinny cannot give an answer to him and bronto because she feels they will not be responsive to her answers so defaults to not even trying too at this point in time.

 

[redbaron]

Censorship isn't inherently bad. People use the word like they're talking about the boogeyman or something, but a lot of the time censorship is just about respecting predetermined boundaries.

Setting boundaries is something adults do, and every community has their own. This forum doesn't allow porn or proselytizing. If you post porn or proselytize, you get censored and that's perfectly fine.

I personally enjoy spending time on a porn and preach free forum. If you don't, there's lots of other forums for that stuff.

 

[Hadoblado]

Hmm. Not baiting you, no. Baiting a response from the authorities around here, yes.

The only people who make it a soap box are you people.

I was happy having a discussion in the thread I entered, which was open. Why have threads and leave them open if they are in actual fact closed?

I didnt want a new thread, otherwise I would have made one. Now you've used trigger words like soap box and brought greater attention to the subject matter than I ever intended.

The thread was open. But the thread was about Da Blob. Not you, and not us. If you have thoughts about Da Blob, post them in the Da Blob thread. If not, leave it. Building a soapbox from the bones of long-dead martyrs you have no understanding of is the height of cunning manipulation. This was a shit move. That thread was supposed to be the equivalent of his funeral, and you're coming in out of nowhere trying to leverage his departure towards your own ends when you didn't even know the guy (nor he you). This is actually the second time someone has used Blob post mortem for their own political gain.

Sounds like censorship to me, no matter how its dressed up. Sounds like just about any and all logic will be employed to justify it n all.

You know that whole metaphysical scence is huge right now, and so is conspiracy culture. I don't like that those subjects seem to be openly marginalised here on this forum...

Even my threads have had to be shoved away in their own little corners... to keep them contained, to contain me.

Sounds like this forum makes a habit of 'containing' certain subjects and certain types of people.

Obviously, this is all my personal opinion, impression, and 'feeling'.. I'm wondering what everybody else thinks.

WTF is metaphysical science? Is it just metaphysics or is the scientific method actually employed?

'Contained'. Seems like you're making this a really big deal when it's not. You are still free to discuss all of this stuff, you're just not free to derail threads in doing so. We haven't jailed you, we just built you a house to live in so that you can stop breaking into other people's.

Wow, there are some fucking dodgey dynamics to this forum.

Does this forum intend on ever evolving at all?

Its like the staff and the so called 'old guard' are like 'yup we don't do the metaphysical, God, fringe science or 'complex explantions' here... 'We're quite happy remaining in our outdated, niche little bubble which we've created for ourselves... if you're not a text book regurgitating, run of mill cynic then this forum's not for you, move on or we'll move you on'

At least, that's the impression which I'm left with after viewing forum history anyway.

Check Blob's post count. 6000 posts. Blob was old guard. Blob was a big part of this forum for a very long time. He contributed a lot, but a large part of his content was repetition, and it was making people discontinue posting. You couldn't discuss anything without him jumping in with a 'ho hum' and then being forced to sit there helplessly while he turned your thread into his new spirituality platform. Even on ignore, it was hard to escape his clutches because other people would be responding to him and derailing. He was an interesting and intelligent man who was laying waste to the forum.

As for censorship vs. quality control...

We let you post your beliefs. Just not wherever you like. People should be able to have their discussions without having them turned into conspiracy cases. If you want to talk about illuminati you can, we're not stopping you, just stop turning everything into illuminati. Its theatrical, hyperbolic, and for most people involved, irrelevant.

If this was censorship, we'd stop you saying it in public.

If this were quality control, we'd look for ways to prevent you dampening everyone else's experience while trying to also allow you to have your say. Like say... Consolidate all your conspiracy juice to the one area? If people want to talk to you about your theories, they are free to do so. #burningthebooks #hitlerdidnothingwrong #glorytothestate

It's worth noting that others have been encouraged to do similar things with their pet subjects. You aren't the only one that has been moderated in this way, but you are the loudest, and the only one of recent that's required drastic intervention.

We just want you to stop yelling in the library.

 

[Fukyo]

You people banned Da Blob very much like they put Socrates to death for posing too many questions.

Spoiler

I'm joking, I have no fucking clue who Da blob is.

Nah, that was BAP.

Spoiler

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/44

 

[TBerg]

For I, Jesus, came not to bring peace but a sword!

 

[Sinny91]

Yelling in the library? (That's a laughable analogy). Out of 44 threads which I have created, only 5 are deemed conspiratorial enough to 'house in their own home', and two of those don't belong in there as far as I'm concerned (Para Politics & The Zika Virus).

Content wise, the other 3 include: Conspiracy Corner (the conspiracy thread, Mk Ultra & c theory/c fact, which is an article of more than decent quality.

Two threads are housed in the Paranormal forum, and I have only 4 derails under my name, all of which relatively minor. The forum which houses the majority of my threads is the Fun subforum, where I total seven threads.

So it's when it boils down to statistics that I'm left wondering what major infractions I have caused, and why such relatively small numbers require such intervention by the staff.

So far some of the thoughts here offered relating to the notion of 'censorship', which I volunteered earlier, include:

"Restraint of general behaviour"
"Quality control - preventing certain means of propagating idea's because the means are undesirable"
"Spewing an inordinate amount of repetive content in places where its not welcome or relevant"
"Setting boundaries"

Again, I'm left wondering how I have been 'contained' over so few threads. You may not like the word contained, but it's a functional word.

Selective 'quality control' comes to mind.

As for derailing Da Blob thread, there was detailed tie-in in the making, but the thread got closed, and so you didn't get to see it.

Anime's an astute person, you should know by now that I rarely respond to people who attempt to emotionally blackmail me into or insist upon me answering to them via methods that make me think that my autonomy is being undermined.

I think what Grayman notes as 'core beliefs' plays a large part in the content of every members forums posts, and I am left wondering what the difference is in this form of 'quality control', and censoring my 'core beliefs'.

And no, I'm not out to start a war, this is obviously just how my discontentment has manifested its self.. I poke you lot, I get responses, responses = information. My agenda is always transparent, even if I am not.

 

[Hadoblado]

Agreed. We should talk only about the threads you have created in assessing whether you derail and/or dilute the threads of other people. Spot on.

You've got 3k posts since May 2015. That's a pretty insane level of posting. Nine posts per day. I've been here since early 2011 and you've almost got as many posts as me. Take out the conspiracy stuff, the responses in fights, and the fluff, and how much is left?

I don't mind the word 'contained'. It's the "'"s that bug me.

And no, I'm not out to start a war, this is obviously just how my discontentment has manifested its self.. I poke you lot, I get responses, responses = information. My agenda is always transparent, even if I am not.

How about you be transparent instead of just your agenda? The fact you derailed a thread in order to get our attention, in order to argue that you don't mess up the forum, is not wasted on me. We're adults. Why could you not have made a thread, made your case, and then just had an honest discussion? Then Blob's thread would be on topic and still open, Blar wouldn't have had to close it, Cog wouldn't have to make your thread for you, and I would be deprived of ammunition with which to attack your position. Enough with the theatrics. If your case can't be made without all this bullshit tacked on, then I don't see how it's worth arguing at all. "

Are you being censored?

Do you derail/dilute threads?

Are you making more work for people?

Are you being needlessly theatrical/manipulative?

Are people wasting their time arguing with you about stuff that neither party will ever convince the other of instead of whatever else they might do?

 

[Cognisant]

So it's when it boils down to statistics that I'm left wondering what major infractions I have caused, and why such relatively small numbers require such intervention by the staff.

As far as I can tell you haven't really done anything or had anything done to you, the mods don't move threads around to chastise people it's just housekeeping, like librarians reordering the shelves. Sure having the DaBlob thread closed on us was censorship to a degree, but then that horse is long dead and making a discussion of it was as much your fault as it was mine.

And no, I'm not out to start a war, this is obviously just how my discontentment has manifested its self.. I poke you lot, I get responses, responses = information. My agenda is always transparent, even if I am not.

Rebel without a cause, you want to oppose something but you're no anarchist looking for lulz, it can't just be anything, you need someone worth fighting and something worth fighting for.

Yeah I've seen your type before

 

[Black Rose]

There are avenues that can be taken to reduce confrontations. Only when we learn from our mistakes does our understand grow. An opportunity to take a stance is only a measure of an ability to avoid pitfalls. At times we are impulsive so we must know when to act and when to just stop. Sinny is not TheHabitDoctor. The forum has boundaries and I say it is appropriate to take this into account. Seeing where those boundaries exist is not a problem accept when you try to break them. THD pushed things to far and was aware of it. I do not think that is where Sinny fits in. It is normal learn as you go. There is no need to over correct the situation as has happened in the past. I said Da Blob had metaphysical view and I have many threads on that topic. When you are new and go into a thread you can find people you identify with. It is the same for long time posters. It just resonates you into to agreement with what was said. In this case I said I knew what Da Blobs beliefs were. Even if it seems unfair, a history of going against the moderators begins with a sense of unfairness. I think we can all learn from this. We need to separate the extreme views from unintentional ignorance. A series of misbehavior's is not always intended. The intentional confrontations has soured how we treat everyone as intentionally following the same path. I was told that if Sinny could not get along with others she would be banned. I think that is fair but I also believe that the boundaries are tainted from the bad actors in the past. There is no radical scheme to over through this forum. Boundaries are set and when we admit to ourselves such and such actions are not O.K. then we learn to act appropriately.

Sinny is not the main target of assigning misbehavior to such actions as she has made. Rather it is the similarity between her actions now and the past actions by others. She is not against the forum and admittedly has said she has an open mind to changing her behaviors in light of others intentions to understand what she should do to revise her thoughts. I do not think she is being intentionally antagonistic. Her behaviors do not follow from the profiles of behaviors seen in the past with other bad actors. The similarities are the same only with different results. Revision is necessary but not at the expense of her autonomy. The receiving end is not to undermined the rules, instead it is to find an open discussion without being seen as subversive. We are putting to much effaces on past events and people. There are similar patterns the mods have seen that is leading them to there decisions. Sinny would be able to get along with others if a neutral response is taken. (why an action is wrong and how it affects others). I have a good understanding on my limits and why boundaries are necessary. This is the approach I think is necessary for people unfamiliar with what those boundaries are, presented as a neutral expression. Why something is fair and not fair is the starting point of understanding the actions taken by the mods. We can not see what is fair and unfair without feedback. A negative feedback loop is detrimental to rational discourse. We must strive for a positive feedback loop. It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is the approach that leads to the right or wrong direction (positive and negative).

 

[Kuu]

This thread reminds me of those little foam animals you could get in your cereal that grew crazy huge when you put them in water. Oh wow how does this even.

While Cog dragging the issue out here is pretty shitty, I must say that resurrecting a Blob/BAP related thread to accuse mods of stamping out ideas is like pressing the big red mod PTSD button. Opening pandora's box. Showing 2girls1cup to your grandmother when she's drinking her afternoon tea. If you're seeing this reaction Sinny, it's because you're profoundly uninformed on that history, and it's twice maddening since there are countless threads that discuss the issue, and we mods have spent days upon days of frustration dealing with that, spanning years.

If we were to ban you for your ideas we would have already done so. Why bother containing anything?

Blob was a nuisance, and a big one. He was banned for it.
BAP became a nuisance, and a big one. He was banned for it.

Rule #1 is a very serious rule.

 

[Cherry Cola]

the forum is kinda overly moderated in some ways maybe, but the banning of people who are just nuisances is one of the moderations strongest pros lol

the common demoninator for all the people who have been banned for being nuisances is egocentricity, the inability to get that everything cant revolve around what they think it should, i can think of a certain person who shares that trait

 

[Hadoblado]

You're talking about me aren't you?

XDXD

 

[Black Rose]

I think Cherry is referring to the flat earth theory.
The heliocentric model of the universe is flat out wrong.

 

[hush]

Not that I'm super active on this particular MBTI forum, so I know my words don't hold much worth in this type of discussion, but a lot goes into the decision to ban a member. Typically, repeated offenses by a member are necessary, or one or a couple large, grievous offenses. It's censorship when one is silenced because someone is trying to silence an idea they don't want to be heard. It's not censorship when someone is silenced because you've let them speak... and speak... and speak. In this instance, the member falls into the category of smaller repeated offenses. They derailed discussions again and again, weren't necessarily lending anything to the discussion, and were disturbing the peace of the forum.

They were allowed to speak for a long time - but they kept saying the same repetitive things over and over again to the detriment of the discussions they entered. This also happened long ago. The member in question is long gone and almost seems like he's being used as a martyr. Threads like these are overly dramatic. If you want to be heard, speak in a calm, reasonable manner, and you might find others more prone to listening to you and taking you more seriously (I'm not addressing the OP here, they were rightfully calling someone out, I'm referring to the member who started all this on the other thread).

 

[Jennywocky]

I think Cherry is referring to the flat earth theory.
The heliocentric model of the universe is flat out wrong.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You're talking about me aren't you?

XDXD

lololol

 

[Grayman]

I think a lot of users support ignoring posts that lead to 'shit posting' but for some reason I don't get the impression that they applaud it when you notify everyone or the other person that you are ignoring them. Telling them that you are ignoring them instead of just ignoring them seems provocative in itself.

 

[PaulMaster]

I think a lot of users support ignoring posts that lead to 'shit posting' but for some reason I don't get the impression that they applaud it when you notify everyone or the other person that you are ignoring them. Telling them that you are ignoring them instead of just ignoring them seems provocative in itself.

Its not ignoring to tell someone youre ignoring them. I love the scene in Fight Club where the narrator confronts Marla for the first time and theyre splitting up the meetings....they have it sorted out and he says "Lets not make a big deal about this". And she replies "Hows this for not making a big deal?" and walks out.

 

[Sinny91]

I'm being theatrical?? Ha.

I still don't feel like my underlying questions were addressed to a meaningful extent.
You could answer my questions and lay out the boundaries without padding it out with so much bullshit.
Please, keep your lectures short, and your answers sweet.

My confusion arises over the various points being put forth, such as post count and why it matters.

If it matters, I've only ever been told off for some debates with RB & CC...

So whats wrong with my content?

Mods have never told me that there's a limit on post count, or that I should try to minimise my post count..

Its not like my posts are troll posts or crass satire, my posts are usually fun related, news related or spent welcoming the newcomers/responding to dead threads.

Lemme guess, have I bumped up on your 'concern scale' to 8/10?

I suppose these are all questions I had for Graymans thread, but your closure prevented that.

 

[Hadoblado]

Nah I think I'm out. 8/8.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Mods have never told me that there's a limit on post count, or that I should try to minimise my post count..

There are people with actual autism. Don't be feigning their serious predicament as a cheap excuse. It's disrespectful.

 

[Grayman]

There are people with actual autism. Don't be feigning their serious predicament as a cheap excuse. It's disrespectful.

You couldn't let them ignore this thing out of existence could you?