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.

 

Should ATS respect all people, members as well as general public? In other words no name calling

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
My initial thought for a title was "If Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen became ATS members, would other ATS members be forced to stop insulting them?" because that would be a violation of the terms and conditions of ATS, insulting a member, if hypothetically they were members. But then I started thinking, shouldn't we have respect for all people, ATSers as well as the general public? Allow me to explain a little more as to what I mean.

On a typical thread, someone will say "Alex Jones is a lunatic" and then someone else will come in and say "no he's not a lunatic, you're the lunatic," and the ATS moderators will most likely punish the ATS member defending Alex Jones, because they can't really punish a member insulting Alex Jones, because Alex Jones isn't a member of ATS. But, since many people on this forum have allegiances, it would cut down on the in-fighting and name calling if there was a show of respect for all people.

I'll use another example, non-Alex Jones. If someone says "George Bush is a war criminal," maybe a right wing ATS member will say "no, you're the war criminal," so basically same idea.

If we respect all people, then ATS members will have less of a reason to start fights with other members because then they won't have to defend people they respect and whom they do not like to see insulted (especially when it is not allowed for them to insult back).

Just a thought...
edit on 2-3-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


If we respect all people...


I understand your view and the content of your OP is worth discussing...so, with that said - no, some people, regardless of being a member here or not, don't deserve respect.


They deserve to be attacked verbally at times as a matter of fact...the MOD's reactions are another variable that makes those 'moments' worth the time to read and/or participate in - it's a great system, let's leave it the way it is.





posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by facelift

no, some people, regardless of being a member here or not, don't deserve respect.


They deserve to be attacked verbally at times as a matter of fact...


You say it's a matter of fact, I say it's your opinion...prepare to duel


but seriously what's the need for the verbal attacks? Can't we address the topics and avoid the person? If you need to verbally attack something, attack the ideology not the individual.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
You say you refer to the Terms and Conditions of use, but, did you read what you cite?

Your limitation to just members is false...and I quote:



16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


That means any abusive text in your post, regardless of the target, is against T&C.

No debate needed.


Quote the Rule
Stick to the Rule.

Cuhail



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by facelift
 


I agree with you.

Not everyone deserves respect. In the system, you may have to moderate your behavior, but the very idea that everyone and every idea deserves respect is crazy.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
we cannot try to paint Sheen as a victim. He melted down. He had hookers that he smacked around. He did so much blow that he threw up blood (i come from a major coc aine distribution city....trust me when i say it takes quite a bit of coke to make you puke blood). He then began seeking out public venues to say some pretty outlandish stuff, even if some of it is true. He even hired a company to set him up a twitter and maximize it. And he did, to the tune of 1 million subscribers in the first full day.

This man is wanting the negative attention. Is it an insult when it is what is wanted by all parties?

With that being said, the real problem is that terms like "insulting" are so subjective. Calling me a "bohunk" does not bother. Other Hungarians, it is bothersome. I embrace the term "fat" (even though i am currently about 80 lbs lighter than January 3 of this year by limiting to less than 15 carbs a day for 3 weeks, 30 carbs a day for 3 weeks, then a 4 day, 120 carb gorge, repeat). I don't mind being large and am only dieting for the health of my son. But call my wife "fat" and you may get kicked in the nads.

There are so many subtleties in human communication. The scene from Gran Torino where he takes the boy into the barber shop and the boy throws out the wrong insult....perfect example.

Even within demographics. Out here in West Texas we have roughnecks, or "oilfield trash". Usually very rough, very rowdy, among them almost anything can be said without a perception of crudeness. Try THAT in a corporate environment.

The best bet here is to grow thicker skin. Let the admins here deal with the TAC. From the perspective of the member it should be more like we attempt abject respect, and then tolerate the failings of not only ourselves, but our peers at ATS as well.


Of course, I have no problem calling someone on it.
Or being called on it myself.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I agree with your premise. On another thread, I called it "ridicule by proxy." If a member has started a thread about the information put out by a public figure, it's logical to assume that the member finds the public figure to be credible and the information to be worth discussing. So, when another member ridicules the public figure, he/she is in effect ridiculing the member at the same time.

This derails many threads. The subject matter gets lost; the thread becomes a contest of exchanging insults.

It's not necessary.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I believe that this thread illuminates a very shadowy corner of our participation in discussions on this board. If we are to have frank and honest discussion about the world we live in, what happens on it, whos involved, and why, then there must be some leeway to do that without the fear of treading over a line.
I believe that George Bush is a war criminal, as I believe Tony Blair to be. Saying that is a statement of my understanding of the situation, rather than an insult, or a derogatory statement. The fact that I believe what I believe , rather than saying these things to cause hurt or harm, ought to imbue the statement with a contextual sheild against criticisms based on the assumption of implied insult.

Now, obviously there are situations here on the boards which lend themselves to confrontation, and during these exchanges, it is not unheard of for thinly veiled (read: not at all veiled, in fact very obvious) barbs to be thrown from poster to poster, polarised as they are, at opposite ends of a discussion. It cannot serve any purpose for these posters to harass one another, as this is a waste of energy , and moves the discussion or debate on, not one inch, adding nothing to the debate and meaning nothing .

However, debate based on reason, polarised around an issue, DOES move the discussion on. Debating wether or not Alex Jones is a disgusting bigot, a government puppet, or (I never thought I would type these words) a paragon of the people, a signal post along the telegraph system of public opinion, is a debate worth having. To have that debate , and to take part in it effectively, it is vital that people be able to state thier case without fear of falling over political correctness issues, or issues pertaining to the T&C.

Of course I am not suggesting that saying that Alex Jones is a *insert four letter marathon here* and should be shot in the face with scattershot from an old ships cannon,is acceptable because it is blatantly over stepping the boundaries massively, but merely stating ones case as to WHY Alex Jones, or for that matter ,any other figure around which debate is heavily entrenched, is less than peachy, or a top guy (which ever might be your opinion) cannot in of itself ammount to a violation of the T&C , or an insult to that person. If it did, then debate on the issues of the day, and the quality of the reportage of a body or person would be impossible to navigate, without tripping the minefeild of politeness and the skewed perception of fair play that some people choose to retain.

All that said, there are those who take this requirement for freedom of expression, and attempt to use it to sheild them from just and fair censure, and still others who goad otherwise innocent persons into a situation where they themselves are breaking the T&C by responding to the toxic filth that these snidey persons are spewing. These are the worst kinds of troll, seeking to use the T&C which should protect the fair minded persons on the board, to trip them up, and ensnare them in the most fustrating trap known to exist on this world.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I believe that George Bush is a war criminal, as I believe Tony Blair to be.


I think that this statement is in a different category from statements about public figures using terms such as "moron," "fraud," "nutcase," etc. which is what I object to and feel is counter-productive.

The term "war criminal" would be appropriate to use for a public figure if the actions of the public figure are going to be discussed in the thread and the subject matter of the thread is the actions themselves.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by facelift
 


I agree with you.

Not everyone deserves respect. In the system, you may have to moderate your behavior, but the very idea that everyone and every idea deserves respect is crazy.


I never said every idea deserves respect. I even said that I'm okay with attacking an ideology as better than attacking an individual.

For the poster who said it is already part of the T&C, good point, I'll remember that next time someone is trying to agitate the crowd by insulting someone in the news.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by filosophia
 


I agree with your premise. On another thread, I called it "ridicule by proxy." If a member has started a thread about the information put out by a public figure, it's logical to assume that the member finds the public figure to be credible and the information to be worth discussing. So, when another member ridicules the public figure, he/she is in effect ridiculing the member at the same time.

This derails many threads. The subject matter gets lost; the thread becomes a contest of exchanging insults.

It's not necessary.


thanks for seeing my point, that is all I'm trying to get at, stopping the "ridicule by proxy" as you well stated.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


I agree with what you are getting at, I am all for freedom of speech, and if it were up to me, I would allow every word under the sun to be used in any manner that someone sees fit. My purpose for making this thread was that it seems okay to insult a mainstream personality but not okay to insult an ATS member, so it seems like members can have free reign to say whatever they want about MS-personalities but a member who respects said personality does not have an equal right to bash that member. And if reason and logic are involved, you can basically say anything about anyone and at least come off sounding intelligent, I wasn't referring to that, but more of the baseless insults we've all come to recognize here on ATS.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Yes, we should respect others and their views. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but to be able to discuss opposing views, without resorting to name called and insults, seems to be hard for some on here. Especially the anti gay crowd. Who flaunt the TOCs on a daily basis, without any mod intervention. You swap the word faggot/queer ect for the word "'n-word'" or "paki" and see how long those threads last.


Double standards? You betchya.

edit- and Mods, don;t give me no BS about reporting offensive posts, when mods post on the offending threads, showing their prejudice in all its glorious colour. You have prejudice mods, and that's no basis to stamp out hate speach.
edit on 3/3/2011 by Acidtastic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


What you describe here is called "trolling and baiting". THAT is something that needs to be addressed. If the criticism of the person is the entirety of the desire of people to conversate (i.e. Sheens rants, Britney's bald head, Paris Hilton's hoohaw on camera....again, or Mel Gibson hating on the Jews....again) you have a difference. It is not trolling and baiting.

But, to be fair, people who take the bait as just as undesireable in this situation. You cannot deny ignorance when you are so easily riled into a fight. It takes two.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
It is a fine line that you are collectively dancing around.

A person must in fact be free to express themselves, and the problem lies with the inability to do so without plunging into the realm of derision.

As a parent, I often can hear my children with their friends, talking, joking, and using language that is not acceptable in polite society. I am aware that the ability to function in open society makes the need for my children to understand this aspect of language and like most developing young adults, they appear to feel the thrill associated with saying things that are 'edgy.'

The point of the above paragraph is to allude to the possibility that for some, being obtuse, rude and brash represents a way to inflate themselves (at least in their own self-image). Some might feel it makes them seem 'witty' and 'outspoken' in a way that mimics the beloved loudmouths of entertainment media.

Returning to my parenting allegory, when my children began to lose perspective regarding how "cool" it was to use profanity (among there friends and acquaintances - who seem to find it equally 'cool' of course) I took a moment to make an observation that has served them well... I make the same observation here, in hopes that perhaps some one may see and be swayed to disengage from pouring their derision and "name-calling" all over anyone they dislike or with whom they disagree (as often they are muddled and confused for one another):

The challenge for people who want to make a point is the point they are trying to make. If you want to say F-this and F-that, or other such thing you have to admit, there are other ways to make the point. If someone is being an irritant or a behaves offensively, calling them a nasty name is an attack, not a point. If you stick with what makes you want to call them names, and use your brains to describe it, you may never need to be the kind of person who uses rude language all the time... which is a bad way to be thought of, since few will invite you to discuss anything - not wanting to be subjected to that kind of talk.

But the biggest benefit of name calling is the iron-clad posture that "As I have never done that to you, I don't have to accept the same from you." Which has - so I am told - served my children well in the past.

I re-read this and it seems I am probably not on the mark with what I was trying to say... but the membership here is so bright, I think I can trust you to determine the meaning of what I am saying.....

The last aspect of this is an unfortunate one. We all come from unique environments and have personalized experiences which may make us insensitive (through no fault of our own) as to the sensitivities of others. we may not mean to cross any boundaries when we call someone a jerk or a butt-head... what's more; we may even consider ourselves being playful and not mean harm at all.... So my rule of thumb is this.... "Would I use this term publicly to describe someone I care about?" If you even have to pause to think whether such a thing might happen, don't say it. Burn a few extra calories upstairs in the brain-pan and figure out a way to say it without the 'pizzazz' of the put-down. I think it's a relatively small sacrifice to make.

All that being said; I leave with the same final comment and wink I give my kids..... "To every rule there are exceptions, and there are exceptions to every rule; the trick is to master the difference between the exception and an excuse."



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Absolutely correct. Name-calling serves absolutely no purpose. There is nothing intelligent or productive or significant in calling someone a name. You can criticize their actions, or their record, or their credibility, but calling them a name is just useless and childish. Sometimes people slip it into an otherwise intelligent post, and it stays, and sometimes Mods just don't see it, and nobody complains, so it gets by, but in general, it is never acceptable.

Cuhail nailed it already:


Originally posted by Cuhail

You say you refer to the Terms and Conditions of use, but, did you read what you cite?

Your limitation to just members is false...and I quote:



16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


That means any abusive text in your post, regardless of the target, is against T&C.

No debate needed.


Quote the Rule
Stick to the Rule.

Cuhail



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join