Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

With all due respect are you under the impression that this is the first " crack down" we have ever had to do? It is not. There were crackdowns when Bush was in office as well.

I am not sure where you are seeing bias. The new rules stop BOTH sides from doing and saying things that both sides should not have been doing and saying in the first place.

Now if the new rule said, "no republicans can speak their mind" I would agree. If it said "No democrats can speak their mind" I would agree.

It does not say that though, these are rules for all political affiliations and they are and will be enforced equally. Anybody who breaks any of these rules will have action against them. Not just republicans and not just democrats.

I think what RR is saying is that the rules propose fairness to both sides, but the implemention may not always give the appearance of such. Something that has been somewhat of a thorn in my side lately as well.

Thank you my most recent thread which is up their with this one in top topics is exactly about this... enforce these rules or you will lose members...

Can't really change my Username.

So lol, I can't really help out on this political anti attacking wave

Repuglicans. lol, that's actually pretty funny.

Excellent! We must learn to agree to disagree.....intelligently and respectfully.

Thank you, thank you, thank you SO...

Maybe now we can get down to it and really dissect some issues.

While I welcome this new round of enforcement, the proof is in the pudding. The guidelines that have been laid out are pretty easy to enforce. I hope they are enforced on all evenly. That was one of the problems last time around, which has caused this problem to rear it's ugly head yet again.

Got my fingers crossed..........

Is this going to be monitored on just the political sites and threads or all
threads and posts? The reason I ask is that some time ago there was a thread about occult symbolism and after posting got accused of a bunch of stuff by the Christians that was also a kee jerk panic attack when if they would have breathed before posting I probably wouldn't have been accused. I just quit the thread. and it was too bad becasue it could have been very interesting.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's just not politics, it's also religion, and other stuff. Also I get really irritated when someone starts a thread , for example about chem trails, and the title obviously is meant for people who believe in them to gather in the thread and discuss. Then within a page and a half here come the guys spouting off that everyone's an idiot for believing in chemtrails, and they are usually the same three. Then the thread digresses into you- suck- no- you- suck for the rest of the the thread.
Thank you for your effort regarding this matter and for your time reading my post.

As long as this post went out to everyone, it seems fair...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However, the subject is a valid conspiracy theory on many levels, worthy of discussion on ATS.

The more I think about it the more I believe this to be true.

My only problem is that what has been brought to the table thus far hasn't really been worthy of discussion.

I don't care what his non-english speaking Step-Grandmother said to a translator.
I don't care about a news article in Ghana.
I don't care that some Kenyans look at him as a Kenyan citizen.
I don't care that some Muslims look at him as a Muslim.
I don't care if you think he is secretly Osama Bin Laden or the secret love child of Malcolm X (yeah that is all here), if you have any proof worthy of debate on the issue of his citizenship or at least some more substantial evidence that will reveal the state of Hawaii to be guilty of fabrication bring it forth.

It doesn't even have to be the holy grail, just something that will give our minds pause and sow enough seeds of doubt to have us think that it COULD be possible. He may be covering something up but I've yet to see anything convincing to show that he was or has. I'm willing to look at anything regarding this conspiracy, but everything I've seen so far has been disappointing or simply far-fetched.

And with that in mind, I'm 100% certain it's possible to discuss the subject within the guidelines laid out in the opening post.

Yes we can.

- Lee

reply to post by FredT

It is a very heated issue for many.

Right, we must remember that there is a human element behind the screen, this is where the crux of the problem lies.

Lets face it if your argument/thesis has to rely on bombastic personal attacks, sniping, or the repeated use of clearly false material (aka the "IF I shout it loud and long enough it must be true" syndrome, then perhaps its time you rethink how to better defend your position in an articulate and civil manner.

This is much easier in theory than practice. Say I come along with an argument against your point (not yours personally), I have plenty of researched facts to back up my claim. However this get's your goat, and you try and refute my research with research of your own. Now I am testy because I feel that your research must be flawed.

Can we see how things can escalate beyond that of rational discussion to more of a you pissed me off so I'm gonna tell you where to shove your theory?

I mean I can completely agree with SO's point as provided, but to be honest, politics is akin to a kindergarten sand box. Bunch of bullies want the pulpit, and there's a lot of dirt being kicked around.

I myself have fell victim a few times to letting my emotions control my typing. It's an ingrained flaw with being all too human.

[edit on 8/10/2009 by whatukno]

Does this mean the MSNBC banners atre going to be removed? All they do is spew left wing talking points against Republicans and anyone who doesn't agree with Obama. You cant say that everyone else needs to cut it out, than display that every day.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

(2a) Avatars designed exclusively to denigrate a politician or political figure, using derogatory wording or photo-manipulation, is not allowed.

This is the only issue I would contend, I think as long as photo-manipulation is clearly evident to the extent is is clearly obvious, I think the avatars that are out there express political opinion, and adds a bit of character to the site, and should be allowed.


It's political satire, and not allowing it endangers ATS to accusations of political censorship.


Having said that, I agree with everything else that aims to improve political debate on ATS.


I think where debates degenerate to personal attacks is because the person/s responsible for such attacks has his/her argument taken apart in a debate and decides to instead to retreat and stay within their intellectual comfort zone of personally attacking the people who disagreed with him/her instead as opposed to intellectually debating the issue at hand with them further, as they seem incapabe of doing so.



I think measures to stamp this out are a very good thing indeed. Threads where personal attacks and aggressiveness as opposed to mature and respectable discussion are evident usually put me off from participating.

Originally posted by pavil
While I welcome this new round of enforcement, the proof is in the pudding. The guidelines that have been laid out are pretty easy to enforce. I hope they are enforced on all evenly. That was one of the problems last time around, which has caused this problem to rear it's ugly head yet again.

Got my fingers crossed..........

Glad I am not the only one seeing it

Seems to me that certain groups are receiving the bulk of the enforcement activity sometimes, whilst other groups receive nothing for identical behavior.

Though admittedly, I only observe a very narrow spectrum of activity on the boards, due to time constraints.


edit for that dam I before E thing


[edit on 10-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

reply to post by hotrodturbo7


If you have a group on one side of an issue that is more confrontational and in higher numbers frequently break these rules, that are met with moderator enforcement it can appear as if there is bias on the part of the staff when there is not.

It happens whenever and wherever laws and rules are enforced.

The notion that enforcement must some how reflect evenness in numbers on all sides of the issues or in this case political ideologies is wrong, as issues change the numbers of those breaking rules is relative to the anger and frustration within a group, so naturally it will appear as if that group is being singled out for enforcement.

In the end, these are rules we all must abide by period.

So much for fair and unbiased enforcement/implementation of (already former) rules:

"David Icke is full of horse poo"


[edit on 10-8-2009 by WonderfulWorld]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I would like to know how much of the current level of discourse is coming from individuals that are not in the U.S.

I know you all can see the IP's of everyone and know where they are. If you see someone stirring up crap on a reasonable thread, and they are pro-gov't health care, AND they are from a foreign country, it might be a reasonable assessment that they are a paid shill. The point of these paid shills is to do exactly what they are doing, shut down reasonable conversations, and debates about the agenda of the moment.

ATS has a choice that needs to be made.

1) Identify the shills, and ban them, so that ATS can be a place of enlightenment again.

2) Continue to ignore the problem, and lose all of your members that actually add quality user generated content, thus becoming a giant mass of horse crap, that no one with a brain would want to visit.

I am giving you all about another week to fix the problem. If the problem hasn't been addressed, I'll be gone forever. There are other conspiracy sites that have figured it out. The clock is ticking. ATS I am pulling for you, drastic steps need to be made, very quickly.

Although I am a new member I have been lurking here for over four years. I have seen the change in the type of posting and agree with the basic premis of the OP. However in thinking about the posts a problem seems to come in. I hope I manage to express this properly.

It would seem to me that with the enforcement of these rules you are cutting off a source (the posters themselves) of Possible long time consipiracys. These are long time held beliefs of the posters themselves who MAY have been manipulated or brainwashed.

As an example: If you are a "Birther", I hate that name, than you are automatically to some people a racist against Obama because he is black. I, persoanlly, know a lot about how files are shall we say "MODIFIED". It has been done to my personal files, my military records, my medical records. I see the OFFICIAL records changed on a regular basis where I work. These are "PAPER" records, far harder to change than electronic ones. It makes any kind of proof to be judgemental. I do not KNOW where Obama was born and truthfully there is no REAL way of knowing. What was that line in the movie CONSPIRACY THEORY? The sign of a good conspiracy is the lack of proof. That they would have to have screwed up in order for there to be proof?

What I am trying to say is that the knee jerk reactions of some posters themselves may be indications themselves of a possible conspiracy. People's reactions are telling especially in a charged atmosphere and can be more of a indicator than say a newspaper article.

I do not know if it is possible but perhaps a area should be set aside where these rules do not appy? Where the hate and anger of people can be allowed to be shown regardless of side so everyone can see and question WHY people feel a certain way? Even the postors themselves if they go back and read their own posts? Just a suggestion.

Here is what I countered a 'People Like You' statement with, recently.

As for people like myself.... That's a pretty narrow subset, a seriously narrow subset. Consisting of Males Over Forty with a College Education, Combat Infantrymen and Calvary Soldiers (Specifically those who served in Honduras, Panama, Kuwait and Iraq,) Disabled Veterans, Life Members of the DAV and Members of the NAAV, Law Abiding Citizens, Native Americans (Specifically: Mixed Crow, Lakota, Algonquin, European, Gemanic and Irish (Yes I am a Mutt!),) Democrats, Texans, Boarder Residents, People With No Criminal Records, People born in Charleston, South Carolina and raised in Iowa. People who have PTSD and Depression, People Contaminated with Depleted Uranium, Computer Geeks and so on and such forth.

Clearly if you can create or define a group 'like' myself, you are a miracle worker. (Which is also to read: What are you doing here when the world needs you?????)

So seriously, which group am I supposed to be here, that you think I am defending from or that has a position to be associated with???

Yes it is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it is the best way to answer a:

"People like you..." statement.

Of course your own subset will vary

M.

Originally posted by whatukno
Politics are a very emotional realm.

People get heated fast. (I know I have) and sometimes they say things that are rather inappropriate. It's not directly charged at the poster it's more about the idea.

If one is on one side of the issue and others are on another, the differences are going to cause strife and people will backlash.

I do like this idea, but I think it is going to be difficult for many to adhere to. Especially when rhetoric is involved.

Yes, I was always taught never to discuss politics or religion at the dinner table.

I am also mindful that "poli" = many and tics are blood sucking parasites.

The debates that are raging everywhere over America's current president and methods are very heated.

Viewed from outside it is quite an amazing spectacle.

reply to post by downtown436

If you see someone stirring up crap on a reasonable thread, and they are pro-gov't health care, AND they are from a foreign country, it might be a reasonable assessment that they are a paid shill.

It does not occur to you that people in other countries actually like their government paid health care; and maybe actually want to encourage you try out a good thing??
Once again, anyone with a different point of view needs villifying because you aren't willing (or able?) to discuss things rationally.
tsk tsk