a Facebook group barring Asperger diagnosis

Question-markFairness of Facebook groups? All know that this is never likely to be well enforced while Facebook’s system for responding to problems allows it to make one response then to unilaterally close the case as dealt with, without any further words. The set-up that you can’t email Facebook and can only submit problems through a page, is designed to enable it to do this. Then no matter how many times you reopen a case and insert as reason some unanswered aspect of it, they will just keep switching its status back to closed without a word.

That the admins on Wrong Planet also can do that, has featured on AGFW before. It is a built-in unaccountability, and vulnerability for a social site’s participants. It has a parallel in the police not even having to reply to crime reports. The corruption or uncorruption of any structure of rules or laws is measured in their subjects’ access to them being meaningfully automatic and not a discretionary favour. Discretion is a corruption.

Someone who has just suffered an intolerant banning from an autistic Facebook group does not feel able to submit the named case without evidence to show, and after blocking by the group concerned, is not in possession of that evidence. A neat circularity. But it needs telling what was done. It shows that funny attitudes over language choices are spoiling our scene.

It was a group whose title refers to diagnosis of autism. This person’s diagnosis is Asperger’s, coming from the period of that diagnosis’s use. If he had redefined it as autism that would have been okay. The group was for folks defined as autistic. It wanted folks to self-define anywhere under the overall term autism. It was against the term Asperger’s: diagnosis or identifier, they held the view against its continued use, which view is a camp of opinion in our scene.So it held that the group does not cover folks defining their condition as Asperger’s. It only covers folks defining it as autism. Never mind that they could be exactly the same folks! you must perceive yourself under the united term autistic.

This person insisted that as Asperger’s was his diagnosis he was entitled to stand by it as his self-description, that it represented him more accurately than would just saying autism. For this he got excluded from the group, on grounds of not being defined as autistic, and that is who the group is for.

But that is just a semantic and a coercion for folks to use the word and language choices you favour in their defining of themselves. That is intolerant militancy. A scene like that will be too controlling. This person reported this concern to another Facebook group, alerting that they must not all go this way.

Fairness of Facebook groups? All know that this is never likely to be well enforced while Facebook’s system for responding to problems allows it to make one response then to unilaterally close the case as dealt with, without any further words. The set-up that you can’t email Facebook and can only submit problems through a page, is designed to enable it to do this. Then no matter how many times you reopen a case and insert as reason some unanswered aspect of it, they will just keep switching its status back to closed without a word.

That the admins on Wrong Planet also can do that, has featured on AGFW before. It is a built-in unaccountability, and vulnerability for a social site’s participants. It has a parallel in the police not even having to reply to crime reports. The corruption or uncorruption of any structure of rules or laws is measured in their subjects’ access to them being meaningfully automatic and not a discretionary favour. Discretion is a corruption.

Someone who has just suffered an intolerant banning from an autistic Facebook group does not feel able to submit the named case without evidence to show, and after blocking by the group concerned, is not in possession of that evidence. A neat circularity. But it needs telling what was done. It shows that funny attitudes over language choices are spoiling our scene.

It was a group whose title refers to diagnosis of autism. This person’s diagnosis is Asperger’s, coming from the period of that diagnosis’s use. If he had redefined it as autism that would have been okay. The group was for folks defined as autistic. It wanted folks to self-define anywhere under the overall term autism. It was against the term Asperger’s: diagnosis or identifier, they held the view against its continued use, which view is a camp of opinion in our scene.So it held that the group does not cover folks defining their condition as Asperger’s. It only covers folks defining it as autism. Never mind that they could be exactly the same folks! you must perceive yourself under the united term autistic.

This person insisted that as Asperger’s was his diagnosis he was entitled to stand by it as his self-description, that it represented him more accurately than would just saying autism. For this he got excluded from the group, on grounds of not being defined as autistic, and that is who the group is for.
But that is just a semantic and a coercion for folks to use the word and language choices you favour in their defining of themselves. That is intolerant militancy. A scene like that will be too controlling. This person reported this concern to another Facebook group, alerting that they must not all go this way.

witch-trials
This is more of the absurd militant movement within our scene that wants to define the whole autistic spectrum as one undifferentiated same condition and suppress all recognising that any differences of functioning levels exist. They get personal against all other views and wants a controlled easily purged scene. This site has recorded that pattern a lot already.

17 Sep 2019