Hypothetical Change in the Terms & Conditions

a reply to: tothetenthpower

All of that is your opinion but when you express your opinion you need to do it in such a way that everyone stays focused on the topic at hand.

Why is it against the rules to ridicule a member?

For the same reason it's against the rules to ridicule a member, I think it should apply to people, in general.

I think name-calling is a fallacy of reason, whether the person named is a member or anyone else.

I hate starting topics, I'm always scared to death what the response are going to be, how it is going to be received by some, and many times my intentions misconstrued.


burned out

a reply to: Mary Rose


Ridiculing is a way to shut you up, I think it is in rules for radicals

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."

a reply to: Mary Rose

Don't use ridiculious sources and they wont be ridiculed. This just might be the most passive aggressive thread in ATS history.

originally posted by: Darkblade71
a reply to: Mary Rose
Especially if it is to face ridicule.

That part of your post I don't get.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I expressed my opinion about ridicule of public figures being allowed in the terms & conditions in the thread "Sarcasm, Ridicule, Obfuscation, and Ad Hominems on Threads."

To clarify why I referenced the other thread, it is because on that thread I expressed the opinion that the name-calling of public officials, the sources that people cite in their OP, amounts to what I called “ridicule by proxy.”

By that I mean that when people who start threads cite sources that they think are credible, and they think are doing a public service in the work they do – making a contribution to society – to have others ridicule them with impunity in their replies by hurling ad hominems at will – that it is tantamount to ridiculing the member in an indirect way.

Thus I called it ridicule by proxy.

I think it’s counterproductive.

a reply to: Mary Rose

To clarify why I referenced the other thread, it is because on that thread I expressed the opinion that the name-calling of public officials, the sources that people cite in their OP, amounts to what I called “ridicule by proxy.”

Public officials are by definition open to ridicule.....by your reasoning anybody not agreeing with the views/integrity of your sourced "public official" cannot participate in the thread as they may offend the OP'er.....madness!

This has been previously covered… five years ago.

The Rise Of The ATS Invertebrate: or, it takes a spine to be a conspiracy theorist.

What we're now seeing, in a wide variety of forums and topics, are relatively new members (less than one-year of ATS membership) with a scattering of old-hands, is a distinct trend toward heightened sensitivity. More and more of the complaints we see are little more than the result of being overly thin-skinned about criticism of a viewpoint.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
The purpose of this would be to force people to find out what it's like to have their sources ridiculed with impunity.

An alternative that would accomplish the same thing is to change the terms & conditions regarding ad hominems to not only be applied to members, but to people in general - just word it that ad hominems are not tolerated.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Twenty one threads about board business speaks for itself. I thought in the first thread that you were looking to be what we used to call a tattle tale. . Never the most popular kid on the playground. Now this. Sorry just saying. You're not a new kid on the block by any stretch. a reply to: Mary Rose

I applaud Mary Rose for this very reason. There is very little any of us here can do about world situations we consider to be detrimental to our lives. So we come here to talk about it. If we have little effect on the big picture, at least we can make the attempt to clean up our own house. My evaluation of Mary Rose's intent is based on this context. Yours, I think, is also valid but based on the context that ATS is a playground. And maybe this is could be a crux of Mary Rose's concern.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

A while back I saw a movie titled "Ridicule". One of those "factual" historical pieces. It was about the development of ridicule as an art form in the French Courts at the end of the 17th century. At a time when direct insult could get one into a duel to the death, ridicule arose as a way to insult another inside a strict code of conduct allowing for heavy use of double entendre. This verbal jousting was done in public under a cloak of " civilized fun" while in reality positions of favor in the court hung in the balance. Beyond this, the superior ridiculist could skirt the edge of direct insult and push ones opponent into paroxysms of rage until their rage forced them beyond the accepted standards of decorum and into direct public insult. This of course would then allow the superior ridiculist his choice on time, place and weapons for that final duel.

But unfortunately, around here where gentlemen seem at times to be in short supply, ridicule has become nothing more than "cheap shots"

OOPS, I meant to send this to another and somehow sent it to you. You needn't reply.

In my experience the only sources that are "ridiculed with impunity" are those that are ridiculous in the first place. Well-documented posts are not ridiculed at all. Examples are posts by Zaphod, Slayer, and Isaac Koi. They are always well-researched and treated with respect.

Perhaps yours are not. I'm not going to research it, but I have noticed that you make an inordinate number of posts on how this site ought to be run and how members ought to act rather than contribute to the subject matter of the site. You're acting like a wannabe moderator, but, of course, with no authority whatsoever.

The mental image I get is of a little girl in a frilly, but properly pressed dress and shiny patent leather shoes with no scuff marks scrutinizing all other classmates for transgressions so she can run to the teacher if Johnny so much as picks his nose. But rather than ingratiating herself with Teacher for being so attentive and perceptive it turns out nobody else wants to play with her, so she sulks by herself in a corner watching discreetly in case Johnny picks up a rock. Over time this little girl becomes very lonely and unhappy thinking everyone else is mean toher when, in fact, she doesn't understand that she is being mean to them.

Bullies come in lots of different flavors.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
There is very little any of us here can do about world situations we consider to be detrimental to our lives. So we come here to talk about it. If we have little effect on the big picture, at least we can make the attempt to clean up our own house. My evaluation of Mary Rose's intent is based on this context.

You have read me like a book.

As far as I know this forum has the largest reach of any on planet Earth.

That's why I'm here.

I tried doing something about my concerns by sending emails to my family and friends.

What a disaster.

I'm not here for entertainment.

a reply to: Expat888

Agreed.

Personally,after years of lurking,I feel that there is plenty of thought policing here already.
No need for more.

Actually,thought policing was pretty much the only thing that took me so long to join.

Tattle tailing/thought policing belongs in elementary school-not here.

a reply to: schuyler

You hit the nail on the head.

Actually, there are many members here who would never post a thread...or even respond with an opinion. They are not here for that. Some just like to read and learn.

As a private members only forum, they have the freedom to respond, post or not. There are many reasons to be a member here other than voicing your opinion or starting threads.

*And you did say its "purpose would be to FORCE people...". This is not Russia or N. Korea. I know what you meant, but surprised you'd word in such a way.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
*And you did say its "purpose would be to FORCE people...". This is not Russia or N. Korea. I know what you meant, but surprised you'd word in such a way.

Yeah I am too; I take it back. I was frustrated with people who dish it out but don't submit themselves to the possibly of getting back what they dish out.

What do you think of my idea of including all ridicule, for example name-calling, regardless of the target, member or anyone else, in the category of unacceptable posting that is against the terms and conditions?

a reply to: Mary Rose

Now, THAT young lady?! I'd agree with. Present it to our PTB.

a reply to: Mary Rose

If someone is questioning sources, what's wrong with that? Obviously if personal attacks start, then there is a problem. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and that's the beauty if this site. I have had my mind changed or swayed on a subject because of sources that were presented along with the members perfectly articulated argument.

Lately there seems to be in increase in personal attacks, obvious trolling to drift thread, but ownership, admin and mods have put their foot down. There's been like 2 threads from staff in the last week about decorum, thread gangs and the like. They are doing a great job at cleaning house. That's why ATS is the best site on the interwebs, interesting topics that produce adult discussions.

I wouldn't take it too personally or get upset about people questioning sources, if you think it crosses the line report it, if it does staff will handle the situation.

Try not to care or get upset about what other people think of you.