CLOSING MY THREAD FOR REVIEW BY STAFF is B/S a way of stopping a conversation in progress for PETTY REASONS.(Crakeur) seems to be a highly intelligent administrator so when he closes my thread down for discussion and review...I"D LIKE TO KNOW WHY?

Did you message him to discuss it? I'm sure he'd be willing to talk about it with you.

I don't know if changing your mood to what is says there was the best way to deal with it... but please take that as a polite suggestion.

If you're unhappy with the action a staff member has taken you can u2u them or submit a complaint to be reviewed by the entire staff. I just think that's a more productive way of working things out than other ways.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I think it's fairly obvious and clear based on ATS' track record that anyone who's legitimately trying to discuss something in a thoughtful manner isn't going to get run on this, even if their conclusion may be somewhat incendiary, so long as they present their thoughts in a responsible manner.

The policy was presented as a new policy. Which, by definition, means you cannot use the "track record" as an example.

Originally posted by Springer
Consider this post as FAIR WARNING that the staff and owners of AboveTopSecret.com will be following the T.A.C. to the letter and we are implementing a ZERO TOLERANCE policy on ALL hate speech.

"Implementing" implies that it is a new policy.

Springer said twice, once in the heading, and again in the text, that "subtle" was a factor.

Originally posted by Springer
We have seen an increase in hate speech couched in "news articles", subtle innuendo hidden behind professed disagreement with government policies and blatant, outright ignorance spewed forth for all to see.

Now, I happen to be an incredibly literal minded individual. AND, I also like to follow the rules. I enjoy ATS, and posting here, and I did not want to inadvertently post "subtle innuendo." I wanted to be clear on how subtle we were talking.

If, as it appears after much discourse, this is NOT in fact a "new" rule, bringing an increased level of subtlety to bear, then I DONT have anything to worry about or question. It seems, again after considering all the replies, that this is a simple case of an existing rule being enforced. Which I am all for.

I just fail to see the logic so many of the "its obvious" crowd is using.

An obvious statement of this would have been,

"We are going to be enforcing the rule on civility and decorum in such a way that....." whatever that is. One warn, then ban, insta ban, whatever they have in mind.

I would have understood that perfectly. But when it is presented as implementing a NEW rule, disallowing "subtle innuendo" I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask what is meant by subtle innuendo.

I do not think it is reasonable to assume that the "track record" which clearly is currently making Springer unhappy, is the best way to gauge what he wants to occur in the future.


[edit on 5-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

In order to see something as biased, you must be on the other extreme of an idea. The most effective way to reduce it, is to come towards each other to center. Many won't take those steps and sit in justified ignorance to what in their thinking might be flawed.

Either you can take the steps toward understanding the others point of view, or you can stay in your cocoon of righteousness. I have done it and it is a lonely place to be.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by seagrass]

Originally posted by blupblup


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??

So then their's already a double standard then because I feel all that was stated above is "Hate Speech". Then would it be racism if I were to say obama was an idiot?

Originally posted by blupblup

I can't help you I'm afraid... If you don't see the difference between saying somebody, be it bush or obama, is a moron/idiot and bringing RACE into the argument then, i am at a loss????

I honestly don't know what to say?

How can i tell you how it's different... if you don't get it...you don't get it.

and i wondered why we had a problem on here

The wisest words i have seen today, i couldn't put it any better myself, so i'll borrow yours if you don't mind peace to you blup

It WOULD be racism to speak against Obama?!!!!
What?

Originally posted by Clearskies
It WOULD be racism to speak against Obama?!!!!
What?

Definitely not.

But what would be against the T&C would be someone making comments like "Oh maybe Obama sucks because he's (insert stereotypical anti-Adrican American statement)".

I think it is rude to call Obama an idiot. No matter what his policies and views are, the man is definitely not an idiot to get to the position in life that he has, have the devoted love of his family and friends. Rude is not hate speech, but just rude.

To call it racist to be rude is, well, idiotic.

How did this get to 7 pages... i got it after the OP....i think people are just arguing/disagreeing for the sake of it??

Originally posted by seagrass
I think it is rude to call Obama an idiot. No matter what his policies and views are, the man is definitely not an idiot to get to the position in life that he has, have the devoted love of his family and friends. Rude is not hate speech, but just rude.

To call it racist to be rude is, well, idiotic.

Calling him an idiot is not at all racist.
calling him an idiot may be rude...but it is not hate speech...at all.

Calling him Saddam or white-killer or any RACIST names and whatever other rubbish I've seen people call him on here...IS hate speech......

(this was meant to be a reply to MoonMine)

If you are found to be spreading hate rather than discussing the policies, actions and world events your account will post banned immediately - and your membership will be reviewed by staff.

in addition to the T&C - this makes it all very simple

live by the sword - die by the sword

if you feel comfortable with your position - and the way you've presented your position - fight for it

it says your membership will be reviewed - I have to assume that includes some sort of discussion by the staff

maybe I'm wrong here - but I don't see this as this sites decision to allow hasty, arbitrary decisions based on a mod's whim - there are guidelines

we've just been given the guidelines - again

if you can't make an intelligent argument that follows some pretty simple rules - it probably isn't possible to make it at all

no one is saying you can't say what you want to say - but if you're too lazy to think of a way to say it that fits into a civilized discussion - or even a civilized argument - don't say it

there are plenty of ways to discuss controversial subjects in a well thought out and intelligent manner - without an obvious agenda or provocation for the sake of provocation


[edit on 2/5/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

Originally posted by blupblup
How did this get to 7 pages... i got it after the OP....i think people are just arguing/disagreeing for the sake of it??

Well at least one thing about ATS will never change

Kidding aside, I agree. I think people are just blowing up for something to blow up at. It's really very simple, if you don't like the rules, it's the internet, go make your own. Plenty of space for everyone.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by seagrass
I think it is rude to call Obama an idiot. No matter what his policies and views are, the man is definitely not an idiot to get to the position in life that he has, have the devoted love of his family and friends. Rude is not hate speech, but just rude.

To call it racist to be rude is, well, idiotic.

Calling him an idiot is not at all racist.
calling him an idiot may be rude...but it is not hate speech...at all.

Calling him Saddam or white-killer or any RACIST names and whatever other rubbish I've seen people call him on here...IS hate speech......

So we agree then.

Edited for a second line.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by seagrass]

Earlier I saw people asking for examples, I've decided to invent 2. I don't want to copy and paste anything from previous posts because I don't want to pick at anyone as an example.

Continuing on the Obama theme:

Proper - I think Obama's policies are all wrong for America, I didn't vote for him, I think he'll do a terrible job and he's off base on nearly every issue.

Hate Speech - Obama is a horrible president but what did you expect? We never should have voted a black guy as president. Now him and his people are going to make policies to run the country into the ground.

Another often discussed topic, Christianity:

Proper - I disagree with the Christian belief system. I don't believe in the Bible, or in a god, and I think organized religion is a form of mind control.

Hate Speech - I don't believe in god and I think that anyone who thinks that some stupid guy on a cross died to save all of you is a brainless ignorant idiot.

Please take those as simple examples... I'm not professing to know every example in advande. I just want to help it be understood.

Is that helpful?