Divine Retribution !

@jamalrob deleted at least one I found. So, you can PM him or he may respond here.

@jamalrob deleted at least one I found. So, you can PM him or he may respond here.

Thank you - request for clarification sent.

I also saw a thread I started (about the disappearance of my ignore-list) deleted. I can sort of understand it, because it was turning into a pointless shouting match. But it lead me to wonder what, if any, sympathy, support or understanding there is here on TPF for autistic contributors, and others who are similarly affected? I'm not asking for anything in particular, except perhaps knowledge of how the forum - in the form of its moderators? :chin: - thinks about those of us who aren't quite neurotypical? Is there an 'official' attitude, policy or view?

I tried hard in my thread - which wasn't about autism, nor was it intended to be - to explain courteously why I was asking what I was asking, and I got sneering condescension, from the 'usual suspects'. :sad:

I'm asking for a bit of moderator guidance here. Do I belong here, or must I move away to some lesser forum, where perhaps tolerance is more easily found? [ I wouldn't move from here by choice; I quite like TPF. ]

It wasn’t deleted: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6681/what-happened-to-my-ignore-list/p1

It was locked but not deleted.

I locked it. No particular reflection on you. It was just deteriorating. And we don't have any special guidelines re autistic posters, but they've never been a particular problem anyway, so...

Playing the autism card.

@jamalrob deleted at least one I found. So, you can PM him or he may respond here.

Can I ask two questions?

Is it possible to send me a copy/paste of the contents of the OP of both lacked posts?
Also, if/in doing so, is there anything you see in them that violates rules and/or does not align with the site in some way?

Apologies but I am having a hard time understanding why they were removed. I don't mind moderation and understand its need, but removing without explanation doesn't seem to benefit anyone.

Not to be unhelpful, but as you've already sent a request for clarification to @jamalrob, and he's the one who deleted the discussion, I'll let him deal with it. (It is theoretically possible to send copies of deleted OPs to the OP writer. Whether that's done is up to the mod who deleted it.)

Thanks I understand, it wouldn't be right for you to get involved at this point. I will wait for a reply and update as needed.

I also saw a thread I started (about the disappearance of my ignore-list) deleted. I can sort of understand it, because it was turning into a pointless shouting match. But it lead me to wonder what, if any, sympathy, support or understanding there is here on TPF for autistic contributors, and others who are similarly affected? I'm not asking for anything in particular, except perhaps knowledge of how the forum - in the form of its moderators? :chin: - thinks about those of us who aren't quite neurotypical? Is there an 'official' attitude, policy or view?

I tried hard in my thread - which wasn't about autism, nor was it intended to be - to explain courteously why I was asking what I was asking, and I got sneering condescension, from the 'usual suspects'. :sad:

I'm asking for a bit of moderator guidance here. Do I belong here, or must I move away to some lesser forum, where perhaps tolerance is more easily found? [ I wouldn't move from here by choice; I quite like TPF. ] — Pattern-chaser

Interesting post. I don't care what your motivations are for telling us about your autism (whether you seek sympathy or whatever) and I'm not suggesting you might actually not be as you say you are. What I find interesting (again, candidly and truly) is that you suggest an inability to temper your behavior to the point where you recognize you may come across as belligerent or socially inappropriate, but you then ask others to exercise their empathy toward you and excuse that conduct as it's beyond your control. If you can recognize what empathy is and can recognize when it's appropriate and should be expressed toward you, why can't you do the same for others? It would seem if you can say essentially "that hurts my feelings, don't act that way," then you could similarly realize when you should do that for others. I understand it might not come as instinctively to you as it might to others not so affected by autism, but you do show an ability to recognize it, so why can't you do as other do, even if takes greater reflection on your part?

Maybe this is a post better suited for another thread, but I really do wonder this because I have known other autistic people who could clearly express their limitations and discomforts in situations and even demand that they be treated in a particularly sensitive way, and I never understood why logically (even assuming limited emotional ability) it could not be understood that others would expect similar sympathies and not be treated callously. .

Are we allowed to have this conversation here or not? Because a bunch of posts, that I cannot identify as otherwise offensive, just got deleted. Yet his defamation is still here.

Yeah, his comments in that post are what set the ball rolling in that direction. He likes to play innocent, but that post clearly wasn't just a "why was my discussion deleted?" or a "what's your policy on autism?" (see guideline 23C, subsection 4a).

Playing the autism card. — S

:brow: You are better than that S.

I'm better than being so naive as to think that no one ever plays cards, or that this couldn't possibly be an instance of that.

If he plays the automism card, then he ought to be challenged. He is after sympathy and special treatment for himself under the guise of autism. For all he knows, there could be other members of this forum on the autistic spectrum who don't wear it as a special badge and bring it up when challenged as an excuse.

Just to point out this is actually true - I experience sound(s) as shape(s), and so naturally reduce music and literature into the basic form(s) which gave rise to them before being elaborated by the composer. It has implications for how I read/understand religious texts, but I do not use this as any basis for any special consideration(s) that would shield from a scrutiny.

I feel anyone who is in a honest pursuit for truth should appreciate their own ideas being scrutinized and be excited to see how their ideas stand the analysis of others.

It's for this reason I wish to understand why my threads were deleted. I'd rather people rip the ideas apart than having content removed with no explanation. It's especially frustrating not knowing why it was removed in the first place.

Censorship is sweeping like a disease - very sad to see it plaguing a philosophy forum wherein one might hope for refuge *from* censorship.

Maybe this is a post better suited for another thread, but I really do wonder this because I have known other autistic people who could clearly express their limitations and discomforts in situations and even demand that they be treated in a particularly sensitive way, and I never understood why logically (even assuming limited emotional ability) it could not be understood that others would expect similar sympathies and not be treated callously. . — Hanover

Maybe it is a topic for another thread but you bring up a interesting observation and one that feels genuine. I wonder if the concept of reciprocal empathy or reciprocal emotion in general exists in the Autistic mind.
I have little experience with anyone with Autism so I am truly curious.

God knows what I've got, if anything. But I've made a conscious decision not to seek any diagnosis, precisely for that kind of reason. I've seen how it can change how people behave, and not all of it is for the better. No thanks, I don't want any crutches. I'll walk on my own two feet.

I'm better than being so naive as to think that no one ever plays cards, or that this couldn't possibly be an instance of that. — S

"Possibly playing" a card and saying that "it is being played" are very different.

"Possibly playing" a card and saying that "it is being played" are very different. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So you at least entertain the possibility, then. Good. I just so happen to think that he does so. I could be wrong, but then so could you. I don't think that I should be silenced from expressing a relevant criticism based on my honest opinion.

I don't think that I should be silenced from expressing a relevant criticism based on my honest opinion. — S

Fair enough

Fair enough. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Especially since he started the attack.

I had moths do that once. Delete threads.

Censorship is sweeping like a disease - very sad to see it plaguing a philosophy forum wherein one might hope for refuge *from* censorship. — A Gnostic Agnostic

God no. This is a refuge from non-censorship, such as in public spaces like YouTube comment sections. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a philosophy forum—the philosophy would be buried in masses of irrelevant and low-quality crap.

God no. This is a refuge from non-censorship, such as in public spaces like YouTube comment sections. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a philosophy forum—the philosophy would be buried in masses of irrelevant and low-quality crap.

My use of the term 'censorship' is meant to apply to content that is relevant but controversial, as could be the case with my topics (still unknown). Youtube comment sections would be a different category entirely I think - perhaps 'crap'.

Moderation is fine if/when used properly, censorship is not because it is a part of the problem, not the solution. Removing topics without notice or explanation is not "philosophical" - it is something else entirely.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure there actually is a valid reason why they were removed that does not fit the category of 'censorship' and so I am anxious to understand the reason(s) given as to why they were removed (if any).

I am launching on Thinkspot when it goes public, and joined these forums to get a feel for receptivity of the views I'm advancing because of the implications they have for "belief"-based worldviews. If the site owner is going to censor them without explanation, it will have to be something that others need to be aware of because intolerance and/or censorship of criticisms of "belief"-based worldviews is why hundreds of millions of people are dead, and the site owner (if having anything to do with real philosophy) should understand they are not contributing to the solution, but rather the problem.

I expect you will get an explanation. It's the general policy to give them when requested.

[reply="A Gnostic Agnostic;331373"

I am launching on Thinkspot when it goes public, and joined these forums to get a feel for receptivity of the views I'm advancing because of the implications they have for "belief"-based worldviews. If the site owner is going to censor them without explanation, it will have to be something that others need to be aware of because intolerance and/or censorship of criticisms of "belief"-based worldviews is why hundreds of millions of people are dead, and the site owner (if having anything to do with real philosophy) should understand they are not contributing to the solution, but rather the problem.

The question for me, is that following a paragraph like this, 'why only two deletions' ?

The question for me, is that following a paragraph like this, 'why only two deletions' ?

Thank you for the comment - I'll use it to make a point.

The quality of the conscience can be measured by the quality of the questions it can address. Your question is a bad one because:

i. we (including you) still don't have a reason as to why they were deleted, and
ii. you are advocating for censorship based on... personal dislike?

This is a part of the problem - not part of the solution. If you don't like something, or someone, encouraging censorship reveals ones own latent intolerance and/or advocacy for fascism. If you don't like something, there are alternatives to censoring it, such as not getting involved - especially in matters that do not actually concern yourself at all.

Would you care to elaborate your rhetoric? I'd like to know what triggers people like you who advocate for censorship so all can read for themselves.

No. I'm advocating deletion because you are a hypocrite. All you do is preach intolerance of mainstream belief systems without which you would have nothing to say. As I said before, this is one of the few forums which puts up with such trolling activity.