Is it time to make Infowars [i]non grata[/i]?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
You cant beat them at there game and you dont want to join them, just let them have there time in the spotlight it usualy does not last long.

Of course you can, just use better debate tactics that don't involve lowering your standards to name calling, ad hominem, deflection etc

originally posted by: johnb
Perhaps we could over time put together a locked thread controlled by mods/admin whomever with any sources that are 'dubious' in nature.

Or a line or two under many of the main:

BBC
Uk based publicly (govt) funded with no advertising (the reason most watch it) TV, Radio and online.
A lot of good stuff in their nature/science documentaries but news is generally biased towards the current government (some may say liberal/tory/labour -sure we can come to a consensus)

Daily Mail
Uk based (part of the Murdoch empire?) newspaper and online (known here as the daily fail)
Not sure of its political leaning but is garbage (yes i have linked in the past (embarrassed emoticon))

RT (Russia Today)
Russian based owned by the state or just heavily controlled by?

MInd you would end up being a long list but if kept in alphabetical order would be useful.

For ages I thought the Huffington Post was one of those 'joke' news sites as they do seem to run a lot of crap - judging by what people share and talk about anyway, not wasted any time checking out either.

Would be useful for many I'm sure to get a feel for the reputation of their source before posting.

I actually really like this idea.
Isn't there a wiki forum that we could utilise for such an endeavor?

A normal thread would just get bombarded with everyone's personal opinions and very little substance.

originally posted by: RobotBomb
Maybe we should start burning books and knocking down ancient monuments while we are at it.

Nah, we need those. Infowars on the other hand is filled with utter drivel and pushes the agenda of Alex "monkey-man" Jones and destroys the credibility of all of us. People see that lunatic and automatically think we're all just as bad and just as crazy as he is. I for one hate that thought.

For the record, I don't think any source (apart from community maintained Wiki's) should be off the table, however I will always question the sanity of those who follow the monkey-man...just as I do for the acolytes of Icke.

Rev

The liberal mindset always wants to "GAG" views that clash with their views. If you really try hard though, I bet you can separate good from bad and then just ignore the bad or deal with it, without the need to revoke free speech.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

And the same can be said about conservatives as well. Conservatives have done their share of book burnings and book bans from public schools and libraries. Hell, the Republicans are calling pornography a public health threat on their political platform now.

The thing is, everything you want to sling at a liberal or Democrat? Your own people and party has done and are also guilty of.

This absolutism, black & white, yes/no and right/wrong-only dichotomy is a horribly short sighted and narrow-minded way of viewing the world and living life. You aren't always right, and they aren't always wrong. I'm not always right, and you aren't always wrong either.

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity

originally posted by: revmoofoo
a reply to: DJW001

The problem here is that we're allowing hate to breed more hate.

I have never once gotten a liberal to say on ATS "you've got a point". Not once has a liberal member ever crossed the isle to meet on middle ground. When they say we need to come to middle ground, they mean we need to shut up and agree with them.

That is definitely not true and I don't think I've ever encountered you in a thread.

originally posted by: DJW001
This thread is so obnoxious and hate filled that it has me seriously reconsidering my attitude towards free speech. I have always believed that if you allow a fool to say anything they want, people will eventually see the fool for what he is. Unfortunately, there are a few threads that are being dominated by hate mongers who are cheering one another on, drowning out other voices, and creating a poisonous atmosphere. Rather than deal with facts, they are drawing their racist talking points from Infowars. It is as if Infowars is infiltrating ATS and sabotaging it, using it to advance its own insane agenda. Enough is enough.

That is a very good idea.

a reply to: DJW001

Sorry Im not apologising for bastardry.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DJW001
This thread is so obnoxious and hate filled that it has me seriously reconsidering my attitude towards free speech. I have always believed that if you allow a fool to say anything they want, people will eventually see the fool for what he is. Unfortunately, there are a few threads that are being dominated by hate mongers who are cheering one another on, drowning out other voices, and creating a poisonous atmosphere. Rather than deal with facts, they are drawing their racist talking points from Infowars. It is as if Infowars is infiltrating ATS and sabotaging it, using it to advance its own insane agenda. Enough is enough.

That is a very good idea.

Can you please elaborate as to why?

a reply to: johnb

They're going to get a lot of sources that way.

There isn't a single news source out there that isn't biased in some way. And if they start a list, then we'd never be able to have an end of arguments over which sources this or that poster will or won't accept. It's bad enough as it is.

a reply to: reldra

I have been off ATS for some time, but my partner got me back on. I have seen you for a long time. My experience is that, mine. I have posted on ATS for years, and I don't recall one debate / discussion where a liberal ever made a comment like that to me or anyone else. Please post one from prior to this week to prove me wrong. IF it has happened, it's one out of tens of thousands where it never happens.

ATS mods tend to be liberal. ATS lets liberals get away with baiting other people, and then once push back comes then get involved. I remember quite a while back there was this grandiose comment from mods that there was not going to be anymore baiting and derailing of threads, and the next day it happened on one of my threads. No, I don't remember which one it was. These are my experiences. They might not be yours, but they are mine, and I bet quite a few other members.

a reply to: DJW001

You better change your signature with talk of limiting free speech like that OP...
George Soros and the left are basically funding a race war in this country with BLM and you blame Info wars and Alex Jones for reporting it?
There are far more divisive and race driven news groups out there.
How do you feel about the Young Turks?

I don't see direct blatant racism here and I do believe there are stiff T&C against it. As there should be. I do however see a lot of passionate individuals becoming overly sensitive and emotional about important social and racial topics.
The race baiting is what's getting out of hand.
You know what sucks?
Having to constantly explain yourself to these PC SJW's whenever discussing racial topics. Even worse when I'm just parroting something one of my black friends told me. Thank god for them or I'd be this apologetic white guilt stricken individual with a very weak grasp on what plagues us as a society.

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but your perspective is horribly wrong. Some of our highest starred and flagged members are well-known conservatives. On average, we have more pro-conservative threads on the main "recent" page.

Claiming to be a victim of something doesn't actually make you one. If a few people don't agree with you on something, that doesn't mean the entire board disagrees with you. This goes back to this all or nothing mindset people seem to have today.

I think you'd be hard pressed for a conservative staff member to agree that he/she is in the minority.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: DJW001

as much as i hate alex jones and his hyperbole, i read the article you posted first and then read the OP's.
and to be fair, she did say everything that they printed. in the infowars article from the very get go they say,

In an article for ‘Wear Your Voice’, an “intersectional feminist media” outlet, Shackelford says that she finds the presence of white people at Black Lives Matter rallies “triggering,” and that black people are “frightened” by whites, adding that their roles should be confined to acting as human “buffers against the police”.

In an article entitled ____You, Pay Me: Reparations for Fat Black Bitches and Everything We Provide, Shackelford demands that she should be paid money for being a ‘fat black bitch’.

that at the end is

plus she continually uses the word we, that would indicate to me she is speaking from a BLM perspective.

at least infowars doesn't make up complete BS stories like before it's news.

here are the two articles.
For White People Who Want to Attend #BlackLivesMatter Protests

‘Black Lives Matter’ Organizer ‘Triggered’ by White People, Demands Money For Being a ‘Fat, Black Bitch’

EXACTLY!
If a topic has any merit it would be appropriate for the OP to track down the original source and start with THAT material instead of someone else's regurgitated sensationalized version of it.

How many times have we seen someone go off half-cocked and take things out of context? I know I've made that mistake.

Most of us got the spiel in school about writing, who-what-where-when , opening premise, supporting material and then conclusion. Now with the internet being all quickie/cell phone posting it's gone completely out the window.

I'm seeing this as a trend in crappy writing and less about racist anything. It's entirely possible to have an unpopular opinion, but FFS make a proper case for it! Background on the information like Houndoghowlie provided gives the reader a fuller perspective and context for more informed replies.

While I'm not a fan of Infowars, banning is over the top.
Stick to the T&C's and lay out a proper thread or get tagged for it and try again if the material is that important to you.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Zazz...I'm with you

Here...for now

Though I will probably be back at some point (we'll see how the future rolls out), I feel like every rock on earth was turned over and I'm tired of talking to whatever crawled out

I'm just going to say flat out - this isn't the fault of ATS

Sign of the times...

If there is one thing this past week has taught me, it's that America is doomed on this. We can't even have a discussion on race here without someone screaming racist or bigot as soon as someone says something someone else doesn't like whether it is or isn't racism, and no one seems to know, or care if they do know, what the actual definitions of those terms are anymore.

If we can't discuss it here, then they sure can't discuss it in the larger country.

I am not advocating censorship. Anyone can say anything they want here. What I am advocating is preventing a particular movement from hijacking ATS for their own purposes.

It is not that Infowars is "politically incorrect," it is that it is actively trying to incite violence, and using ATS as a platform. When they portrayed the ravings of a single individual, who, I must point out, did not even claim to represent or speak for the Black Lives Matter movement in her self aggrandizing bio at the end of her blog, as being a "a BLM leader," they were, quite simply, lying.

Yes, they quoted her accurately, but misrepresented her identity and context. It is altogether possible that her character is intended as satire. I do not understand queer culture well enough to understand what they might consider humorous, but might not her "act" be similar to Colbert's idiotic "conservative commentator?" Even if she is serious, the ravings of a single individual should not be portrayed as being the agenda of an entire movement.

If you want to link directly to the primary source, however unpleasant, I have no problem. Primary sources speak for themselves. What I object to is linking to a site with an agenda that distorts the sources it quotes in pursuit of a destructive agenda.

For those attacking me personally, implying that I am in some way hypocritical: please note that I have never suggested banning Sputnik News, RT.com, presstv, or any other of the propaganda mills that churn out nationalistic rubbish. They have a clear bias and can be refuted by facts and statistics. (Eventually, they wind up contradicting themselves when their government sponsors have to change the Official Story.) Infowars is aiming directly at the gut. I have found it impossible to reason with their acolytes.

originally posted by: DJW001
This thread is so obnoxious and hate filled that it has me seriously reconsidering my attitude towards free speech. I have always believed that if you allow a fool to say anything they want, people will eventually see the fool for what he is. Unfortunately, there are a few threads that are being dominated by hate mongers who are cheering one another on, drowning out other voices, and creating a poisonous atmosphere. Rather than deal with facts, they are drawing their racist talking points from Infowars. It is as if Infowars is infiltrating ATS and sabotaging it, using it to advance its own insane agenda. Enough is enough.

They disagree with your biased opinion so they must be RACIST! Why bother with constructive conversation when you can attempt to silence people by labeling them a racist or some other word that you don't understand?

Can these race baiters like OP please have their speech restricted as well?

originally posted by: DJW001
Infowars is aiming directly at the gut. I have found it impossible to reason with their acolytes.

Maybe now you understand how most conservatives feel about most left-wing MSM (and there's an overwhelming amount of it) and the people who propagate here.

I don't subscribe to Infowars. I normally turn away, unless it's over the top ... or hillaryous. It's the best I can do.

a reply to: VivreLibre

They disagree with your biased opinion so they must be RACIST!

Nope. They are RACIST because they espouse a racist philosophy.

Why bother with constructive conversation when you can attempt to silence people by labeling them a racist or some other word that you don't understand?

I am not attempting to silence anyone; I am attempting to encourage constructive dialogue by directing people to primary sources.

Can these race baiters like OP please have their speech restricted as well?

Race baiters like you are welcome here. Just don't "queer" the debate, okay?