It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Racism is for Ignorant Fools, not ATS.

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Aeons
Sure, racism is the thought that one body morphology of humans is superior to another based on that body morphology, when that difference is applied to both genders within that category.

If you selectively quote one definition of it.


• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

— DERIVATIVES racist noun & adjective.

Oxford Dictionaries - Racism

You missed out the second part that I've highlighted in bold.

Note the words discrimination and note the words antagonism

You selectively applied one meaning only. How about you try looking at both?

I noted your implication that the staff on the board are incapable of distinguishing the issue - and yet you make that claim without considering the full meaning of the word itself - unless you care to claim that the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't know what its talking about?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:36 AM
reply to post by Walkswithfish

There are those who discuss, there are those who agree, there are those who deny, and there are those that mock.

By all means, if you feel the need and see fit - discuss agree & deny. Those things aide discussion and understanding, and develop a conversation.

Mocking - for the sake of it - just wastes time and reading space, adds absolutely nothing, and gets people no where.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by Nutter

If a member on ATS decided to call you either, their post would either be edited or removed because it was a personal attack against you.

If those descriptions were used in posts to categorise a single person, or group, then they would, I'm sure, be adjudged to be hate speech, and appropriate action would be taken providing the staff were aware that it had happened

Sadly, the staff can't see everything, all the time.

So if you come across that, alert it - do not respond to it - and the staff will look at it.

As for the profanity censors, one of the words you mentioned is defined and generally accepted solely as an offensive one, whereas the other has dual meanings. Not every word can be picked up by the profanity censors, but the intent behind the words can be seen, reviewed and actioned as need be.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:47 AM
The racism around here has disgusted me. I suggest some of these people go to Stormfront and air their issues there.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Did I miss something here??

Logged onto ATS for the first tme in a couple of weeks and its suddenly become an anti-racism website!!??
I though it was a site to deny ingorance?
I know that it is ingorant to prescribe to notions of racism, yet it is also ignorant to think that just because it is not allowed or censored to be discussed-it no longer exists or is on the decline.
If individuals aren't prepared for alienation until they are accepted (which is a fact of Human interaction); they are better off staying indoors.
Everyone experiences alienation at some point within their life; weither one starts a new school or a new job: this is the old testing ground of interaction, and building respect between peers. People don't just love you; this is something that has to be earned.
With all the multi-culturalism shoved down our throats (like its great for the country, economy blah blah blah); immigrants are intent to think that just because they perceive governments to be a soft-touch, whom give them opportunity; doesn't mean that new communities will bow and give the 'keys to the kingdom'- like anywhere respect has to be earned on individual merits; it doesn't exist at the grass roots because of political alliances.
Racism draws a fine line with religions that present themselves as races, etc.
Next we'll have a directive on not discussing certain religions etc perse; they may get upset.
Anyway ; when disclosure happens what are we going to call Aliens (they may be offended over that term).
No but seriously I think that our governments have a lot to answer for over the debate of racism; instead of dumping radically different creeds together and hoping for the best; is it unreasonable to expect a degree of assimulation

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:08 AM
reply to post by KRISKALI777

First off, I have not seen much racism here regarding Obama. The racism I have seen in abundance here is by British BNP/EDL supporters. And it becoming very tiresom
So I'll focus on that....

I think the majority of us are able to tell when there is an agenda to a post. For example, repeated threads about the EDL, BNP, Immigration etc. especially when there is no debate just blanket statements by typically ignorant people, are insulting to the majority. They offer nothing. It's simply advertising and propaganda. Most of us can see through it in an instant.

If a person wants to start a thread discussing the EDL or BNP, they need to actually have that debate, not stand on their soapbox and preach while ignoring any opposing view.
But, none of them actually want that debate. None of them are willing to discuss the realities, they'd rather simply repeat tabloid headlines and false statistics while calling everyone else wrong.

I'm very glad ATS is focusing on this right now. It has to be done. It's not about censorship, it's about maintaining the ethic of open and reasonable discussion in the face of propaganda attacks and blatant bigotry.

If these people want to have a proper debate about race and the issues groups like the BNP/EDL are suggesting they are confronting, they have to do it properly, and not be so arrogant as to refute any opposing view while vehemently defending their own. They have to be open to a proper debate.
At the moment, they're not, and therefore they shouldn't be here espousing their abhorrent views and opinions.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:16 AM
reply to post by detachedindividual

Well thats cool, what worries me though is the borderline behavioural ethics of certain Moderators; that display equally inappropriate behviour (or have done in the past), and seem to fly under the radar because they side with the more politically correct veiw. Now that's what I really call "Denial of Ingorance"!LMFAO

[edit on 9/19/2009 by KRISKALI777]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:38 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I am ignorant on many subjects and can not deny that fact. That is one of the reasons that I joined ATS is to learn something and increase my knowledge. To claim "to deny ignorance" is ignorant in itself. Ignorance exists in many forms and not only in yout topic of choice. Do you also deny stupidity? Do you deny the opinions of others simply because you don't agree with them?I find many topics that are offensive and ignorant to me on this site but ignore them. You have singled out racism as your focal point which is hippocritical. I believe for example that we receive our rights from our devine Creator. That would offend some but not the founders of the former Republic we call The United States. Now will I be banned or blocked or deleted or sent to stand in the corner with my dunce cap. I am endowed by my creator with unalienable rights. I am not a racist but could be if I so choose. If you are going to call racism ignorance than why not call out all ignorant topics on this site and not tolerate any ignorance. Only allow expert, documented, well researched posts and never allow anyone's comments as they may come from ignorance as well. To call someone a fool because you disagree with them is also foolish. Why must you resort to name calling. Obviously, you have some issues that you need to work on in your life and I pray that you are able to over come them. Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest racists of all time yet his picture is hung in every elementary class room in the US public school system. Was he a fool? Ignorant but certainly not a fool.

[edit on 9/19/2009 by Monteriano]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:45 AM
To be honest, that's why I'm not posting these days.

I come here and have a read of some of the subject matter being discussed and then go away again.

Ever since the primaries this stuff has been going on - I mean there was always an element of it, same as there is in any walk of life, but it started getting really strong, and quite frankly I have no wish to raise my blood pressure by reading some of the mindless net thuggery which is supposed to pass for reasoned debate, by a minority (and it IS a minority) of people.

That said, this is a subject that I am sensitive to and about which I get annoyed quite easily, so the simple answer is to stay away from it all until the vocal minority get fed up and move on to somewhere else.

I'm not saying anyone else should do the same - that's just how I deal with it, and will continue to deal with it until such time as it dies down to a reasonable level i.e.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:51 AM
To me it was always so obvious why racist people are idiots... that they can't barely realized one simple truth:

Peel off the skin of each and every single person on the planet, and what differences will be left between these individuals? Only a matter of sex and hormones, nothing else.

THere are no such thing as races, as the cosmetic differences between humans all over the planet are simply cosmetic, resulting to adaptation to the environment through generations. As for the rest... taller or shorter, bigger or thinner, you find these differences randomly in many parts of the world, regardless of the color of skin or hairs.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 06:51 AM
This is a brilliant site and there are a lot of very intelligent people exposing the lies that the masses are told and believe. There are also people who come just to argue in ridiculous ways and to spread disinformation. There are those who have an agenda and come to often violently spread that agenda, with no real recourse to sane argument…lol However, I would never stop people expressing what they wish to, unless it went against basic laws and rules. I would be very sad to see this site go downhill into compliant and conformist mush sentiments, by suppressing free speech.

The very success of this site relies on total impartiality of both owners and moderators. That is not always the case, as one can often see the bias of moderators in their replies and what they disallow.
If one cannot criticise a President and what he does, then that is half of what anyone can discuss gone.
Unless a post is directly racist, then it should be allowed. I am rather bemused as I have not seen much racism at all. I have seen many posts accusing others of racism just because they have a differing view, and that becomes reverse racism and also a nasty ploy to discredit anyone who argues against them. Maybe that is what should be disallowed, although I do not believe anything much should be disallowed.

Anyone disagreeing with views about a person who just happens to be of mixed race, who happens to be half white and half black, and who uses the race card to disagree, is themselves guilty of racism. Because that person is the only one seeing the colour of that person’s skin. There is no racism in disagreeing with the views and actions of someone who happens to be mixed race. There is no racism in questioning where the most powerful, and therefore potentially dangerous, man in the world actually was born, if he is even eligible and what his motives are. That is just sensible debate. To deny that argument and discussion is totally irresponsible. And that is what is happening. ‘you are only questioning his birth place because he is black’…Huh? No, it is because he is completely unknown, because these viewpoints that there was something amiss came into public consciousness and they need to be addressed for the safety not only of America but the entire world.
If someone called him a ‘black (expletive)’, although that would not be accurate as he is mixed race, that WOULD be racism and the post would be rightly deleted. But where is that happening…as I don’t see that. All I see is some assuming that because the President has a differing skin colour that any criticism is racist. Not true, and a dangerous assumption to make.
If the owners start to disallow viewpoints then this site will disintegrate into nonsense and will become the mouthpiece of the politically correct, the sheep and the compliant. What a shame that would be.

In every single thread about gay people, there are violent responses. There are veiled calls for gays to be wiped off the planet. There are expressions of such contempt; there are views stated that would turn any sane person’s stomach, and quite honestly many are an incitement not only to violence but to complete intolerance. Has there been an attempt to stop this…nope. And would I ask for that….no, I definitely would not. Because when you start to ‘discriminate’ by deciding what can and cannot be expressed, quite honestly there would be little left that did not toe the party line, that did not just conform to a repressive worldview.

The site motto is deny ignorance. It is not deny free speech, or deny opposing views. Owners and moderators need to remain completely impartial, if you want the site to remain as one of the best.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:06 AM
reply to post by Monteriano

Lincoln didn't die a racist.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:21 AM
This is a silly thread and seems more of a PR thing than anything else. People are always saying racism is bad and ignorant and foolish this is just standard rhetoric it won't change views.

If you are a racist person seeing a thread like this will not change you. They won't say "hey racism is foolish oh ok i'll change then" It seems to me what would be more effective to use the standard protocol for inflammatory remarks like warnings then a ban would suffice.

Making a thread maybe is a bit more of an ego trip for the TS than a proclamation intent on changing things.

What i see though is that once again we have to put racism at the forefront and this is already very prevalent in msn these days where they are calling anyone that makes fun of a Obama a racist and Jimmy Carters statement so to then see it here front and center in bright green on ever page is kinda lame tbh.

My wife is west Indian and i'm white i never even look at color its never been an issue for me that being said if someone is racist to me as a white man(it does exists, we can't dance we talk funny) i don't care and if somebody says offensive stuff i general I don't care i will usually ignore them. IMO its common site policy not to post racist things so just enforce it.

This thread and ones like it cause more problems than they fix. I honestly wish moderators would just interject in the user created content they hold too much sway to start discussions because they stand out too much. If they start a thread on ice cream it would get 100 flags.

That is my rant. To put it simply i hate this thread.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:21 AM

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Beefcake]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Beefcake]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Stylez
Skeptic Overload may enjoy the usual yes men that all say HERE HERE! "Thank YOU!" by the same mod wannabe's that even if they didn't agree to a word of it, won't just pass on making a post but post that and the brown on their noses ...

In every thread like this, I see this accusation and I can't help wondering... Have you ever posted, agreeing with anything Skeptic Overlord said? If you did, then apparently you are also the "yes man" and the "mod wannabe" that you accuse others here of being... and you post agreement in threads that you disagree with, just to make some kind of impression on the staff. Because for you to assume that motivation in others, you must have gotten the idea somewhere... Are you suggesting that anytime anyone agrees with Skeptic Overlord, they do so with the intent of "kissing butt"?

There are several problems with your assertion, however.

1. The mod squad of this board isn't chosen based on their agreement with the owners. They vary WIDELY in their beliefs.

2. When ANY announcement comes from the staff of this board, there is genuine agreement and genuine disagreement. We are all free to voice ours.

3. Speaking personally, If I wanted to be a mod, I wouldn't have given up the position when I was one. I resent my opinion being discarded because of some silly suspicion you have and because it happens to disagree with yours.

Most importantly :

4. To agree with the ideals of eliminating bigotry, racism, tribalism, prejudice and ignorance is not that big of a stretch for most of us on ATS. The majority of people actually agree with that goal. Disagreement with inclusion, tolerance, compassion, understanding and equality is not something we at ATS are known for or aspire to.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Beefcake

This thread and ones like it cause more problems than they fix. I honestly wish moderators would just interject in the user created content they hold too much sway to start discussions because they stand out too much. If they start a thread on ice cream it would get 100 flags.

That is my rant. To put it simply i hate this thread.

LMAO - yeah, I think you ought to be deciding how the owners of the board use the board.

Why don't you go play in another free-access thread started by yourself on this board, which is owned by some one else whom you don't want to have the rights of use you are afforded on their board free of charge. That way you can address the all-consuming issue of who is getting what number of flags.

P.S. To put it simply I hate your post.

[edit on 9-19-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by twitchy
Just out of curiosity though, does this 'new' policy of stamping out biggotry mean people are going to have quit calling other members a 'truther' now? This question was simply ignored on the other thread, but I can't imagine a better example of stereotyping and biggotry, or does this just apply to race and religon?

Hence why I brought up about the rabid anti-homosexual threads too.

Where does this censorship end?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:45 AM

Originally posted by oneclickaway
If one cannot criticise a President and what he does, then that is half of what anyone can discuss gone.

And THAT, ladies and gentleman, is the crux of the issue.

The strawman.

NO ONE - not one single staff member, or owner of this site, has said anything of the kind.

No one of us has said you cannot criticise Obama. No one has said that you cannot criticise his policies, his speeches, his ideas. No one.

What has been said is that racial predjudice is not going to be tolerated, because racism is for ignorant fools.

There is a massive difference there.

The cancer that has invaded ATS - and many other boards/forums/blogs/political commentaries/main stream media sites is that some very foolish people cannot seperate the two.

Politics is about policies and ideas. Its about consensus, discussion and compromise. Its about persuasion and understanding.

Its nothing to do with trying to belittle people, and make them out to be inferior because of their skin colour. Any skin colour.

What I do not understand is why - on a board full of probably the sharpest and most intelligent people I've come across on the internet, some people here cannot grasp that concept, and choose to try and embrace the strawman instead.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:04 AM
reply to post by neformore

I see exactly what you are saying as I read through this thread. The discussions are encouraged, but the generalizing of whole peoples and the use of obvious hate speech is not. We are to be held to higher standard.

I understand, but there seems to be a mentality that cannot grasp this. We are simply being asked to rise above the norm. Rise above that which does not encourage or edify or exhort. I am totally psyched that the moderators and even the site owners are demanding this type of poster.

When we engage in discussions here, we are simply being asked to deny the ignorance and forge ahead with informing, finding, and learning. All the while keeping ever aware that lesser sites will not offer this kind of standard. I am encouraged that this thread was started for the betterment of myself and others. I don't believe another site would take the time or the resources to show their users such an awesome way to do their thing.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Valhall
LMAO - yeah, I think you ought to be deciding how the owners of the board use the board.

Why don't you go play in another free-access thread started by yourself on this board, which is owned by some one else whom you don't want to have the rights of use you are afforded on their board free of charge. That way you can address the all-consuming issue of who is getting what number of flags.

P.S. To put it simply I hate your post.

[edit on 9-19-2009 by Valhall]

Yes, it is a private site. Yes, they can do with it want they want.

Just remember one thing: Without their free members to post, this site makes no money from sponsership. So, go ahead and piss enough people off and this site will end up like Texas Instruments........obsolete.

I had to remind a bartender one time where he gets his money too.

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in