The problem with ATS… Acceptance

Originally posted by rigel4
I like and agree with most of your post.

I said something of the sort a few threads ago .

It went something like, most stories or posts on ATS have link to the MSN...
If they do not, people shout for links.

BUT BUT NONE on here trusts the MSN...............Bizarre

Much

edit on 26-8-2011 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)

Totally true and with The Sun, it was the only newspaper I'd read when I could be bothered to read one and while most on ATS scream that it's crap or not a real news source (huh? the newspaper that has had major exclusives for decades, helped catch criminals, pedophiles and other sorts, started a charity to help our brave men and women in the military and have had reporters and journalists working for them risk their lives to bring back news items isn't a credible source?) but forget that apart from the good it's done for most other news items, it's also the only British paper willing to take up the UFO cause and not treat it like a joke.

Same with Sky News, the only news source I 100% trust as unbiased and factual yet ATS members even called that a less than credible news source but then quote from blogs and websites of those who I never heard of nor will ever trust that talk about all kinds of BS that fit the mindset and outcome of what that member wants to read or hear.

Like with the "Libya isn't free, it's all a movie set" threads getting hundreds of stars and flags yet not one actual credible source for any of it all because someone with too much time on their hands and a little too much paranoia wants to believe something, points out laughable "evidence" of such and is then hailed by other mindless sheep and morons as the real facts.

I'm all for having an open mind and have always had one myself but that kind of thing and dismissing actual credible news sources because they're MSM doesn't add up to me, nor does it make sense (much like the members who state such crap like "it's all fake - PROOF!!!1!ONE!")

reply to post by curious7


I have to agree with you.........

It's all relative in my opinion. Read what you will from any major news source and check them against each other,
somewhere in this process, you are able to get a feel for what the truth is.

if Sky news, the BBC and Al-jazeera are singing the same song, and maybe some Asian rags are singing it too,
then why would you think that the story is a lie. There is much to questioning your news sources, but blind denial
is ignorant and therefore breaks the very code ATS lives and breathes. "Deny Ignorance".

Keep an open mind and your eye on the ball. this way you will find it easier to achieve your goal.

According to Tommy Lee Jones in MIB, the tabloids are one of the best sources for news. You just have to know how to read them.

Originally posted by shimmeringsilver73
reply to post by Monkeygod333

 

PS. I had to re-read your thread a couple of times, because your bio kept distracting me. As an Afrikaans-speaking person, I had to do a triple-take on that one LOL!

Thank you, it's my own secret little way of tracking down down all my SA peeps. I keep them on a list should the shtf down under. It's true though.

Originally posted by SouthernRain55
reply to post by Monkeygod333

 

Here's my thing...most of the people that believe in a conspiracy believe that MSM and TPTB are keeping things from us or flat out lying...but the first thing they ask when commenting under a thread is if its not from a source like CNN (or whatnot) they don't believe it....really? Isn't that the point of ATS? To bring news and ideas that aren't in MSM??? *sigh*

Then you have those that not only disagree but put it forth in such a mean, rude way. Its just so uncalled for. Really...makes you wonder why anyone is brave enough to try to put an idea or thought out there, IMO. Oh and my all time favorite is when they can't find anything in someone's post to truly complain about they fall back on spelling and grammar...grrr!!! How dare they report a story and spell something wrong...it must be untrue because they forgot the "e" in government! lol

Its almost like highschool... I know that there are ppl on here that just troll threads. Perhaps they aren't being paid to do it, though I know there's some that are. I once came across this guy, Starchild or something. I went through each and every one of his posts and all of them were just negative slander and bringing down posters. I replied to his post saying that "ATS has this cool function that you can see other people's previous posts and you contribute nothing to this website and instead only bring down posters with silly one liners." I also emailed him and posted that same message on his profile wall. Never saw him again. Not that I'm encouraging this kind of behaviour, but he deserved it.

Our motto (if you can call it that) is Deny Ignorance. Well, go on, deny it then!

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Your whole post is wrong and I believe someone is paying you to be a disinfo agent

I have to agree here muzzle (not the being paid part), it's not just preaching. Every single person that read this thread will know what it means because they share the idea and they will go forth and continue to live it. I was just doing my bit to protect what we have here.
Imagine what we could achieve if we all did that.

Originally posted by backwardluminary
I agree with the spirit of this post, but I cannot wholeheartedly embrace it.

Sure, one of the most valuable things about ATS is the fact that this is an accepting community. It is a place where we can discuss things that others may dismiss out of hand. We can critically analyze the information that comes from the MSM or elsewhere.

That last bit--critical analysis--is just as important as freedom of discussion. If someone makes a thread about a runaway killer truck, I think it is perfectly fair for someone to point out that an article claiming that there were witnesses does not really constitute "evidence." People here should hesitate to accept anything just because someone else claims to have seen it--even if that "someone else" is not the MSM. The same scrutiny that is applied to mainstream media sources should be applied to any other source of information.

I advocate an approach to new information based on "benevolent skepticism." Be willing to entertain new ideas, no matter how crazy they seem at first. But don't cling to them when there is no support. What can we honestly gain from a discussion of runaway trucks based on a single article that is based on the account of eyewitnesses who may or may not be imaginary?

Just as a matter of interest on of the witnesses was a cop. Though I agree with you, ever so slightly, you do have to ask yourself at one point or another, what is enough evidence? Just a question. Think about it.

Originally posted by Klassified
According to Tommy Lee Jones in MIB, the tabloids are one of the best sources for news. You just have to know how to read them.

I think there may be a lot of truth in that statement.
And 60% of that I think is due to a person's level of exposure/awareness. Sometimes it gets so bad you can read the falsehoods in most of the articles on any given day.

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
what is enough evidence? Just a question. Think about it.

I don't think that having "enough evidence" is really the issue. For most of the stuff discussed here, there simply is not enough evidence and our only real option is indulging in speculation. Instead of the positivist push for "evidence," I think that "meaning" is substantially more important. If someone posts an article about a runaway truck from a single resource that does not have a excellent reputation for good journalistic work, I expect to see a solid justification for the post. I want to know why the poster thinks that runaway trucks are important and worthy of our attention.

If we entirely commit ourselves to positivism, the body of topics we can actually discuss here dwindles to almost nothing. If, on the other hand, we take any topic to be permissible, it will be very difficult to find valuable topics among the countless posts about crazy articles people read in tabloids.

So it's not about evidence, it's about meaning. If a post is interesting, valuable, and well-researched in and of itself, there is no need for further justification. If it is not--if it is just ridiculous speculation or a recap of some tabloid fairy tale--justification is important. Tell me what about this topic was *meaningful* enough to justify sharing it. What should we be paying attention to? What part of this really jumped out at you? Why, in lieu of evidence, do you think that this is a legitimate concern? These are the questions that people should ask themselves and that we should ask everyone else.

Originally posted by backwardluminary

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
what is enough evidence? Just a question. Think about it.

I don't think that having "enough evidence" is really the issue. For most of the stuff discussed here, there simply is not enough evidence and our only real option is indulging in speculation. Instead of the positivist push for "evidence," I think that "meaning" is substantially more important. If someone posts an article about a runaway truck from a single resource that does not have a excellent reputation for good journalistic work, I expect to see a solid justification for the post. I want to know why the poster thinks that runaway trucks are important and worthy of our attention.

If we entirely commit ourselves to positivism, the body of topics we can actually discuss here dwindles to almost nothing. If, on the other hand, we take any topic to be permissible, it will be very difficult to find valuable topics among the countless posts about crazy articles people read in tabloids.

So it's not about evidence, it's about meaning. If a post is interesting, valuable, and well-researched in and of itself, there is no need for further justification. If it is not--if it is just ridiculous speculation or a recap of some tabloid fairy tale--justification is important. Tell me what about this topic was *meaningful* enough to justify sharing it. What should we be paying attention to? What part of this really jumped out at you? Why, in lieu of evidence, do you think that this is a legitimate concern? These are the questions that people should ask themselves and that we should ask everyone else.

Great post and thank you for giving it some thought.
My whole rant started with this thread that I was browsing through regarding ancient Egyptians in Australia. There was evidence of 5000 year old wood carved hieroglyphs and other Egyptian crafts. So, this one poster starts saying that it’s a hoax because it is posted in a forum and there hasn’t been enough media coverage on the matter, thus it cannot be true.

I get what you are saying about ‘meaning’ and as I previously said; I do believe that it’s mostly down to one’s level of exposure/awareness. If I invite my mom to this side she would call hoax on EVERYTHING. No matter how well it was researched or presented.