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: 11
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
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.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I need to know what ATS considers hate speech. In a fairly clear way with examples. Because I do want to follow the rules. But I dont want to tip toe around not saying anything because I dont know whats legal here.

Let me give you an advice on that. Just say what you feel like saying minus hard expletives. Just recently, I changed the word "brainwashed" into "mentally subordinate" thinking that it would be more appropriate to use this term, but my one and a half line post got sacked due to uncivil and undecorated content. I guess someone drew "mentally subordinate" = "mentally retarded." Ain't that funny? AhaHaahh . . .



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I believe, fundamentally, we should all hang our heads in shame.

The language used over recent months, surrounding the Middle East, is disgusting, repugnant, unjustified, dissolute and inept. Our community does need to take it upon ourselves and be more restrained in posting and arguments.

We do not need to become tutelage individuals who are pure, moral and suave in behaviour but we can be more respectful to each other. Rancour feelings are counter-productive and only serve to inflame the situation further.

Whatever negative feelings we have unleashed upon world, remember this: at the bottom of Pandora's Box lies hope and this recent climate of hate will pass.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur



Originally posted by
These Crazy fanatic Muslims throwing tear Gas and eggs at a peaceful Rally. Another event proving that Islam has no tolerance for democracy or any other religion.

1. is it necessary to call them crazy fanatics. does this mean all of islam is like this? no. hate speech


Originally posted by its sad since your Muslim brothers will keep dieing in the hand of the mighty Israeli Army.

2. unnecessary discussion of death at the "hand of the mighty.." adds nothing to the discussion, only fuels hatred.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Crakeur]


I applause Crakeur for such examples. I read so many examples here on ATS, it makes me really depressed. I am not Muslim, but living in a muslim country, and they really do not deserve such hatred. There was enough tolerance for such hate filled posts, and I support new, strict policy of ATS, if it will be appied without double standards.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
The people who are asking if they can debate the holocaust. I would say if I was a moderator, would you be able to do so by citing sites and people that aren't anti-jewish in nature?

What made you question this thing in the first place?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to riggs2099

My logic follows as this:
If one absolutely denies, rejects that holocaust exists, it can be considered as a hate speech. But one should be able to debate whether holocaust was the most important thing in WWII..
Another example: If one says, muslims are barbar, dirty and murders, this is hate speech..But one should be able to claim that Islam may be remained culturally and democratically backwards.
My opinions..



[edit on 6-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
hey, i was in the middle of a debate with a seriously angry anti-christian person, who went the same route as many posts of the anti-christian bent go. i prepared my counter argument but he hasn't answered the lead - in. when he does, i will have my prepared argument, which counters his opening by appealing to gender-based crime over thousands of years. can this defense be seen as anti-male speech? cause it really isn't anti-male, it's just a way to bring attention to a personally held philosophy about historical events and how this "you're bad because people 5 thousand years ago did X,Y,Z" isn't realistic at all. but it could be construed as hate speech directed at men, should i venture into the past offenses as a counter of his anti-christian arguments.

as someone else mentioned, this area is reallllly grey.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by undo]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I love my husband. I know what a huge heart he has, and how much he tries to respect all peoples and their rights to formulate opinions, even if he vehemently rejects those opinions as his own. I also respect both Bill and Crakeur, so I know that the intent behind this is to make sure ATS isn't used as a tool to spread hate-mongering propaganda against ANY group.

With that said - good luck guys.

Several members have already done an excellent job of pointing out that "hate speech" is an ambiguous term that gets even more slippery and confusing in an atmosphere like ATS.

Is it not true that what this all boils down to - AND WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS BOILED DOWN TO - is that any member here posts at the discretion of the owners of the board, and at any time a particular conduct can be deemed unacceptable on this board at the discretion of the upper staff? That WILL have a bias in it.

The KKK think they are right. I'm just about certain the owners of this board would not allow the KKK to come over and push their ideology. That's a bias against the KKK dogma. Accept it...that's the way it is, and if you're in the KKK, go find some where else to post because you won't get to here.

I've been here for going on 6 years...and have watched some portion of the posting membership consistently get confused that some how they have a guarantee of "free speech" here. No you don't...no I don't...no we don't. You post at the discretion of the ownership.

Learn it, love it, live it....if any of us don't like it....lump it and find a new free home to hang out at.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

as someone else mentioned, this area is reallllly grey.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by undo]


It seems grey, but it is not. But I agree it is an interesting topic, actually one of the main topics of moral philosophy.
If you give more information about your discussion, we may try to cast a light upon.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

and have watched some portion of the posting membership consistently get confused that some how they have a guarantee of "free speech" here. No you don't...no I don't...no we don't. You post at the discretion of the ownership.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Valhall]


True, but not completely. In every country there is, and must be a limit to free speech.
In Germany for example, you can not deny holocaust. It is forbidden.
Free speech is a complicated term in my opinion. What you say must have a value, an importance. Therefore you have to be careful what you are saying. It is not a free speech to insult the other side, it is abusing your right to speak, abusing the value of the words.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by deccal



We're in violent agreement.

But I don't know why we need to discuss the nuances of the term "free speech" when my point was...it doesn't apply here. At that point the debate on what "free speech" means is pretty much moot.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhyberDragon


That is actually the Problem with Censorship and Hate speech Laws. They Punish things which are illegal anyways, violence is already illegal under Law. So what then, if anything do such Laws protect, if not the views and the agendas of those whose media are it's protectors?


i still don.t get it!

if somebody is in my house i can ask him not to use hateful speach, right?
i can ask him to be polite, respectful, behaving like a gentleman or a lady - it is my house.

i got 2 cats. i don.t have a problem if a guest of mine doesn.t like cats, he can even tell me that he doesn.t like cats, that he doesnt. get along with them or that he never wants to own one.
all fine.

it gets very crtical if he starts blaming me or my cats, when he uses insults towards us etc.
i would ask this visitor to leave my house, just that simple.

my house my rules
ATS is the house of the 3 amigos, so they make the rules.


i am a fighter here at ATS and i can assure you that sometimes you got a debate where you are really feeling for, not just arguing, all your emotions and passion is in this debate.
but i am arguing on the topic, i am not attacking my opponent as a person.

if we stick to the example with the cats you can even argue about disadvantages of living with cats (there are some i can assure you) without attacking the cats or me as persons and without saying it hateful.

we are all human beings, we are not that different after all
we all got our faults we all got love to give and have dreams we want to full fill.

it is always quiet easy to point at other people and shout: "they started to do X"
why not starting by yourself and stop to accuse, insult or what ever.
start speaking with love in your heart, you will get a wider understanding of other people and of yourself.

and it doesn.t matter if the subject is lighthearted or controversial.
being polite and loving with a lighthearted subject is easy, but who is taking the challenge to be the same way with a controversial subject? that is quiet something.
we can all grow and develop by it.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by deccal



We're in violent agreement.

But I don't know why we need to discuss the nuances of the term "free speech" when my point was...it doesn't apply here. At that point the debate on what "free speech" means is pretty much moot.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Valhall]


You wrote: You post at the discretion of the ownership

I wanted to say, that it is not only about ATS, but abusing the right of free speech is a generaly issue.
Actually, discussing the nuances of free speech is greatly important and emergent for the world right now. But this is not the topic here



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join