Help Collect SJW/SJL Memes

[Aneris]

Everyone knows “Check your privilege” but there are many more “memes” or argumentation and rationalisation schemes floating about in Social Justice Land. They have practically one for any occurrence. i thought it practical to collect them and describe them in TVtropes fashion, but I thought that's perhaps best done in a community fashion. This thread is for dumping your observations, links, sources, screencaps, which can then be processed later as everybody likes to.

[Lsuoma]

Believe the victim.
Believe someone's lived experience.
The fact that you deny you are <X> only confirms that you are. Until you admit that you are <X> you are horrible, and not worth speaking to.
Only whites can be racist.

[Aneris]

Just a first dump.

Silencing
When Social Justice Warrior manufactuversies fail and they face a lot of criticism and backlash, they will claim that their critics want to “silence them”. This is subject to It's Okay When We Do It™, because when they generate backlash themselves, or their manufactuversy succeeds, it never occurs to them that they “silence” anyone.

• + sources missing
  + could use a fancy yet descriptive name

It's Okay When We Do Itâ„¢
A very common expression of their authoritarian attitude as described with the quote: “When they like the behaver, the behavior is acceptable; when they dislike the behaver, the behavior is not”. An official trademark of the Social Justice League. They like people of their ingroup, i.e. regulars of their “safe spaces” and anything that servers their momentary agenda.

• To do, search "behaver" to find some examples and origin of the quote (via WEIT).
  Examples off the top of my mind. Must be double checked for exact situation and sourced.
  + Karen Stollznow received additional funds and support after Ben Radford released information that show her and her husband as domestically violent.
  + Ogvorbis Case
  + “Not-Blacklist” of PZ Myers, where he declared that he won't attend a conference when Abbie Smith was also invited, and revoked it in the same thread when Sarah Moglia reported to have overheard similar of Dawkins/Watson — which caused an outrage.

The Standard You Walk Past
Needs some refinement. Coined by Rebecca Watson and resurfaced later when used by PZ Myers. Has multiple elements. Part of the meme is a special type of Straw Man by linking unrelated things, groups, incidents together where one is known and appalling and allegedly accepted (usually false) and the emotional response is intended to carry over to the other thing. Originally, somehow Ron Lindsay by providing a critical and awkward Wis2 speech was like those in the aussie army who covered sexual abuse.

• new example
  + http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... of-decent/
  Here Amanda Todd who was driven into suicide is sneakily equated with critics of Hensely.

The other, and closer to the name element (and should probably eventually be described by that meme) is a form of pushing any agenda with a crowbar. I.e. when we don't do X, then its like accepting rapists in the aussie armie.

Peezeemandering, Customized Tent
The idea that the floorplan of the atheist movement has exactly the dimension so that PZ Myers views are within and everything else is deemed outside.

• + Look into articles like “rending the tent” and other articles written around the Silverman Heresy by secular women. Generally stuff with “tent” or “dictionary atheists/m” should have material

Freeze Peach
The mispresentation of criticism as being about Freedom Of Speech issues, when what is criticized is actually about one sided moderation, faking consent by making critical (but legitimate) comments disappear and by censorious attitudes that go beyond constructive community management. Freeze Peach is also paet kf the straw man collection (its clearly a class)

[Aneris]

Good ones Lsuoma... one you got seems to be the kafkatrap, more mind dump (currectly grounded and bound to ipad).

Kafkatrap
The fact that you deny you are <X> only confirms that you are (Until you admit that you are <X> you are horrible, and not worth speaking to.)

Safe Space
A community space built with the premise that social justice topics are not discussed, reasoned, understood, clarfied etc. i.e, not “up for debate”. Instead the space is about showing solidarity, hugging, faux-empathy posturing, “hugging” and accepting anything someone claims if core SJW ideology, victimhood, confession culture etc. Safe Spaces treat questions, especially critically soundimg ones as JAQing off, and trolling. They are places where skepticism and critical thinking are not permitted. Is based and reinforced by other memes, such as claiming that tenets of SjW were as established as the Theory Of Evolution, up for debate, etc.

[Aneris]

Up For Debate
Claims that tenets of the Social Justice Ideology were as established as the Theory of Evolution. Employs a couple of tricks: uses as a template a well understood situation, where evolution is under attack by creationists. It further translates emotions (this is another recurring theme), of the participants. The unscientific creationists who have no evidence but instead rely on their “teach the controversy” wedge are mapped onto critics of SJW authoritarianism, while they portray themselves not only on the robust science side, but also as consistent with common views in the a-s community. And its a yet another straw man design, and criticism shield (another recurring motive).

• + Sources: up for debate, secular women
  Jason Thibeault: David Silverman's Darwin was wrong moment
  Many more in comments also there is a wealth of connections due to pharyngula “history” (they transported creationist bashing over to sjw land).

So bad, I Can't Show It
The behaviour which results in criticism, which is then labelled freeze peach. At the origin there is a strong tendency to find excuses to not provide sources. Vague descriptions then make the rounds and thereby a situation appears worse than it actually is. Another type of strawman.

• examples
  + Slymepit satire photoshops are typically claimed pornographic, never seen any. If they exist, unlikely.
  + Radford's selfie with Karen as “revenge porn” even though the image was from a private/intimate situation did not expose or show anything pornographic.
  

Inverted: So bad, I toss my surlies.

There Is Only One Side Of The Story, Ours
Related to the above but different in that the desired agenda is always illustrated on page one, yet anything that doesn't fit in is either not mentioned at all, or somewhere swamped where it will not reach a similar audience.

• examples
  + Thunderf00t & Ana Kasperian. PZ Myers portrays TFs video of Ana as very sexist, the commentariat makes it misogynist and whatnot against Ana. But Ana endorses and likes it, and agrees to TF observations.
  + Everything regarding the Slymepit

[Aneris]

• All Critics Are Harassers
• All Contrarians Are Trolls
• Slightly different opinion, you must be KKK, MRA or Stormfront (liberally assigning critics to random groups least liked currently regardless of fact)
• White dudebros are sexist and racists
• Criticizing Islam Is Islamophobia Is Racism
• Sex Is Culturally Constructed
• Snark and Derision = Death Threats. Chinese Water Torture.
• Can't Give You Details, But It Was The Horror — sibling of can't show sources, but here we don't get the details or anything to see for ourselves, but instead the verdict is spread around, i.e. “he coerced me” “person is x is terrible” (without ever providing any insights as to why something was deemed coercion or why person is X). Also a It's Okay When... case, since Dawkins “mild” didn't count. A variant is hiding it under a breadcrumb kf links, typically ending with a Rebecca Watson article and there with entirely different people, i.e. aussie army rapists per “Standard to Walk Past”

[Za-zen]

Trigger whistle;

"If you weren't meaning to trigger her, you wouldn't have triggered her"

[Really?]

I Am Shaking With Rage!
A response given when a pyrson has no real substantive argument in the situation. Often demonstrated through the use of broken sentences and onomatopoeia.

Melody Hensley receives legitimate criticism?!?!?!??!?! You just...I just...we...I...um...you...no...what?...is my pizza done?...Ooh, Hell's Kitchen is on...NO...I can't even--

Circlin' the Wagons
When a community full of people who have serious mental disorders form a protective wall of rhetoric around a member who has admitted to or been convicted of serious crimes, criminal or otherwise.

You fucking scum. So Ogvorbis raped a couple little girls and knew it was wrong. How dare you point this out? We're trying to stop the rape of little girls, here.

[Parody Accountant]

This is the new music thread right?

][redtube[ x3850904 [

amidoinitrite

[JackSkeptic]

JAQing Off

JAQ='Just asking Questions'

Standard response when someone asks an SJW to clarify or explain what they said. Used to avoid discussion.

Closely related to:

Doubling Down

Used when someone reasserts their position, usually in an attempt to clarify to an SJW. The assertion is that the person is continuing with their line of argument even though it is faulty, although there is no attempt to counter that argument. Its primary use is to shut down discussion.

Closely related to:

Educate Yourself

Common retort to anyone who is deemed not to accept spurious 'facts' stated by an SJW. It is popular as it has two effects with one comment. One is to suggest the listener is too stupid and ignorant to understand, giving the SJW the illusion of intellectual superiority and the second is to distract from the question asked or point raised. Often used as a closing statement.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Intent isn't magic.

[justinvacula]

Just Google it.

Asking for evidence is denying my lived experiences/Asking for evidence is assuming I am lying/I shouldn't have to show you...

Denial of rape culture is proof rape culture exists.

[Guestus Aurelius]

This is 101-level stuff.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

- Shut up and listen

- Lurk Moar

- Awake the Dragon Unleash the Beast

- literally shaking with rage

- *INSERT PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE FANTASY HERE* (ex. *breaks bottle in half and brandishes menacingly at mykeru while yellow puddle forms between feet*)

[Pitchguest]

Vacula Must Denounce.

[dog puke]

I am not going to enact the labour needed to do this task.

[Guest]

Asking for evidence is denying my lived experiences/Asking for evidence is assuming I am lying/I shouldn't have to show you...

Another variant: Are legal proceedings really necessary when it's obvious what happened?

(This is the predictable response when you question calling someone a rapist before trial, based only on the prosecution's argument)

[TiBo]

I love the term "structural whiteness" from that hyper racist hashtag activist Suey Park...

[some guy]

+ “Not-Blacklist” of PZ Myers, where he declared that he won't attend a conference when Abbie Smith was also invited, and revoked it in the same thread when Sarah Moglia reported to have overheard similar of Dawkins/Watson — which caused an outrage.

This didn't happen within a single post thread. It was at least a year (maybe two or more) between the time PZ publically blacklisted Abbie and when he changed his mind.

[Snapfingers]

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2632
Take a pick!
A+ listed their memes but are calling it a "glossary".
My personal favourite are the Ally/Supporter, begging for cookies, colourblind racism and notpology, and variations thereof, where if even if you are with them you could be against them - without knowing.

[Aneris]

+ “Not-Blacklist” of PZ Myers, where he declared that he won't attend a conference when Abbie Smith was also invited, and revoked it in the same thread when Sarah Moglia reported to have overheard similar of Dawkins/Watson — which caused an outrage.

This didn't happen within a single post thread. It was at least a year (maybe two or more) between the time PZ publically blacklisted Abbie and when he changed his mind.

Yes, what happened within a thread was his awareness that its bad, revoked it and joined the choir of critisizing Dawkins. And that's the one: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... a-promise/

A perfectly executed U-turn.

[Slipterid]

Believe someone's lived experience.

Unless their lived experence is "I have never been a victim" or "I do not feel threatened". In which case they are not simply stating a lived experience, they are denying others' victimhood.

[Tigzy]

*Hugs if you want them*

Based on *hugs*, which is generally used in online circles to denote sympathy for another contributor's predicament. In SJW spheres, an 'if you want them' is added, mostly to denote that the SJW making the statement is a good person who respects another's bodily autonomy. Even though no bodily contact is actually on the cards, cos...well, online. But it's the thought that counts, I guess. Thoughts are very important to SJW types, after all, and they hate it if you have ones they don't like.

*Safehugs*

Given the SJW propensity to take things to their most cretinously stupid extremes, it was kind of inevitable that *safehugs* would evolve from such a desperate determination to show how much they are totally not like those cishet white dudebros who keep throwing around all those plain, rapey *hugs* everywhere. Admittedly, *safehugs* isn't yet as common as *hugs if you want them* but I'm sure it'll catch on, despite being completely redundant in that online hugs, which involve no physical contact at all, are about as safe as you can get anyway.

It should also be noted that these SJW hug memes led to a most interesting and cogent discussion on the Atheist Plus forum, one which was neatly summarised by Justicar here:

[youtube]9C_11laqbvM[/youtube]

[Matt Cavanaugh]

* Spoons
* Intersectionality
* neuroatypical
* otherly abled
* ableism (I thought it meant the opposite of "bleism")
* POC, WOC
* "Learnings" instead of "Findings"
* "Nonconformative" instead of "antisocial behavior"

[Guestus Aurelius]

* Spoons
* Intersectionality
* neuroatypical
* otherly abled
* ableism (I thought it meant the opposite of "bleism")
* POC, WOC
* "Learnings" instead of "Findings"
* "Nonconformative" instead of "antisocial behavior"

Hm... I don't really have a problem with "neuroatypical" or "ableism." As far as euphemisms go, the first ain't so bad. I'm okay in many cases with moving away from words with explicitly or even implicitly negative connotations. "Neuroatypical" seems good and neutral to me, since "typical" and "atypical" are relatively valueless statistical words. Of course, now we run the risk of "typical" and "atypical" becoming value-laden. That's the catch.

"Ableism" is surely a real thing—my only issue is with its mis- and overuse by knee-jerk SJWs.

"Otherly abled" is a pretty silly euphemism. Likewise "nonconformative," at least if it's used in lieu of "antisocial behavior" (they're not synonyms).

Can someone explains "spoons"? I've seen it once or twice but I have no idea what it's all about.

[Slipterid]

Can someone explains "spoons"? I've seen it once or twice but I have no idea what it's all about.

http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/wpres ... on-theory/

it is an attempt to explain to a healthy person how limited someone with Lupus can feel. The more spoons you have, the more you can do. Or something.

[Lsuoma]

In case anyone is interested, The Slymipedia.

[Michael J]

It seems that at least half of the memes are phrases meant to stop discussion dead in its tracks. Once they pull the "blaming the victim", "JAQing off", "mansplaining" etc card, you know that as far as they are concerned the conversation is over.

[Aneris]

In case anyone is interested, The Slymipedia.

Very good idea, we could put a lot of stuff in there, nicely sourced.

[real horrorshow]

Freeze Peach
The mispresentation of criticism as being about Freedom Of Speech issues, when what is criticized is actually about one sided moderation, faking consent by making critical (but legitimate) comments disappear and by censorious attitudes that go beyond constructive community management. Freeze Peach is also paet kf the straw man collection (its clearly a class)

An important addendum to this is the point that SJWs regard Freedom of Speech itself as contemptible. Specifically, in Chomsky's terms:

If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like.

For the SJWs, any expression of views other than their own is Hate Speech and to be suppressed by - among other tactics - policies of No Platform. The latter being popular on university campuses, where it consists of attending events of which they disapprove and - ideally - wrecking them by drowning out the speaker, or - failing that - picketing them and attempting to goad attendees into violence by abusive and confrontational behaviour. Though, this will occur only in the presence of Campus or Real Cops who can be relied on to protect SJWs from the consequences of their actions, even when being abused themselves.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

re. Allies -- a "good" ally always defers to the supported group's dogma without question, and is expected to periodically roll in ashes and wear sackcloth to atone for their Sin of Privilege. After saying or doing anything contrary to dogma, the good ally must engage in scathing self-criticism, just like in any other cult or maoist regime.

[Sarlug]

Labeling all criticism/mockery as harassment and death threats, and then turning around and actually harassing and sending death threats to the latest Witch of the Week seems to be one of their favorites.

[Tigzy]

You lack empathy (or variations thereof)

The SJL is very big on empathy, and generally maintain that old white cishet males are largely devoid of it, as exemplified by their not finding disabled panromantic trans genderqueer muslim atheist anarchists with diagnosed personality disorders as fascinating as said disabled panromantic trans genderqueer muslim atheist anarchists with diagnosed personality disorders think they are. In any case, it's not unusual for an SJW to state xir empathic nature thus:

'Oh. My. God. Fuck you. Fuck you into the ground with a rusty chainsaw. I don't even - fuck you, go die in a fire. Seriously. I want you to literally die in a fucking fire. Scum. Go play in busy traffic while wearing a bandana over your face*. You have no fucking empathy at all, you douchenozzle shitlord.'

*Blindfold would usually suffice, but such is the empathy of the SJL league, they have to write it so for fear of triggering any blind people who might be reading.

[Stretchycheese]

Condescending Ideological labels and aspersions for women who won't fall in line with SJW radfem dogmatism. Examples include:

- gender traitor
- sister punisher
- just want to get in with sexist men
- brainwashed by patriarchy
- self hating woman
- internalized by misogyny
- parroting misogyny
- chill girl
- handmaiden for patriarchy

[Skep tickle]

Condescending Ideological labels and aspersions for men who won't fall in line with SJW radfem dogmatism.
Examples include:

- MRA (intended as a disparaging term)
- misogynist
- sexist
- dudebro

[James Caruthers]

I think you forgot

-virgin
-neckbeard
-fedora
-"you must live in your mum's basement"
-rape apologist
-rape supporter
-rape enabler
-potential rapist
-abuser
-harasser (used to refer to any man who publicly disagrees with a member of the SJL who happens to be female)

There's also the "education" meme, implying that those who do not think like them are ignorant, uneducated, filthy, plebeian scum who just need a few more Gender Studies or Marxist Theory college courses to enlighten their feeble brains to the glorious reality of ze Social Justice League. A presumed white cishet male patriarchal dudebro might be told by a proud Trans Otherkin Womyn to "educate" himself, and that it isn't the responsibility of the SJL to enact the labor of explaining the invective they are spewing: it's his responsibility to read their propaganda and then agree with it.

[Aneris]

Ok, I think I just pick out the first one and perhaps it can become the first article I write for Slymepedia, Lsuoma foisted upon us.

I'll sketch out the first "meme" mentioned here...

Believe the Victim

Here is a quick search of the exact phrase: "believe the victim" on FfTB. And this might be a representative article: When Neutrality Is Really Just The Status Quo

The general argument seems go like this:

1. Neutrality and suspending judgement is good under many circumstances.
2. But there is also the known issue of false balance and neutrality where it's wrong, i.e. when creationism is given equal time as evolution.
3. Most cases of rape, sexual harassment turn out to be true, and only few as false.
4. Therefore neutrality or a balanced position on matters of sexual harassment or rape is wrong.

Some quotes from linked articles:

in the grenade post, the believe the accuser/victim is a recurring motive.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... a-grenade/

PZ Myers ends his piece with:

[...] I believe the accusers.

Some days later, the Shmeargate issue is still the hot topic, PZ Myers discusses "fake rape". While his point is true, the context matters. The gist there is that according to statistics false accusations are rare, therefore believing the victim is a sensible thing to do. It's not spelled out however some weaseling out is possible. However, the commentariat understands it that way.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... fake-rape/

Isn’t it fascinating how many men are absolutely certain that most rape accusations are completely false, that it’s just wicked women conspiring to bring men down?

In the Woody Allen case half a year later, we get some more...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymille ... legations/

Michael makes the claim that neutrality is the only logical position. That would only be correct if we lived in a void, where the rest of the world didn’t exist around the claims being made. In the same way, legal language is inappropriate when discussing how people who are not judge or jury are forming opinions. The standard for conviction is necessarily far stricter than the standard for forming rational opinions. Let us look at the world beyond the “he said, she said.”

Woody Allen has a history of not respecting sexual boundaries and taking advantage of massive power imbalances between himself and his sexual partners – his history with his son’s sister, the child of the mother of his children, is enough to show a complete contempt for appropriate age relationships and the incest taboo. He also has made jokes about how he has no sexual boundaries and no one would be surprised to find him in bed with several 12-year-olds.

Dylan Farrow, on the other hand, has nothing to gain from sharing this information except the chance of being believed, something that is part of the healing process for abuse victims.

Miri's article inspired in part by Ashley's...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... tatus-quo/

Neutrality becomes a problem when it becomes an excuse for doing nothing–as it often does. We are neutral on the subject of climate change; therefore, we will not commit to researching ways to slow, stop, or cope with it. We are neutral on the subject of abortion; therefore, we will not invite speakers who advocate for reproductive rights. We are neutral on the subject of whether or not our friend raped you as you say they did; therefore, we will not stop inviting our friend to parties, because that would be rude. In fact, we’ll stop inviting you, because your outlandish claims are making us uncomfortable.

However, Jason Thibeault counters by claiming that he doesn't always "believe the claimant". Notable difference is though that he responds to an alleged MRA and he has the habit of claiming that everything detractors bring up were just myths. It's easy to dismiss it with a swift sentence when the evidence points in the other direction.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ent-600572

It surprises me not one whit that an avowed MRA [...] has no idea that folks around here don’t argue for “always believe the claimant” so much as “take claims seriously enough to investigate them”.

That appears to be the gist of their side
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now poking holes into it:

• Unless something is 100% true, statistics cannot be used to deduce to invidual cases. I think that's the Ecological Fallacy.
• The odds that a sexual harassment report is true is no way comparable to climate change or evolution (or the odds that these theories are true). It's probably too crude reasoning so that this isn't a known fallacy, but perhaps "not even wrong". In case it has a name, please provide it.
• Rape and sexual assault statistics are based on specific parameters, such as cases reported to the authorities. These parameters certainly do not apply for vague accusations by anonymous on a blog (as in Shmeargate). It has arguably a much lower threshold. Accusers need no evidence at all, can remain anonymous and are relatively safe and in a climate where sexual harassment and rape accusations are the ultimate nuke with little backlash, it might be much more tempting to smear someone falsely. Conversely, the obstacles are high in the cases that feed into the statistics.
• Legal systems generally assume innocent unless proven guilty.

What this is not about:

• speculation is not conviction. However, speculative and tentative verdicts would also mean a certain level of modesty, since nobody actually has more than that without proper evidence. However, modesty is unheard of in Social Justice League land. "Cocksure" is typically an understatement.

Related / ancillary issues:

• Trickery: claim that it's hard to make accusations in real life (true), but claim that this is also true for the blogosphere (false).
• Inconsistency: How comes that the Social Justice League folks simulatenously maintain that going to authorities is a bad idea, because they don't believe the victim enough and it's just more traumatizing (another meme), while they also maintain that most accusations are "successful" i.e. not false.

Ok, shoot this down. Comment. And then somebody, or I'll attempt to putting it into an article.

[Aneris]

A quick one, it seems.

Next up: Lived Experience

A person claims expertise and authority on a matter because they belong to a specific identity category. What's more, belonging to the proper group trumps not only expertise of anyone else, if not belonging to that group, but also typically denies what other people have to say about this. Here, the concept of intersectionality and Oppression Olympics are used to determine which Social Justice Warrior trumps which other.

Ancillary issues:

• Devaluation of evidence and facts.
• valorisation of the subjetive over the objective
• fetishising of experience, which is (on the internet) often untestable and unassailable.
• SJW posturing
• Since SJWs renounce objective criteria in favour of subjective experience, I suspect they need their other tools in the rhetorical arsenal to duke out dissensions, such as oppression olympics, ad hominems, silencing and smear tactics and so on.

Same here. shoot it down. Add your thoughts etc.

[Skep tickle]

Ok, I think I just pick out the first one and perhaps it can become the first article I write for Slymepedia, Lsuoma foisted upon us.

I'll sketch out the first "meme" mentioned here...

Believe the Victim

<snip>

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Couple other considerations:
1) They say "believe the victims" but believe the women seems like a closer approximation. (PZ actually said this in his lecture in Seattle last year - something about how we all have to listen to women, believe women, implication being when it's about sexual harassment & assault)
2) Victims are not to be believed in all instances - recall those instances of past allegations against Myers & Thibeault that they've disclosed

[Dick Strawkins]

Ok, I think I just pick out the first one and perhaps it can become the first article I write for Slymepedia, Lsuoma foisted upon us.

I'll sketch out the first "meme" mentioned here...

Believe the Victim

<snip>

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Couple other considerations:
1) They say "believe the victims" but believe the women seems like a closer approximation. (PZ actually said this in his lecture in Seattle last year - something about how we all have to listen to women, believe women, implication being when it's about sexual harassment & assault)
2) Victims are not to be believed in all instances - recall those instances of past allegations against Myers & Thibeault that they've disclosed

Yes, but the women who accused PZ Myers and Jason Thibeault were lying.
If you take that into consideration, you have a simple method for figuring out who exactly to believe.

Believe all women who are not lying.

Wait a second... How do we know that the accusers of Myers and Thibeault were lying?
Easy! They had no evidence to prove their charges!

Those of you who may be spotting a line of logic here are advised to stop at this point before you wander into the land of victim blaming and rape apology.

[d4m10n]

Can someone please put the memes in BINGO card format?

[rayshul]

No bingo cards. It's just depressing.

[Opyt]

No bingo cards. It's just depressing.

It's just a sign that he's getting older. He appreciates a good quiet game of Bingo. But wait that's "ageism".

[Nec_V20]

The best one has to be that I got banned on the Atheism+ forum as an autistic person (Asperger's) for posting on a thread about autism for being "Ableist".

I think that must have anyone else here beat hands down.

[Kirbmarc]

I'm still there, but I am (and always has been) a double agent/troll.