posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by odd1out
Well, first of all flat out "direct" (as in I'm going to do x) threats of violence are against the ATS T&C and from what I have observed handled
rather emphatically by staff. NONE of the examples pertaining to ATS members contained such expression ... they commented on the idea
What we're talking about here is expressing opinion in abstract and within the context of a conversation.
And this is a big issue ... because Doc and I disagree on pretty much everything but I WANT to be able to discuss this with him and other like minded
members. This discourse with folks I disagree with has made me reconsider many of my own positions, not just on these issues but across the board.
But what is really most objectionable here is the subtle and not so subtle grouping of those who threaten violence with those who discuss violence.
From their "report:"
Monitoring of internet chatter, documented in this report, indicates that many militia members and other extremists believe that the recently
passed health care legislation will be followed by the mass legalization of illegal immigrants, postponement or elimination of democratic elections,
martial law and gun confiscation. In response, these anti-government extremists are saying, in many different forums, that they believe that
violence may be, or clearly is, both necessary and justified.
Ok, so there may be members here on ATS who consider violence a valid alternative. I am not one of them, but I still will defend the right to their
for I want to have these conversations ... we need to have these conversations, without the ADL telling us that some of us are
"anti-government extremists" for doing so. Are politicians and military folk "anti-government extremists" when they consider conflict? Why
aren't they cited here?
This is many ways goes against the ADL's stated mission. They are in effect marginalizing a reasonable part of our society for their thoughts. Not
the KKK, but folks who simply come to a neutral and hate/violence rhetoric restricted site such as ATS.
Argh ... I feel terrible for the owners and staff of this site as well as all of its members. For we all seem to have been swept up in someone
else's agenda ... someone who took neither time or effort to investigate how we conduct ourselves here, which imho should be the example of how
thousands of people from all over the world and with often diametrically opposed views should express themselves. It is terribly unfair and unjust to
be pooled in like this ... but in retrospect, it isn't that surprising.
[edit on 22 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]