Moromillas Radec
Active Member
There's a disturbing trend in the AS community that I've noticed; that these "safe spaces" are becoming more widely accepted.
I find this deeply disturbing for a number of different reasons. In one of these spaces where you are supposedly "safe," anything you say can be taken with offence. Those that are offended then find it perfectly acceptable, to then stop the person causing that offence from speaking and expressing themselves. They immediately assign a pathology, and then, with such self righteous indignation, proceed to fabricate such bald and disgusting false accusations about the person making them "unsafe," to which the "offender" is then promptly censored, silenced and deplatformed.
I should know, because it happened to me -- I even made a video about it.
My "crime"? Explaining why a merging of woo and quackery with AS advocacy is harmful. And then refuting the generalisation of "AS people having thyroid."
I believe that such a thing tramples on our rights of free speech and expression. That being unable to apply even the most mild and basic of criticisms to an idea, will allow harmful and detrimental ideas to flourish, unopposed. Ideas such as woo, quackery and snake oil, or even the further stigmatisation of AS people, or perhaps even ideas that are far worse than I can imagine. Ideas that can't survive in the public arena that is the free and open marketplace of ideas, shouldn't be protected.
What do you all think of these "safe spaces"? And what do you think of them becoming more common?
I find this deeply disturbing for a number of different reasons. In one of these spaces where you are supposedly "safe," anything you say can be taken with offence. Those that are offended then find it perfectly acceptable, to then stop the person causing that offence from speaking and expressing themselves. They immediately assign a pathology, and then, with such self righteous indignation, proceed to fabricate such bald and disgusting false accusations about the person making them "unsafe," to which the "offender" is then promptly censored, silenced and deplatformed.
I should know, because it happened to me -- I even made a video about it.
My "crime"? Explaining why a merging of woo and quackery with AS advocacy is harmful. And then refuting the generalisation of "AS people having thyroid."
I believe that such a thing tramples on our rights of free speech and expression. That being unable to apply even the most mild and basic of criticisms to an idea, will allow harmful and detrimental ideas to flourish, unopposed. Ideas such as woo, quackery and snake oil, or even the further stigmatisation of AS people, or perhaps even ideas that are far worse than I can imagine. Ideas that can't survive in the public arena that is the free and open marketplace of ideas, shouldn't be protected.
What do you all think of these "safe spaces"? And what do you think of them becoming more common?