*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Stormdancer777

AOL destroyed the internet.

I remember those chat room days, lol

a reply to: Khaleesi

the link for the quote is under the quote as per the usual prescribed format for posting a quote
but Ill edit to be more clear

do you have a point to make defending a quote balancing out your statement re the persecution of a select group who might be close minded and sometimes persecutes too?

the claim of persecution to avoid debate is similar ( a baby cousin) to the tactic of making questioning "facts" illegal

originally posted by: Danbones
a reply to: Khaleesi

the link for the quote is under the quote as per the usual prescribed format for posting a quote
but Ill add the original posters name here to be more clear

do you have a point to make defending a quote balancing out your statement re the persecution of a select group who might be close minded and sometimes persecutes too?

Whoever posted that does not speak for me. I was not defending that quote. I'm not sure how my support for the decision to require some civility from the members can be equated with supporting that post.

a reply to: Khaleesi

Im pointing out that questioning or even challenging christianity is not PERSECUTION
it is often taken as such

some might think such questing rude
some think having no credible defense other then claiming persecution as being...
well...
not ATS like

originally posted by: Danbones
a reply to: Khaleesi

Im pointing out that questioning or even challenging christianity is not PERSECUTION
it is often taken as such

some might think such questing rude
some think having no credible defense other then claiming persecution as being...
well...
not ATS like

I never claimed that challenging Christianity was akin to persecution. Maybe you should direct your comments to the person that is making that claim. It certainly isn't me.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: tothetenthpower

We've allowed a very loud few to obfuscate the goals and spirit of ATS.

That is a very telling statement . It seems to me that certain people are already singled out . If so and I could be wrong . It may serve ATS very well if they were notified through U2U. To be given time to adjust their attitudes while knowing they are on thin ice .



No offense intended. This is just a suggestion to try and cut out some drama .

Yep, that was my question. Will there be a warning on a specific thread where the offense occurred or will there be an instantaneous ban?

a reply to: UnBreakable

While no generalization is going to always be true, the one thing that I can say for sure: there is no benefit to anyone if membership is treated as disposable. Despite it being unconscionable to the staff and owners alike that people would be treated like that, this is a site that thrives on insightful members providing well thought content.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Other than the obvious things, like spammers, people who melt down and begin serial rage posting ( you've been here long enough to have seen the spammed "BAN ME NOW" tantrums ), and posting something so out of bounds as to warrant immediate action ( like posting hardcore porn ) - there is always warning. In fact there is almost always a LOT of warning before banning happens.

Sadly the departed often leave that detail out when they share their own version of how things happened.

This is one of the best argument threads I have seen. Arguments on a thread about not arguing. It's great.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: UnBreakable

Other than the obvious things, like spammers, people who melt down and begin serial rage posting ( you've been here long enough to have seen the spammed "BAN ME NOW" tantrums ), and posting something so out of bounds as to warrant immediate action ( like posting hardcore porn ) - there is always warning. In fact there is almost always a LOT of warning before banning happens.

Sadly the departed often leave that detail out when they share their own version of how things happened.

Thanks, that explains it.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Seamrog

Define "insult" as you interpret it. Because that's key.

If you mean another member personally attacking YOU for your beliefs? Not tolerable and will be removed if alerted. IE if you post and somebody replies "Who cares what you say, Christians don't matter"... that would not stand.

Defining insult is like defining bigot, however taking the example you cite, you will be scrubbing the threads of a tremendous amount of comments.

Getting rid of the "Christians are mindless robots who believe in a book" posters will be refreshing.

What about when we are called "hateful bigots?"

Will that no longer be tolerated?

I think I see your problem now. You think if anyone questions your religion. That it is an attack on you personally. If that is the case. I do not think anything the mods do will satisfy you. The only thing that will satisfy you. Is if all the mods and the whole site were extremely pro your religion.

There is a difference between questioning or even attacking a religion, and being hateful and rude towards a participant of that religion. Hating the game and not the player as the youngins might say. I guess it is all in how you word it.

So if you see something you think breaks the rules. Report it to the mods. But do not be surprised it they do not see it exactly the same way as you do. As they may separate the religion from the person. By not viewing remarks about a religious institution as remarks against a particular participant of said religion.

The following are two examples to illustrate what I am talking about. They are not directed towards any person.

Example 1- I am of the opinion that Christians are mindless robots who follow an outdated book. Mods will probably not do anything.

Example 2- You are a stupid backwards bible thumping extremist and I hate you. Mods will probably take action by taking the post down and banning the member.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Civility is not mind control.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the various sites in the online community that stoke hatred and venom - that's mind control, social programming, whatever. The PTB thrive on division and fear.

Throughout history, it's always been the erudite thinkers and the eloquent speakers, writers and debaters who elevate discourse that have impacted the most people, changed the most minds and who are lauded through the ages.

Not haters. Not idiots.

Sorry. I logged out and have only just come back.

Although i do appreciate your reply... I just want to say that some people are too easily offended. (This is in defense of my post earlier)

so I'm guessing I can say 'The New York Times is run by libtards', but I can't say 'Beezzer is a libtard'.

I've always been bothered by Christian/religious threads that get infested by bigoted trolls that do nothing but throw stones. I remember a few years ago there was a let's-pray-for-this (Fukushima?) thread and some atheist gets on there and rants about prayer is wasted cuz there is no God. I get people that don't want to play, but they should leave the rest of us alone. I don't troll in atheist threads and say 'You're going to hell, Praise God', nor do I go in pagan/wiccan threads with similar content.

the coarsening of societal discourse is troubling (not just on ATS).

I have tried to stay out of this thread. But there is one thing I see regularly that irritates me and does not help promote any discussion .


On the political threads, every time someone is allowed to ignore the issues being discussed and post about the futility of the election system . Everything goes downhill .

We are all aware of peoples opinion on the futility of voting . It does not need to be brought up in every political thread because it almost always leads to derailment of that thread .

Some of us would like to discuss the actual issues. I am tired of watching every political thread denigrate into this same old topic time after time . I consider those post off-topic and I often wondered why they are removed to prevent thread drift ?

originally posted by: karmicecstasy


I think I see your problem now. You think if anyone questions your religion. That it is an attack on you personally.

Nope. I think this conveys my concerns pretty succinctly:

What about when we are called "hateful bigots?"

Will that no longer be tolerated?

Although you may not wish to acknowledge it, that is a regular occurrence on this site.


Look at how many times the words "HATE" and "BIGOTRY" have been used in this thread by the moderators alone - not all, but more than many.

Maybe some of us were out of line for assuming things that shouldn't have been. What is the first of hopefully long lasting relationships with each of you. Love is the answer, remember?

originally posted by: rickymouse
This is one of the best argument threads I have seen. Arguments on a thread about not arguing. It's great.

lol

originally posted by: works4dhs
so I'm guessing I can say 'The New York Times is run by libtards', but I can't say 'Beezzer is a libtard'.

I've always been bothered by Christian/religious threads that get infested by bigoted trolls that do nothing but throw stones. I remember a few years ago there was a let's-pray-for-this (Fukushima?) thread and some atheist gets on there and rants about prayer is wasted cuz there is no God. I get people that don't want to play, but they should leave the rest of us alone. I don't troll in atheist threads and say 'You're going to hell, Praise God', nor do I go in pagan/wiccan threads with similar content.

the coarsening of societal discourse is troubling (not just on ATS).

good advise

originally posted by: works4dhs
so I'm guessing I can say 'The New York Times is run by libtards', but I can't say 'Beezzer is a libtard'.

Actually no you can't. I referred to a sourced article as libtard garbage the other day and had my post removed and received 3 warnings. Then the person who complained about my usage of the term turned around and directly called me an asshole but their post was allowed to stand. lol

originally posted by: works4dhs
so I'm guessing I can say 'The New York Times is run by libtards', but I can't say 'Beezzer is a libtard'.

I'm just a 'tard.

lolz