Removed Threads and Bigotry

I am primarily addressing the moderators. I want to begin by saying that I think the moderators do a great job and that I have found them to be pretty reasonable. Without you, this would devolve into something like GLP where people can spew all the hate and silliness they wish. I won't use that site because of it.

Within the last few minutes someone claiming to be from Central America began a series of anti-Jewish threads. They provided no evidence of value and showed a complete lack of common sense. Having said that, I want to ask about the policy. I personally have been told that because I am a Christian, I deserve to die. While I understand that such language and threats cannot be tolerated, I hate to see a whole thread disappear.

I am not quite sure where I am going with this, maybe I am just expressing a concern without a clear solution. If so, then I stand guilty. I agree with the motto, "Deny Ignorance" and the poster I referenced I even referred to as bigoted and ignorant. I guess I worry that people will not become aware of the fact that there are ignorant people out there with bigoted ideas. While I don't like always being told that I am ignorant for believing in God, I would not want to prevent people from expressing their beliefs (as long as they don't threaten people, advocate violence or resort to obscenity. I don't mind when people are sarcastic.

I cannot count how many posts have begun with how Christianity is the cause of every evil in the world and that the world would be better off if we were all dead. I have found that some of the people who proclaim such things are willing (after the initial accusations) of being willing to consider my responses and the responses of others. While it may not always be pleasant, I think the discussion is sometimes valuable. Recently, I participated in a discussion on homosexuality and the bible, a sensitive subject. While some posts were deleted, the vast majority were fairly civil and the thread was allowed to remain (and it was clear that the moderators were watching it closely, as they should).

This is ATS and it is your site (the owners and their agents), I have my own blog and I moderate the comments on it also. You should have your rules and I respect that, it also means that on my blog I am entitled to have my rules. I am not questioning your right to set the rules and I do my best to follow your guidelines in my posts. Maybe I am not even asking a question; but, just raising an issue. ATS is valuable because we get to hear different perspectives and debate them, to check ourselves. Sometimes it gets ugly and sometimes that is when we are the most challenged. When it goes over the line, it needs to be put in check.

Perhaps this is my question. What if I really did believe that the Holocaust was a lie (I do not and had family in World War II); but, what if I really did believe that? How could you deny my ignorance if it wasn't addressed and responded to, how would I learn? Maybe what I am asking is that when a thread gets too offensive or violates the rules, you keep the parts that didn't quality for deletion. Sorry that this is not more clear, I know know you expect better from those of us who are experienced. Maybe I should have thought out my questions better; but, I will post it anyways and let you decide this threads fate.

reply to post by AQuestion


Problem is what you probably consider hate and bigotry is just a legitimate question that you cannot answer without being hypocritical.
For example I would say to you that Israel is no better then the Nazis, you may try hard but you cannot find a difference so you pull out the anti semitic card and try and win the argument by guilt tripping people and having a cry.
The same goes for many legitimate questions about religion, but because Chrisitans and the like often cannot answer them because they essentially believe in nothing more realistic then the tooth fairy they will simply avoid the questions or call you a name.
If you cant answer questions about your claims don't make them or at least do not claim them to be 100% true.

reply to post by HumanCondition


Dear HumanCondition,

You missed my point completely. I said I wanted to hear what they had to say. Did you read what I wrote fully?

reply to post by HumanCondition

Chrisitans and the like often cannot answer them because they essentially believe in nothing more realistic then the tooth fairy they will simply avoid the questions or call you a name.

Which is exactly what you just done....call the belief of the christians "tooth fairy".

Amazing.

I saw those threads that that person was posting in and had created and as an athiest it was obvious that they were stirring the pot.

I think the mods did the right thing and banned that person as they were offering nothing but trying to create hate.

Originally posted by magma
I saw those threads that that person was posting in and had created and as an athiest it was obvious that they were stirring the pot.

I think the mods did the right thing and banned that person as they were offering nothing but trying to create hate.

Dear magma,

I am not disagreeing with the Moderators for removing the threads. I am asking how much of the threads can be retained so that the discussion can continue on what does have value, if anything. If you look through this whole thread you will discover that someone has already misinterpreted my question and insulted believers. I don't want their words removed, I think they prove my question as being worthy of discussion. I don't care that they were ignorant and insulting to me. I think it highlights the issue. How can they be addressed if they are not allowed to speak and at what point is there speech too hateful to be allowed?

My concern is this. I have a blog (and I have never listed it on ATS), I moderate my blog, I do not allow obscene speech on my blog. I do not allow comments to be posted until I have read them (and I appreciate the fact that ATS allows people to post without checking them first, I don't have those resources). I guess what I am asking is how much freedom can we allow, how much prior restraint (as I exercise on my blog) is right and is there a place in the world to hear the words of bigots.

I allow people to post on my blog anonymously and that is part of the reason that I check their comments first. If one does not allow people to post anonymously then they don't need to because they can always eliminate them from the site completely. Two different approaches to two different situations. We both saw the threads and they have now been removed. ATS did it's due diligence in keeping their site within their rules; but, they allowed it to be posted for at least a minute before removing it, they analyzed it. I don't check my blog everyday so I have to exercise prior restraint and review comments before allowing them to post.

I cannot deny ignorance if I do not know what ignorant thoughts are out there. I need to at least know that people think some really stupid things and that may mean that some people think that I think really ignorant things (after all I do believe in God). At what point are questions offensive and at what point are they abusive. This is what SOPA and other laws are trying to determine. I think we should consider these things too. Peace.

reply to post by AQuestion


The fact is that every post that states "all Christians need to die" are never removed, they are allowed to remain to further media indoctrination against Christ Jesus.

Any post criticising Jews are quickly labeled anti- semetic and bigoted, and deleted. Why? Because their leaders, our top bankers, our Congress, Freemasons, Hollywood, news reporting agencies and publishing houses all are controlled by those who call themselves Jews, but who are not. They are well aware of the power of thoughts and beliefs, and are well advanced in fooling the descendants of Christendom - Israel - to not only reject their very Saviour, but to unknowingly do their dirty groundwork for them.

Proof positive that the media's sole purpose is to indoctrinate beliefs and further untruths. We are all under the most modern version of Hitler's Ministry of Indoctrination & Propaganda.

As a Christian, I'm sure that you can understand why posts that are deemed "anti-semetic" are deleted in a world dominated by indoctrination. Just as Hollywood gives us the image of a "happy go lucky loveable funny gay guy" to create support for the "victims of bigotry", instead of the sleazy 500+ partner gay who applauds a gay man hanging on a cross with bare buttocks blaspheming God, the same goes for anyone attempting to discuss the other reality of Jewish leadership. The love of truth is being brainwashed out of a population that is all to happy to eat up doctrines that are false and based off of untruths and partial untruths.

The label "Anti-Semite" is a utterly cruel joke when the faithful of Israel - faithful Christians - are Semites. In which case, the mods need to immediately delete all posts that attack or defame Christians. They won't however, because it doesn't serve their masters purpose.

reply to post by AQuestion


I think that there is a level of moral obligation. Common decency and a presumption that sirring the pot and enticing hatred is unnaceptable in any environment. Why should it be any different here?

You wish to learn from other peoples bad manners? Surely you have agood idea what is correct etiquite.

I think your question really needs to be answered by a mod. That way it is not misconstrued and clarity prevails.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


Dear WhoKnows100,

Not my point.

Couple of things.

Did you alerted the problems in the thread?

If not, how do you expect us to know about it?

Please alert it via the member drop down menu next to the post in question and we'll take a look at it.

ATS is a big board, with a lot of topics. Sometimes we don't see things straight away.

reply to post by AQuestion

I think the discussion itself is a valid one but unfortunately those kind of threads often devolve into nothing but hate statements after the first page.

To be clear, from what little I have read, there does seem to be some debate among historical scholars not as to whether the Holocaust really happened, but how accurate the figure of "6 million Jews" is. I forget the details but the 6 million figure only came to life as an idea in the 50's I believe, long after the end of the war.

In any case, I think it reflects more on certain members that a discussion on this subject cannot be conducted in a mature and polite way. Unfortunately racial dischord seems to be the norm in many peoples lives.

Originally posted by neformore
Couple of things.

Did you alerted the problems in the thread?

If not, how do you expect us to know about it?

Please alert it via the member drop down menu next to the post in question and we'll take a look at it.

ATS is a big board, with a lot of topics. Sometimes we don't see things straight away.

edit on 23/5/12 by neformore because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/5/12 by neformore because: (no reason given)

Yes, please do let us know...and in case some don't know:

Contacting Staff: Alerts, Suggestions, Complaints

Thanks.

The person in question registered 3 accounts.

All three accounts were simultaneously used to post threads with the sole purpose of inciting people.

One was about how "the holocaust was hoaxed using holograms." One was how "aids and hiv don't exist" but are pretended so robert downey junior can become rich.

Additionally, the person kept switching between being able to post in fluent English and being a guy from outside the US struggling to post in English.

I don't care what topics he was talking about, that sort of behavior is against multiple items in our Terms and Conditions.

If you want to discuss a controversial topic, approach it with class, honesty, and sensitivity.

People using the tactics I described above will be permanently banned without warning.

ATS has no problem with good discussion provided it is done with respect to our community and our members.

I personally have been told that because I am a Christian, I deserve to die. While I understand that such language and threats cannot be tolerated, I hate to see a whole thread disappear.

Next time that happens, please hit alert.

The thread will not disappear, the person who said that will.

We have zero tolerance for those sort of comments and exercise our right to terminate the account of any member that speaks in that manner to fellow members. Someone who has no respect for others has no place in this community.

reply to post by Djarums


Dear Djarums,

I don't care what topics he was talking about, that sort of behavior is against multiple items in our Terms and Conditions.

I want to again emphasize that I think the moderators do a great job and show restraint. I also absolutely agree that people and statements need to be removed at times. As for the specific person, it was pretty obvious that they were really just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. I believe I even told them that I didn't expect them to be around long. I might take back my original OP. I think maybe I was just concerned about offensive versus obscene words. Perhaps I am worried that someday unpleasant will be seen the same as not allowable. By the way, I did not see their third thread, just the first two.

reply to post by AQuestion


changed mind

reply to post by AQuestion


I very much agree with your premise and I think it is of the utmost importance to be able to help others/yourself come to terms with what is ethically wrong with some line of thinking but...

I think something needs to be done in regards to the trolls/flamers as well. I know this is just the internet but when you're deep in thought and someone starts to troll/flame you and nothing is done about it then it becomes even more off putting. I mean, this is supposed to be a place for civilized debate, right?

I guess my suggestion/request would be to make more mods to monitor threads more closely and be ready to issue 1-5 hour bans to keep people civil and discourage others in the thread from being uncivil. Maybe make it something lighthearted like a flag on the field.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Dear Bleeeep,

I think something needs to be done in regards to the trolls/flamers as well. I know this is just the internet but when you're deep in thought and someone starts to troll/flame you and nothing is done about it then it becomes even more off putting. I mean, this is supposed to be a place for civilized debate, right? I guess my suggestion/request would be to make more mods to monitor threads more closely and be ready to issue 1-5 hour bans to keep people civil and discourage others in the thread from being uncivil. Maybe make it something lighthearted like a flag on the field.

I don't know if the moderators get paid or not; but, my guess is that they do not. If they don't get paid it is not very easy to just add more moderators. As for your suggestion regarding short "cooling down" bans, I think you should definitely make that suggestion to one of the moderators. I don't expect civility per se, I believe there is a line somewhere between civil and obscene; but, I am not sure I can articulate exactly where the line should be and that is why I started this thread. Sort of just working through it in my own head and looking for thoughts from others. Peace.

Originally posted by AQuestion
I don't know if the moderators get paid or not; but, my guess is that they do not.

They're not.

If they don't get paid it is not very easy to just add more moderators.

True. With any large group, the differences of opinions on how the T&C's should be applied in particular cases grows with the numbers. At 70, it's already quite large and very little moderating of any dire consequence is always discussed by whoever happens to be on at the time. An individual mod would never ban anyone without taking it to the group first and so there is usually a lengthy discussion as to how to handle it.

As for your suggestion regarding short "cooling down" bans, I think you should definitely make that suggestion to one of the moderators.

We already do that. There are two forms of banishment. One is a post ban where a member cannot post but does have the ability to discuss things with staff via pm's. This works as a 'cooling down period' quite effectively with none of the membership even knowing it's happening. This is the most often used application of a ban.

The second is a permaban, where the account is removed and it is obvious to anyone seeing their mini-profile. That's the last ditch action when all other means of resolving an issue has been tried.

I don't expect civility per se, I believe there is a line somewhere between civil and obscene; but, I am not sure I can articulate exactly where the line should be and that is why I started this thread. Sort of just working through it in my own head and looking for thoughts from others. Peace.

When you find that actual line, please let me know, because from my point of view, the line is about as fuzzy as it can be. There are so many factors that come into play that it requires a long look at whatever it was that caused someone to go feral. Was it a one-off, an occasional thing or is there a long troublesome history of it?

See what I mean?

gah

dbl post