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

page: 2
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Maybe people just need to think if that comment was directed at a member would it be okay? If it would not be okay then why is it tollerated at all.




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by YoungStalin
 


the thing is, the big issue i have is, what i find tolerable to say to another member is not the same as what you think is tolerable.

i really trust the ATS mods to be reasonably balanced in this regard, i think it'll work out fine, but i'm a little worried that this hate speech thing will be tossed around as liberally as the old anti-semite accusation.


[edit on 5/2/09 by pieman]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

Don't be nasty. Don't be hateful. Don't post something that is inflammatory enough to get you a like response. Don't be racist. Don't be bigoted. Don't participate in personal attacks or degrading generalizations.

It isn't that hard or confusing. "Man up" isn't hate speech....it is a figure of speech.


You see? Thats the problem. Your "figure of speech" is my "degrading generalization." And lets not forget that the "n-word" was a commonly accepted descriptive term at one time. Just because it is still more acceptable in the US to bash women and make derogatory statements about them doesnt mean it isnt derogatory.

I have had an "inflammatory reaction" from posting a pretty dry and emotionless statement of accepted scientific opinion here, so using the reaction I get isnt viable.

What worries me is that we all have a very similar view on "hate speech."

What we really think is hate speech is "Speech we hate."

And that would be a counter productive road to go down.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Yeah i just trust that the mods would know the difference between hate, crying wolf and be objective enough to see when their own judgement is being swayed by personal opinions. i mean that is why they are mods right?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by YoungStalin
 


However if I am going to be reported for "hate speech" every time I say something someone disagrees with, game theory is going to dictate that I too must report those who use "hate speech" when in argument with me.

Otherwise, I am going to be made to look like a troublemaker and they may get off without any trouble.

There is nothing wrong with asking for some clear guidelines. And examples.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well first off i know you are a fighter on ATS and this is not a debate there are debate threads. I do not think that members have to be policed by the mods but they should have an objective viewpoint when looking into complaints and take action themselves when there is somthing that is without a doubt hate.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
May I ask what qualifies hate speech?

I'm sorry but hate speech is just such a vague of a concept. It sounds like it would severely limit free speech against the global elite.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
For those who are asking what hate-speech is:

"(Insert Race) __________ are incestous scum"

"(Insert Government) _____________ are guilty of war-crime"

Can you tell which one is hate-speech and which one not?

Yeah...I thought so.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
For those who are asking what hate-speech is:

"(Insert Race) __________ are incestous scum"

"(Insert Government) _____________ are guilty of war-crime"

Can you tell which one is hate-speech and which one not?

Yeah...I thought so.


yeah calling a race or group anything degrading without any objective material to back it up would not be tollerated

Saying that a gov is guilty of war crimes would be fine so long as it was backed up by the war crime broken and the actual incident



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I didn't expect our members to have this much difficulty with this.

hate speech:
PRESIDENT OBAMA HATES WHITE PEOPLE AND WANTS THEM TO DIE

threads started to fan the flames, rather than discuss an actual issue.


sorry, it seems the other threads were no good.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Crakeur]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Does this apply to the anti-American people on here as well?

I've seen a lot of hate towards my country when I have been arguing with members from the UK or Europe or other parts of the world who claimed they were denying ignorance. But all they were doing was just take the time to spew their hate and anti-American sentiment on the board.

I don't mean like it was a matter of simply saying that our government made mistakes, but, I see lots of hate speech saying that people here are dumb because our government makes mistakes and so we're all dumb.

Can't this hate speech apply to us as well?

Or does it not matter since we are the super power of the world and an object of hate?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


the royal families of europe are incestuous scum

switzerland is guilty of war crimes.

yeah, i get it.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


thats not a race. I said "insert race".



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Sheesh, it's not that complicated.

The same way it is against the T&C to attack other members personally the same applies to race, religion, sexual orientation etc.

It is the same fundamental principle.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Wait so I'm not able to say that I hate religion now?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


my point being that the thread title clearly states "subtle or otherwise", the OP states clearly that we face an immediate post ban and membership review, yet no-one wants to define hate speach except to give the loosest examples.

inflammatory threads and out and out racism is a heck of a lot different to "subtle" hate speech.

as someone else rightly said, hate speech is speech you hate.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I didn't expect our members to have this much difficulty with this.

hate speech:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

threads started to fan the flames, rather than discuss an actual issue.


You have got to be KIDDING me.

ATS has just crossed a line as far as I am concerned and has shown its true colors.... O please define hate speech for us would ya.

Sorry Springer, I disagree. Either you have freedom of speech or you don´t.

No topic is taboo, and heated discussion should be allowed without personal attacks. If it is not, and a huge gray area like "Hate speech" is introduced here, then I start to wonder what I am doing here in the first place

This is ATS, not a tea-party. I get my daily conspiracy shot here.

There is no such thing as politically correct freedom, prove me wrong.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by MoonMine]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Wait so I'm not able to say that I hate religion now?



Of course you can say that.

Just don't hate "on" a particular religion.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MoonMine
 


ATS Terms and Conditions



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


Thats been in the T&C from day one. You never complained about it before - so now its being highlighted as an issue that the staff have noticed an increase in, howcome its a problem now?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I gave my interpretation of these rules. I`ll let the OP comment on his.





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join