Dissent: The Dangerous Words

reply to post by momoney

Originally posted by momoney

Sorry for kinda posting off topic above. Remove it if you like, I just can't stand the 'nudge &a wink' thing. It irritates me.

No problem here. I can't moderate my own threads or threads I participate in anyway! Well, unless someone posts something way over the top, such as dirty pics, blatant spam, etc,

Originally posted by momoney

On topic, I think your extensive OP was thorough and enlightening. There's even much more to this topic than you've outlined so far, and I hope others can add to it. Voices are being silenced by a government that cannot abide dissent and the social media is a huge well of information that they can use against individuals.

We're just beginning to see the trend of suits coming into private homes and cross examining citizens for what they may have tweeted, liked and shared.

This is my desire and reason for creating the thread in the first place! The paradigm is shifting regarding the rules of free speech and it's being done in a very covert way IMO.

And it has happened before. At some point ( assuming this thread doesn't die off - as it appears might happen - I want to include another secondary OP, later, discussing McCarthyism. This, IMO, is a direct correlative to what we are entering into now. Todays "Domestic Terrorist" is just a rehashing of yesterdays "Communist Sympathizer". And, even though we laugh at McCarthy today, on the surface... Open any left/right thread and you can quickly see that the poison of McCarthy is still alive and kicking. The words "Communist" and "Socialist" are still very much used as an insult and attack on a persons patriotism.

~Heff

Originally posted by BuckWilder
reply to post by Hefficide

 

I am in no way trying to discredit the message of your thread, or maybe I am, not sure yet.

Be careful what you say and who you say it to. Stay free. Stay safe.

You can interprete this as "if you want to stay free, you'd better not say too much"



And I think I answered your question.

edit on 7-9-2012 by BuckWilder because: (no reason given)

i think you've made an opening for a question i have always had.

other than keeping your mouth shut. what can you do when the people who will readily shut you up, both verbally and physically, are not government personnel but you own fellow citizens?

this is what has always bugged me and why i despise thew 1st amendment. the government dosent worry me (usually). its my fellow citizens who viciously attack me when ever i voice a different opinion than theirs. whats the point in having freedom of speech in relation to the government when your own fellow citizens will gladly do what ever it takes to censor you and even threaten to kill you (i received death threats in both high school and college). it seems like if your not part of the far left or far right, its fair game for anyone to beat you in to submission. ive seen it on this boards as well as other boards too. and ive honestly retaliated in kind what people have attacked me. this is why i am so willing to defend the government actions. not because i like the idiots. but because at least i can more easily predict them and may be able to use them to keep the rest of you from outright killing me. sort of the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea.

iam getting a bit incoherent so good night.

FWIW, I thought the OP was spot on. Nicely done.

Not sure what's up with the "Mod's can't be people and start threads" attitude is about. Then again, I'm not quite sure what the dude's going on about.

reply to post by TheLoony


So are you going to take the advice?

Be careful what you say and who you say it to. Stay free. Stay safe.

"We wash your brain while you read, stay fresh, stay clean"

"And remember, whatever you do, for god sakes, be carefull what you say, I hear they are trying to crush dissent!"

"Now go free, go safe, go fresh, go clean!"

"Mentos.....the Freshmaker!"

reply to post by BuckWilder


I don't know if it's a universal thing or not. But here in Georgia some people will flash their headlights at others, to warm of an upcoming speed trap.

Would you accuse those people of having an agenda? They're warning other citizens of a trap... Just as I am here.

There are a few pieces to put together. Agencies stocking up on bullets is just one piece. The Raub case is another. Things are happening right now and they're going to get worse.

I'm just flashing my headlights at the other folks on the road. Take it or leave it. That's your decision. Just don't blame me if you find yourself getting pulled over for speeding if you don't pay attention.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

I'm just flashing my headlights at the other folks on the road.

No that's what I am doing. You are saying that we shouldn't be speeding at all.

If you have to warn people not to speak their minds you have already lost. You are already in the trap.

reply to post by BuckWilder

Originally posted by BuckWilder

No that's what I am doing. You are saying that we shouldn't be speeding at all.

To the contrary. The OP of this thread did not say "Don't say it". It said "Here are some reference points to help you know how to dissent without drawing undo scrutiny If you feel that you're standing up for free speech, then I respect that. But I could also easily distort your message and infer that you have an agenda... that you are trying to make folks stand out so that they can be caught more easily.

See... the blade cuts both ways.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

If you have to warn people not to speak their minds you have already lost. You are already in the trap.

edit on 8-9-2012 by BuckWilder because: (no reason given)

Again, speaking ones mind isn't the issue. It's letting people know that how they say things, in this climate, can cost them. HOW things are said... not WHAT is said.

If anyone reading this wants to be suspect of my credibility here, they only need click on my profile and read my posting history. They are smart folks who can make their own minds up about whether or not I am serving any nefarious agenda. My loyalties lay with the people - not the government.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

that you are trying to make folks stand out so that they can be caught more easily. See... the blade cuts both ways.

I am not advocating a change, or caution in the way people express their views based on their god given rights.

I am not asking people to up their level of dissent. It seems that you actually are asking for people to drop their level of dissent.

The way, I see it, is as long as people aren't saying stuff that would've always gotten them arrested, like direct deaththreats, there is no problem, we still have the right to freedom of speech.

You are either pointing out the obvious stuff one should never say, or you are suggesting that people should tone it down a little bit, cause the agencies are paying extra attention lately.

That's BS. You either exercise your freedom of speech to it's full potential or you go crawl into a corner and maybe go find a spine.

My loyalties lay with the people - not the government.

As pointed out before, you need to reevalute your surroundings.

Like I said in the beginning, I don't really doubt your sincerety. I do doubt your judgement if you are sincere.

And I'm still wondering why your conclusion of this well worked out OP sounded so much like a Mentos commercial.

reply to post by BuckWilder


You've contributed four ad hom attacks so far:

1) Making my moderator status an issue.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

I don't really doubt your sincerety, but seeing this from an ATS mod, I have to wonder if you realize what is going on around you on a daily basis. It seems that if you would apply your concerns and morals to this situation, and assuming you have the same knowledge that I have, that you would not be a mod here.

2) Inferring that I am somehow trying to play the role of provocateur.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

It seems that you are somehow representing the very evil that is the cause of the concerns that made you start this thread in the first place. And it seems that if these concerns are genuine and you are sincere, and you have this knowledge I am talking about, that you would not want to be part of it.

Too intruiging?

3) A statement that my posting history suggests I "don't get it"

Originally posted by BuckWilder

Then it must be that you simply don't see what is up actually.

I think your views on things, as I have learned from this thread and other contributions, are irreconcilable with that what is up.

3) And now, that I am a coward.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

That's BS. You either exercise your freedom of speech to it's full potential or you go crawl into a corner and maybe go find a spine.

Other than that, the only statement of substance I can find is this:

Originally posted by BuckWilder

I am not advocating a change, or caution in the way people express their views based on their god given rights.

I am not asking people to up their level of dissent. It seems that you actually are asking for people to drop their level of dissent.

The way, I see it, is as long as people aren't saying stuff that would've always gotten them arrested, like direct deaththreats, there is no problem.

And I see that as supremely naive'. God given rights have nothing to do with reality. Jewish people had God given rights in the 1930's and 1940's. Would you suggest that many of them shouldn't have taken precautions to hide themselves then? Are you saying that those who did, to survive, were cowards?

I never asked anyone to stop dissenting. I only provided information to help them utilize their dissent without ending up in stress positions in a cell in Gitmo.

But it's all good. The ATS family knows the score and they realize what it means when the messenger gets shot at.

~Heff

Edited to address edit from other party:

The Mentos correlation is baffling to me. I do not see a correlative.

reply to post by Hefficide

And I see that as supremely naive'. God given rights have nothing to do with reality. Jewish people had God given rights in the 1930's and 1940's.

So you are saying that we are at a point in history where dissent will put you in the same position the Jews were in in WO2?

Are you asking people to tone it down or not?

It seems that when you warn people to not say stuff that normally isn't illegal to say, and that they might get in trouble for it, that freedom of speech is already dead.

It seems like you have accepted this situation. You are not suggesting that we should stand up against it and protect our rights, no you are basically just saying that it is over. They won, if they want, they can get to you, therefore it's better to shut up.

I just don't get your train of thought from your perspective, it seems severely skewed to me.

1) Making my moderator status an issue.

I'm not making your moderator status an issue, I'm saying that it should be an issue to you.

2) Inferring that I am somehow trying to play the role of provocateur.

I wasn't doing so in the piece of text you qouted. I was saying that you must not know who you are working for.

3) A statement that my posting history suggests I "don't get it"

If your history is sincere, then there must be a lack of certain information that is preventing you having a moral dillemma.

4) And now, that I am a coward.

I actually was speaking in general, but maybe you are.

reply to post by BuckWilder

Originally posted by BuckWilder

So you are saying that we are at a point in history where dissent will put you in the same position the Jews were in in WO2?

Now you know that is not at all what I said. I replied to your tabling of "God given rights" by pointing out that this is no protection in the face of an agenda. The Jewish example, during the Holocaust is merely an illustrative point of my position.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

Are you asking people to tone it down or not?

I never asked anyone to do anything. I merely pointed out the current atmosphere.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

It seems that when you warn people to not say stuff that normally isn't illegal to say, and that they might get in trouble for it, that freedom of speech is already dead.

Again, I didn't warn against saying anything. I warned, very specifically, that the way people choose to phrase things is important because of current scrutiny.

And if that is the death of freedom of speech, then we lost it a long, long time ago. During the period of the Sedition Act, or during the red scare of the 1950's. During both of those periods good people ended up destroyed ( or worse ) because they were indiscreet or found themselves targeted by others.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

It seems like you have accepted this situation. You are not suggesting that we should stand up against it and protect our rights, no you are basically just saying that it is over. They won, if they want, they can get to you, therefore it's better to shut up.

Of course I am accepting the situation. If it rains I accept that I'll get wet if I walk outside. Staying inside during a rainstorm is not a form of surrender. It's the best way to stay dry.

Other than that, nowhere have I recommended caving in, supplicating, or surrendering to the government. Fighting back against tyranny is just and requisite of all thinking people. But knowing how not to get rained on, as we do it, is what separates successful dissent from playing into the tyrants hands.

When a day comes when the government shows up to gather all the people on their watch lists... some of us need to remain free, and off of the radar, so that we can carry on the fight. Those who were blinded by ideals will be the ones under scrutiny and rendered impotent to engage the enemy.

Originally posted by BuckWilder

I just don't get your train of thought from your perspective, it seems severely skewed to me.

That is as it is. I've state already that people can take or leave my advice as they choose. All I ask is that, if they've read this, they consider what I've said. That is the best I can morally do on their behalf.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

Of course I am accepting the situation. If it rains I accept that I'll get wet if I walk outside. Staying inside during a rainstorm is not a form of surrender. It's the best way to stay dry.

Rain is natural. Rain doesn't infringe on our rights.

I will not accept that if I speak my mind, within legal limits, that I can be arrested regardless.

I would rather be arrested for nothing than that I would choose to pick my words carefully.

Instead of telling people to be carefull about what they say, I would urge them to never give up their freedom of speech, always speak their minds, within legal limits, and never bow down to government intimidation.

Because that is exactly what they want.

But hey that's just me.

reply to post by Hefficide

Oh, and we haven't forgotten the 9/11 forum either. It is one of my forums. And all I can do is assure you that it is not dead, gone, nor forgotten.

But this is what another mod just said in another thread that was closed quickly,

If it is to be re-opened it will be done in good time and SO will update the board when that occurs. Thread Closed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


You can assure that it is not gone, but another mod isn't even sure if it will be reopened.

The info SO left us with is very vague, all the mods are being vague about it. Threads discussing it get closed. Seems like the management doesn't want people talking about it.

It seems like you are just buying time and hoping that people will forget about it.

It's a disgrace.

reply to post by BuckWilder


Did you follow the link that mod posted? The one to the post in which SkepticOverlord said the forum would be opening within weeks? The post that is already more than a week old???

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Well I didn't catch his last post. Sorry about that.

So if SO is saying that it will definately be reopened in a few weeks, then why is Tothetenthpower acting like it is not sure yet?

But fair enough, I expect it to be back around the first of Oktober then.

reply to post by Hefficide


I must say I´m not sure what we are talking about exacxtly. I´m talking about political ideologies, and the spreading of important information and such.

If you are saying that people should not say stuff like, "I got a bunker with 2 years supplies and 20 rifles and and 500.000 rounds of ammo and I hate the government!" on the internet, if they want to remain under the radar, that's another thing.

But that seems pretty obvious at that point.

reply to post by BuckWilder


Now we're on the same page!

And, yes, it seems pretty obvious. Yet I've seen at least ten or fifteen posts in the past two weeks, just here on ATS, from people openly discussing things like opening fire on cops, shooting at politicians, fomenting rebellion, etc.

I was young once and remember letting my mouth ( and typing fingers ) run wild. Twenty years ago I pushed boundaries ( much less than what I've seen lately ) and actually found myself answering having to answer to a guy in a dark suit. Fortunately, back then, things were much less stringent and the atmosphere was much more tolerant. I didn't even get a slap on my wrist. I simply got told that I could get a slap.

I just want younger people to understand what is wise to say and what is over the top. I would hate to see well intentioned people jailed because they got a bit too worked up in a heated thread.

Make sense?

~Heff

reply to post by BuckWilder


I'm still not sure what you are ranting about. Cryptic posts aren't my deal. Anyway, sure, I'll take his advice, not that it will do me any good. TPTB could take me down in a instant, I'm nobody and could be disappeared easily.

reply to post by TheLoony


Why bother taking the advice then?

And if you took the advice then there would not be a potential reason to "take you out".

This is not cryptic.

reply to post by BuckWilder


Your opinion is a point of view.

My position is the other side, I think.

Therefore, not worth arguing. I'm out of this one.