How many of the people here on ATS have seen the title of this thread appear in debates? I am getting very tired of it to be honest. People post their political opinion and at the end of their post they say you're a terrorist if you disagree, or they make a quip like "If you don't like it then you should join the bombing campaign". I'm tired of these sorts of comments, they're absolutely disgusting and nothing more than an attempt to pre-emptively devalue any opposing opinion.

It's doesn't just stretch to terrorism either, i've seen all sorts of insults on ATS, from people being called paedophiles to terrorists to cyber vandals. It's really got to stop. If you disagree with what someone says then destroy the points they make, the statistics they provide, not their character.

I completely agree, and was actually thinking the same myself earlier on whilst reading almost exactly that in another thread.

To lower it to that level is a low-blow.

Its called 'lack of sufficient intelligence to hold an intellectual discussion'.

Like all those muppets on youtube that go around calling people nazi's if they don't agree with them. Small minded idiots.

Take the pledge.

(see my signature)

This is an VERY good thread.

Kinda sounds like some countries Foreign AND Home Office Policies.

Not gonna say which countries for fear of being labelled a terrorist and becoming the victim of a one sided extradition treaty!!

Originally posted by Dermo
Its called 'lack of sufficient intelligence to hold an intellectual discussion'.

Like all those muppets on youtube that go around calling people nazi's if they don't agree with them. Small minded idiots.

Well if someone is actually esposing nazi ideas that's a different issue. I myself have commented on that in threads but only when someone really is in line with something the nazis did. My point was this pre-emptive commenting of people who don't want to address the points someone makes and instead attacks their character. I've commented that some peoples views would be welcome in nazi germany, but that's a rare thing and based on factual evidence.

People however seem to use it very loosely and i just find it annoying as it detracts from the actual discussion.

I honestly believe a large majority of that is due to the conditioning of the american citizen. Americans are taught from a young age that we are right, they are wrong. That those with opposing beliefs are terrorists. That all dark people are drug addicts.

Some people are smart enough to see through it. Unfortunately the vast majority fall right into it.

Again today we see the use of such arguements. In the thread about a hacker being deported we get someone coming along and saying "Still full of america haters i see". This annoys the hell out of me because the thread had nothing to do with hating america, just people asking america not to try and deport UK citizens and instead let them be tried in their host countries.

Yet they felt the need to try and deflect all arguements by claiming anyone who didn't want him deported is an america hater.

It's an often-used tactic because it's effective.

It goes like this: reiterate your opponents finely-detailed argument, painting with a broad brush. Gloss so widely that you can then discredit the entire stance, with the negative emotional association of extremism.

It's similar to how advertisers associate small specific effects of their products, that they would like to highlight, as being 'the key to a happy life', and emotionally associate a dull, dreary existence without their product.

Or how politicians pick a single point of their agenda, and attempt to show how it exemplifies and indicates a vision of utopia, emotionally bolstering their entire platform, often without specific reason.

Those who embrace such tactics often do so because of a lack of underlaying rational support for the truth of their argument. In so doing, they're not serving the purpose helping the listener determine truth, but rather propagating an agenda.

So, when you see such tactics, know that such people stand in the camp of liars and deceivers.

*cough*

Moderators are never required to take action, as far as I know. I believe it is their job to consider action, when requested, and act, well, moderately.

But who will protect the children? First, let's define 'protect'. Does hiding potentially-objectionable ideology from those we deem need 'protected' actually help, or does it hinder the development of intellectual inoculation (the only true antibody to ignorance)?