COMMUNICATING THREATS OF VIOLENCE ON ATS…

DoNotForgetMe
Reply to post by bunnytoes1973

 

Exactly. And here is a thought, to become a member of ATS should require a monthly payment, the public can view but not post, like it is now, but members should have to pay and Above Network could use the funds to hire fulltime MODS and end all the BS. I hate spending 30 min watching 2 punks bicker back and forth like lil girls arguing over what dress Barbie looks better in, and alot of members are doing just that, taking up so much of a thread that I finally lose interest and say SNIP it. ATS is worth a monthly fee, lot of wisdom and encouragement here- for me anyway- even the out of this world threads and over the top threads are mildly entertaining, but the arguing and hate has to go. I have no prob paying a MOD to handle the light work.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

really....a monthly fee ? i think you may have gone completely nuts....ATS is a great place why ruin it ? a monthly fee would be the death of this site and that would really suck....

as far as the threats go yes it should not happen and the mods do a pretty good job,i do find it disturbing though that freedom of speech is ever dwindling and it feels like the thought police will be on our doorstep as soon as we do not tow the party line

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the mods and owner for using alternative profanity. (as in replacing letters with symbols)

I obviously didnt read the T&C as thoroughly as I should have.

Had I, I would not have been doing that out of respect because I freaking love this place....


(Just read the post above mine, agreed! Please God no)

Wow... Someone blew the dust off from this blast from the past...

Good stuff though...

It's still how we roll, and nothing has changed...

Except the link to the Terms & Conditions

Yup... That's new...

Is this actually going to extend to all the blustering levied at police officers? I am so sick of going into threads where posters spout off about how violent revolution is inevitable and pig this pig that maybe we should start harassing police officers families until they get the idea/maybe if someone gets a rifle and takes a few cops out they'll start to realize.....

There are probably more cops and family/friends of cops on this site than anyone realizes but it seems to be the only group where such language is completely ignored. I'm actually surprised because there would probably be a rather large backlash from advertisers if they were aware.

I'm all for calling out bad cops and calling a scumbag a scumbag. I've started a number of threads on bad cops that disgusted me. You can hate police all you want, but you should be required to keep it civil just as the people that hate gays or any other group are. Want to add that I'm amazed people have a problem with curbing violent rhetoric and threats here. The very idea this is somehow curbing free speech or that Orwell was right bluster bluster bluster is ridiculous.

You DON'T have free speech rights on this website. Clearly there are things that are not to be discussed, language not to be used and if you're mad about anything be mad at all the other things that can't be discussed or said, not threatening other members or people. I certainly don't care if someone sees a video and says something like "Man I probably would have hit that guy too" or threatens to plop Wrabbit in a stew, but these other clearly hate filled threats or calls to arms should result in a one day post ban after the second offense. Escalate as needed.

I just laughed at the guy threatening to 'trace' someone, but the reality is that other member may have been scared. That's not OK. We can disagree and bicker all we want, but threatening or attempting to intimidate someone is a dick move and shouldn't be tolerated.

a reply to: Domo1

When you see something like that alert it. We can't be everywhere and see everything, but if you bring it to our attention then we will look at it, and if it violates T&C it will be removed.

I gotta say, there’s an awful lot of hate going on in the world these days, and ATS surely does reflect that unfortunate reality. Don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate this forum and think it’s one of the best on the net. It’s open standards, variety of platforms and tolerance of individual viewpoints is commendable. I hope to remain a member for many moons to come. It’s not a fault of the forum that a certain faction of it’s membership may be raving, foaming at the mouth lunatics. It’s actually a credit to ATS that it allows such people a soapbox from which to express their anger and outrage. Who knows, it may be this avenue of release is the only thing preventing some folks from acting out their pent up rage. And in that sense, ATS provides a valuable service.

As with everything else in life, though, there are certain lines you do not cross, and certain bounds you must respect. You don’t scream, “Fire!”, in a crowded theater, you don’t bully others just to get your way, and you don’t threaten other ATS members, slander their name or target them in an abusive manner. To me, that’s crossing the line. If someone does that sort of thing it speaks more loudly of their personal shortcomings than anything else. It fires people up, preventing any civil exchange of ideas, and it lowers the level of discourse. Worst of all, though, many people take this sort of thing quite personally, and it may result in an unfortunate outcome.

I’ve got to admit, I often disregard certain of the political threads immediately upon reading the title. My feeling is, why participate in a mud-slinging hatefest? 99% of the time they have no value at all; there are always a few who have no interest in considering other possible views, have no facts to support their position, and are simply incapable of having a civil discussion. Certain individuals use harassment tactics to bolster their position, rather than taking a factual, thoughtful approach. From time to time, though, I can’t resist posting my position knowing that it’s in opposition to everyone else’s in the thread, and that I’ll be stoned mercilessly and hanged by the neck until dead for my views. If someone chooses to contest me with a different point of view, but in a civil manner, I’ll gladly respond. But for those who simply attack for the sake of attacking, I just ignore them and refuse to play the game.

In any case, actual threats, personal attacks and seriously abusive behavior should not be tolerated by ATS, and should entail consequences. Otherwise, it gives the kiddies an excuse to act out with bad behavior, and they’ll surely take it to the limit.

For what it’s worth, that’s my 2 cents...

I dunno..

I don't believe saying in general something like. " the president is a tyrant that should be hanged" is a direct threat or any kind of threat at all. Or even, " I wish someone would kill the traitor." or even "I would like to kill the traitor."

None of those are threats of violence at all. They do not fall under

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

You might think that's being hateful but hate has nothing to do with it. What it does have to do with is wishing some unwanted obstacle (like a corrupt politician) was out of your or the countries way.

Where does this end.. Censorship, so you cannot even say things like " I hate the president for what he's done" ? Or, " I hate the traitor Obama and wish he was dead" ? - Sorry folks but people like him in the limelight invite such cometary by their very nature, especially when it is someone so loathed and corrupt as our current puppet president who hurts more people than he helps.

Now, If I say, I am going to kill the president, that's different. That is a threat, a statement I or I hope none of my ATS peers will ever make.

All hypothetically speaking of course.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Actually, that doesn't have to relate to ATS Policy either way. There is a higher one which covers it and we're all bound by.

18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Source

Believe it or not, that even applies (and has been applied) when someone is just kidding. It's one of those they have no sense of humor about, at all, and we don't have to like it. We just have to follow it.

Personally, I've never been so taken with wishing harm on other folks that a few I legally can't do it to will be missed or bother me either way.

a reply to: Domo1

Actually, serious Christians . . . particularly evangelical and Pentecostal types

catch a LOT MORE hostility than even the police do hereon.

There's a huge . . . thread of . . . anarchy or rebellion or some such persistently quite vocal hereon.

And, much of it is stated in such shrill and hostile terms, I'd feel very very VERY unsafe if such posters knew my whereabouts.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Whoa there buddy. While I am far from a police sympathizer, to say Christians face more hostility(in the Americas) than the police is one of the most asinine things I have ever read in my decade+ at ATS.

The police wear bullet proof vests for a reason.

a reply to: jrod

There's a huge . . . thread of . . . anarchy or rebellion or some such persistently quite vocal hereon.

And, much of it is stated in such shrill and hostile terms, I'd feel very very VERY unsafe if such posters knew my whereabouts.

Evidently . . . as seems common . . . you did not read my whole post.

Or, perhaps the "hereon" somehow escaped your awareness . . . or otherwise failed to register sufficiently to be made logical sensible use thereof.

It is an empirical question. Perhaps some communications class in some university somewhere would be willing to take 100 threads at random on ATS and count the number of quite elevated levels hostile sentences directed at police vs directed at Christians/Christianity.

However, I'm super keenly aware that nothing I write seems to have the least bit of a gnat's-fart-in-a-blast-furnace's chance of influencing your thoughts and understanding about anything whatsoever.

Soooooooooo, enjoy your perspective . . . about me or whatever . . . regardless of the facts.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Actually, serious Christians . . . particularly evangelical and Pentecostal types

catch a LOT MORE hostility than even the police do hereon.

You just might have a point there. Evangelical and Pentecostal types are way more vocal than most other members in the sense that the overwhelming majority of their posts are preaching or interpreting everything through religious belief.

To my mind, it's similar to a member entering every thread to talk about cookies. Sooner or later, members roll their eyes and begin to scroll past that member's posts. Undaunted, the cookie member starts replying to them and doing whatever possible to swing the topic to cookies.

The cookie member is somewhat lacking in social skills and simply doesn't understand that the others aren't *against* cookies, they just don't care. Others enjoy cookies and don't want to spend their days talking about them or seeking to convert cake-lovers into cookie-lovers. Of course, by then our cookie-loving friend feels left out persecuted. At this point, they sometimes seek protection for their right to interject cookies into conversations and want anti-cookie talk banned as an impediment to their freedom of speech.

They just don't get it....

a reply to: Mirthful Me

>>
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone. -
>>

Taken from the T&C.

Today I was looking up some things on wikipedia, in regards to the terms "gay agenda", "gay recruitment" etc. which by itself are already ridiculous words. It happened I came across a link that listed ANTi HOMOSEXUAL HATE GROUPS, amongst them, you guessed it, basically all those HATE GROUPS are "Christian Right" Hate Groups". Notice the irony, "Christian".

This is the list:

en.wikipedia.org...

What it is interesting is that the SPLC has certain criteria WHAT defines an anti-gay hate group, and when those criteria are found to apply for a group it gets also labelled as such, rightfully I want to add.

Common things like distributing false claims, "anti-homosexual rhetoric that is a cover for racism" and so forth.

In some current threads I see exactly THOSE criteria met all the time, most prominently and by coincidence also by people I would consider "conservative christian right".

My question is, when "hateful and/or racist manner" is not allowed according to T&C, why then is it possible that we have people here spreading all the same lies and satisfying the criteria which would immediately list them as a "hate group" according to the SPLC.

Even seemingly "trivial" things like using phrases like "gay agenda" or "gay recruitment"....phrases which are EXCLUSIVELY and only used by hate-groups respective have been coined by them I see very often here on the forum. For me, those people are either very close or already beyond what constitutes free speech that needs to be tolerated. There IS a difference between free speech and exchange of different opinion...and openly spreading, VERY OBVIOUS hate and racism.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Uhhhhh . . . it can be demonstrated . . . but is more or less self evident . . .

EVERYONE constantly communicates out of and about their values.

EVERYONE.

In virtually all posts longer than 2-3 words . . .

REGARDLESS of what the thread topic is.

Yet, Christians are reacted to as though their doing the same thing--communicating out of and about their values in terms of the topic at hand and the implications thereof--related to their values, their perspectives, their cosmology--somehow it is considered VERBOTTEN for Christians to do THE SAME THING EVERYONE ELSE DOES--speak out of their values and about their values as those values relate to the topic.

I understand that my values are offensive to many hereon.

I understand that my values are boring to many hereon.

I understand that many hereon are hostile to my values and to me. That's made as painfully clear to me as often as many folks hereon can get away with it.

NEVERTHELESS, logically and in terms of ATS's "AGNOSTIC" policy on the part of staff and admin . . .

Christians have every right and capacity to communicate out of their values and in terms of their values as they relate to every thread topic AS ANYONE ELSE DOES.

IF Christians are to communicate about anything--they MUST automatically communicate out of their values--they have no other reality to communicate out of.

I understand that many would love to see that 100% removed from ATS.

I realize that I communicate about my values with some capacity at bold articulation and with a general aversion to attempting the vain, futile silliness of trying to communicate with my values hidden or even wrapped in 12 layers of rabbit fur and PC nonsense. I'm not made that way. I grew up in the Western U.S.A. cowboy country . . . what you see is what you get. I don't think much of whitewash.


Folks do not have a gun to their heads forcing them to read Christians' threads or posts.

Folks' scroll buttons are likely in good working order.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: jrod
. . . or otherwise failed to register sufficiently to be made logical sensible use thereof.

It is an empirical question. Perhaps some communications class in some university somewhere would be willing to take 100 threads at random on ATS and count the number of quite elevated levels hostile sentences directed at police vs directed at Christians/Christianity.


Soooooooooo, enjoy your perspective . . . about me or whatever . . . regardless of the facts.

Sure I did some snipping here, but if you truly are a Christian and a believer of Jesus and his Golden Rules please re-read what you write and pray about it. Pray about what you write to be sure you are spreading a righteous message.

Here is a fact you may not be aware of: Several MODs here on ATS just so happen to be LEOs. It is borderline insulting to compare the hostility and threats the police face on a daily basis to your perception that you are being persecuted for your belief system.

I apologize if you feel that I insulted you. I'm a shoot from the hip kind of person and I call it like I see it.

a reply to: jrod

I really do NOT understand the communication difficulty here.

Let me try again.

My statement is very simple.

You seem to REFUSE to accept it as stated, much less to respond to it as stated.

I'm saying simply:

1. Christians on ATS catch more verbal/written hostility in number and in inensity

than do

2. Police on ATS catch of the same.

There are more sentences of hostility by more posters expressing more hostility to Christians than there are expressing hostility to the police.

I am NOT talking about police out on the street.

I'd better say that again as you seem to be determined to ignore the fact.

I am NOT saying anything about police on the street.

Sigh.

This is not really rocket science.

a reply to: BO XIAN

There are no anti-Christian trolls I am aware of on ATS.

I can name several anti-cop trolls who frequent the Posse Comitatus forum, there actually is a lot of police bashing that goes on. Sadly several threads I started over there have fell victim to that.

I refuse to blindly believe what others tell me without doing my own research.

a reply to: jrod

I'm keenly aware of the cop-bashing.

I'm a bit . . . only a very slight bit . . . shocked that you seem so unaware of the massive amount of Christian/Christianity bashing and the huge troop of dogpilers who routinely, chronically engage in it on ATS.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Now that I think about it, I steer clear of religious threads on here so if they are trolls that frequently bash Christians I am unaware of them.

The vast majority of threads and posts have nothing to do with Christianity.

Just because one perceives something as religion bashing it does not mean in was the posters intent.

a reply to: jrod

When 'blood and gore' drip from most words and sentences with extreme hostility, bitterness, outrage, indignation, haughtiness, condemnation, assaultiveness etc.

it would appear that the intent is transparent, at least abundantly clear.

.