Having been warned twice in this thread for one post, asking a question, and also being from another country, I am very mindful of what the new rules on posting on ATS mean. I know that it is a privilege to play in this playpen and will do my utmost to insure that all future posts will comply with the T&C as they now exist.

I can be creative elsewhere.

Just a question of principle (I am not talking about any specific person):
Would it be "politically incorrect" to call a criminal a criminal?
And, could we really afford not to do it?


[edit on 10-8-2009 by WonderfulWorld]

I think this is really easy, I don't see why people aren't getting it.

Don't make fun of anyone. Don't insult people, or groups of people. Just have issue with policy.

I literally think that's what it boils down to.

I hate making a long post only to find my internet is emotional..

So ill keep this one short.

I welcome it! and more so because ATS is all over the place on it.. The amount of name calling has got out of hand and i for one am sick of It like many fellow ATS members.

So if you do not like it, im sure you can insult people els were....

oh and one other point ATS provides a service its not a privlage.. i would love to see half the people on here run a forum as complex and as big as this...

Kudos to ATS for stepping on this BUG..

off topic -------------

what happend to mutter? and can we have a radio station please "live"

U2U would be nice springer

Thanks

Dan

I think you should allow the mocking of political figures, in avatars or nicknames.
There are different rules for staring at strippers vs. staring at civilians.
Those who have chosen to enter public life know it's mud-wrestling, they're begging for it, they must think the trade-off is worth it.
Insulting a political figure, or any distant belief totem, is distinct from name-calling directed to actual ATS interlocutors, we can still all speak as amicable mountain-top philosophers while still using flamboyant terms to characterize other persons and figures distinct (actually "as-if" distinct) from those of us here talking.
A properly abusive encapsulating nickname is actually a triumph of culture.
It is one of the joys of being a peasant, it's very Chaucerian.

In general, the more things (in whatever system) cannot be said, the more false beliefs (almost by definition, seems like) that system must require as its foundation.

There should be nothing that cannot be said.

You are in a free speech business. I'm sure you could make more money doing something else.
Give the people what they want, let them have what they enjoy, if you are too polite you can't say anything, there is nothing that is not offensive to someone and some people are offended by everything, the purpose of discourse is to advance knowledge/resolve discrepancy and those areas where people get most upset are exactly the ones where discourse has the biggest pay-out, that which cannot be addressed cannot be changed, laws do more harm than crimes...yadda yadda yadda free speech cliches...(hate speech is sweet and lovely too, btw, (and talking about dope, don't be so nanny-state, it's gross))...

Basically what I'm saying is: you are correct to eschew name-calling between ATS interlocutors and the ad hominem argument, but anything past that you have gone too far and wrong, there is nothing wrong with colorful abuse towards political figures, political parties, religious figures, gods, God, any and every living human, dead people, groups of people, people in general, animals, plants, rocks, all beings et cetera...

(And I say this, please note, even though my posts are all pretty much drop-dead polite)

You should show more faith in the invisible hand of the marketplace of ideas...it's a lot of work having to know better and having to decide when others have crossed the line, every week having to issue new politeness rulings, decorum warnings and school uniform dress codes...I bet you-all, like anybody, would be happier to avoid that activity as much as possible ( it's like the obvious advantages of few laws and a simple tax code)

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
From this moment forward, the following rules apply throughout all of ATS:

(1) Politically inspired name calling of an ideological group is not allowed: examples: "Loonie Libs," "Obamaites," "Repuglicans," etc.

There are 4 specific phrases I wouldn't mind clear, no gray area site policy on, since they all have political leanings:

1) "Birthers"

2) "Truthers"

3) "Obamacare"

4) "Neocons"

If you get a chance SO or Springer, thanks.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
If you get a chance SO or Springer, thanks.

Those are generally popular terms in the widely used lexicon.

However, "Obamacare nutters," or "Birther loons" would be examples of the type of modifications that would not be allowed.

Why should they allow the mocking/poking fun at of political figures in avatars?

Political figures are people, too. If you replaced "Obama" with your name, you wouldn't think it was very funny. And if I replaced "Obama" with a political figure that you respect, you also wouldn't think it was funny.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Why should they allow the mocking/poking fun at of political figures in avatars?

Political figures are people, too. If you replaced "Obama" with your name, you wouldn't think it was very funny. And if I replaced "Obama" with a political figure that you respect, you also wouldn't think it was funny.

They knew when they went into public life that it would happen.
They get the power, they think it's worth it, they should have to give up some dignity and endure ridicule in exchange.
It's like a guy I knew who dropped out of nursing school because he couldn't bear to give injections..."Did you not think that this would come up?"...

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
So how is a derisive nickname towards a public figure, or his devotees, the same as "being nasty and uncivil towards one another"?

As we've seen here on ATS, it creates a polluted environment such that derogatory terminology eventually migrates from public figures to one-another.

In addition, contemporary political debate has been infused with hyper-sensitivity and emotionally-charged reactionary knee-jerks. This decision on our part removes one unnecessary element from the equation, with the (hopeful) goal of focusing discussion on the actual issues, and not the ideological preferences of the participants.