Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 15
55
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


I have never been accused of being an anti Semite on this or any other board but I have seen the term used extensively and find it offensive when the discussion is civil. It seem to me a double standard.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The general idea of banning hate speech is welcome. But considering this is a conspiracy site it will be hard to not clump together those who conspire , weather they be an agency , political group , religion or any other organized group and make an umbrella comment on it.

At some stage would not most people become clearly "for or against" any such group due to evidence that would suggest they are working as one group to meet their own ends , or do we have to stay ambiguous ?

Can I call a group "good" and that’s Ok , but just never "evil" . If someone comes on here and states that all skinheads are evil , they will get banned ?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 

With respect:

I have a question for those racists on ATS and in the world. Maybe the things I have to say will make them and you think.

I have never met a racist who hasn't tollerated at least one other race. What all races don't realize is that all of your current allied races, at one time, were your bitter enemies, which makes your racism selective. All races have been enslaved by another race at least once in known human history. Consequently and by no means logically, in the same history of humanity, all races have been responsible for enslaving another race. Racism is illogical and I will prove it with one question.

If extraterrestrials landed and then decided to live amongst us, would human race tolerance become an absolute non-issue for the sake of hating the ETs; is that what it would take for all of humanity to live in peace with eachother; would we have to HATE someone else in order to love one another?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
A good point.........

Can I say I hate the "grays" what with their history of rectal probing , being so secretive and not blinking I simple dont trust them. They all look the same to me anyway and no way am I giving one a job.

Or let me guess , is it only groups with organized anti-defamation departments that are on "the list" and the grays have not applied yet ?

But seriously , some of the mindless hate I have seen on posts , especially within the Gaza issue brought nothing to the forum but blind hate , some born of loyalty. And I think I know why , even among friends it can become heated very quickly , because peoples true selves show through and no one likes to think they know a lurking monster. It scares people into saying some pretty harsh things.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichJJC
reply to post by Springer
 

With respect:

I have a question for those racists on ATS and in the world. Maybe the things I have to say will make them and you think.

I have never met a racist who hasn't tollerated at least one other race. What all races don't realize is that all of your current allied races, at one time, were your bitter enemies, which makes your racism selective. All races have been enslaved by another race at least once in known human history. Consequently and by no means logically, in the same history of humanity, all races have been responsible for enslaving another race. Racism is illogical and I will prove it with one question.

If extraterrestrials landed and then decided to live amongst us, would human race tolerance become an absolute non-issue for the sake of hating the ETs; is that what it would take for all of humanity to live in peace with eachother; would we have to HATE someone else in order to love one another?


Ahh taken from the old man himself President Ronald Reagan gave this same illustration during a speech. The common enemy idea is pretty well proven already





[edit on 7-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Being a common poster on the boards the Op was referring to, I would like to make this observation. You participate in a discussion, offering a differing point of view. A few replies are made, and then someone calls the other foolish, or immature, or ignorant, and then the other calls that someone the same back. This escalates, and someone makes a complaint. It seems that mostly, the person who first committed the foul, or their ally, is usually the first to cry foul.

I think any Mod should trace back these hostilities, and punish the person who started the name calling, even more if that is the person who filed the complaint, or their ally.

Another technique that I notice kicks in hostilities is when some posters grossly misinterpret what someone has written, and then uses their gross misinterpretation to base their opinions on. There is also the technique of saying something indirectly, so that the person can deny what they have said. These two techniques basically flank one another. Is the person grossly misinterpreting, or is the other guy implying things that they are unwilling to say directly? Usually hostilities flare up when these techniques are used, and they are in my opinion, sleezy tactics. The key is illustrating how the techniques are being used.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:50 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.


I posted this before, but I think because of many posts it remained unseen. In order to clearly understand your criteria, could you please answer whether the thread above is a hate-thread plus hate-speech or not.
Thanks



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


I think it's only hate speech if is directed to Jews, if it's about Muslims than it is acceptable to insult or offend. I think "hate speech" should be tolerated by everyone. If people don't like it they don't have to read it or be part of the discussion.

When we start classifying things as "hate speech" we soon find ourself with no freedom of speech. I think what shouldn't be tolerated is the abuse to other users, the individual responsible should be barred from posting on the thread rather than locking it to all the other posters. That way there is less bias on thread topic censorship.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by deccal

I posted this before, but I think because of many posts it remained unseen. In order to clearly understand your criteria, could you please answer whether the thread above is a hate-thread plus hate-speech or not.


No, it wasnt unseen, just not responded to because its already been said several times that mere critical examination has nothing to do with hate-speech.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


If I was a moderator I'd use this as an example of hate-speech, if someone is an outspoken bigot it's easy to point a finger and call a spade a spade... however, perpetrators of hate speech are more intelligent than that and will try to pose it as something else or factual with irrelevant information.

I will quote from a post in that thread:



it has nothing to do with fanatical muslims in particular.


the first map you posted shows countries in which there are a lot of muslims, a big so what.

the second one shows nothing in particular

the third shows a coloured map without a key, so again, nothing

the fourth shows nothing particular to muslim countries.


seriously, the premise of this thread is utter rubbish


Where I disagree with that poster is it being 'nothing', it's propaganda with a clear agenda of fuelling hate for Muslims and support for 'the West'.

The first aims to identify mostly Muslim countries (singling Israel out as a tiny, outnumbered bastion of goodness in a rotten land) and implants the notion into your mind from the get-go.

The second shows 'internet black holes' - hugely debatable and irrelevant, China is not a black hole for one and according to that, virtually all of the African continent shares the same level as internet access the average American individual has! Not entirely sure what this is aiming for (but I have an inkling) so lets go to number three...

This one is almost useless as there is no key and seems completely random - the question asked by the poster is, "Who defends human rights?" - bear in mind the original premise and title - the implication is "we (the west) do" and Muslims do not. Also the former communist block is identified as a whole entity - a dig at them too perhaps? Quite possibly when you zoom in on the second map to find Cuba is a 'black hole' when it patently isn't (I visited there recently).

The fourth shows laws regarding marital rape. Sure, the Muslim countries in the ME don't have them but neither do the majority of others - this is to do with poverty and GDP/GDI rather than any religion. In itself this is fine but with the overtones of the post and the original premise posed it paints an entirely different image.

The closing statement is most telling, it implies that anyone who speaks out against the West's actions in blindly supporting Israel is, in fact, evil themselves - just as bad as those nasty Muslims who populate that particular part of the planet.

It's hate-speech designed to stir up feelings of mistrust and anger, pure and simple.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Ok, I wrote an answer to your "critical examinations" (in your thread). Please read and answer



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Goathief
 


Exactly what I mean..4 maps that shows NOTHING. And than big judgements about ALL muslims..not fair huh?



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Wow, I missed this little gem too which also highlight's the OP's intent:



The premise of this thread is that fanatical islam - which is rather widespread among the average joe (or should I say the average mohammed)


Is that so?! Care to back that up with solid facts rather than a ill-informed, bigoted opinion? I know full well what the 'average Mohammed' from there thinks seeing as I have two of them living with me, and have done so for the last two years!



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Wow, what a thread to read through with morning coffee.


I can't believe it is still going. Since ATS has deny ignorance as a motto, I have a suggestion.

Temporarily change deny ignorance to deny hate until everyone gets it.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by deccal

I posted this before, but I think because of many posts it remained unseen. In order to clearly understand your criteria, could you please answer whether the thread above is a hate-thread plus hate-speech or not.


No, it wasnt unseen, just not responded to because its already been said several times that mere critical examination has nothing to do with hate-speech.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Skyfloating]


I think, you as a moderator, should be a little bit more critical about your thread.
I applauded this last action about ATS, but said that it should be without double standard. I find it as a clear double standard, if the thread "fanatical muslims vs. free world" still exists. But maybe there is a counter-argument that I can not think of.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I agree, hate speech is just another method that the NWO uses to separate, isolate, and exterminate.

Deny the NWO, Deny ignorance, Love our brothers and sisters, whether their black, white, yellow, brown, red or Eskimo. Whether they're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Scientologist or KKKlansmen!
Whether they're old, young, rich, poor, short, tall, skinny, fat, big, small, pigmy or whatever.

We ARE THE WORLD!!



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
It appears as though this thread is devolving into a pointless argument, and has run its course.

I'll close the discussion with a simple point of view and summary that should help everyone understand our intentions related to the volatile topics that tend to attract those filled with hate.

1) This thread does not signal our intention to quell discussion of any type of topic. The issues and influences inspiring hate against our fellows are important and complex, and deserving of our sober discussion.

2) We're not averse to topics that offend some, but are averse to contributors who are offensive. The difference may be subtle, but is vitally important.

3) I'm fully convinced that anyone intelligent enough to use a web browser and post in a discussion forum is completely aware of what constitutes real and inappropriate "hate speech." Anyone claiming confusion is either attempting to obfuscate the issue, or fooling themselves.


Thank you all for your attention in this important matter. Hopefully we can resume discussion of the important issues of our highly stressful and difficult times, without the distraction of narrow-minded rhetoric that offers no solution but the furtherance of ignorance.



Thread closed.






top topics



 
55
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join