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

I don't have to come to ATS nor do I have to post anything. Simple matter of choice.

Originally posted by pilot70
I sure hope this is not the beginning of enforced political correctness.

No. It's just one step in the ongoing trials and tribulations of operating a global venue that supports and adamantly promotes free expression on an amazingly broad range of provocative topics... all within the confines of every-day civility and decorum. The intent being that, if we can foster an environment where personal attacks are eliminated, important topics may be productively discussed.

In my opinion the "hate speech" idea, is often used to avoid disclosing of uncomfortable truths

Actually, I'm going to modify that a bit. The typical blanket term of "hate speech" is all too often used when one encounters something that offends them. The notion of "free expression" must tolerate being offended, but cannot tolerate those who are offensive. The fine line is difficult to walk, but it's a walk that must be taken every day.

Zionism could be an evil conspiracy of the worst kind.

This is not something that would draw our attention as falling within the topic of this thread.

Islam could be a satanic spirit influence.

Depending on the context, this may be something that draws our attention.

EU could be a giant NWO plot to destroy democracy in europe.

Not hate-speech.

White people could be a race of bad people out to destroy the coloured parts of humanity.

Again, context is always important... as has been expressed often times in this thread.

Making your opponent silent with such a move ammounts to censorship.

"Censorship," is an often misunderstood concept. We, as owners of ATS, have the legal right and authority to manage any topic we see fit -- removing topics about furry bunnies if that's something we don't like. That IS NOT censorship, it's self-determination of what we desire to oblige within the confines of our "house."

On the other hand, if the Government determines that any discussion of Furry Bunnies is suddenly illegal... that is censorship.

In my oppinion political correctness is the direct opposite of democracy.

When in the company of those I know, I swear like a mad-man and eschew all "political correctness." Why? Because it's a known crowd of people with whom I engage (just ask Springer about how many f-bombs I throw on the phone).

The point? Simple, know your audience. The audience here on ATS is a global mix of 1.5 million people every month, all of which have a "devil's mix" of different social and political sensibilities. I have no problem offending these people with a provocative concept they may find difficult to comprehend, but do have a problem with "being offensive" so that any concept I may present is immediately ignored.

There is a fine and important line to understand -- where offending people meets being offensive to people.

We are not challenged to think by ideas for which we find agreement. We're challenged to think and respond by concepts that range from mild-disagreement to causing offense. It's human nature to want to hear/read that for which we agree. But true champions of real free expression tolerate and support the expression of ideas that offend them.

Stating your intolerance for the race of people who initiated Zionism is offensive.

Stating your intolerance of the goals of Zionism will offend some, but is not offensive.

Unfortunately the subtlety is difficult, and history has shown us that... but it's vitally important when we engage each other in getting to the root of provocative topics such as those discussed on ATS.

The point of all this is to know your crowd and realize it is incumbent upon YOU to present the most provocative ideas you may have in a manner that may offend some, but is not offensive. This is how progress and learning is achieved. This is how we should aspire to present ourselves.

I would be sad to see ATS killed by PC.

You have my personal assurance that it will not.

Free speech means many things to many people. I don't mind at all when I get attacked personally. But I can't apply that to everyone or to this forum. If I actively invite those attacks...well I suppose I would technically be inviting possible hate speech. Even though it doesn't bother me in the least I'd be imposing my own rules on a forum that doesn't belong to me. As I access this website at the graciousness of the owners then I'm happy to follow the rules they set in place.

Just my opinion.

Whilst I am an avid supporter of anti hate aand against racism I fear here that on ATS will become nothing more than a reason to silence those who point the finger of suspition at certain groups or people. All the time I have been on ATS I have on occasion brought to the attention of the mods the overt hate and racism by many members most of them American. yet up till recently nothing was ever done.

But there is a big difference between trying to identify culprits of a crime and merely stating that the ME and its people should be wiped out. That is hate but how does one try to reveal those who commit crimes against us whomever they may be. Sooner or later race colour and creed come into the argument.

Right now many say that we are in a new holy crusade with Christianity/Judaism on one side and Muslims on the other. Are we now going to say well it is several different groups with different views. It is indeed our race, colour and creed that is the cause of most of our conflicts although there has always been conflict over land and resources. But in the main it is because of the former three that we find reasons to fight and die for.

The problem with this muzzling of free speech it allows those who plan and commit crimes against us to get away with their actions. Would any of us argue that if we were discussing Hitlers Germany in real time that we should not be discussing the rise of the Nazis and their threat to World peace.

We all know that whatever rules are intoduced here on ATS or in real life are there to control and subjugate the masses. We all know that those who run the show whomever they may be use these very rules and laws to hide their actions. If we cannot have clarity and honesty all that is left is ignorance and no real knowledge of what is really going on.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
I fear here that on ATS will become nothing more than a reason to silence those who point the finger of suspition at certain groups or people.

Did you read my post?

We all know that whatever rules are intoduced here on ATS or in real life are there to control and subjugate the masses.

That statement makes it clear you completely misunderstand the reason for our expectations of civility and decorum from our members... or perhaps... for your own selfish reasons, refuse to understand.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by SkepticOverlord]

A civil society must have rules in place or you have anarchy. Even with extreme views you can present them in a civil manner I think. If everything was a free-for-all then how would anything get accomplished?

reply to post by Springer


Springer, it's a shame that you even had to post this.

I'd think that the vast majority of ATS members, being erudite and World-savvy would be able to comport themselves in a polite and professional manner.

Responsible Human Beings should know when it is time to step back from their emotions, when attempting to engage and possibly change the minds of those they are arguing with.

Denying ignorance, when it is thrown in your face, is indeed, difficult.

BUT, 'ignorance' is not a pejorative, although it's often used as such. Ignorance is, simply, the knowledge not yet acquired.

To 'deny' ignorance is the same as 'teaching' knowledge. Let's hope we ALL can agree on that.....

Skeptic, I understand completely, and I'm all for cleaning up your act, but rules have a habit of getting bent don't they. Thats why we have conspiracy sites such as these becasue if we were told the truth there would be no need for such sites would there. But we will see wont we exactly what does happen compared to what you think may happen.

reply to post by Chance321


As much as I dislike Bush I would be an ignorant jerk to say "he is from Texas, you know they are all stupid there". I can disagree with him, find him to be an absolute bore, but not roll him into a lump with all people from Texas.

There is so much racism on here that I often just skip the threads. I would love to make remarks on many topics but don't because I have no tolerance for outright racism. I am very glad this is now going to be kept under close scrutiny.

OH and secondly its clear you did not read my post correctly as you failed to recognise that I have complained on a number of occasions re such matters but had very little response. I have also started threads of why people hate certain groups, but perhaps you don't know that. And don't call me selfish, you don't know anything about me or what I do or what I have done to help others over the years of my life.

I haven't seen anything on here that would fall under hate speech. Not that I can see every thread, but I know one poster who has made numerous threads about Israel that have bothered some people. Hate speech, where??

Originally posted by undo
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]

hehe I hope you know I was just being facetious about the "evils of christianity" undo.

As many people have seen this as easy as black and white saying they are so glad this is happening, I can't help notice that many of them are some of the most caustic writeres and posters I have read and being someone who has been told I am rabid at times when I think I have all the variables of the T&C programmed into my writing software, it is still up to me to ignore it when one of the warnings come up.

I am working on adding a speech to text tablet to it also.

I think the axiom here is going to be an old saying I once heard a colleague of mine mention to me when I was younger and climbing the corporate ladder all the power struggles that go on and on. In the final analysis I think we will see it played out here as well seeing many really don't have a clear line of demarcation between what is hate speech, in spite of any alleged ambiguity goes:

Only those who go too far,, Know how far

they can go.

reply to post by magicmushroom


It never ceases to amaze this ole Gent that those complaining are usually the ones that a given topic applies to. No, no one knows what any given person has done in life. That is the nature of the internet. We can only glean from what we read:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Aermacchi


erm, it wasn't addressed to anything you said. it was about a different thread on the site. i'm just trying to look at all this logically. if we can be held individually responsible for anything people from the same group do, there's gonna have to be some consistency. and since this goes back to the real basic stuff like holding all men responsible for what some men have done, it seems rather self-defeating. none of us can really, honestly say that our group and our group alone is above reproach or even more consistently correct, since the group is made from individuals who frequently make mistakes, bad choices or whatever. someone will know you are lying since he or she may have encountered a person or persons from your group that were bad, mean, angry, whatever, which starts the whole thing up again! it's an endless cycle of impossible comparisons.

reply to post by Kernel Korn


Yeah, that's hate, why try to make a point and then use words like: They are like an alien life form that has infected the Earth

Originally posted by magicmushroom
OH and secondly its clear you did not read my post correctly as you failed to recognise that I have complained on a number of occasions re such matters but had very little response. I have also started threads of why people hate certain groups, but perhaps you don't know that. And don't call me selfish, you don't know anything about me or what I do or what I have done to help others over the years of my life.

I have seen you and IrishMick make claims like this and it baffles me you would think any mods could take you serious mushroom. This is why I would be reluctant to use the alert buttons myself and have even heard Mick saying the same thing. At least he is aware of his own demeanor and is that against seeing himself as a hypocrite but you?? Well to each his own I guess but my guess would be that is one of the reasons you may not be taken serious

You have started some of the most volatile threads I have ever read saying some of the most provocative comments, I would think even you would feel a scandalous bit of arrogance but again, we see hate speech is in the ears of its listeners. The Attack America now thread comes to mind. The thing about hate is that hate generalizes and love is particular.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by YoungStalin

Hate Speech- I think christianity is a cult and anyone who is dumb enough to.....
Not hate speech- I do not believe in christianity here is why...

Perfect example

This is good news entirely.

reply to post by magicmushroom


Rules have nothing to do with subjugating the masses. They are to prevent anarchy. Your free speach rights on a privately owned site are whatever the owners want. If you agree to those terms when joining, then you need to abide by them.

Originally posted by redhead57


There is so much racism on here that I often just skip the threads. I would love to make remarks on many topics but don't because I have no tolerance for outright racism. I am very glad this is now going to be kept under close scrutiny.

I think words like "bigotry" and "racist" or "homophobe" are so over used and so presumptuous I can hardly even believe it exists here. I don't believe there is anywhere NEAR the racism here as I see people being accused of. It seems anyone, and I mean anyone who is against Obama, the patent reason and cookie cutter comeback is "what are you racist" my oh my if everyone was a racist that doesn't agree with Obama, I find it hard to believe he would have even been elected. Here is the reason I think creating this rule is counter productive in one of many ways however. I like to know who the real racists are and just disagreeing with Obama, one can only assume that may be a reason and they are only "hiding their true feelings being kept as the unspoken but otherwise expressed smoking gun by a fatigued obstacle usually obeyed called T&C.

So many accuse wrongly also and to me being called a racist when I detest racism as much as I dislike a President who happens to be Black, I get accused of that it is just as much a pre-judgment made in ignorance as any racist remark such as the "n" word.

Anyone that has been here tat has not honestly said to themselves they hate the people we have seen so many arguing with, to me is not being honest or I am not as much like most of us as I thought.

Ill bet I can name those who have said I hate that guy aermacchi. Do they have a good reason to hate me ? No but I give them a helluva good argument and if it is about sensitive issues where it is fashionable to be politically correct in observance of what is "in style" I'm sorry but people like Bill Maher make me so sick I wanna puke. But it isn't that I hate Bill Maher, it is only that I hate his politics and like those who use religion as a fulcrum to make public policy, since it affects everyones lives who are NOT religious, it is religion that gets hated.

The FACT is Religion has NEVER hurt a soul, it is people who have used it to influence those who believe in it to garner support for public policy and many times, I have seen it used to justify evil deeds on innocent people.

Conversely and as seen here it is hated so generally now where the embellished descriptions are so outrageous I see 200,000 witch's burned at the stake when it was only approx 20.

The separation powers so often cited incorrectly to justify some imagined gag rule on the religious would anger any one group who would be censored by another for ANY reason.

Secularity just doesn't make for any more a holier than thou reason than religions

reply to post by BlueRaja


Rules, subjugation, etc. We apply the definitions that we need at any given time to emphasize the points we try to get across. Anarchy solves nothing and causes problems. There must be some sort of order or rules in place for the game to work correctly. Without rules or guidelines you have chaos....but then that's another theory unto itself

I agree Raja