Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


what a diabolical way to pre-empt.


implies that it was planned and perpetrated, by the jews for the reason of protecting future generations.

he's suggesting, contrary to what he's now saying, that the jews planned the holocaust to protect themselves down the road.



I guess so. I didnt read it that way. I thought he meant that using the fact itself was pre-empting criticism. I didnt take it to mean it was orchestrated by them.

And as for the other examples, (Nagasaki and Armenia) isnt that exactly what some of the 9-11 conspiracies accuse the US government of doing? Allowing or even orchestrating the attacks on US citizens in order to gain sympathy for their future actions? (The Iraq war?)



[edit on 5-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


People from bad homes don't get accused of everything from being evil to being "rat-like" to killing their own to further their own gains in the future to being the cause of all the bad things in this world.

This is not a forum to bash and insult anyone or any group of people out of pure and simple hate. That is the gist of this thread.

What is so hard to understand about that??

[edit on 2/5/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
What about revisionist history and the holocaust?

Anyone who would deny these atrocities or attempt to rewrite the history of the holocaust must be either completely oblivious to the facts of that history, or completely ignorant.

Is holocaust denial or revised history not hate speech as well?

Deny ignorance?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I have no problems with that.

If the whole point of this "new" policy is that we are not to say anything critical about Jewish or Muslim people, it could have been stated that way.

I would simply have complied, and avoided any thread or post where there was any potential I might say something someone would get their knickers in a twist over.

I dont hate either group. I wish we didnt habitually make derogatory remarks about whole classes of people. There are individuals from any group you can think of that I do not like. But thats what they are, individuals.

But this policy seems geared more to protect a particular group than everyone, and I guess thats all I need to know. I will simply avoid any discussion that includes that group.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
yesterday, i was looking at the numbers of other ethnic groups killed in the holocaust and came across something which bothered me. i'ld like to use it as an example.

i found a stat's table from a google search for "holocaust casualties" (4th result) that claimed that the nazis killed 91% of the jews in poland, and only 36% in germany. it was from a high school in canada. link

it struck me as crazy. why were they so efficient in poland where they didn't know who was who but not so in germany were they did. it set off alarm bells. i jotted it down for further research.

am i allowed post the results on ATS? if i have questions i feel are justified about the holocaust, can i raise them on ATS or am i prohibited because i don't like isreal?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


There is a big difference between being critical and being demeaning/insulting/hateful/degrading.

I don't think any one of us should be shy about being critical, but we can be critical without being nasty and hateful about it.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
ATS is not a democracy....there is no "bill of rights" governing what is written on these forums. It is a privately held business....that makes it the responsibility of the users (who use it free of charge) to follow the house rules.

If you don't like the house rules.....go play somewhere else, stop interrupting the grownups.

And finally, if your brain is not up to the task of recognizing "hate speech"...maybe ATS is not the venue for your contributions.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Thank you for this.

...instead of being a microcosm of what is not working on the planet -
we can be a microcosm of the very change that needs to happen on the planet.
Responsible, intelligent free speech.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
How about anti-Christian and anti-Alien and anti-Palestine. I have seen some seriously hatefilled speech against people who believe either of these. How about anti-scientology? But as someone raises the issue of holocaust deniers - this is what I am speaking about a restriction on free speech. If someone comes up with valid input on why they believe that either the holocaust or Jesus or any other not being factual why should it be classed as hatespeech?

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Mynaeris]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


No one is restricting free speech. They are restricting hate-filled rhetoric that does nothing to further intelligent discourse on this board.

People can state their opinions about the existence or lack thereof of Jesus, God, Aliens, conspiracy theories, the merits of religion, the merits of war, the merits of party politics, etc., without resorting to nastiness, name calling, insults, and hate.

I can disagree with you without getting nasty about it. You can disagree with me without insulting me or my beliefs. We can disagree with each other and others on this board about any topic without resorting to language and tactics that are hateful and degrading and inflammatory.

Don't overcomplicate what the owners of this board are trying to enforce. This isn't new. It isn't hard. It isn't confusing.

Play nice and don't call anyone ugly names.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I can shed some light on this:


Originally posted by
The Holocaust is the reason you cannot attack the Jews for whatever reason, what a diabolical way to pre-empt future attacks on your people and ensure a carte-blanche for your offspring.


Any read person knows that not all Israelis are Jewish. They also know that not all Jews are Israelis. This is paining ALL Jews in a common light. That equates to hate speech imo. The same has happened to every other group here. Not any more.

As to the issue of "free speech", we all have it here, under the T&C, which we all agreed to when registering. What's wrong with keeping your word?

I'm not surprised that there has been some questioning of this. But WHY? Are you concerned about ATS? I'd like to believe that. Are you part of the problem? I hope not. That said, Admin has spoken and ATS standards are going to be adhered to.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
How about anti-Christian and anti-Alien and anti-Palestine. I have seen some seriously hatefilled speech against people who believe either of these. How about anti-scientology? But as someone raises the issue of holocaust deniers - this is what I am speaking about a restriction on free speech. If someone comes up with valid input on why they believe that either the holocaust or Jesus or any other not being factual why should it be classed as hatespeech?

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Mynaeris]


You can be against christianity and scientology for whatever reasons you like. For me i do not believe in Jesus i am not "anti-christian" and I in no way feel that people who do are below me or in any way dumb. You can be against somthing and communicate it in such a way that is comes off clean and understood. You can post what you want about these as long as you do not post anything that is knowingly misleading as decribed in the T&C and if you are going to walk that fine line i suggest you use credible sources to back yourself up. That is to say do not be using a Neo-Nazi web site to back up your anti-semetic views.
Palestine is a government body and people can post their objections to the political actions of that government without vilifying the supporters or degrading them calling them mindless or brainwashed. holocaust deniers have a right to put their theory forward however they do not have the right to say that the holocaust did not happen becasue it was okay or the right thing to do. Ever been on a no holocaust theory thread? they get flamed pretty quick and sort themselves out.

[edit on by YoungStalin]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
Play nice and don't call anyone ugly names.


...thats pretty much it...surprisingly simple really.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
It's really, really hard to be Jewish and open about it on ATS, and still be respected for your opinions.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Just to make sure we understand. If someone says something against obama under hate speech, does the same rule apply to someone saying something against President Bush does the same rule under hate speech apply? Just want to be perfectly clear on this.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Hate speech is a convenient label for people to use when an unpopular point of view is being espoused.It's interesting to watch what people do when they are given even a modicum of power. We discover how they choose to control a discussion using TERMS & Condiions Civility and decorum...and when those rules no longer control the topics posted or the content of the conversation its HATE SPEECH...
This website is your own personal sandbox..we get that ..you make the rules..
It's very interesting to see how you apply them.
User Generated Ecosytem..not exeactly..its more like something else...
Good Luck
Sincerely
Stan Bernard
Edmonton Alberta Canada



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SUNRAY06
 


This isn't about unpopular points of view. This is about being nasty and insulting and degrading to a person or, in the case of this thread, a group of people.

Plenty of unpopular things are discussed here; this is about the only legitimate place that some of these things get discussed. But, these things can be discussed without being ugly about it.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Just to make sure we understand. If someone says something against obama under hate speech, does the same rule apply to someone saying something against President Bush does the same rule under hate speech apply? Just want to be perfectly clear on this.



Usually hate speech against Obama is is either racially fueled or has undertones of racism...as pointed out, subtle racism is still racism.

calling bush a moron is fine i would imagine... now if you called bush a white hon*** dips***, murdering, gay loving, inbred Texan tool...then that is different...and totally unacceptable....think what you like... just don't share it


It is about respect and not bringing race, gender or any type of bigoted slur in to the discussion.

I really fail to see, as others have said, how this is so hard to understand??



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The real conspiracy is how a few weeks after Israel invades Gaza and admits committing war crimes that this new "Hate Speech" rule gets reinforced on ATS...dare I say it but that is pathetic and pretty well speeks volume for the preferential treatment a certain elite group gets in society.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I'm still confused.
The guy quoted in the holocaust thread, was stating an OPINION about the conspiracy of Ashkenazi Judaism, (Which doesn't include all jews) and there wasn't anything hateful or derogatory in that (specific) quote.

How is that determined to be racist?
If someone denigrates a specific religion, is that OK?
What about liberals or conservatives?
What about the Illuminati bloodlines?
What about numerous conspiracies about groups???

Has the ADL or ACLU been after this site????





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join