I agree that people should be nice and non-violent and non-threatenning.
Especially on ATS I expect a wide range of views - some passioantely held.
My worry is that strong disagreement, or fear of something can "interpreted" as hate speech - it is like disagreement with the government
sudennly becomes equated to terrorism !
It is very important that different and opposing views are voiced, but in a way where people are not taking bites out of each other, or deliberately
insulting or winding people up.
I have some strong views on certain things, and I must beable to to say that I think some things are rubbish or wrong.
I hope and always intend NOT to be rude or nasty or hate mongering in anyway; At the same time I do not want anyone to feel that they cannot voice
that they think "X, Y or Z" is wrong, corrupt, abusing or misleading....
Somehwere there has to be respect for each other -- even if we violently disagree and we must beable to talk about it sensisbly and openly.
The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS, page 11
privacy
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 04:32 AM by deccal
I have a question: can for example this thread be considered as a hate speech, or hate thread? www.abovetopsecret.com...
If I look at OP's maps with labels: This is Muslim, This is Muslim, I find it clearly inappropriate. But I wanted to know what do you think.
If I look at OP's maps with labels: This is Muslim, This is Muslim, I find it clearly inappropriate. But I wanted to know what do you think.
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 04:56 AM by mazzroth
Originally posted by deccal
I have a question: can for example this thread be considered as a hate speech, or hate thread? www.abovetopsecret.com...
If I look at OP's maps with labels: This is Muslim, This is Muslim, I find it clearly inappropriate. But I wanted to know what do you think.
Wow...I'm really surprised this was let through the comprehensive net of hate speech. I wonder how the owners don't have that Post removed and the poster stripped of all their shiny medals ? you and I all know what has just happened here..right in your face a conspiracy for you to all digest and for the PC crowd to just blissfully gloss over that which they find offensive but the truth none the less.
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 05:03 AM by deccal
reply to post by mazzroth
I don't know. I first thought, maybe becuase the poster is a Mod. But as I experience here, the policy of this Forum is not working that way, it is fair and just. But maybe I interpret hate speech-hate thread not clear enough.
I don't know. I first thought, maybe becuase the poster is a Mod. But as I experience here, the policy of this Forum is not working that way, it is fair and just. But maybe I interpret hate speech-hate thread not clear enough.
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 05:48 AM by HiAliens
Those darn Greys, coming here, cloning our organs, probing our women. Filling our children full of junk DNA. Makes me SICK! I wish they would haul
their skinny decrepit frames back to Zeta Reticuli, every single one of them. --- Can anyone comment on that? Does I gets banhammered if I hayte on
the Greyz?
* * *
I think some people are finding this issue confusing because Hate Speech HAS been used in the past by some governments to restrict free-speech. I am from the U.K. and I know that our government introduced a hate speech and hate crime bill that had fairly fuzzy boundaries and was open to abuse.
I think this is the reason behind some people's questions.
I don't think there is anything sinister at all about the hate speech rules on ATS. The modding here is good, despite a mild outbreak of condescension in this thread.
There was another thread a while back about "angsty" tones. I know the following post is not hate speech, but does it constitute "angst"? Serious question. What's the difference between monumental frustration and angst?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
* * *
Also, what about this post from the much missed Reconpilot? He's an Altairian who thinks human beings are STUPID and should be quarantined on earth. Isn't that inciting exo-political hatred? We should get our policies straight before we join the galactic federation.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
* * *
Lastly, I recommend "stealth-modding"- Culprits could be sent a polite, friendly U2U at first, before a posting ban. This would avoid loss of face.
* * *
I think some people are finding this issue confusing because Hate Speech HAS been used in the past by some governments to restrict free-speech. I am from the U.K. and I know that our government introduced a hate speech and hate crime bill that had fairly fuzzy boundaries and was open to abuse.
I think this is the reason behind some people's questions.
I don't think there is anything sinister at all about the hate speech rules on ATS. The modding here is good, despite a mild outbreak of condescension in this thread.
There was another thread a while back about "angsty" tones. I know the following post is not hate speech, but does it constitute "angst"? Serious question. What's the difference between monumental frustration and angst?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
* * *
Also, what about this post from the much missed Reconpilot? He's an Altairian who thinks human beings are STUPID and should be quarantined on earth. Isn't that inciting exo-political hatred? We should get our policies straight before we join the galactic federation.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
* * *
Lastly, I recommend "stealth-modding"- Culprits could be sent a polite, friendly U2U at first, before a posting ban. This would avoid loss of face.
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 07:22 AM by undo
reply to post by deccal
the intent is to say --- if i'm guilty as a christian, for things someone did in 1000 BC or 1000 AD, then how is he not guilty, as a man, for things men have done to women since the dawn of homo sapians? it doesn't mean that men are bad. it means that each person is an individual; no more or no less prone to be good or bad, regardless of title (christian, man, woman, etc). so making clearly defined groups to blame for past events, is totally ludicrous.
[edit on 6-2-2009 by undo]
the intent is to say --- if i'm guilty as a christian, for things someone did in 1000 BC or 1000 AD, then how is he not guilty, as a man, for things men have done to women since the dawn of homo sapians? it doesn't mean that men are bad. it means that each person is an individual; no more or no less prone to be good or bad, regardless of title (christian, man, woman, etc). so making clearly defined groups to blame for past events, is totally ludicrous.
[edit on 6-2-2009 by undo]
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 07:34 AM by deccal
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by deccal
the intent is to say --- if i'm guilty as a christian, for things someone did in 1000 BC or 1000 AD, then how is he not guilty, as a man, for things men have done to women since the dawn of homo sapians? it doesn't mean that men are bad. it means that each person is an individual; no more or no less prone to be good or bad, regardless of title (christian, man, woman, etc). so making clearly defined groups to blame, is totally ludicrous.
You are generally right. But,
if you [i am speaking in general], as a man, do not recognize that women were and still are under oppresion since thousands of years, and if you do not try to be careful in your daily life, and continue to reproduce patriarchal hegemony, then you may be considered as guilty. This is my opinion.
This is same with any religion: If you dont recognize which bad things [crusades etc..] your religion [christianity, islam etc..] brought to the world, and if you dont try to change your religion to a more peaceful direction, then you are guilty again.
But you are of course not automatically guilty if you are a male or a christian.
One last thing: One may say, you dont born as christian but as male. This is wrong. Here "male" is not biological term male, but as a specific gender role.
reply posted on 6-2-2009 @ 07:40 AM by undo
reply to post by deccal
well see, that's the problem. i can no more change the direction of people "(Because they are individuals) than you can change the direction of men who abuse women (or women who abuse men). the point is the same. because we are individuals, we will continue on in whatever direction we are most comfortable being in. ... perhaps it's a survival of the fittest response, i don't know. solomon would approve of the wisdom inherent in not going into the house of the king and demanding the seat of honor. human psychology being what it is and all. the point is, philosophically, you can't blame an entire group of people who have a specific title, for the actions of all who have the same title.
now THAT is common sense.
well see, that's the problem. i can no more change the direction of people "(Because they are individuals) than you can change the direction of men who abuse women (or women who abuse men). the point is the same. because we are individuals, we will continue on in whatever direction we are most comfortable being in. ... perhaps it's a survival of the fittest response, i don't know. solomon would approve of the wisdom inherent in not going into the house of the king and demanding the seat of honor. human psychology being what it is and all. the point is, philosophically, you can't blame an entire group of people who have a specific title, for the actions of all who have the same title.
now THAT is common sense.
