With the election over, can we on ATS return to civility and mutual respect?

It is actually pretty easy to get banned.

If you attract the attention of the mods, watch out.

It can happen in an instant.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Nope, because idiots on both sides just can't let anything go. Politics isn't the problem, it's the idiots who don't know how to behave themselves.

But I salute your thread either way and I hope we can let decorum lead the way.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
With the election over, can we on ATS return to civility and mutual respect?

'Ridicule is the only weapon which can be
used against unintelligible propositions.'

-Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by AceWombat04


No. Clearly we can't as it will be Obama this and Obama that until the next President is sworn in and then I think only the name will change but the complaining will be familiar.

reply to post by charles1952



You're right some people just can't respond without taking it all the way to combat. It seems mandatory. It's how they get by.and in an effort to win will employ less than reasonable arguments, and may have a penchant for appealing to emotions. Also the level of adherence to facts and truth at times falls below what most consider the norm.

Well there you have it. everybody wants to fight, and nobody knows how to argue. Everybody's wed to their ideology and can't see the need to give. Well that's the problem. If you can't consider the other person's position then there is little hope we can come to grips with the necessity of compromise. Enlightenment comes when we allow other people to moderate our opinions. Without this moderation, fear rules our thinking.

I say, the world keeps on turning, and we humans could really rock it with a cooperative effort rooted in acceptance and accommodation A superhighway going both ways. But this fragile connection is best made in a air of civility at minimum.

There are so many things we could tell one another if we would just listen.

All I can say OP, is I do my best. I try to be civil while disagreeing, don't always happen though. I have reported my own comments for removal before after cooling off and seeing I got out of line
All we really can effect for sure is ourself, try to lead by example

Originally posted by BeneathBaseStupidity

Originally posted by AceWombat04
With the election over, can we on ATS return to civility and mutual respect?

'Ridicule is the only weapon which can be
used against unintelligible propositions.'

-Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps. But does the ridicule actually accomplish anything? Will people's views change as a result of it? Or will they be more likely to change as the result of reasoned argumentation and evidence? Is the preferable result obtained through hostility in the face of intractable positions, or acceptance that they will not change, and security in one's own position?

'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.'

-Aristotle

Originally posted by primus2012
I think it's about time we get the Ron Paul 2016 threads going. I'm sure they are going to be civil and popular especially after the Bush tax cuts expire, and folks start to realize how meager or lacking the April 2014 tax return checks are going to be.

Ron Paul 2016

He wont run again.

I try to be civil too, but even starting an topic on Obama policies brings out the worst in some people, been here a long time now, some of you don't remember the vicious posters during the Bush years, oh but they justify that.

I am becoming bitter over the double standard on forums.

I think I will start a birther thread,

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I remember them. I've been here that long as well. Longer, if lurking is included. What I advocate is for ATS to be a place where any theory or topic can be discussed free of insults and personal attacks. For instance, I do take strong issue with many of Bush's policies. But I have never called someone stupid, evil, or pathetic for disagreeing with me or for supporting him or his policies. Moreover, I have many of the same concerns with Obama. But that's beside my point. If someone is a birther, that's their prerogative. No amount of name calling or anger or ostensibly righteous indignation will likely change that in my opinion. Both sides of that debate, in my opinion, have it within themselves to argue about it without insulting one another. And without hating one another. If they choose to make a concerted, honest effort toward that end.

That does not mean laying down and not arguing forcefully for something you believe in. It does not mean not presenting proof you believe seals the deal. It does not even mean not outright believing that you are right, and the other person is wrong. It just means not creating more obstacles to the attempted exchange of knowledge or the communication of those myriad positions, by letting it devolve into something that doesn't serve or support them. Regardless of the sides we find ourselves on.

The problem in my opinion that can be addressed isn't the positions... the positions and the disagreements will always exist, and have always existed since time immemorial, and no matter how right or wrong we think others are, there will always be people who hold positions we powerfully take issue with, or even fear The problem we can address, given that we can never get the whole world to agree, is how we go about discussing the positions. And how we allow ourselves see one another out of anger and bitterness. I believe that no matter how negatively we view a position, ideology, or belief, it is in our interests to stop short of dehumanizing and dismissing others.

Case in point. Earlier I was reading somewhere, and there were people who support both major political parties arguing. The Democrats were saying that the Republicans were simply evil, and that evil cannot be compromised with. The Republicans were saying that the Democrats were socialist and therefore evil, and that likewise, evil cannot be compromised with. Both sides stated that their goal, and the only thing they would settle for, was to drive the other side out of the country - not just out of politics, but out of the country itself - so that their own could achieve preeminence. They both absolutely believed that they were right, that their ideology and policies were what was best for every last man, woman, and child in this country. And maybe one was, and one wasn't. That isn't for me to say. I have my own beliefs that I feel just as strongly about. But they were willing to actively pursue the disenfranchising and if possible, exile, of the other side. A few people even advocated the deaths of the others.

Now, that is of course their prerogative. They have the right to those beliefs, and I am not trying to disabuse anyone of their beliefs. All I'm doing is sharing my own that so long as there is no will toward even the smallest degree of coexistence, but more to the point, no ability to view those holding an opposing viewpoint as even valid people, citizens, or even human, we cannot coexist, let alone move forward. Sharing that opinion I hold, and asking:

Can we not disagree, even passionately; can we not argue; can we not think one another are wrong; can we not struggle against ideologies we have ethical opposition to and feel are even dangerous; can we not do all of these things without denying each others' validity as human beings and wage our "wars of words" with some modicum of good will?

If not... as I said, that is everyone's prerogative. But I will not deny that I find it very sad and disappointing.

reply to post by AceWombat04


One can only hope.........but with all the anger from the right and the smugness from the left, don't expect it to happen any time soon.

reply to post by Antonio1

You bring up something that I've seen before and have always wanted to ask about. Do you really see a lot of anger on the right?

Smugness on the left, I've seen on ATS a lot, and MSNBC, and MSM sites and articles. But I don't see a lot of anger from the right. There may be a couple, but it seems to be more wonderment, discouragement, and "end of the world" thinking than anger.

Where are you finding it?

Well from cruezing around the forum it's so refreshing to experience the new attitude of civility and mutual respect.

The Republicans have taken the defeat with unexpected grace and style.

And the Democrats haven't gloated at all over their victory.



/sarcasm off..........It's worse now than ever and as time goes on it will be interesting as to how ugly the mods allow it to get. Honestly I never thought I would see it this bad.

I can remember when being called a "tulipwalker" was the worst insult you would encounter.

reply to post by olaru12


Lol. As someone most would likely place in that category, I would welcome a return to such mild rhetoric.

I don't debate. Civility isn't an issue. I don't even read the banter in the threads. My values are inherently unchanging and my choices on who I will vote for or support cannot be persuaded. Really, there's not a thing between my decision to vote or contribute to a campaign and actually signing that check or filling out that ballot. I don't share my thoughts on such things with anyone else. I don't discuss my beliefs or values or voting decisions with anyone at all. There's no issue of disrespect with myself and others in the arena of politics because I don't go there.


a reply to: AceWombat04

With the election over, can we on ATS return to civility and mutual respect?