Yet another week has passed, and i have not seen a responce to my questions about ethics and "intellectual eliteism".
Is this because in essence..."whats done is done?" and the administration will brook NO challenges to their decision or authority, and its easier to
not respond, which would only give more creedance to these questions? (boy do i sound like an anti-bu#e with this one)
A few more notes
Mackiller says about buying access to the former mudpit,
There are no refunds.
Yes im sure the stated policy for spending points does say this,
BUT
ever hear of bait and switch? Where the "customer" holds up their end of a deal and the "supplier" provides something OTHER than what was
offered? While the "no refunds" clause indeed would allow the board ops to avoid a return of points, i think that "customer service" and or the
poor impression this act leaves with some members feeling a little duped or taken for a ride.
Majic says,
There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion on something, however, expressing that opinion in the form of insults directed toward other
members, their cultures, ethinicities or nationalities accomplishes nothing more than driving threads off topic and fostering an atmosphere of mutual
disrespect.
Use of devicive speech to express one's opinions does accomplish something....it show that poster may be ignorant of the issues, shows that
bigotry exists, and ultimatly shows that that persons post is essentially trash. Respect is EARNED not given, and is hard to mandate. If you are a
troll and you post crap, your posts will get NO RESPECT, and it deserves to be trashed (verbally debunked/slapped) by other posters as well as
moderators.
Denial of speech of this nature, only insulates those that post crap from the admonishment they deserve...how will they ever hope to learn if noone is
allowed to challenge their beliefs?
Denial of speech also IS censorship...no 2 ways around it....this censorship denies the non troll posters from seeing that there are really people out
there with these devicive views....that some people really need to be exposed to more ideas than just ones that "fit with their views or their
approval"
This also raises the spector of uniform definitions and enforcement. Many posters on THIS thread have asked for more clear cut definitions that are
clear for everyone....yet putting this to practice is a monumental task....define all cases of acceptable speech eh? good luck.
majic again,
In such a climate, meaningful discussion becomes impossible
NO it doesnt....it might make things a little more challenging,but communications can certantly continue. When im participating in a thread,
and a few posters are only slinging one liners, or posting really devicive stuff....i just skip responding to them (unless they really deserve a
verbal slap) Why does this end my meaningful discussions with other posters involved? It seems like banning speech for your convienance of not
having to read a few dumb posts is a really POOR excuse for infringing upon open, honest, and expressive communications, weather you deem them
productive, insensitive, bigoted, or not.
Deltachaos says,
there will be people who are 'enflamed'. Most of these people are that way because they prefer or choose to be anyway. They're not going away.
No they arent going away DESPITE board ops making it SEEM like they are by banning/restricting peoples expressions....this is a whitewash of
reality...Yes they might leave ATS behind, but did those ideas vanish, nope, only from our too sensative to tolorate eyes. We blind ourselves by
enacting communication divisions.
Flinx says,
I'm somewhat disappointed that the people here are so tolerant of this political content
Which political content should be intolorable? Which group of political thinking is next for censorship? Which ways of expression are next
on the chopping block? I personally find those that have made creative pictures and graphics very talented and amusing, but some of them, avatars
included are devicive...SO WHAT. I mention this because these graphics can be just as "bad" as just saying it would be. Yet creative pictures are
mostly considered artistic forms of expresion. This speech ban should also then apply to "political cartoons/satire" as well.
pineappleupsidedown said,
Just because a person is passionate about politics (or religion, ethics, whatever) does not given them the right to just go on a rant and flame
whoever they want however they want.
i know, i know i know already...this is a private board, and i respect that this community has the RIGHT to set boundaries for itself that
define it. (sound like a familliar argument from me on other topics?)
BUT,
At what point do you loose your right to express ideas, feelings or critiques? If a person wants to disagree, even in a derrogatory manner, how is it
ok to silence this dissent or statements of emotion or even bigotry? Why are you (those pro new restrictions) ok with stifiling speech in any
form?
as mirthfulme says,
I fear that name calling and contrived derision is the crux of most arguments, those tools removed, the ability to articulate any meaningful dissent
is removed.
Hmm, this thread seems about split along these lines.....no lack of dissention here
Ok, so ive tried to see where this can go discussion-wise, and will probably wait another week until no board admins have responded, to ask the wind
again about these issues.
[edit on 22-11-2004 by CazMedia]
[edit on 22-11-2004 by CazMedia]