Posting of Graphic Images - Reminder

I see your point, Illusions...but I would consider oppurtunity and what ATS is.

Many people who post will not travel to the region and will have no real impact on the conflict; indeed there are some who post who couldn't find the region on a map.

My point is that there is no point cramming the images down the throats of people who will do nothing. Complaining and reacting on a message board is fine but when people get heated they over react in context to the situation that they are acting in.

A picture now and again is fine...and we have allowed graphic images in the past. But discussing ehtnic/cultural/economic/political motivations behind any conflict is at times severly compromised when judgment/reason/arguing is simplified to "the thousand words that a picture conveys"...because everyone will use many different combinations of words.

Again...my two cents...

You know I respect you greatly, but in my opinion, if someone voluntarily is reading a thread about war, you arent shoving anything down their throats. I agree that there are issues besides the issue of human suffering, political aspects, economic aspects, etc. But no real argument is made that the political agenda of the Nazi party or its economic interests justified whitewashing the suffering of the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc. Nor is there any real discussion of the economic reasons or political reasons that "terrorist" activity against the US was justified, and our human suffering swept under the rug.

To me, it is about justice. If we are allowed to discount the political and economic interests of our enemies in the face of the suffering they cause our countrymen and allies, we should at the very least be allowed to see the suffering our own economic and political interests cause them.






[edit on 7-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

And there is nothing stating that one person need ignore the pictures of brutality; indeed, reference them if need be. The images can be found by everyone who has a connection to the net.

But having the ability to use base images to fulfill your end of the argument isn't necessarily conducive to civil discussion and indeed may have the opposite effect.

I take it you're an adult. That's fine. This is an all ages site and it's not up to the membership to decide what is posted. We have kids here and we can't be responsible for what some may post, thinking it's OK to show that worst side of war. As a father I wouldn't want my kids to see some of these pics if I hadn't vetted them personally. One of my girls(13) is very sensitive. I'm glad this policy is in place here.

Secondly, this isn't censorship. It's community safety. AND everyone that registers at ATS agrees with the T&C. It's a contract between the site and the members. And in that contract there is a part that states no gore or graphic pictures.

Its about showing or trying to find the truth,i was under the impression that was ATS's objective.The MSM wont show the true picture of what is happening day in day out on the ground,they will show you fighter planes launching missiles and clouds of smoke, not the aftermath and the havock it causes to ordinary civilians.Anyway like many people emotions are high right now i dont want to come off as sounding arrogant,but its something i feel strongly should be shown,of course i wont go against the rules of ATS.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by Solomons]

Maybe there should be; not necessarily discussion on the justifications thereof but discussion based on the events that lead to the occurence/event. This way we can further communicate awareness of how seemingly inoculous events can lead to tragedy...discussion of the tragedy will occur but mostly during the tragedy.

---

On a side note...how many people donated money to adopt a child in Africa based on the many infomercials?

How many people have laughed at Sally Struthers spoofs?

Sometimes the images just don't have the intended effect on your audience. Words are more explicit and to the point...

I would wager that more have donated because of the visuals than would have had they not seen them. You are correct that not everyone responds to visuals the same way. But they DO have impact. That is why television advertising is preferred (and priced significantly higher than) print ads without pictures in a newspaper.

Advertisers, those who are expert in the art of persuasion and selling opinion, know that a picture IS worth a thousand words, and the economics of advertising bears that out.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

---

Kind of my point. Pictures tend to cause an immediate reaction within the person which usually carries with it a certain basic reaction that is then the physiological signature for the topic/subject.

ATS is for intelligent discussion and that point can be lost in the many reactive posts to the immediately posted images on these boards. People will invariably still see the pics and still use them in their reasoning process'...which is why I think it is important to stress the importance of reasoned conversation.

We don't necessarily disagree, Illusions...not even a little save for the context of the discussion board. And I will concede that some of my points were presented as a static generalization and will not apply across the board to all members...

I'd just like to add another perspective

how many images are OK - how many are too many?

at some point it just becomes war-porn

while I think the evidence of war's reality is necessary - it's also important to remember that those are people's mothers, children, friends - they are individual people and not just evidence or symbols.

I can imagine the nightmare without the pics - and I don't care any less about what's happening without them

Shesh Gemwolf, what a killjoy. I mean I think it's entirely appropriate to post pictures of piles of mutilated bodies and severed limbs. I mean how on earth are we posters going to get across the magnitude of the situation without pictures depicting the gruesome reality on the ground?

I mean your probably suggesting that we should also refrain from highly detailed descriptions of the smouldering corpses rotting in the middle eastern sun.

While I agree with the OP, I also disagree.

This community is about denying ignorance, and not living our lives according to the manipulated media, and the fact that many people are unable to see what really is going on in the world. While some people may appreciate the sugar-coated information about the Gaza conflict, I feel it takes away from the seriousness of the situation. Sometimes it takes the image of a child who has been hit by a bomb blast to open someones eyes to the REAL horrors of war. Not the words, not the news reporters, but the sad, true fact that some people would rather not face. To me, that is ignorance.

Now, I do agree that if there is to be graphic content showing the atrocities of Israel and its indiscriminate bombings, then there has to be some sort of warning before hand. Posts should be required to clearly state that it contains content related to the conflict, and may not be suitable for everybody.

This community isn't about hiding the facts, its about showing them as things really are - something the American media will never even think about airing. If we do not allow people to post such content, we are no better then FOX news. I come to ATS because of the open, unbiased, and truthful discussion on all subjects - sad, horrific, as well as the occasionally peaceful post that makes you think humanity has a chance.

There has to be a better way to deal with this subject other then to sweep it under the rug. I honestly would have never known the seriousness of the conflict if it had not been for ATS. I would have not seen some of the things I saw, and may not have been moved in the way I was. Maybe by creating a dedictated forum to the Gaza conflict, as I saw a mod speak about in a thread yesterday, that carries with it a reminder that war is not flowers and rainbows. War is war. Nothing will ever change that, and until people have seen the horrors of war, they will be oblivious to it.

One of the points I was attempting to convey earlier is that the use of these images by fellow members can be manipulated media.

Omitting some images some of the time does not mean that we aren't communicating effectively the atrocities that are occurring in the world.

The Killing Fields, Vietnam, by photographer Huynh Cong Ut.

On June 8th, 1972, nine-year-old Kim Phuc Phan Thi's village near Trang Bang Vietnam was hit by South Vietnamese bombers in an American-ordered attack. In one of the world's best-known photographs, Kim, who took a direct hit, is shown running naked down a road, screaming in agony from the napalm that covered her body.

His photo was seen on the cover of Time Magazine later that month, and is still remembered today as one of the most infamous images of the Vietnam War.

Horst Faas ordered the photo transmitted despite the AP bureau's debate about transmitting a naked girl's photo over the wire.

Ut earned the Pulitzer prize for his photograph.

Also should this site not be adults only, seen as it can deal with some very hot topics. It however is a privately run site that needs to keep its advertises etc on-side so if they want to censor things that is up to them. Like you said there are other places you can get uncensored news from.

Are you stalking me at the moment??


I have not posted any images of war and have no intention to do so....but others who wish to do so in the right context, should be allowed.
I'm not saying that people should post pics of mutilated bodies for the sake of posting them, but if it warrants a picture to go with your thread, why not?

I thought this was an "alternative news" site?

As i said, we don't censor our news as much in the uk, and for that i am sooo glad... guess i still need the MSM for some things then...

It was the same with the elections in the US and people using Barack "Husein" Obama... to cause upset, and i agree....if it's just used to cause tension and problems.... then no...but i have to say this is different.

You are moderators... Moderate??

If you clearly see someone doing it (posting graphic images to cause trouble/divisions) then stop/close the thread.
I believe that there may be a reason for someone needing to post an image and they may not start that thread or post through fear now... and that is not fair.

As i said, i don't even want to post one and have no intention of doing so and am not trying to be difficult or anything like that.... i just don't clearly understand the reasoning behind it?
Fair enough, not everybody is objective enough, but that doesn't stop the spread of disgustingly homophobic, racist and generally bigoted threads that appear on this site.

I am struggling to see the logic but i accept that i can do nothing about it, it's your site... not ours..... and i am fully aware of that.

Its not a case of moderation its a case of changing the T&C and I feel confident in saying we're not changing this one.

It's not always about pure logic. Again we weigh what we feel is best for the community as whole that's why we don't allow people to make their point in any discussion by posting explicit images of any kind.

To say it is not denying ignorance because we try to keep the sight as family friendly as possible is just completely inacurate.

We all know what an assault rifle does to the human body as well as bombs.

We don't allow the posting of nekked folk around here either and I don't think it hurts the sight at all and I am very pro-nekkid.

Like I said lots of places on the net to discuss things we don't discuss here and also sights that are alot more fast and loose with their T&C.

They feel comfortable with their rules and we feel comfortable with ours.

You can keep asking the same question and we'll keep giving you the same answer.

We dont think it's appropriate and we also think our members are smart enough to get their points across without posting pics of severed limbs and corpse piles.

spiderj

By this comment, i guess you are addressing me.




I did not say that.




There would be no reason at all to post naked people on here.





I actually said at the end of my post... " It's your "site" and I'm fully aware of that"... i have not asked for a change in T&C, just a valid reason why somebody (not even me) should not be able to post a picture depicting the atrocities of war.... i can see this going round in circles, so again i concede.

At ATS we specialize. We want to be the most polite, decorous, civil and intelligent conspiracy and paranormal site on the web. But we also like Alternative and Breaking General News.

So read the story here and google for graphic images and you'll find them. Result: Ignorance denied.

In fact, if we break the story here (without images, say), then we are enabling you to go google, right? So we are always maximally denying ignorance (think about it). Yet we remain G and M-rated, allowing maximal traffic potential (which works for the Members, too, widening perspective and POV). (Oddly, some work sites block us, but usually because we are too entertaining. )


Good thread, btw.


[edit on 1/7/2009 by Badge01]

reply to post by Badge01

---

Fair enough and thanks for the pleasant and "non-aggressive" reply.
I did have a thought though.....(dangerous i know ) In some podcasts, there are explicit words used and a warning is put up.... could there not be a sub-forum or special forum whereby adults could discuss issues that perhaps young ears could not hear??

And just not include them in google searches?

I mean, either way.... I'm really and honestly not fussed.... it doesn't affect me as i have no desire to do it... i just find contradictions in the rules from time to time and would like valid answers.

You have provided one and i thank you

Edit for slight word change.


[edit on 7/1/09 by blupblup]

reply to post by blupblup

---

Yeah I was replying to posts in general so most of those were not directed at you but at thread readers in general.

However to address your point about there being no reason to post nude photos here, well the same argument youre attempting to make about posting explicit war photos could be made by another poster on another topic about nude photos.

Say someone wanted to start a thread on tantra and felt it appropriate to post nude photos, that in fact were of people performing a tantric act...the argument could be made that this is being posted purely for information and to help get the point accross.

However the answer would be the same, no nekkid people, no dead people, no people doing drugs it's just the way things are around here.

spiderj