Originally posted by jsobecky
The Tony Snow Has Died threads brought out some pretty nasty comments and celebration of his death. Very tasteless, and they brought down the quality of ATS.

And if you had just IGNORED those "nasty comments" as THIS OP is suggesting, instead of attacking the person who made them, then the thread would have gone on.

Yet some of those very same people who defended the gravedancers are here in this thread, supporting the OP "for the good of ATS".

You don't get it. What the OP is suggesting is that if you don't like what someone posts (like an Obama attack OR a gravedancer) IGNORE IT. Don't feed it.

Total hypocrisy, and more proof that this thread is directed at those who might exercise their freedom of speech by criticizing Obama.

It is NOT hypocrisy. It's the exact same thing! If you don't like what someone says, ignore it and it will go away. By responding to it by attacking the member or arguing with them, whether it's an Obama attack or a Tony Snow attack, you feed it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The Tony Snow Has Died threads brought out some pretty nasty comments and celebration of his death. Very tasteless, and they brought down the quality of ATS.

I agree. There are many things that both raise and lower the quality of ATS, regardless of political affiliation, nationality, etc.

Yet some of those very same people who defended the gravedancers are here in this thread, supporting the OP "for the good of ATS".

Total hypocrisy, and more proof that this thread is directed at those who might exercise their freedom of speech by criticizing Obama.

Come on now. You've seen me around here for years and you think that of me or of those that posted?

I criticize Obama as much as the next conservative, shoot, I criticize McCain as well but the point of the thread was NOT directed at any side by any means. I don't prescribe to the thought of "balance" in respect to excusing bad behavior.

For example, I've seen many times people will excuse slander and vitriol by pointing to others "Well the left/right does this more so I am just trying to balance things."

Rubbish. I support Ron Paul, but I don't even mind criticizing him. The point is the validity of an argument, robust (not slanderous) debate, and all revolving around the idea that we should Deny Ignorance.

If you have any questions about why I posted this, what my positions are, or need clarity, I'd prefer you asked rather than presume.

Thanks man,
KJ

To point something out, while I suggested ignoring vitriolic threads, some times those topics are not bad ones, only presented through bigoted, unreasonable, or foolish methods.

I also suggested that if there is a poor thread with a legitimate topic, start another thread that approaches the topic with a more even hand or at least a more supported argument.

We should be fostering critical thinking in my estimation.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The Tony Snow Has Died threads brought out some pretty nasty comments and celebration of his death. Very tasteless, and they brought down the quality of ATS.

I heard it bad, but was not reading it as it happened. Now I see that many posts were removed, so I don't know what was said, but I can imagine.

Why did you direct this at me? I wasn't there.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The OP may suggest that we ignore what we disagree with all he wants. That doesn't mean we are going to follow his advice.

Of course. There are many points of view on this topic, but I think discussing it and the best way of combating this issue is better than fighting with ourselves.

Allowing untruths or nasty comments to go unchallenged is moral cowardice, regardless if the thread will die out if we ignore them. They remain there in the open as a festering sore, permitted to spread in the minds of some members. By ignoring them, we give them our implicit approval. A newbie sees no opposition to nastiness, and concludes that it is OK.

Some are afraid of a challenge. Many of us are not. And it's a good thing we aren't.

Now here I agree with you. I do fight the good fight many times and there certainly are times when you must not ignore threads.

Good point and I didn't want to confuse my thread with this idea. I like to keep things clean and expand from there.

However, I draw a fine line between combating ignorance and simply feeding filthy threads that should die a horrible death. I'd say this, if a person is reasonable and can actually listen rather than just say the same thing over and over, then sure, try to stick some reason into their heads.

There are many people that have no interest in discussion. They feed off negative attention and should be ignored. I tend to expose their foolishness and leave it at that, but this would be a full time job if I decided to do it at this point.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Then by your logic, not voting for Obama because he is black is a valid reason not to vote for him.

It's not a valid reason for me. But as I have said, I believe that each person has a vote and can use that voice any way they see fit. And FOR THEM, it's valid.

All reasons are not equal or valid.

Certainly not from one person's perspective. But if a person isn't voting for Obama because he's black and they don't like black folks, then you better believe his reason is valid to him. And since it's HIS vote and HIS voice and he has the right to use it any way he sees fit, it is totally valid for him. I may disagree, but that doesn't matter, I respect his RIGHT to vote however he sees fit for whatever reason. It's not my vote to make, so how can I tell him the reasoning he has to use to make it?

It's your right to believe that all reasons are equally acceptable or valid, but don't expect them to be accepted in debate forums.

I don't expect ANYTHING to be accepted.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The OP may suggest that we ignore what we disagree with all he wants. That doesn't mean we are going to follow his advice.

Well, duh! It's a suggestion, an option, not a commandment.

Allowing untruths or nasty comments to go unchallenged is moral cowardice

Not necessarily! I ignore what I think are lies and nasty comments all the time. So do you!

By ignoring them, we give them our implicit approval. A newbie sees no opposition to nastiness, and concludes that it is OK.

Are you serious? This righteous, self-imposed responsibility for what all new members read and believe is sickening. THEY are responsible for what they believe.

There's a difference between accepting the challenge to deny ignorance and actively engaging drama, the latter of which I am refusing to do right now.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I replied to you because you made the comment about bringing down the quality of ATS. You weren't there, but others were. I was pointing out their hypocrisy. I didn't want to name them publicly, but some have id'd themselves through their subsequent posts.

Alright, I thought that maybe you were mistaking me for someone else given some of your other replies to my posts in other threads. Just checking.

Allowing untruths or nasty comments to go unchallenged is moral cowardice, regardless if the thread will die out if we ignore them.

I disagree.

If I were to respond to every lie posted on here about Barack Obama I'd never have time to go to work, eat, etc...

Sometimes it's best to remember the old internet maxim: "don't feed the trolls!"

I realized after a while that by responding to these threads, I was just helping them stay alive, and thus helping their creators spread disinformation.

We all know there are several posters that appeared out of nowhere as the primary ended and started posting these "Obama Steals Candy From Children" threads. Paid or not, there is clearly a disinfo/FUD campaign being waged here on ATS.

I agree fully. I am going to make a concerted effort to avoid all senseless posts about politics or religion. Ones that are obviously meant to illicit an argument. Most of these I feel or disinformation about the two main candidates and I simply hate reading the BS. I feel obligated to try and defend these people thus I give in to the OPs intent. They get a lot of people riled up and either get off on the bickering or enjoy building up their point totals through nonsense.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Tell me, Intrepid, would you be supporting the OP if he was a conservative?

Yes I would. I guess you missed my post:

Originally posted by intrepid
Frankly I don't care about Obama or McCain, in fact I'm not even American. I DO care about ATS and these threads bring the intelligence curve on the board to near zero.

Here's a thought, why not put forth YOUR candidate in a positive manner rather than just a smear campaign on the opposite one?

And what makes you think he isn't a conservative? Because he doesn't want to wallow in the mud?

You are as guilty as anyone on ATS when it comes to trying to silence opinions by discrediting the messenger.

Care to back that up? Pretty serious accusation there mate. I'm all for community building, just not tripe that a casual reader comes by and thinks, "Man, what a crappy site."

Originally posted by mybigunit
See Intrepid TOO had an agenda ..... He wants to make more money

You have NO idea what I do with the funds I get. I couldn't even buy a rubber band. This is voluntary man.

C'mon man, I know you just got your ATS bonus and bought a new Ferrari 599GTB Fiorano with it, don't try to kid a kidder

I realize that all the gala luncheons, Gulfstream trips to pool parties in Tahiti, and Cannes film premieres you attend as an ATS Super Moderator can be a bit grueling, so perhaps you were just tired and not thinking straight...