It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
If someone calls me an anti Semite or a group of people anti Semitic is that "hate speech"? After all that connotes NAZI, Jew Hater, stupid, illiterate, philistine, and someone of evil character who approves of the mass slaughter of a religious/ethnic group.

That sounds pretty hateful to me! Will that "hate speech" be enforced as well?

I'm VERY concerned!




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
You say both sides are guilty in the Gaza conflict..to me that is ignorant hate speech, but hey.... it's your website..you have the power to label people who disagree with you. I think ATS users for the most part do a good job of ignoring the true haters and keeping the debates productive. Maybe you are spending a lot more time policing the forums but if it weren't for the heated arguments and occasional lash-out that gets deleted, I would have forgotten about this site long ago.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
This isn't as complicated as people are trying to make it out to be.

As Justice Stewart noted years ago: "I know it when I see it."

Peace all.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
My opinion: this site has ALWAYS been heavily controlled. Introducing "hate speach" category is just more of the same - official propaganda.
So, whatever you do - will not surprise me.
I know that all members here should be aware that their names are easy to get, and whatever they write here could be used against them in the court of law. Yes, I am CERTAIN, that the day will come very soon when they will prosecute you for the "subtle" hate speech, whatever that orwellian phrase means.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
This post is like passing a car accident...

You don't want to look but you can't stop. Peole have spent pages defending statements that are simply indefensible.

I understand the "free speech" thing more then most because I have been beaten up by Mods for going, they say, to far in sarcastic comments.

Oh well, lets move on.

BUT...you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. There is no true "free speech" and we all know it so please everyone who is worried about their comments being taken as "hate speech," needs to realize that if you are worried then you are probably very guilty of it.

You CAN NOT say what ever you want and then say it is "just a conspiracy" so "you can't touch me."

That "sticks and stones thing" our Mom's taught us is wrong. Words can hurt.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


In my humble opinion, it would seem that all of us who choose the forum of A.T.S. to elucidate our opinions, ideas, passions, etc. could do far worse than to strive to persevere in our attempts to present a argument or point of contention (controversial as it may be) in the most precise, consistently verifiable and elegant of fashions.

If for no other purpose, it would serve to cause us*ALL* to strive to offer a solidly based, centered foundation for our multi-faceted sometimes divergent observations/gripes to be intelligently debated.

I willingly concede that at times, highly irrational/illogical thesis are offered. And are to be expected (given the free access nature of this particular beast) but we should eagerly take up this challenge from said sources in a way that points out perceived chinks in the armor of their arguments while abstaining from attempting to devastate the particular poster in a vulgar, undignified, personal fashion.

I offer these ideas to you all with a spirit of hearty respect. I find this site quite unique in that daily, I have the option of sampling from a astounding spectrum of consciousness.

You folks *ALL* are inspiring me to consider my words most carefully before I offer them. I look forward to seeing where this winding path leads to. I toast the spirit of this collective journey to Ithaca~

Ithaka



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
If someone calls me an anti Semite or a group of people anti Semitic is that "hate speech"? After all that connotes NAZI, Jew Hater, stupid, illiterate, philistine, and someone of evil character who approves of the mass slaughter of a religious/ethnic group.

That sounds pretty hateful to me! Will that "hate speech" be enforced as well?

I'm VERY concerned!


When in doubt, hit the "complaint" skittle and it'll be boosted up to the mods. And ignore the poster (so you're not baited into a fight where you start to look like the real perp.)

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Who would have thought this thread would go on as long as it has..
. I got the message from OP's opening message. Oh and for those of you thinking I am kissing butt to get higher in the ranks...well just look at my points and you can see I could care less. What I can`t understand is....What is it that is so hard to grasp......Your are either debating a subject without spewing hatered of any culture, group or individual or you are. Hmm...Not too difficult. Here and example....you morons can`t seem to get it...what is so freakin hard tio understand.....hate filled....I do not understand why some of our fellow ATS`ers don`t get it. It was made very clear in the opening post and also subsequent posts...not hate filled. Now tell me...WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE YOU SEE...IN THE SAME STATEMENTS


[edit on 5-2-2009 by riggs2099]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggs2099
Here and example....you morons can`t seem to get it...what is so freakin hard tio understand.....hate filled....


Nice. Use the thread to be abusive pretending it is an "example."

I also have a question about discrimination, while we are on the subject. Is it ok to post a thread and exclude groups?

Say for instance, "this thread is not for Jews? Or black people? Or Mormons?" Is that considered "hate?"

Serious question. I really want to know the answer to this.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
If I may suggest a solution...

There is an ALERT button direct to the sites moderators thread, hell if its as prevalent as you say then make a "Hate Speech" button. If they get two complaints from ALERTs listed as Hate Speech, they can then debate within the moderators thread whether the user should be banned.

Banning should not be immediate, since the accused may be able to provide proof as to his assertions and his opinions, which have been classified as hate speech. The rule needs to be changed from immediate to limited... Maybe the accused could open a thread to show his reasoning behind making statements given that he/she wished to do so. This could also be moderated to prevent abuse. If proven guilty he could face limited acct status or whatever. After two occurrences banned. Or after the first depending on circumstances. But doable.

Not that hard and it keeps people from having their freedom of speech trampled on in the name of whatever they want to call it now.

This may prevent some users coming back and saying that ATS banned accts erroneously.

Rgds

Hope they consider this....

[edit on 5-2-2009 by AllTiedTogether]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
[
Say for instance, "this thread is not for Jews? Or black people? Or Mormons?" Is that considered "hate?"

Serious question. I really want to know the answer to this.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]


If I'm not mistaken...excluding a group because of who they are...is a type of hate. If you don't see this then you will never understand. Explaining things to you is like trying to teach a man with no legs how to run...no matter how hard people try ...it just ain't going to happen..



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Inclusive Exclusion


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Say for instance, "this thread is not for Jews? Or black people? Or Mormons?" Is that considered "hate?"

If it isn't for all ATS members, then it doesn't belong on ATS.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I fully admit that I have partaken of this 'hate speech' a few times (usually alcohol-fueled) and I must say that I've woken up the next day feeling mighty damned ashamed of myself.

I know you said 'water under the bridge' Springer but I shall take this opportunity to apologise to all those I have offended and I shall refrain strongly from doing it again.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


Excellent. I was hoping that was the case.

Second line.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Thank you for addressing this. I left ATS about a year ago due to some of the things I saw escalating here. I am looking for intelligent, enlightening and insightful dialog, and this site has all that. Thanks again.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Way past due, in my opinion, although I question whether this is something that's being enforced or not. After reading the first few pages of this thread, I see a number of posts flying in the face of this new policy.

It's sickening, the amount of anti-semitism that exists here on ATS. I agree with you, Springer, people on all sides are certainly guilty of this.

The turning point for me was today when I saw a couple of people linking to a website called 'jew watch.'



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur

So if I say I don't believe, according to my research, I don't believe a total of 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust, or that there are some questions about really exactly what happened, that would be considered hate speech? Of course we should all use respect when debating or commenting, but is every negative comment about Jews considered hate speech? Why?

Because doing research and developing informed opinions based on research, I don't consider hate. The problem arises when even questioning certain situations becomes taboo.

No circumstance in History is exempt from historical research, or shouldn't be. When every other part of history but this particular part can be studied, and questioned, that is what is frustrating.

Twenty thousand christians were killed under horrendous circumstances in the Bolshevik Revolution, and the large majority of the people in charge were Jewish. Why would it be considered hate to state an historical fact, this is truth. It is not hate speech.

I can say, in Darfur, both the peoples involved are black, and I can say the Janjaweed are Muslims, this truth. It is not hate speech.

The big problem as I see it, is there are always some bad people in every group, (not talking about ATS group) people in general, that make the rest of the group look bad, and that applies to every group.

I personally try not to tar every individual with the same brush. And every individual needs to forget about loyalty to their group when things need to be spoken out about.

If we don't, we are perpetuating the stereotypes.

 



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
A Hateful Curse


Originally posted by Monger
Way past due, in my opinion, although I question whether this is something that's being enforced or not. After reading the first few pages of this thread, I see a number of posts flying in the face of this new policy.

There's definitely a problem, it's hurting our community, it's not easy to solve, and no matter what policies we may have, resolving it is going to take time, effort, cooperation and patience.

A while back, during my PTS days, I took a stab at this issue:

Deny Bigotry

What I learned over the course of that thread is that it can be very difficult to know where to draw the line, and that it's possible for good intentions to lead to unintended consequences.

Personally, I wince at such notions as "hate speech", "political correctness", "speech codes" and the like because they are so universally abused as means of silencing dissent. It's all too easy to sweep "inconvenient" opinions under the rug at the cost of intellectual freedom.

Thus I think it's very important for all of us to be mindful of that and avoid the temptation to condemn points of view simply because we disagree with them.

What We're Talking About

That said, I think it's too easy to misunderstand what's going on with all this talk of "hate speech" and miss what the real issue is (at least in my opinion).

ATS is a very broad family of discussion forums that cover a wide range of topics. Because the coverage is so extensive, it's easy to forget that there's a lot we don't talk about on ATS.

As examples, we don't discuss who we want to kill, our favorite porn videos, how to scam credit card numbers, crack software copy protection and so on. For those interested in such topics, there are many other forums on the Internet where they are welcomed and such discussion proceeds unhindered.

But not on ATS.

Editorial Discretion

As has already been noted, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use have prohibited "hate speech" for years:


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

While what constitutes such behavior may be subject to interpretation, there's really nothing ambiguous about it.

In all cases, application and enforcement of the terms & conditions is the duty of the staff, and is therefore subject to our discretion.

Ultimately, what this all boils down to is a reasonable exercise of editorial control on the part of the site owners with regard to what content is suitable for ATS and what is not.

As with other subjects deemed inappropriate, individuals seeking a venue for discussing them should look elsewhere.

While some members may be disappointed by that, the overall effect is to keep ATS focused on the topics intended.

For everything else, there's The Rest Of The Internet.™



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Majic
 


Very interesting thread you linked to, it seems that some dispositions persist.

I too tried to tackle this issue a couple of times with limited success.

The first time back in June in what I just realized is a eerily similar OP to the one in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... and the second time in a similar vein for the stuff that was going on during the elections www.abovetopsecret.com....

It is really an unfortunate never ending battle, one however that must be faught, lest we succomb to the powers of hatred.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolid
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Simply use common sense. Debate vs. Argument.


You just cost Christopher Hitchens every debate he ever won.



Originally posted by riggs2099
Who would have thought this thread would go on as long as it has..
. I got the message from OP's opening message. Oh and for those of you thinking I am kissing butt to get higher in the ranks...well just look at my points and you can see I could care less. What I can`t understand is....What is it that is so hard to grasp......Your are either debating a subject without spewing hatered of any culture, group or individual or you are. Hmm...Not too difficult. Here and example....you morons can`t seem to get it...what is so freakin hard tio understand.....hate filled....I do not understand why some of our fellow ATS`ers don`t get it. It was made very clear in the opening post and also subsequent posts...not hate filled. Now tell me...WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE YOU SEE...IN THE SAME STATEMENTS


[edit on 5-2-2009 by riggs2099]


Hey Guy your deficit doesn't impress me but I can appreciate your opinion about the points. I was twice minus 8000 and brought it back to +5000. . I have seen others complain about scary avatars too.

But I don't think we need to confuse anger with hatred.

I have seen entire threads set up by entire groups just for the sole purpose of manipulating a mod or two into a witch hunt and if those that did that left this place,,

I'd miss them terrible.


I can only see this as unique to everyone in a walking on eggshells form of political correctness.

In the mean time while all of us get diabetes from all the cookie cutter sugarcoated diplomacy in very diluted debates.

Can you imagine?

Whether it be about Obama and the racists that didn't vote for him or the Gay rights and same sex marriage prop-8'ers.

From the homophobes and bigots from the right winged whackos, the twoofers, the debunkers, NWO'ers, 2012'ers and masons. The bilderburg bimbos, illuminatti and trilaterals.

To an ideology from the bronze age, we see attacked everyday. It has caused more pain suffering and death than all evil combined, in a collective collaboration of catechism indoctrinated crazies, from crusades,,

to the WTC,

It's everyone’s favorite enemy,,

Religion!!'

and Especially "xtianity!"


Whichever one of these you align yourself with is most likely the same you have since your first day here and every sock puppet there after.

No one denies ignorance here and with this slogan reminding me of the once popular star spangled banner singing the land of the free,, and,, "BECAUSE" of the brave! ATS is no longer about a place where one denies ignorance, it is a place where ignorance is contingent on the impossible fine tuning of a zero sum game and the idea of an equally fine tuned ATS MOD with a zero sum chance for less than perfect impartiality.

with a zero tolerance for intolerance while expecting nothing BUT tolerance, from all us.

THIS OUGHT TO BE REAL INTERESTING!

It is one of the many skills I have seen improve on, more than any other in our arsenal of tactics in our inductive arguments that I have appreceiated so.

It is not one exercised but rather atrophy's from the oppressive threats of those chanting the infractions of the T&C intimidating members whose "posting style may seem over the top by one mod u2u'ing a blunt reprisal of his or her own,,

While still another Mod gives you applause,

for that same post.

Such things have happened and give credence to many whose understanding of hate speech, may be academic to you, or I but may not be anywhere near the understanding another has and that other may just happen to be Springer.

Springer's initial response to this question was to research it ourselves. One can only hope that our diligence in accepting your answer as good and wise advice, we can only hope, our research reflected the same words and phrases so easily covered with a thin coat of veneer

The logic in the argument attack the post but not the poster makes for a great slogan, but when one represents what he says in a post, they are insulted the same nevertheless.

Someone saying they should legalize a drug and another attacks that post saying " I think people who do drugs are ignorant or I think doing drugs are stupid", it isn't the post I am arguing, it is the author of it and he knows it. If you don't think so, next time you say drugs are stupid, someone should also say, "what does that say about the user?

When someone says, belief in God is stupid and I say that ouch that hurts. They may argue they did not attack me personally but only the belief.

If belief in God is stupid, then someone should ask,

What does that say about the believer?

Attacking the post and not the poster is a mixed bag and as much a pandoras box as this zero tolerance is from those who expect nothing but tolerance,, from us.

Yeah it's quite a quagmire I see a brewing here and by the looks of the posts with words to the same effect, I think the complicity in ATS MODS not doing Jobs may have been appreciated by some but to snap us back like whiplash with a zero tolerance is a bit misguided when so many were waiting for the assistance of one while the arguments get more heated more angry and one sided.

It is sad to see seasoned debates be so oppressed by the worries of those whose self concept is one molecule away from an eggshell, it is when those who have earned a thicker skin and a more assertive uncompromising tact, one without expletives but the adjectives whose objectives are used to have impact while announcing "you ain’t no crème puff yourself"


It was a Mod named NGC2736. That taught me, "We teach best what it is we most need to learn". While those teaching tolerance need to learn that so much tolerance has the personality of a tree stump. When such a mandate for others is used to test the tolerance of those it is expected, it can only harbor resentment as it holds fast in compliance with the PTB on ATS.

One of the many skills one gains in the art of verbal self defense in the DOJO named ATS is not only holding our tongue in insincere tolerance but I would never learn to defend myself without the Springer’s and the skeptics. As Maslow said, we all see the world uniquely by our own frame of reference and as we all know, the mods are too few and most are unavailable so I hone my skill as I sharpen my sword but adding a callous to our skin is its own hard-earned reward

While intolerance has the spirit to stand its ground, it is in actuality those who demand tolerance,,

I see not tolerant,

at all.

While others like springer know when to tolerate no longer, is this kind of intolerance is to know when to say,

enough is enough, and the difference,,

To know when.


Personally, if I may be so bold, I cannot stand political correctness. It has clouded our language with flowery insincere pleasantry and politeness.

I don't know about you but I like to know just where I stand and if someone acts like a flaming filet of troll peking style, I am confident from my experience, that I know no matter how gentle or how rough I deliver my rebuttal, it makes no difference because they aren't about listening or learning, were all about our logic our reason and rationality.

No one admits they are wrong, it's the way it is ATS own Hospitality. The addiction to argue a common denominator we all share. It isn't about winning or losing, hell none of us care.

It's about denying ignorance from a place now so tame, it's not fair.



Originally posted by Springer
Consider this post as FAIR WARNING that the staff and owners of AboveTopSecret.com will be following the T.A.C. to the letter and we are implementing a ZERO TOLERANCE policy on ALL hate speech.



Like no one can give me an inferiority complex without my consent,

No, matter what I say,,,,, I can no more spread hate when that hate is ignorance denied,

Anymore than those that hate was directed , would not be accepted as ignorance allowed.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join