Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

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.

reply to post by Regensturm

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

I knew that one was coming, because the Obama administration is on a witch-hunt over Internet use of the pictures depicting Obama as the joker, and this forum has to cover its rear, that is to be expected.

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]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I can assure you the Obama administration had NOTHING TO DO with this rule.

We just don't want the drama that always ensues when the topics/issues are left behind in favor of ridiculous and childish name calling/senseless party line bashing.

Matter of fact if there ever was an attempt by anyone other than we owners/staff to control any aspect of the content of this site we'd splash it all over the place.

NOBODY and I mean NOBODY tell us what can and can't be posted on ATS.

Springer...

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.

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

There should be nothing that cannot be said.

as springer pointed out its not the SUBJECT its the way in SUBJECT matter is being Debated...

You fail to understand that the SUBJECT at hand is not the issue but the manner in witch it is being debated.

ATS allows any subject with in reason, but to be nasty and uncivil towards one another is a big NO NO..

that was the reason for SO to lay down the law.. and so shall it be.

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.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


yep basic insults.. and its all over the place.

sorry for the one liner

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Ahh, ok, that made it clear now. So I suppose with that we can now submit post alerts galore anytime the two words "conspiracy" and "nuts" find themselves next to each other anywhere on ATS ever again. Hurray?

Or is that not political enough for you?

[edit on Mon Aug 10th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Mate i dont think you get it and being smart about what is being pointed out is not helping..

The fact that the issue has come up is more than enough reason to deal with it like many others that have came up in the past...

fact is there is way to much insulting going on. and using semantics to be smart arsed about it wont help.

We want a forum that has mature debates about subjects without resulting to name calling.

And he made that very clear .. And once again let me remind you that ATS is a service, and FREE.. the mods do not get PAID to warn you or do it because they love it.. but they do it for the love of the community "most"

So as i said be for I welcome it and 90 % or more of ATS welcome it..

Insults are just rude and shows how immature you are.

And yes i have been guilty of this in the past on ATS.. so im speaking from experience..

If you have nothing nice to say DONT SAY IT.. kinda simple really

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.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Thanks for taking this much welcomed step. Hopefully, in the end, cooler heads will prevail. I agree that politics is as an emotionally charged issue as ever. This will help to focus the discussions on the issues at hand.

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

 

There should be nothing that cannot be said.

as springer pointed out its not the SUBJECT its the way in SUBJECT matter is being Debated...

You fail to understand that the SUBJECT at hand is not the issue but the manner in witch it is being debated.

ATS allows any subject with in reason, but to be nasty and uncivil towards one another is a big NO NO..

that was the reason for SO to lay down the law.. and so shall it be.

So how is a derisive nickname towards a public figure, or his devotees, the same as "being nasty and uncivil towards one another"?
If I have to assume that whoever I'm talking to has the same characteristics as any other absent person or group in the world, for fear of "being nasty and uncivil towards towards one another", then I could never decry the activities of those seaweed-eating, baby-stealing, email-spamming, feathered-mask-wearing, millenarian Gypsy-clan-based crime syndicates, for example...
I figure the trick is to assume or pretend (even though I probably doubt it) that the person I am "speaking" to is okay, and thus avoid personal insult...just like I am taking a droll tone speaking to you.
(Plus, get real, there will always be derogatory speech towards some external person or persons on any forum, get rid of the pithy fun and colorful and you'll still have it in a more multi-syllabic form, in sentences with more clauses...people will be moved somehow to express their shock and distaste regarding those nano-Luddite wolf-worshipping know-nothings, for example.)
If I say "they" are bad, it's not the same as a personal insult, to say that you are bad, and even if you tell me you are one of "them", for the purposes of discussion I pretend/assert that you are "okay" (because you are discoursing with me you are different, you could learn through this talk to be "okay" and not have the bad characteristics of "them", so speaking ill of the wolfers is not a personal insult to you, you and me, we are philosophers, we are reasoning together, we can go anywhere, we are not toadlike sponges sopping up insults in order to act victimized,"he was rude, make him stop, you're not very nice")...what I don't do is say "You only say that because you are a wolf-worshipper", and go ad hominem like that BECAUSE THAT ENDS DISCUSSION, it seems to exclude me from bothering to adduce proof and does not further my actual argument...That is why ad hominem is bad, not hurt feelings.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


very true.

Its about respecting each others views..

well said raven and a great analogy

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel


Because you have a choice.

ATS has made it clear in that respect and if you want to look at the vast majority of posts they do in fact agree with SO on this matter...

its getting really silly.. and people like me just want to debate things not insult each other..

That is the point..

sometimes one mans rubbish is another mans riches.. the same can be said for insults i guess..

thats why ATS tries its best to make sure the forum is not full of hate or misconceptions.

The fact is we all have our own views on something but keeping it as low as possible "insults" Is what the point of this is about..

We are all grown ups i would like to think we can talk about ANY subject at hand without name calling and just being respect full to each other.

not a lot to ask is it? im sure you would agree with me on that

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.