[Discussion] Why is autistic screeching considered trolling?

[Kramanica]

Old Tyrannia posted his rationale for it being proscribed in another thread. I cannot quote him directly as it is now locked.

Not absolutely everything that could feasibly be considered trolling is listed in the One Stop Rules Shop; players are expected to show a degree of judgement as to what is and isn't acceptable on the site. The "Autistic Screeching" meme has long been regarded as offensive here, and whilst it's true that we try to judge a player's intent when warning for trolling, that doesn't mean that you can get away with posting things deemed offensive simply by arguing that you didn't intend to offend anyone, or were ignorant of how your post could be construed as offensive. Obviously we can't know a person's intent with any degree of certainty, and neither can we judge with any degree of certainty whether or not poster is aware of the meaning or context of what they're posting. It's up to you to judge whether what you are posting may not be permitted by the site rules. In this situation, you've clearly misjudged. 

I'm sorry, but given there's a clear precedent for warning people for the "Autistic Screeching" meme I'm going to uphold Ransium's warning in this case. Appeal denied.

My question is obviously why is it regarded as trolling? It isn't mentioned in the rules at all. Apparently it is regarded as offensive? To whom exactly? Literally fecking no one. Furthermore, something being "offensive" is a very loose standard to apply when prohibiting something. Anything can reasonably be considered offensive. The terms "gun grabber" and "gun stroker" can easily be considered offensive, yet aren't prohibited (those were the first examples that came to mind).

I only raise this question because moderation seems to have only recently begun punishing players for it, despite the fact that OT says it has long been considered offensive and the meme has existed for an eternity. And given that it isn't listed anywhere in the rules, it seems decidedly unfair to warn and ban people for it considering that they wouldn't have any sort of way to know the moderation team regards it as trolling, and never takes context into consideration when ruling on it at all.

[Reploid Productions]

It's an extension of the rather appalling flaming trend to call people "autistic" as an insult. (And gameside I know I've had to smack quite a few people for that flavor of flaming as of late.) It should go without saying that particular turn of phrase is both trolling to people who are autistic as well as flaming whoever is being targeted by it.

Pretty much the only time the autistic screeching meme is used, it's being used in a manner to flamebait or troll, similar to how the triple-parenthesis "echo" is pretty much only used for anti-Semitic trolling, or how "nigger" is used almost exclusively to troll/flame. It's another way to hurl "lawl, stop being so autistic!" and/or "people with autism are prone to screeching meltdowns" or similar sentiments via a particularly obnoxious meme. Just like the slurs, it's theoretically possible to discuss "REEEEEEEE!" in a manner that isn't flaming/trolling, however like the slurs it is extremely difficult to actually do so and as such it is advised that it be avoided.

[Herskerstad]

That is rather an idea tyrannical justification for a warning. The Pepe scream long predates the autistic screeching connotations that followed it even if it was popularised and i have significant doubts the person who utilized it in this case would use it interchangeably with autistic screeching, that's to say, they'd probably never type (Autistic screeching) as an NS reply, so adding on top of that it disregards context as well as intent which strikes me as, if you will forgive me. Lazy.

Irregardless if one considers it flaming or so, it is being used entirely colloquially as a fake bit of outrage by people who attribute no such intent as you've ascribed to presumably the universal use of it. If such things are to be made into carpet-warning material I would strongly suggest putting up a thread of warn-able/banable practices that otherwise might escape the general public.

[Frisbeeteria]

I would strongly suggest putting up a thread of warn-able/banable practices that otherwise might escape the general public.

That will never happen. The primary outcome of such a thread would be a constant stream of complaints of "well, it's not on the list, so it's by-definition legal."

Like virtually all other moderator rulings on flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling; it's a judgment call. Whether you call it "pepe scream" or "autistic screeching", my visualization of REEEEE is someone attempting to drown out someone else's comments whilst providing absolutely no content of their own. Sounds like trolling to me.

[Herskerstad]

That will never happen. The primary outcome of such a thread would be a constant stream of complaints of "well, it's not on the list, so it's by-definition legal."

I prefer standardisation to attributing malice where none exists. It's better for ten offenders to walk free than one to be wrongly judged and all that. Nevertheless it would be fairly easy to shoot down most of such excuses from the expressed intent that can be found with it's use. In this case there is good reason as to why people from all sides find the ruling objectionable, yet it's use, wrongly attributing motive in the case where a warning was passed down, is being tailored as an absolutist connotative use of it which neither approaches the reality of the situation nor helps anyone else as it's not the first time it's been used. The search gave seven pages worth from the keyword alone.

Like virtually all other moderator rulings on flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling; it's a judgment call. Whether you call it "pepe scream" or "autistic screeching", my visualization of REEEEE is someone attempting to drown out someone else's comments whilst providing absolutely no content of their own. Sounds like trolling to me.

That may be all well and true, but given that you are not omniscient your visualisation might fail to cater to utilisations of it that might actually be licit. The most frequent use I find is people whom, in responding to banter directed against them often in the form of intentionally bad arguments, will pretend defeat and anger from it. Other common uses are faking offence to humor, raging against 'normies.' Attributing all uses of REEE to autistic screeching would be equivalent to attributing each use of 'fuck' to in every case mean aggressively forwarding sexual intentions. I think it neither right nor diligent.

[Luminesa]

I would strongly suggest putting up a thread of warn-able/banable practices that otherwise might escape the general public.

That will never happen. The primary outcome of such a thread would be a constant stream of complaints of "well, it's not on the list, so it's by-definition legal."

Like virtually all other moderator rulings on flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling; it's a judgment call. Whether you call it "pepe scream" or "autistic screeching", my visualization of REEEEE is someone attempting to drown out someone else's comments whilst providing absolutely no content of their own. Sounds like trolling to me.

So what you’re saying is the One-Stop Rules Shop is utterly useless. Because by your argument, going to the rules and explaining why something was done is pointless, since apparently now actual rules regarding flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling are thrown out of the window in exchange for “judgement calls”. You can read the context of the conversation, or you can put it on the rules list and say, “This is not allowed.” Anything else is lazy moderation.

[Albrenia]

It doesn't really add anything to the conversation anyway, so I don't really care if it's banned.

[MERIZoC]

It's an extension of the rather appalling flaming trend to call people "autistic" as an insult.

Except the mod warning Gallo was the one who used "autistic", not Gallo. The only people bringing the offensiveness into it is you.

It should go without saying that particular turn of phrase is both trolling to people who are autistic as well as flaming whoever is being targeted by it.

Again, with this, you're the one perpetuating offensive stereotypes that autistic people do stuff like that.

[MERIZoC]

That will never happen. The primary outcome of such a thread would be a constant stream of complaints of "well, it's not on the list, so it's by-definition legal."

Like virtually all other moderator rulings on flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling; it's a judgment call. Whether you call it "pepe scream" or "autistic screeching", my visualization of REEEEE is someone attempting to drown out someone else's comments whilst providing absolutely no content of their own. Sounds like trolling to me.

So what you’re saying is the One-Stop Rules Shop is utterly useless. Because by your argument, going to the rules and explaining why something was done is pointless, since apparently now actual rules regarding flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling are thrown out of the window in exchange for “judgement calls”. You can read the context of the conversation, or you can put it on the rules list and say, “This is not allowed.” Anything else is lazy moderation.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=33081072#p33081072

Fris and co. have been quite resistant to actually making a list of the rules in the past. You'd think we'd have enough mods that someone could do this, but apparently not.

[Kramanica]

I would strongly suggest putting up a thread of warn-able/banable practices that otherwise might escape the general public.

That will never happen. The primary outcome of such a thread would be a constant stream of complaints of "well, it's not on the list, so it's by-definition legal."

Like virtually all other moderator rulings on flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling; it's a judgment call. Whether you call it "pepe scream" or "autistic screeching", my visualization of REEEEE is someone attempting to drown out someone else's comments whilst providing absolutely no content of their own. Sounds like trolling to me.

It shouldn't matter what your visualization of it is. Mods are constantly talking about how each case is judged based upon context, yes? Why can't that same consideration be applied here, rather than blanketly banning it across the board (without even stating so, I might add). For instance, if two players are obviously joking then why punish them?

In Galo's case it wasn't even another player who took offense at it. It was a mod who self-reported it. Mods seem to do a lot of self-reporting these days, even though they never used to. Curious.

[Vassenor]

Pretty much the only way I've seen it used on this forum has been to liken the preceding or quoted post to someone screeching inanely in lieu of actually attacking what was said. That's a pretty blatant ad hominem.

[Albrenia]

It shouldn't matter what your visualization of it is. Mods are constantly talking about how each case is judged based upon context, yes? Why can't that same consideration be applied here, rather than blanketly banning it across the board (without even stating so, I might add). For instance, if two players are obviously joking then why punish them?

In Galo's case it wasn't even another player who took offense at it. It was a mod who self-reported it. Mods seem to do a lot of self-reporting these days, even though they never used to. Curious.

I don't intend to come off as attacking mods or left-wingers as I am more left than right but I propose it could do with SJW culture. Just a possibility to consider, Not an accusation. It just seems possible that we have a disproportionate amount of left-wing mods with few balances. Granted idk Mods's ideologies and am not accusing them of being left-wing or SJW just raising a potentially relevant possibility.

I'm guessing not, but it's a theory I guess.

[Trumptonium]

Pretty much the only way I've seen it used on this forum has been to liken the preceding or quoted post to someone screeching inanely in lieu of actually attacking what was said. That's a pretty blatant ad hominem.

I don't see who it is offensive to. Perhaps autists. But ware autistic people a People of Protected Characteristics here?

If a Jew is called a Nazi on this forum, that's not treated as offensive, because it's up to the Jew to explain why he isn't a Nazi. That strikes me as magnitudes more offensive than using autism in a joke.

[Caracasus]

It is a characature of autistic people, and like most it is innacurate. The implication being that autistic people cannot form an argument and are other.

Frankly, aside from the fact it is an attack on the poster and one that considers autism to be purely negative, it never adds anything of value to a discussion.

It can die a death as far as I am concerned. Learn to argue better without resorting to ablest slurs.

[Vassenor]

Pretty much the only way I've seen it used on this forum has been to liken the preceding or quoted post to someone screeching inanely in lieu of actually attacking what was said. That's a pretty blatant ad hominem.

I don't see who it is offensive to. Perhaps autists. But ware autistic people a People of Protected Characteristics here?

If a Jew is called a Nazi on this forum, that's not treated as offensive, because it's up to the Jew to explain why he isn't a Nazi. That strikes me as magnitudes more offensive than using autism in a joke.

It doesn't have to be directly offensive to be a crappy debating tactic that just makes you look childish.

[Napkiraly]

That will never happen. The primary outcome of such a thread would be a constant stream of complaints of "well, it's not on the list, so it's by-definition legal."

Like virtually all other moderator rulings on flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling; it's a judgment call. Whether you call it "pepe scream" or "autistic screeching", my visualization of REEEEE is someone attempting to drown out someone else's comments whilst providing absolutely no content of their own. Sounds like trolling to me.

So what you’re saying is the One-Stop Rules Shop is utterly useless. Because by your argument, going to the rules and explaining why something was done is pointless, since apparently now actual rules regarding flaming, flamebaiting, and trolling are thrown out of the window in exchange for “judgement calls”. You can read the context of the conversation, or you can put it on the rules list and say, “This is not allowed.” Anything else is lazy moderation.

That is precisely what Fris is saying. Moderation is its own worst enemy.


I suggest an alternative RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA as opposed to REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. Then everyone can be happy.

[Napkiraly]

It is a characature of autistic people, and like most it is innacurate. The implication being that autistic people cannot form an argument and are other.

Frankly, aside from the fact it is an attack on the poster and one that considers autism to be purely negative, it never adds anything of value to a discussion.

It can die a death as far as I am concerned. Learn to argue better without resorting to ablest slurs.

You have actual autistic people telling moderation they don't care or take offense to it. This is taking offense on others behalf and acting holier than thou.

[Trumptonium]

I don't see who it is offensive to. Perhaps autists. But ware autistic people a People of Protected Characteristics here?

If a Jew is called a Nazi on this forum, that's not treated as offensive, because it's up to the Jew to explain why he isn't a Nazi. That strikes me as magnitudes more offensive than using autism in a joke.

It doesn't have to be directly offensive to be a crappy debating tactic that just makes you look childish.

Andwhy should 'crappy debating tactics' be regulated in any way?

In 90% of "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE", it isn't even aimed at a poster. It is aimed as a form of irony. For example, someone (who you agree with politically) posts a deliberately dumb argument, then it is a caricature of the wider issue/opponents.

[Caracasus]

It is a characature of autistic people, and like most it is innacurate. The implication being that autistic people cannot form an argument and are other.

Frankly, aside from the fact it is an attack on the poster and one that considers autism to be purely negative, it never adds anything of value to a discussion.

It can die a death as far as I am concerned. Learn to argue better without resorting to ablest slurs.

You have actual autistic people telling moderation they don't care or take offense to it. This is taking offense on others behalf and acting holier than thou.

Yeah, silly me. I forgot that a couple of people posting on this thread is all autistic people ever.

[Trumptonium]

You have actual autistic people telling moderation they don't care or take offense to it. This is taking offense on others behalf and acting holier than thou.

Yeah, silly me. I forgot that a couple of people posting on this thread is all autistic people ever.

The point here is that you're taking offence on other peoples' behalf.

[Albrenia]

It doesn't have to be directly offensive to be a crappy debating tactic that just makes you look childish.

Andwhy should 'crappy debating tactics' be regulated in any way?

I figure it's just crap the mods are tired of dealing with, like Political Nicknaming, the odious helicopter memes and the like. I don't begrudge them for getting tired of tired old memes used in place of debating.

I'm not really concerned if it's offensive or not, to be honest.

[Napkiraly]

You have actual autistic people telling moderation they don't care or take offense to it. This is taking offense on others behalf and acting holier than thou.

Yeah, silly me. I forgot that a couple of people posting on this thread is all autistic people ever.

Considering said posters are part of this community, I'd say their voice carries more weight as opposed to some random blog post somewhere else. Or will you admit you'll just take into consideration the views of those who already agree with you?

[Caracasus]

Yeah, silly me. I forgot that a couple of people posting on this thread is all autistic people ever.

The point here is that you're taking offence on other peoples' behalf.

Not really taking offense, just pointing out the inferred meaning behind it and why it a) adds nothing to the discussion and b) is kinda offesnsive.

[The Free Joy State]

It is a characature of autistic people, and like most it is innacurate. The implication being that autistic people cannot form an argument and are other.

Frankly, aside from the fact it is an attack on the poster and one that considers autism to be purely negative, it never adds anything of value to a discussion.

It can die a death as far as I am concerned. Learn to argue better without resorting to ablest slurs.

^ This.

I've only ever seen the "autistic screeching" meme used to denigrate the argument of the poster it's aimed towards/the poster themselves. And it adds to the ongoing negative stereotyping of people with autism.

Plus, it's a lazy argument that derails legitimate discussion and contributes nothing to a conversation but negativity.

I have no problem with its current definition as trolling. AFAIK, trolling doesn't have to be offensive (although IMO this kind of is). I believe a deliberate attempt to derail discussion with something childish and irrelevant can also apply. Screeching over someone else's points would appear to me to be childish and irrelevant in any discussion.

[Caracasus]

Yeah, silly me. I forgot that a couple of people posting on this thread is all autistic people ever.

Considering said posters are part of this community, I'd say their voice carries more weight as opposed to some random blog post somewhere else. Or will you admit you'll just take into consideration the views of those who already agree with you?

Similar arguments have come up regarding this and other issues on other sites I go on. I am merely stating my opinion on this. At best it doesn't add anything to a discussion and at worst is abelist.