Freedom Of Speech, ATS, and Ending The Eternal September

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
But a nice start would be to clarify what is and is not allowed on ATS, namely, comments and opinions that, to some, hold no class or respect.

While that might seem like a good idea in theory, I've rarely seen such attempts work well in practice.

We'd all like a determinable, specific, exampled set of guidelines for what is 'acceptable', or even encouraged, but such rules are always, in practice, inexact and/or inaccurate.

It's like blob of mercury -- try and squish it down and it just slides to the side or in some unpredicted direction.

As much as specific rules give a definite sense of certainty to those who would stay inside them, following the ideals that inspired them, they also allow those who would skirt the rules a 'safe margin' to be legal by the letter, but violate the principles of civility, decorum, and honest discussion.

I can't speak for the staff, but I feel that is perhaps why T&C's are currently worded to allow such indefinite leeway of moderation.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yeah, sometimes. Don't we all?

Sometimes? Why do you feel the need to do it in this thread? I see you challenging at least 4 members here.

Btw, thanks, you've proven both of my points from the previous page.

Am I the only person who has challenged others in this thread, intrepid?

Have I violated the T&C's?

I don't understand your need to say that?

Originally posted by elevatedone

Originally posted by jsobecky
This is the example a Super Moderator should be setting for the younger members on ATS?

Shame, shame.:shk:

We're all members before we're mods.

Yeah... I love the way some members always resort to this tactic when they are being challenged and are loosing an argument. I refuse to let it work on me anymore.

What we have here (in my opinion) is several long time members trying to point out someone's logical fallacies who is refusing to see them and making all kinds of accusations of personal attacks where none exist and political bias (conservative haters) when in fact they are the one doing those very things to others.

It's all very sad really.
.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Have I violated the T&C's?

I don't understand your need to say that?

Well, jacking threads is against the T&C. This thread is all about YOU now for some reason. Why don't we get back to the topic which is about ATS and freedom of speech.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by jsobecky
Have I violated the T&C's?

I don't understand your need to say that?

Well, jacking threads is against the T&C. This thread is all about YOU now for some reason. Why don't we get back to the topic which is about ATS and freedom of speech.

Whoa. You saying I jacked this thread?

I think it's best we take this offline. I u2u'd you.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However, hiding behind freedom of speech to cast denigrating aspersions on the recently deceased demonstrates a selfish lack of prudence. It cheapens the lofty ideal of free expression and it's unfortunate for those who would "go there," but informative for the rest of us to witness.

I remember when certain individuals, many of which now are horrified by the remarks made about Tony Snow, stood aside while similar comments were made about Ted Kennedy when it looked like he was going to succomb to his brain tumor.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To loudly condemn the behavior when it relates to someone you agree with and then look the other way in silence while the same thing occurs to those whom you find objectionable is, at best, morally bankrupt.

For those of you who were so offended by the use of language toward Snow, I look forward toward your future outrage when someone says something similar about someone with a different political ideology.

Perhaps when more people on this forum begin speaking up without bias, we will begin to see some change as to the level of discourse on this site. If you are serious about change, then you need to be the ones who start to effect it.


[edit on 13-7-2008 by clay2 baraka]

Originally posted by jsobecky
It was totally uncalled for. I asked you to prove your allegations, and you lost your temper.

Uncalled for? Meh.

I did not lose my temper, I simply refused to play your game of semantics.

Which supposed "allegation" do I need to try and prove to you?

That Tony Snow-job was a liar? That the US presidency (especially the current incarnation) is a criminal organization? That the world is a better place without someone who sold his soul for a job requiring 24/7 lying through his teeth?

Suppose I were to somehow be able to demonstrate to someone like you (who refuses to see) all three what you call allegations beyond a reasonable doubt would I then be entitled to my opinion without interference and false accusations from you? I somehow doubt it.

I can honestly say that I have never seen an example of good moderation by you in my entire time on ATS. You just like to throw your weight around.

That's your opinion.

I could "walk on water" but because I'm a dirty pinko commie, lefty, tree-hugging liberal according to you (who also refuses to be "converted" -or as I like to call it " be lobotomized") I suck.

Ok, I get it. My 3.5 years of service means nothing to you.

You don't impress me.

Good. I'm not trying to. Glad we could clear that up. Can we move on now?

No. You launched unwarranted personal attacks at me. Apologize.

Again, prove that I did and I will. Otherwise retract your grossly false accusations.
.

reply to post by clay2 baraka


No No NO!! You don't understand!

When someone like say... Fidel Castro dies it will be acceptable to heap untold condemnation upon him (remember that Arafat thread?) and to wish upon him all the evils of the deepest fiery pits of hell upon him, his family and everything he did and stood for because he was a dirty commie lefty pig. But if somebody who worked for the Bush administration dies or if they're an American then they deserve our respect because they're dead.

Understand now?

/sarcasm
.

[edit on 7/13/2008 by Gools]

Originally posted by jsobecky
BH, do you really equate the death of Zarqawi with the Death of Tony Snow?

It doesn't matter what MY particular opinion is... I'm just one person. Why does it matter how many of us agree that Zarqawi was a "worse" person than Snow? It doesn't. Just because many of us agree doesn't mean we should bash those who don't agree. There are those who think Snow was every bit as bad (or worse) than Zarqawi. And they have a right to have and express their opinion, without being attacked for it.

At least I think they should.

Disagreement is NOT attack. But there have been some real attacks going on around here.

Originally posted by intrepid
And here is a major problem imo. Some take their political affiliation so seriously that any discussion against that philosophy is taken as an attack on themselves.

Yes! And on the other side, some want so badly to attack the member, but since they know it violates T&C, they attack the political affiliation (or other group) they assume the member belongs to. And the discussion devolves from there.

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Anyone have any constructive ideas about what can be done to actually, like, you know, change things?

1. We, as members, need to address the topic of the thread, not each other. It's really VERY simple. You can debate someone for DAYS without ever calling them an "Obamite" or accusing them of working for the government or saying that they are despicable for having such disrespectful opinions... ALL DAY.

Unfortunately, we, as members, cannot control whether or not other members follow the same rules. Only moderators could do that.

2. As Novus said, the staff needs to clarify (and enforce) what is and is not allowed. If ALL opinions were allowed and NO attacking was allowed, this problem would go completely away. Because when someone expressed an opinion I thought was despicable, I would not be permitted to attack them for it. I could disagree, but not even go close to putting them down for their opinion.

3. Be the Change You Wish To See

Now that almost a half hour has passed since the last post and things seems to have calmed down a bit...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordAnd this, in my opinion, is a core problem with contemporary user-generated commentary online. Too many are selfishly hiding behind "freedom of speech" as a license and not using it as the virtuously insightful tool it's intended to be.

How about using it to make a point?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However, hiding behind freedom of speech to cast denigrating aspersions on the recently deceased demonstrates a selfish lack of prudence. It cheapens the lofty ideal of free expression and it's unfortunate for those who would "go there," but informative for the rest of us to witness.

... it defines a self-centered ideal that is divorced from the true intent of free expression.

Originally posted by Gools
It's all very sad really.

You know what else is sad?

Here we are on page 4 of this thread where I have been doing exactly what you alluded should not be done in the OP (cast denigrating aspersions on the recently deceased - granted it was to make a point) and nobody seems to have noticed or called me out on it.

You know why?

Because we love drama, we love the fight and we love to win and no matter the tastelessness of the opinion it will be heard. There is much on ATS that I find disagreeable and I put up with it.

Pissing contests seem to be what online life is made of and the resort to "free speech" arguments is an easy way to ensure that we can keep the fight going and the divid alive for those who use it against us. Many (as evidence in this thread) are way too partisanly blind to realise when they are being played.

Trying to change this is a huge challenge for ATS or anybody else for that matter. Can it be done?

With the approaching political crazy season starting this September and a population feeling the stress of economic woes and political divisiveness being cranked up to new levels?... I have my doubts.
.

What happened to clay2 baraka's post? It seems to have disappeared. I typed a response to it, but cannot find it now.

However, others have replied to his post.

reply to post by Gools

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However, hiding behind freedom of speech to cast denigrating aspersions on the recently deceased demonstrates a selfish lack of prudence. It cheapens the lofty ideal of free expression and it's unfortunate for those who would "go there," but informative for the rest of us to witness.

... it defines a self-centered ideal that is divorced from the true intent of free expression.

You know what else is sad?

Here we are on page 4 of this thread where I have been doing exactly what you alluded should not be done in the OP (cast denigrating aspersions on the recently deceased - granted it was to make a point) and nobody seems to have noticed or called me out on it.

WRONG.

You said

Tony Snow was a lying sack of crap for a criminal organization (FACTS) and the world is a better place without him! (also fact)

You called it "fact". I called it an allegation. I asked you to back it up. That's when you violated the T&C by personally attacking me. Since then, you've tried to defend yourself by saying it is your "opinion".

Revisionist posting does not work.

SO, I'm curious -- has ATS ever considered using a user moderation + meta-moderation scheme, such as the slashcode forums use? Personally, I'm not in favor of anything that decreases post visibility, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a more direct-democracy system of alerts and warnings, meta-modded to avoid mobbing?

Mysterious "Ghost Poster" clay2 baraka???

Who is this mysterious poster? I asked where his post went a little while ago. No response.

So I went to his profile. Looked at his "Last Three Threads" that he supposedly authored.

Not only was he not the author of any of the threads, he hadn't even responded to any of those threads.

Something fishy going on...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However, hiding behind freedom of speech to cast denigrating aspersions on the recently deceased demonstrates a selfish lack of prudence. It cheapens the lofty ideal of free expression and it's unfortunate for those who would "go there," but informative for the rest of us to witness.

While using "Freedom of Speech" to dance on a grave may not be respectful or sensitive, I disagree that it cheapens the ideal of freedom of speech. In fact, I think it exemplifies it.

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all. -Noam Chomsky

By the same token if we do not respect freedom of speech for those opinions that we despise, we do not respect it at all. -Benevolent Heretic

... it defines a self-centered ideal that is divorced from the true intent of free expression.

What is the true intent of free expression is? Isn't it simply... free expression?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


IMO it's not so much what you say as how you say it. This crazy political season brings out the worst in some and they've just got to get the dig in.

Originally posted by jsobecky


Mysterious "Ghost Poster" clay2 baraka???

Who is this mysterious poster? I asked where his post went a little while ago. No response.

So I went to his profile. Looked at his "Last Three Threads" that he supposedly authored.

Not only was he not the author of any of the threads, he hadn't even responded to any of those threads.

Something fishy going on...

I can see my posts. Odd. Perhaps I am on your "ignore" list?
Furthermore, I am offended at being referred to as a fish!

On a serious note, I agree that the sensational and offensive seems to be the "norm" of online culture. Therefore, any policies set forth by the staff seem counter to their need to make money off advertising. Any attempts to censor will just appear as biased toward a particular viewpoint.

As I stated before drama = advertising viewership. It is up to the posters unfortunately, to self police, which seems unlikely to happen.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by clay2 baraka]

reply to post by jsobecky


His post is there. Did you accidentally put him on ignore? It's not a mystery. Nothing fishy.


[edit on 13-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I've never put anyone on ignore. How do I check?

reply to post by jsobecky


This would be my first ignore. . . Very exciting for me!