Taboo Topics?

If we all were looking for answers in the same place, that would just be silly.

I am a little at a loss here..

Is it not still possible to discuss it in the forum in which it was moved?

While it is undoubtedly a "Ludicrous Online Lie" that there were not kids, They were all actors ETC, and it certainly belongs in that particular forum, can it not still be discussed?

I still havn't formed any opinions on the subject but I was interested in reading about other peoples thoughts. I still do elsewhere. It is a lot easier to read when people are not saying 'The event that shall not be mentioned.

I think the reason people feel it cannot be discussed in LOL is because they feel they are being mocked, even if they know people died that day.

Another reason they may not feel they can discuss it anywhere on ATS is the very real possibility of a permaban.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

SkepticOverlord
Because we will do our best to hold back the tide of the "cancer of insanity" that has infected online conspiracy theory speculation. Patient Zero of the "cancer of insanity" is ....
... fueled by the intensity of Alex Jones seeking ever more audience, the "cancer of insanity" sees ridiculous conspiracies in every tragedy. While as a principal, I don't mind that and fully support anyone's desire to explore the upper boundaries of extreme conspiracy ideas....
... We tried entertaining such discussions with warnings of not to post personal info. It didn't work. The bottom-feeding scum of society who embraced the "cancer of insanity" insisted on posted personal information of private people and speculate on the possibility of their heinous crimes. I can't tolerate that. No one should. It's shameful.
... Such actions are so shameful that we people who are concerned with deeper stories and conspiracies have been painted with a massive and embarrassing scarlet letter by these faceless imbeciles embracing the "cancer of insanity" such that we cannot stand proud to the world with authority and say, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU SO" with regard to the NSA.
Does that help?

Oh yes, it’s fully understood: You belong to the rulerz crowd owning big parts of our galaxy. By whom “history” and “truth” are written. While we are the slaves to the system, “infected” with “insanity” and “mental disease”, only allowed to discuss what ‘suits’. The God you/we serve is called “leverage”. YOU WIN. Congratulations and thank you, Master.

reply to post by semperfortis



exactly.... they should discuss in the section it was moved to

reply to post by giugliot


That's not at all the point he was making.

HUH! lord V ?
I am going to look up the news.
as I have NO idea what its about to?

I think any one over 21 should be aboul to see ALL deleted posts.
I would bet some Still go missing!

beezzer
reply to post by dave_welch

 

Hiya!

The thread got me curious, but I have absolutely no idea what it is about.

(then again, that's never stopped me from posting elsewhere)

lolz

reply to post by dave_welch


I think you have a good point OP so I will respond.

It is most definitely censoring and we all know that censoring does occur even on ATS.

One only has to look at commentary on youtube. Most of it is full of inane and offensive gibberish. At least ATS does not fall into such low life chaos.

However, we must consider that even official investigators must sometimes delve into taboo areas of discussion, which to outsiders may be considered distasteful and heartlessly objective.

So, we must conclude that on the internet we are prohibited from pursuing online discussions where the subject matter is deemed too heartless to be allowed on the moral compass of powerful entities that create this certain censoring climate we have in place.

Sandy Hook is a working example of where the line seems to be. Personally, I do not get offended by discussion of any kind with a purpose of education, analysis and enlightenment. Though I may not share some of the attitudes expressed by other individuals I am interested in their perspective to add to all sides of the equation.

This is dangerous territory when we say that certain points of view are not allowed to be expressed. Of course there are lines to be drawn, but my own opinion is that those lines should be drawn very carefully indeed. We could easily fall into fascism and allow for horrors to happen BECAUSE we are not allowed to debate as to who has an interest in and who is perpetuating the morally outrageous actions of some in our societies.

If I believe that 911 was to some degree participated in by agents of US citizenship, some in high places, then it is my individual right to be able to believe that and even express myself in public that this is what I think.

If I am gagged from doing this and labelled because of it then I am not a free member of a free society with the right to free speech. It means I am being singled out and labelled because I happen to disagree with a so called "official" version of events. That is not free.

My own border line that I draw is when any speech has the motive of inciting crime. Believing 911 was a false flag is not inciting a criminal act. It is a view held of a certain act that happened. That view is not incitement the same as certain analysts' commentary of SH discussion is NOT incitement.

Criminal and violent acts of mass terror and murder are horrific. It surely follows that gruesome details must be explored in an objective manner that might be offensive to some. If you don't want to know it is still not your right to gag others because it morally offends you. How would the police do their job if they avoided the horror of what they investigate?

Doing a post mortem, especially on a child, is something that is very gruesome. Yet such things have to take place when suspicious death occurs

If we begin with the premise that our government, and by association the main stream media routinely lie to us, there are natural extensions of this line of thought.

First, we should logically assume that we are being lied to until facts prove otherwise.

This is not an emotional response. Quite the opposite. It is a rational response based on a pattern of behavior.

Next, we must ask ourselves if we believe the government has a line that they will not cross.

For instance, would the government lie about a topic as serious as life and death to further an agenda?

Many believe that we were intentionally lied to about WMD in order to enter into war with Iraq. This could be construed as careful, pre-meditated lying with life and death consequences.

With this in mind, I believe that the logical response when presented with a story by our government (or associated main stream media) is to assume that it is all a lie and work backwards.

MSM reports a mass murder of 26 individuals? Assume it to be a lie until evidence is presented.

Again, this is not an emotional reaction.

The degree of truth can begin to be established quickly.

Were there credible witnesses?

How about crime scene photos?

Video surveillance evidence?

Autopsy results?

So you see, assuming that the government is lying is not a trip to Crazy Town. It's a logical exercise given past experience. The degree to which they are lying can be established through a careful review of the established facts. Where are the facts?

reply to post by dave_welch


Funny, at first I thought that you were talking about the other taboo topic, i.e. that which is now legal in Colorado and Washington state -- particularly as that has long been taboo here, whereas a certain extreme conspiracy theory has only been taboo for about half a year. As for the latter, I am glad that subject has been 86'ed here; it is so beyond the pale and ridiculous and just generated a hot-mess-load of threads.

Revolution9
This is dangerous territory when we say that certain points of view are not allowed to be expressed.

Indeed. So why can't the majority of people who have a desire to explore those points of view cannot do so under extremely simple rules (no posting of personal info of private people)?

The responsibility is on those who wish to discuss, to maintain the discussion within civil boundaries.

SkepticOverlord

Revolution9
This is dangerous territory when we say that certain points of view are not allowed to be expressed.

Indeed. So why can't the majority of people who have a desire to explore those points of view cannot do so under extremely simple rules (no posting of personal info of private people)?

The responsibility is on those who wish to discuss, to maintain the discussion within civil boundaries.

well a post should be edited in that case if there is anything that sensitive posted, but not an entire thread moved or deleted with the effots of many having spent hours, maybe days collectively to all be deleted and put down the drain because of one or two words that were inappropriate.

If such actions are taken, well then that in itself can be abused by schills or naive people to prevent the sharing of information to others that are trying to research the matter, because all one has to do is post something inappropriate and get a thread deliberately deleted.

If something was inappriately mentioned, wouldn't it just be easier to just edit out the word or a few to remove the 'personal info'?

this brings me to my next point. I just finished spending an hour of my time making the above post which I thought was related to the topic at hand, if you thought something was inappriate why not just edit out what you thought was 'personal info' instead of deleting the entire post. It makes me question what else gets deleted on this forum that is deemed 'personal info', because I dont think I wrote anything inappropriate or 'personal info'. It was 6 points that pretty much showed mainstream video to the topic at hand with a conclusion at the end. If you think my post which I think was very worthy of a read and related to the topic at hand but you think that was inappropriate then if you really skimmed over other topics at ATS that are not so much of importance you could probably find +90% of posts being off-topic to the Original Post/thread creator.

In fact in this very thread in itself, I can see several posts by users that are more 'off topic' and a waste of space/replies then mine was because they werent even engaging what the thread is about, why not delete those but delete mine where I actually added a lot of factual information. If this is a 'conspiracy' based website, why censor information especially if it's adding to the debate, I am pretty sure a lot of viewers would have liked what I had to say but now wont have the chance to read about it because it was deleted and I do not think it was inappropriate as I do my best to follow forum rules and am not trolling anyone and was not revealing any person information to my knowledge.

reply to post by paradoxstyle



once again, here's the thing....

i obviously don't speak for the staff, but what i THINK happened is that this is NOT a thread wherein we discuss the event that shall not be named.....this is a thread about WHY the event that shall not be named, IS the event that shall not be named, until such a time as a certain law enforcement agency releases a certain report.....

using that very narrow, very specific set of parameters, it is easy to see, that ANY discussion of facts, evidence, inconsistancies, etc in relation to the event that shall not be named, is, in fact, off topic, as it is not related to the discussion for which this thread was created....which is: "why can't we talk about it?"

now, i do agree with an earlier point that is a very slippery slope, with regards to censorship, when it is decided that certain things can't be discussed, certain ideas cannot be expressed......and SO made a very good point, that it IS against the rules we all agreed to follow, i might add, to put people's personal information out in the open....

that said, it doesn't help matters when discussions on the topic in question, that are being conducted in a responsible, and adult fashion, are arbitrarily dumped into the s**t pile...that says to me "you can talk about it, but you can't talk about it, because we're gonna s**tcan it, no matter how civilized it is"

now, i've floated ideas to people...if they're interested, they're interested...if not, things will remain as they are, and we can either stick around, or be on our way.....nobody's locked ATS in as our homepage, or forced us at gunpoint to post here....that's not to say bend over, and hand the staff some lube...i believe in talking to them, to see if we can't change things that are important to us, but for the simple, common sense stuff...it is what it is...

SkepticOverlord
Indeed. So why can't the majority of people who have a desire to explore those points of view cannot do so under extremely simple rules (no posting of personal info of private people)?

The responsibility is on those who wish to discuss, to maintain the discussion within civil boundaries.

Begging your pardon, but i do not believe you are being entirely honest...not that i'm calling you a liar, i just don't believe your statement is entirely accurate.

the thread that the OP asked about was not in violation of the rules...yet it was dumped into LOL for no reason other than it was about the event that shall not be named....

the OP was civil, the discussion was civil, there were, i think a couple of posts that strayed into the strange, but i don't think they violated the T&C...really, the worst part were the venomous replies by people who support the "official story" (ie; the shoddy journalism media circus)...

by the by, did you happen to get my PM? the PM system is working properly now, right?

dave_welch
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

However, and this is just my opinion which isn't worth much, it seems that intelligent discussion of a topic, any topic, should be encouraged.

I agree. I can guess what this topic was about and here's a subtle opinion which will probably offend everyone: the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Most people assume that a public event is either as it is portrayed to the public ('the official story') or that it's a complete hoax. Not many step back and look at the evidence of both sides and sees different interests enforcing different biases and exaggerations on what really happened.

The truth shall set us free and this can only be found through open, honest, and sometimes controversial discussion and debate. Everything you say will offend somebody. Just talking about 9/11 being an 'inside job' will offend some victims' families, just as disregarding it will offend victims' families too. What it all comes down to, for me, is: what really matters to us: just getting along (agreeing to disagree) or what is right and true? I know where I stand in this regard. In a world full of lies and deceptions (due to greed,) the truth is too important to push aside because it makes someone blush (or even cry.) That kind of weak-mindedness belongs to the mindless, drooling couch potato crowd. I would think more highly of ATS than that.

That being said, everything is within reason and I understand that someone must make a judgment call on where to draw the line. I would say that as long as the conversation is reasonably respectful then don't shy away from the topic.

Daedalus
the thread that the OP asked about...

My reference was to the general topic, not that specific thread.

paradoxstyle
If something was inappriately mentioned, wouldn't it just be easier to just edit out the word or a few to remove the 'personal info'?

No!

What is so damn difficult to understand about having the simple decency of not posting the personal information of private people involved in a tragedy on the Internet.

It simply shouldn't happen. There should be no need to edit.

It's despicable. There's a long list of other colorful adjectives that I'd use face to face, that I would not in this mixed environment of ATS>

Hmm, now I'm wondering if I was wrong about what this topic was about. Not knowing makes it difficult.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


OK fair enough....I thought we were talking about the same thing...

could you comment on the thread in question, since the open asked about it, specifically?