It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is ATS picking up on MSM talking points?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I've noticed over the last few days a bunch of threads about all the "angry right wing Christans" people who post here now. Even the mods have gotten in to it, sending out warnings and starting a new thread on the subject. I find it interesting that this comes about at the very same time that the media is smearing protesters as "angry mobs" and "manufactured". Of course these are all democrat talking points being reported as news by the media, but doesn't it seem odd tat ATS is now pushing this same line?

You got CNN, MSNBC and all the networks calling people crazed, ugly and unruly

That narrative seems to be showing up again here on ATS in these threads:

ATS has been invaded

RReaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

I find this push to silence dissent disturbing, especially when its coming from a place that supposedly champions it.




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I guess ATS is just going with the flow to try and make a buck and control some minds. That does not mean that you have to do the same. I think ATS really stands for Another Truth Serum.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
So, what you want is to be able to insult people without recourse, use childish schoolyard names and contribute to ATS in an uncivilised manner?

Why? Why would you want to do that?

All ATS is asking for is civilised posting and decorum, discussing the issues instead of reverting to total and utter gibberish and a mob mentality that accomplishes absolutely nothing and stifles productive debate.

Oddly, thats what you agreed to do when you created a user name on the board.

So whats wrong with that, exactly?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
ATS is attempting to civilize political discussions (accross the board -- the link you provide does not endorse any political side's talking points). The amount of inane ranting and mudslinging without substance is evident on these boards, and seems to be growing.

I agree with the general idea. Forum decorum. You are, and always will be free to make a point, as long as it's valid, somewhat new and civilized. This goes unquestioned in any other topic, but when its enforced with politics, people start screaming oppression and conspiracy.



[edit on 10-8-2009 by Oscitate]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 



I have no problem with any of that, but it seems like some at ATS are using media hysteria as a way to shut down one side of the debate. Otherwise, why the targeting of alleged "right wing Christians"? Why the MSNBC banners to push the exact sort of thing you claim to be against?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by neformore
 



I have no problem with any of that, but it seems like some at ATS are using media hysteria as a way to shut down one side of the debate. Otherwise, why the targeting of alleged "right wing Christians"? Why the MSNBC banners to push the exact sort of thing you claim to be against?


Did I miss something? There are MSNBC banners on ATS?
If there are, we have a problem.........



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


In case you hadn't noticed, the first thread you quoted is from a member expressing an opinion.

The second is from one of ATS's owners

The first post is is nothing to do with official ATS policy at all.

The second one relates to to how the board functions and the rules on political posts are to be enforced on ATS.

People come to ATS to discuss their opinions in a civil manner. Its what the board is all about. Quite why you are trying to cite a members opinion as some form of official policy is somewhat mystifying.

Wouldn't it be better to debate the problem you have with the members post in the actual thread?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
I find this push to silence dissent disturbing, especially when its coming from a place that supposedly champions it.

There is no, and never has been, any effort to "silence dissent," only to insist that discourse within the threads on ATS occurs in a civil and productive manner.

What could possibly make you think our efforts would result in "silencing dissent?"



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Let's use some logical reasoning.

ATS members are part of the earths population.

There is great unrest nearly everywhere on this planet. Even the heavens above us have seemed disturbed lately with strange happenings on Mars and new discoveries being made almost weekly.

We are sitting on the edge of chaos but even closer to a new age of something we really aren't sure of.

Let's trace that down from the Universe, to earth, to countries and down to our areas where we live.

There is a pattern and we are going with the general flow.

If there is panic or unrest in the streets then there will invariably be unrest in the news media and like it or not we are part of the news media.
We just happen to be the best part in my opinion.

The way the world goes is the way ATS members will go. But we must, at all cost, remain civilized and not become like the buffoons causing trouble in the streets.

We must keep our standards high. Our mark has been set in the T&C and we must rise above the chaos and have orderly discussion or we are no better than the MSM.

I have a great desire to curse, scream and break things. But my parents raised a lady and I shall continue to be so unto death.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


How could you miss them? Maybe they only appear on the "board home" page? They aren't as bad today as they usually are though. Normally its just a stream of anti-Republican, Anti-protester talking points. I cant imagine people would like it much if they had Fox banners.



reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


What could possibly make you think our efforts would result in "silencing dissent?"


For one, at least some of your mods seem to agree that the forums have been taken over by "angry" "right wing Christians". Which just happens to be in line with what Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann spend everyday fear mongering about.

Another example is this part of your rules :


Posts that continually parrot previously proven false political rhetoric without substantive contribution to the topic are not allowed.


Did you know that there is a 9/11 forum on ATS that excels in this? Every single conspiracy in that thread has been debunked for years. That didn't seem to phase you. So, its looking like its going to come down to the political leanings of whoever is making the decision about what is and isn't "false political rhetoric". This line of reasoning is also being used by MSNBC and others as a justification for attacking American citizens. On Friday night, Cris Mathews couldnt figure out why these people don't like this health care. You know, since the democrats have answered all the questions and there wont be rationing....



All other politically-charged trolling and sniping intended, in the opinion of our staff and topic participants, to derail discussion away form the issues are not allowed.


Again, have you ever looked at your MSNBC banner? It regularly has inflammatory descriptions of Republicans and anti-Obama protesters. Again, these rules seem to focus on one group.


I have no problem with calm, rational discussion. I just don't see whats being done here as a step towards that. Its more like a step in getting rid of those certain people don't agree with. One more time, this is all coming at the exact same time that MSNBC, CNN and a few others are pushing this EXACT narrative, as a way of silencing Obama's critics.








[edit on 10-8-2009 by Wimbly]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
I cant imagine people would like it much if they had Fox banners.

Apparently you're unable to appreciate the irony of MSNBC paying to appear on ATS.

Given time, and a complete canvas of ATS members, I'm sure there could be reasons for disagreement with nearly every ad that appears on ATS. Our site requires a significant amount of revenue to remain operational... and even more to sustain continued growth. We should reject one advertiser, with inoffensive ads (insofar as imagery or language) because a small segment has an issue? Please.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Wimbly
 


As a past owner of a large board, yes one larger than ATS back in 2006, I do not pay attention to the ads.
I do however take offence to that ad. I don't want to here anything about, "you can't control it" because that would be just BS.
Considering the MSM atmosphere they have been setting, I don't think it is approprete one bit.
Maybe FOX should run a story on this.............................ATS on the take from Obama TV..........................



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Wimbly
 


In case you hadn't noticed, the first thread you quoted is from a member expressing an opinion.

The second is from one of ATS's owners

The first post is is nothing to do with official ATS policy at all.

The second one relates to to how the board functions and the rules on political posts are to be enforced on ATS.


Actually the first post has everything to do with the second one because it breaks the new policy in my opinion.

ATS has been invaded
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most of these zombies seem to be the hard Christian right that have ruined almost everything in our country and let the corporations do what they want since the 80's. They are like a plague in our nation and now they are infecting ATS.


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But the overwhelming atmosphere of hate, insults, and over-the-top exaggerations is not desired here on ATS. When we see an abundance of disparaging names and hateful condescension, the atmosphere is polluted and discussion turns away from the issues and toward each other. And that, my friends, is playing into the political game "they" want you to play.


That said, I have to agree with the new policy but I think that it's going to be very hard to police.

Why is the first post still on ATS? Could be that it was created before the new policy but and the owners don't want to enforce previous threads but it's my opinion that if they do want it to stop then threads like the first one should be deleted because they are still fueling people.



[edit on 10/8/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Thats all well and good, but the banner itself breaks your rules for decorum. I'm just saying that having a banner from a clearly left wing network, that regularly attacks one side of the spectrum, is not a good way to lead by example. It leads people like me to think these rules are actually just excuses for shutting down opinions not shared by certain people on the forums.





[edit on 10-8-2009 by Wimbly]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
For one, at least some of your mods seem to agree that the forums have been taken over by "angry" "right wing Christians".

I agree that several threads have this unfortunate result. But I tend to see a general knee-jerk political madness infecting the forums, not a madness of one ideology.




Did you know that there is a 9/11 forum on ATS that excels in this? Every single conspiracy in that thread has been debunked for years.

"Every single conspiracy?" Really? You feel confident in saying that?

It seems as if you're unable to separate speculation on conspiracy theories from political sniping. At times, the subtlety can be elusive, especially for conspiracy theories that contain political aspects. But the guidelines would apply, and will be enforced.





Again, have you ever looked at your MSNBC banner? It regularly has inflammatory descriptions of Republicans and anti-Obama protesters. Again, these rules seem to focus on one group.

Our new rules/guidelines are not intended to focus on one group... however, if one group becomes more of a focus because of their actions, then so be it.

I've not seen what you describe in the MSNBC banners... at least not to the level that would conflict with the guidelines I posted yesterday. Please feel free to post a screen shot if you see something... and if it conflicts with the reaffirming thread, we'll consider pulling the ads. Fair enough?


[edit on 10-8-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



and if it conflicts with the reaffirming thread, we'll consider pulling the ads. Fair enough?


Sounds good to me. Although, I really wish I'd have gotten some screen shots over the last few days. There were some really nasty headlines streaming across it.

I gotta say though, I still think it comes down to your political leanings. You can claim it doesn't, but you also just said there is no focus on one group in tat banner. If you think that, than there is definitely some bias on your part.

Have you ever watched MSNBC?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
but you also just said there is no focus on one group in tat banner.

I later refined my sentence to make it clear I was referring to the new guidelines in our reaffirming thread.




there is definitely some bias on your part.

Oh, I certainly have bias... a very strong bias such that I firmly believe the left-v-right political rhetoric of lies, insults and gross exaggerations is one of the influences at the root of everything that's wrong with this country.

I'm biased against all forms of political madness that focuses on ideological preferences instead of solutions to issues.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


What is the official response to the first post in light of the new policy? Will it be deleted? Will it be allowed to stay because it was created 2 hours before you sent out the new policy? It is very inflammatory and remains on the front page with 78 (right now) flags.

Edit to add: Lol... ok.
I just looked again and it has been modified, I'll take that as the answer... no need to reply.


Most of these [politically-charged insult removed] seem to be the hard [politically-charged insult removed] that have ruined almost everything in our country and let the corporations do what they want since the 80's. They are like a plague in our nation and now they are infecting ATS.


[edit on 10/8/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
[What is the official response to the first post in light of the new policy?

Have you looked at it lately?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Right on SO. Just so you know Skeptic, none of this is meant to attack you. I'm just pointing out what I see as inconsistency in the rules and in this recent push to enforce them, combined with the narrative that is currently popular in our MSM.


I'm biased against all forms of political madness that focuses on ideological preferences instead of solutions to issues.


Than find a new advertisement banner that isn't from the biggest left wing shill network of them all. Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Wimbly]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join