Is ableism fine in Epiphanies?

We’ve had a lot of discussion and awareness on trans people being recognised on the Ship, and how trans people feel reading threads. This led to the creation of Epiphanies.

On the abortion thread, my feeling is that @Colin Smith is repeatedly using ableist language to refer to those with Down’s Syndrome. For example, repeated use of the phrase “Downs sufferers” - ask someone with Down’s if they feel their very existence is suffering. Would we accept talking about “trans sufferers” or those “suffering with homosexuality”? And referring to those with Down’s as not fully healthy. What does that even mean, other than suggesting that those with Down’s are less than human?

Given that this is specifically in Epiphanies, which is supposed to afford extra protection to minorities, I’m not impressed. I’m fine with discussion, debate, and disagreement, heated even. But ableist language should no more be tolerated than racist, sexist or homophobic.
«13

Comments

  • I agree with @goperryrevs .
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    I agree also. However, many hosts cannot live constantly on the ship. Give us time to read the ship or PM us if it's urgent.
  • Fair enough @Gwai, I didn’t mean to suggest I wasn’t impressed with the lack of hosting, but with the specific posts in question. I don’t expect hosting to be immediate. In my mind it was Hell or here, and I thought clarifying here initially was the less nuclear option.
  • Apologies. I had never even heard of ableist language before.
  • I guess imagine you have a disability, and think about how you’d like to be spoken to or about, and treated. Same as any -isms.
  • I guess imagine you have a disability, and think about how you’d like to be spoken to or about, and treated. Same as any -isms.

    I'm afraid my imagination hits a wall when it comes to imagining myself with a cognitive impairment such as Downs. I can imagine myself suffering an injury that puts me in a wheelchair because it would still be me, albeit in a wheelchair. But since I am in a very real sense how I think then any impairment to my thinking would mean I am no longer me.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I have an impairment to my thinking (ADHD)

    I am still very much me. In fact, without my ADHD I wouldn’t be me.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to have been born without it.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Apologies. I had never even heard of ableist language before.

    If you do not understand a hosting command, ask. In Epiphanies, please avoid using language that implies that having any disability makes a person less, whether or not you personally want it.
  • Down’s syndrome doesn’t not always result in a cognitive impairment, not having a genetic disorder does not necessarily result in what would be considered a normal IQ.

    Impairment in reasoning, remembering, verbal and visual problem solving and organisational ability are not the only ways in which ones mind can be limited and/or different from most people’s .

    It is possible for example, to have poor impulse control, or an inability to imagine someone else’s perspective - sometimes referred to as an impairment of theory of mind.

    There are myriad other possibilities in which one’s mind may vary from that of most people’s to a noticeable degree.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I have an impairment to my thinking (ADHD)

    I am still very much me. In fact, without my ADHD I wouldn’t be me.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to have been born without it.

    Anecdata, I know, but on a project with adults with autism (Aspergers through to severe plus learning difficulties), one of the questions was if you could click your fingers and wake up tomorrow without your various conditions, would you make that choice? The vast majority said no, because they wouldn’t be themselves any more.
  • But since I am in a very real sense how I think then any impairment to my thinking would mean I am no longer me.

    This very discussion comes up whenever we talk about people with some kind of progressive dementia..

    In terms of language, "people with X condition" is usually acceptable. With specific reference to Down syndrome, or other eponymous conditions, the possessive is generally disfavoured (use Down syndrome, not Down's syndrome).

    There's a whole language war about whether one should use "person-first language" or not (autistic people vs people with autism). (I mention autism, because although person-first language is in general quite popular, it's generally unpopular among autistic people.)
  • Gwai wrote: »
    Apologies. I had never even heard of ableist language before.

    If you do not understand a hosting command, ask. In Epiphanies, please avoid using language that implies that having any disability makes a person less, whether or not you personally want it.

    It's not that I didn't understand your command on the 4th of the month. I simply didn't see it. I wasn't aware of a problem until goperryrevs mentioned me in Is ableism fine in Epiphanies?
  • I guess imagine you have a disability, and think about how you’d like to be spoken to or about, and treated. Same as any -isms.

    I'm afraid my imagination hits a wall when it comes to imagining myself with a cognitive impairment such as Downs. I can imagine myself suffering an injury that puts me in a wheelchair because it would still be me, albeit in a wheelchair. But since I am in a very real sense how I think then any impairment to my thinking would mean I am no longer me.
    Well, then, imagine it was your brother or sister.
  • Given his past posts, that line of reasoning will not matter to Colin Smith

  • In terms of language, "people with X condition" is usually acceptable. With specific reference to Down syndrome, or other eponymous conditions, the possessive is generally disfavoured (use Down syndrome, not Down's syndrome).

    I believe that depends on what side of the pond you're on. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/downs-syndrome/
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I have an impairment to my thinking (ADHD)

    I am still very much me. In fact, without my ADHD I wouldn’t be me.

    I certainly wouldn’t want to have been born without it.

    Anecdata, I know, but on a project with adults with autism (Aspergers through to severe plus learning difficulties), one of the questions was if you could click your fingers and wake up tomorrow without your various conditions, would you make that choice? The vast majority said no, because they wouldn’t be themselves any more.
    Likewise with my bipolar disorder.
  • I guess imagine you have a disability, and think about how you’d like to be spoken to or about, and treated. Same as any -isms.

    I'm afraid my imagination hits a wall when it comes to imagining myself with a cognitive impairment such as Downs. I can imagine myself suffering an injury that puts me in a wheelchair because it would still be me, albeit in a wheelchair. But since I am in a very real sense how I think then any impairment to my thinking would mean I am no longer me.
    Well, then, imagine it was your brother or sister.

    My brother is perfectly able and yet I've barely had reason to speak to him for seven years. However, my late mother is a more apt example as she developed Alzheimer's around eight years ago and once her illness had got to the point where her personality had completely changed and she ceased to recognise those around her I chose to break contact. She died in February and frankly her death did not come too soon. It was particularly horrible as she had long wished to be a happy widow once my miserable father, eleven years her senior, had expired and had in the past asked her children not to allow her to fall into the same state that afflicted her mother.
  • Okay, Styx is not the place to carry on an Epiphanies-by-proxy debate: it's to discuss the OP, and the hostly ruling here.

    @Colin Smith - if you were following the thread, you would have seen @Gwai 's host post. That you didn't is ... unfortunate, but the first port of call on being alerted to it is to heed its contents.

    You obviously have different views to the majority, if not all of the other posters on that thread - and you have the right to argue your case on Epiphanies. However, your use of certain language in connection with, say, Downs, will cause distress.

    On the entirely fair assumption that it's not your purpose to distract from the main thrust of your argument, all that's being asked of you is to use language that the people who have those conditions would use to describe themselves. Where that varies, just try and be respectful to the differences (I'm aware that some groups adopt taboo terms for use amongst themselves, but those outside ought not).

    That's it. I think. And thank you for your contributions so far.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Okay, Styx is not the place to carry on an Epiphanies-by-proxy debate: it's to discuss the OP, and the hostly ruling here.

    @Colin Smith - if you were following the thread, you would have seen @Gwai 's host post. That you didn't is ... unfortunate, but the first port of call on being alerted to it is to heed its contents.

    You obviously have different views to the majority, if not all of the other posters on that thread - and you have the right to argue your case on Epiphanies. However, your use of certain language in connection with, say, Downs, will cause distress.

    On the entirely fair assumption that it's not your purpose to distract from the main thrust of your argument, all that's being asked of you is to use language that the people who have those conditions would use to describe themselves. Where that varies, just try and be respectful to the differences (I'm aware that some groups adopt taboo terms for use amongst themselves, but those outside ought not).

    That's it. I think. And thank you for your contributions so far.

    Fair enough. Having now seen it I will try to adhere and will avoid reference to anyone suffering from, etcetera. Looking at where Gwai's post occurred I think I simply didn't see it as I was replying to another comment at the time. That said, re-reading Gwai's comment I don't think I have ever in any context said that "other people should die".
  • We have agreement on the substantive point, and that's fine.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    This is my personal opinion only and not those of the management, for which see Doc Tor's post, but I just want to go on record as standing by Gwai's host post. Neither of us thought that language was OK.
  • Can we have some clarification as to whether ableism (to whit: declaring it should be acceptable to murder some disabled people) is acceptable in Epiphanies, or indeed anywhere on the boards?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    And how about pro-eugenics arguments. Are they permitted in Epiphanies?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    I have been engaging in the debate because I am not comfortable seeing such arguments go unchallenged.

    That said, before my interlocutor started advocating the right to choose infanticide - I didn’t think that (unfortunately) his views were that far away from the mainstream. I am not sure where the boundary should be for positions that can be advocated on the ship, or whether he really believes this or he has just fallen down a logic trap.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Speaking purely for myself, not the management, I have raised much these same points to the Admins myself. I'm not at all happy about Colin Smith's posting and feel that on a board that contains people with disabilities and people whose friends and families contain people with disabilities that his posting goes too far. These are my personal opinions and not those of the management.
  • Thanks, @Louise
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Is the f'in' management going to allow a pro-genocide argument next? Can one of the powers that be kindly explain to me the difference between a pro-eugenics and a pro- genocide argument? Or is the latter allowed on the Ship? Why the f was Epiphanies create if it going to allow arguments that run contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Count me peed off and very, very disappointed with management's judgement or lack thereof on this issue. If you look at my profile picture I am holding a baby with Down Syndrome dressed as a caterpillar for Halloween. This child has grown into a very able teenager whose humanity and value should not be up for debate on any forum on the Ship!!!!!
  • Louise wrote: »
    Speaking purely for myself, not the management, I have raised much these same points to the Admins myself. I'm not at all happy about Colin Smith's posting and feel that on a board that contains people with disabilities and people whose friends and families contain people with disabilities that his posting goes too far. These are my personal opinions and not those of the management.

    As someone who fits your second category and who has interacted with him on this issue I agree and ISTM that there is something odd about how he presents his opinions. The lack of empathy perhaps as Epiphanies was I thought supposed to be a place where posters were aware that the issues under discussion could be extremely painful for some fellow Shipmates.
  • MrsBeaky wrote: »
    Louise wrote: »
    Speaking purely for myself, not the management, I have raised much these same points to the Admins myself. I'm not at all happy about Colin Smith's posting and feel that on a board that contains people with disabilities and people whose friends and families contain people with disabilities that his posting goes too far. These are my personal opinions and not those of the management.

    As someone who fits your second category and who has interacted with him on this issue I agree and ISTM that there is something odd about how he presents his opinions. The lack of empathy perhaps as Epiphanies was I thought supposed to be a place where posters were aware that the issues under discussion could be extremely painful for some fellow Shipmates.

    I don't wish to upset anyone who has had personal experience of abortion, whether directly or indirectly, or upset anyone who has personal dealings with anyone who has a disability.

    That said, abortion is a very divisive issue so perhaps it is not a suitable topic on a forum where posters must take into account the feelings of those who have had direct experience and would be better on a forum where things can be discussed without emotional entanglements.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    MrsBeaky wrote: »
    Louise wrote: »
    Speaking purely for myself, not the management, I have raised much these same points to the Admins myself. I'm not at all happy about Colin Smith's posting and feel that on a board that contains people with disabilities and people whose friends and families contain people with disabilities that his posting goes too far. These are my personal opinions and not those of the management.

    As someone who fits your second category and who has interacted with him on this issue I agree and ISTM that there is something odd about how he presents his opinions. The lack of empathy perhaps as Epiphanies was I thought supposed to be a place where posters were aware that the issues under discussion could be extremely painful for some fellow Shipmates.

    I don't wish to upset anyone who has had personal experience of abortion, whether directly or indirectly, or upset anyone who has personal dealings with anyone who has a disability.

    That said, abortion is a very divisive issue so perhaps it is not a suitable topic on a forum where posters must take into account the feelings of those who have had direct experience and would be better on a forum where things can be discussed without emotional entanglements.
    I don’t think that’s what’s bothering people. What’s bothering people—me included—is your suggestion that euthanasia is a reasonable choice with regard to people with certain conditions, such as Downs Syndrome, because in your view those conditions render those who have them “not human.”

    That means that you are declaring loved ones of many shipmates to be (in your view) less then human, and therefore disposable. And you’ve added that those less than human people aren’t entitled to a say in the matter. I’ve struggled, and I can only describe the view you put forward as distressingly abhorrent and immoral. That you suggest it can be discussed without emotion is, frankly, very disturbing.

  • Just posted in Epiphanies
    Louise wrote: »
    hosting updated - please read
    Hi there,
    I've now got an update on this.

    Firstly - this is a thread on abortion. All discussion of Euthanasia is now ruled off this thread as not on-topic.

    Secondly in general on this board we can and do discuss end of life issues and can discuss things like for example people wanting to have laws in place to allow more dignified and pain-free ending of lives but not at the expense of others on this board. These subjects need to be discussed with empathy. This is not a board for treating people's lives and humanity as 'coolly detached' talking points. It needs to be remembered that we are talking about deeply painful issues for other people however we might feel about it.

    Thirdly - Colin Smith
    Hi Colin, despite the sad personal circumstances of the loss of your mother, which I'm truly sorry for, the discussion of these issues in your posts has so far not shown due care and attention for the humanity and lives of family and friends of other posters or their painful experiences, and this manner of discussing these topics is not suitable for Epiphanies.

    Please discuss with Admin in the Styx where or if they are willing to have it elsewhere on the boards and under what terms.

    Many thanks!
    Louise
    Epiphanies Host

    hosting off

    Any queries regarding this ruling, please have them here, and not in Epiphanies.

    DT
    SoF admin
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Just posted in Epiphanies
    Louise wrote: »
    hosting updated - please read
    Hi there,
    I've now got an update on this.

    Firstly - this is a thread on abortion. All discussion of Euthanasia is now ruled off this thread as not on-topic.

    Secondly in general on this board we can and do discuss end of life issues and can discuss things like for example people wanting to have laws in place to allow more dignified and pain-free ending of lives but not at the expense of others on this board. These subjects need to be discussed with empathy. This is not a board for treating people's lives and humanity as 'coolly detached' talking points. It needs to be remembered that we are talking about deeply painful issues for other people however we might feel about it.

    Thirdly - Colin Smith
    Hi Colin, despite the sad personal circumstances of the loss of your mother, which I'm truly sorry for, the discussion of these issues in your posts has so far not shown due care and attention for the humanity and lives of family and friends of other posters or their painful experiences, and this manner of discussing these topics is not suitable for Epiphanies.

    Please discuss with Admin in the Styx where or if they are willing to have it elsewhere on the boards and under what terms.

    Many thanks!
    Louise
    Epiphanies Host

    hosting off

    Any queries regarding this ruling, please have them here, and not in Epiphanies.

    DT
    SoF admin

    As I said on the abortion thread, given that I should be focusing my time on things that are useful to me rather than amusing myself with subjects that have no relevance to my life this ruling is a good thing.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Our pro-eugenics and pro-euthanasia arguments permitted anywhere on the Ship? That is still unclear.
  • It is unclear, you're right.

    For now, we'd appreciate that they didn't happen (and thank you, @Colin Smith for your understanding of this particular situation) until we've had discussions both here and backstage. We don't have a specific policy on every contentious issue that might come up, so this might take some time - how other shipmates might feel in discussing these matters in the general, in the specific, and whether there are legal lines we absolutely must not cross (UK law - both England and Wales, and Scottish).

    It might be that after some discussion backstage, we close this thread in order to give ourselves space to think, after which we can then re-open for Styx discussion. These are weighty matters and they deserve a considered response.
  • ...
    That said, abortion is a very divisive issue so perhaps it is not a suitable topic on a forum where posters must take into account the feelings of those who have had direct experience and would be better on a forum where things can be discussed without emotional entanglements.

    Abortion is divisive precisely because people have strong feelings on the topic. It's not going to be much of a discussion if it excludes anyone who has had an abortion or might need one in the future or cares about anyone in those categories. Any discussion that excludes "emotional entanglements" is so divorced from human reality as to be useless.

    As they say, "Nothing about us without us."
  • ...
    That said, abortion is a very divisive issue so perhaps it is not a suitable topic on a forum where posters must take into account the feelings of those who have had direct experience and would be better on a forum where things can be discussed without emotional entanglements.

    Abortion is divisive precisely because people have strong feelings on the topic. It's not going to be much of a discussion if it excludes anyone who has had an abortion or might need one in the future or cares about anyone in those categories. Any discussion that excludes "emotional entanglements" is so divorced from human reality as to be useless.

    As they say, "Nothing about us without us."

    I wouldn't want to exclude anyone from the discussion. At the same time I would prefer to discuss a subject objectively and without worrying about other people's feelings all the time.
  • I wouldn't want to exclude anyone from the discussion. At the same time I would prefer to discuss a subject objectively and without worrying about other people's feelings all the time.

    Then you don't want to discuss it in Epiphanies, which explicitly is about discussing topics that cannot be discussed objectively, and whose board remit requires worrying about other people's feelings all the time.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I wouldn't want to exclude anyone from the discussion. At the same time I would prefer to discuss a subject objectively and without worrying about other people's feelings all the time.

    Then you don't want to discuss it in Epiphanies, which explicitly is about discussing topics that cannot be discussed objectively, and whose board remit requires worrying about other people's feelings all the time.

    I hadn't realised that. Having been absent for a while I just saw the subject and went at it. I haven't processed the niceties of each forum beyond swearing and personal attacks okay in Hell and niceness required in Heaven and given how baldly the subject was stated I assumed it was for general discussion as a social/individual rights issue.

    Oddly enough, as I see it there is a conflict between exercising freedom of choice and worrying about other people's feelings but hey-ho.
  • ... At the same time I would prefer to discuss a subject objectively and without worrying about other people's feelings all the time.

    You may find what you're looking for on the planet Vulcan.

    Seriously, humans are emotional critters first and foremost and it's unlikely they will turn that off just to suit you. A basic principle in customer service is that you have to acknowledge the customer's emotions before you can even start trying to figure out what the problem is.

    Being able to figure out how other people feel is actually one of our most valuable survival traits. And being able to change how they feel? That's where political power comes from.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    ...Oddly enough, as I see it there is a conflict between exercising freedom of choice and worrying about other people's feelings but hey-ho.
    Oddly enough (as it may seem to you, "Colin Smith"), it is always necessary to worry about other people's feelings, world without end, amen. The Ship may be the wrong vessel for you if you want to go all sociopathic about these matters.


  • ... At the same time I would prefer to discuss a subject objectively and without worrying about other people's feelings all the time.

    You may find what you're looking for on the planet Vulcan.

    Seriously, humans are emotional critters first and foremost and it's unlikely they will turn that off just to suit you. A basic principle in customer service is that you have to acknowledge the customer's emotions before you can even start trying to figure out what the problem is.

    Being able to figure out how other people feel is actually one of our most valuable survival traits. And being able to change how they feel? That's where political power comes from.

    But this isn't customer service and I've never seen the point of trying to change someone's mind through discussion. Especially on social media. The best you can hope to do is establish your own position.

    Sure, if someone's objection to abortion or wish to see it controlled is based on their own experiences and regrets concerning an abortion, either directly or indirectly, then that needs to be handled delicately and I would have done so had I been made aware that was the case. I also admit that my emotions get raised when I see that abortion is still illegal or very difficult to obtain in some places because I place a very high value on individual choice. Am I able to understand or sympathise with someone who has an emotional reaction to abortions happening at all? Frankly, no. I find it bewildering.

    What I suspect underlies my views is a loathing of being dependent on anyone or of being in a position where I am obliged to care for someone. I don't even like being waited on in cafes and restaurants and I wouldn't last a day as a carer.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...Oddly enough, as I see it there is a conflict between exercising freedom of choice and worrying about other people's feelings but hey-ho.
    Oddly enough (as it may seem to you, "Colin Smith"), it is always necessary to worry about other people's feelings, world without end, amen. The Ship may be the wrong vessel for you if you want to go all sociopathic about these matters.


    I have many vessels.
    I believe many people invest far too much time and energy worrying about other people's feelings when they could be getting on with what they find enjoyable and rewarding. I'm not keen on self-sacrifice. I accept that is at odds with Christian teaching.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...Oddly enough, as I see it there is a conflict between exercising freedom of choice and worrying about other people's feelings but hey-ho.
    Oddly enough (as it may seem to you, "Colin Smith"), it is always necessary to worry about other people's feelings, world without end, amen. The Ship may be the wrong vessel for you if you want to go all sociopathic about these matters.


    I have many vessels.
    I believe many people invest far too much time and energy worrying about other people's feelings when they could be getting on with what they find enjoyable and rewarding.
    I find caring about other people’s feelings enjoyable and rewarding. I find disregarding other people’s feelings an impediment to my own enjoyment of, well, pretty much anything.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...Oddly enough, as I see it there is a conflict between exercising freedom of choice and worrying about other people's feelings but hey-ho.
    Oddly enough (as it may seem to you, "Colin Smith"), it is always necessary to worry about other people's feelings, world without end, amen. The Ship may be the wrong vessel for you if you want to go all sociopathic about these matters.


    I have many vessels.
    I believe many people invest far too much time and energy worrying about other people's feelings when they could be getting on with what they find enjoyable and rewarding.
    I find caring about other people’s feelings enjoyable and rewarding. I find disregarding other people’s feelings an impediment to my own enjoyment of, well, pretty much anything.

    In the real world, in real life. yes. Not so much on internet discussion forums. At the same time sometimes you just have to walk away from situations that you find draining regardless of how others might perceive your actions.

    Though I think it's fair to say that I am better than most at putting myself first, regardless of whether one considers that a good or a bad thing.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    As I said on the abortion thread, given that I should be focusing my time on things that are useful to me rather than amusing myself with subjects that have no relevance to my life this ruling is a good thing.

    I find the use of "amusing" in the context of the posts you're referring to very disturbing; that is said well appreciating the many uses of that word.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I find caring about other people’s feelings enjoyable and rewarding. I find disregarding other people’s feelings an impediment to my own enjoyment of, well, pretty much anything.

    Totally agree.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Folks, if you're going to discuss what you see as someone's personal shortcomings, please do it in Hell. It is useful to the crew to know where you each would draw the line on what is and is not acceptable to say in Epiphanies. But things are getting Hellishly personal here, especially when a word like "sociopathic" is used.

    Ruth, Styx host
  • I only have one life, and it's thoroughly real, and taking part on internet discussion boards is part of that life. There is no unreal life, except maybe in movies and books. But everyone who posts on here is real, and alive, and their participation here is part of that real life.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    It is unclear, you're right.

    For now, we'd appreciate that they didn't happen (and thank you, @Colin Smith for your understanding of this particular situation) until we've had discussions both here and backstage. We don't have a specific policy on every contentious issue that might come up, so this might take some time - how other shipmates might feel in discussing these matters in the general, in the specific, and whether there are legal lines we absolutely must not cross (UK law - both England and Wales, and Scottish).

    It might be that after some discussion backstage, we close this thread in order to give ourselves space to think, after which we can then re-open for Styx discussion. These are weighty matters and they deserve a considered response.

    Ok. While you’re discussing it, please can you consider how you’d respond to someone promoting ideas like this, or this, or this, or this, or this.

    Because, it seems to me that this, which, let’s not forget is what @Colin Smith is promoting, falls into a similar category as those other evils, and if it was any of those others, my guess is that you’d not be thanking him for his understanding while you discussed them.
  • Because, it seems to me that this, which, let’s not forget is what @Colin Smith is promoting, falls into a similar category as those other evils, and if it was any of those others, my guess is that you’d not be thanking him for his understanding while you discussed them.

    I was thanking @Colin Smith for realising (belatedly, but still realising) that Epiphanies has a particular remit, and that his dispassionate discussion was at odds with that. I had no wish to have a stand-up fight with someone who actually agreed with me over the substantive point, so I was simply expressing my gratitude that we'd avoided that.

    Any further extrapolations you might like to make as to my sympathy for any of the views you might impute to me are so far wide of the mark as to be heading out of the solar system at escape velocity.
  • As this is a thread about whether abelism is allowed, and as autism and Aspergers have been mentioned, it strikes me that criticising someone for being overly dispassionate or Mr Spock-like could well be abelism against autistm or Aspergers. I have absolutely no idea whether that is in play here. However, criticising someone for being overly logical, worrying away at the facts without regard to the emotions etc. could be interpreted adversely by an autistic person/person with autism and they have their dignity too.
Sign In or Register to comment.