Mean People in Forums!

[Questella]

When people insult me it tends to be, retard, freak, stupid, fat ass, porker, nasty, saggy tits, b****, stuff like that... I've yet to be insulted straight for asd, just ugh, why do people suck so much? Ugh I just want to hide in my bed and never leave...

 

[When In Rome]

Autiste, autist, 'sperg, etc. are relatively common insults online. How do you not know this?

Well I'm not aware of that, never heard of it, never seen it. However, I have no interest in gaming forums.

 

[WildCat]

Autiste, autist, 'sperg, etc. are relatively common insults online. How do you not know this?

At least one thing's for sure now - it wasn't the Youtube comments section, Reddit or 4chan.

 

[Mr Allen]

At least one thing's for sure now - it wasn't the Youtube comments section, Reddit or 4chan.

In my experience, the comments section on YouTube is just as bad, if not worse, for offensive comments, because on there it's pretty much anything goes due to the USA's "freedom of speech" laws.

 

[Questella]

I couldn't deal with doing youtube videos, people were just too much and I'm too ugly, boo people. I don't know how anybody can deal with it I'd be wanting to go all Jay and Silent Bob style and track them all down and beat them, lol ♡♡♡Jay & Silent Bob♡♡♡

 

[Judge]

In my experience, the comments section on YouTube is just as bad, if not worse, for offensive comments, because on there it's pretty much anything goes due to the USA's "freedom of speech" laws.

Mean nationalities don't exist. Mean people do. Who more likely don't think about the consequences of their actions, whether legally protected or not.

(Besides if you were to ask the average American where their constitutional free speech begins and ends, most couldn't tell you.)

 

[nowwhat]

Mean nationalities don't exist. Mean people do. Who more likely don't think about the consequences of their actions, whether legally protected or not.

(Besides if you were to ask the average American where their constitutional free speech begins and ends, most couldn't tell you.)

Don't knock our free speech. It's virtually impossible to police speech, without attempting to police thought. That is a slope to be avoided at all costs. With very, very few exceptions, I'm free to express my opinions, no matter how unpopular, to whomever I choose. The responses I receive are my problem, not some bureau's. I would have it no other way.

 

[Judge]

Don't knock our free speech. It's virtually impossible to police speech, without attempting to police thought. That is a slope to be avoided at all costs. With very, very few exceptions, I'm free to express my opinions, no matter how unpopular, to whomever I choose. The responses I receive are my problem, not some bureau's. I would have it no other way.

<FACEPALM> You needed to quote the other person I was addressing. Someone who was collectively criticizing our First Amendment rights.

Those "very few exceptions" are based on a legal threshold where one must establish that such speech precipitates an "imminent lawless action". A determination of our federal court system based on evolving "landmark" precedents over many years that have effectively weakened the "Doctrine of Clear and Present Danger"- which has enhanced free speech. From Schenck v. US to Brandenburg v. Ohio and even including Flynt v. Falwell and National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Supreme Court precedents which most Americans are completely unaware of.

Though it should also be emphasized that our particular constitutional rights don't necessarily transcend the world wide web either in the most profound legal sense either. It depends on various circumstances. After all, you don't see our courts clogged with irate users banned from proprietary forums claiming their First Amendment rights were violated.

And then of course there are non-democracies which have no problem blatantly attempting to control access to and from global information sources online or offline. Regardless of anyone's constitutional rights. That's a political reality as well.

Obviously I'm acutely aware of our constitutional rights. However it doesn't mean collectively as an American that we deliberately use them to maliciously put down others. Which seems to be what the poster was implying in the first place. IMO that is wrong and amounts to misplaced xenophobia.

 

[Alaska]

I didn't know that either until that French candidate started insulting us as part of his political campaign. Lol. I barely found out I have Aspergers and am not even diagnosed. Not sure it a good thing to be diagnosed with being automatically disrespected ecause of it. Lol. Bleaaaccch.

 

[Judge]

Lol. I barely found out I have Aspergers and am not even diagnosed. Not sure it a good thing to be diagnosed with being automatically disrespected because of it. Lol. Bleaaaccch.

Indeed. Given so many societies' stigmatization of neurodiversity, it remains a calculated risk to be formally documented as being on the spectrum. Though if your intent is to seek government entitlements it remains a necessity to do so. Still, it can be quite a trade-off as opposed to remaining neurologically anonymous.

Something for each of us to contemplate in an often hostile world.

 

[Alaska]

Thanks for the comment Judge. No kidding about the, "often hostile world part".

 

[nowwhat]

<FACEPALM> You needed to quote the other person I was addressing. Someone who was collectively criticizing our First Amendment rights.

Those "very few exceptions" are based on a legal threshold where one must establish that such speech precipitates an "imminent lawless action". A determination of our federal court system based on evolving "landmark" precedents over many years that have effectively weakened the "Doctrine of Clear and Present Danger"- which has enhanced free speech. From Schenck v. US to Brandenburg v. Ohio and even including Flynt v. Falwell and National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Supreme Court precedents which most Americans are completely unaware of.

Though it should also be emphasized that our particular constitutional rights don't necessarily transcend the world wide web either in the most profound legal sense either. It depends on various circumstances. After all, you don't see our courts clogged with irate users banned from proprietary forums claiming their First Amendment rights were violated.

And then of course there are non-democracies which have no problem blatantly attempting to control access to and from global information sources online or offline. Regardless of anyone's constitutional rights. That's a political reality as well.

Obviously I'm acutely aware of our constitutional rights. However it doesn't mean collectively as an American that we deliberately use them to maliciously put down others. Which seems to be what the poster was implying in the first place. IMO that is wrong and amounts to misplaced xenophobia.

Sorry quote miss, but yeah the other guy.

 

[Judge]

Sorry quote miss, but yeah the other guy.

Many thanks. Glad we're on the same page.

Sorry for the online dissertation.

 

[Questella]

I got my diagnosis mainly to fight a school loan because I went to school for something, got straight a's and Dean's list, but when I went to get a job all I got was myour personality was not appropriate for the work... being a good student and knowing every piece of factual information on the subject meant nothing, they'd rather have someone that barely passed with the right personality...

When I went to the school I still had no idea and the school didn't care to tell me I wasn't going to be able to work in the field... I even tried to offer to let people start working with me totally free to get me started and I still couldn't get anyone to go for it...

 

[nowwhat]

I got my diagnosis mainly to fight a school loan because I went to school for something, got straight a's and Dean's list, but when I went to get a job all I got was myour personality was not appropriate for the work... being a good student and knowing every piece of factual information on the subject meant nothing, they'd rather have someone that barely passed with the right personality...

When I went to the school I still had no idea and the school didn't care to tell me I wasn't going to be able to work in the field... I even tried to offer to let people start working with me totally free to get me started and I still couldn't get anyone to go for it...

It is disheartening when I realize how much of success is likability and social ritual, rather than ability. Basically 90% of it. I deal with people at work who are likeable, sociable, and incompetent, yet they advance and their many mistakes and screwups are overlooked or glossed over. I, however, am called on the carpet for every questionable thing I do. So it is...