Political Discrimination on ATS

Dear ATSers,

Nothing new to add (feel free to remove this as off topic), but I have to maintain my reputation as Mr. Confusion. After reading the OP I felt, as did other posters and even a Mod or two, completely confused. It seemed as though his statement was a fire in which you could see anything you wanted to.

After a couple of pages, when it became apparent that it would never be completely explained, wonderful things happened. People took their own opinions and viewpoints and expressed them freely. There were complaints about the Mods, other posters, the Left, the Right, and meanies in general.

It seemed to show clearly that, pace OP, there isn't any discrimination. We've all been "censored," almost all of us have learned from it. We are free to choose which arguments to start, enter, and avoid. Believe me, there are many threads I turn away from, a poster with whom I will not share a thread, and a Mod whose approach I dread because of what I perceive as a bias problem.

But, with all that, there are treasures to be found. They're rare, but they are in real life too. There are also people who are nuts in some particular area but are dreams in others. Just harvest the good and compost the rest.

(And yes, I am proud of my new signature.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Others have noted that staying outside the traditional debate forums where 'combat threads' tend to crop up is a real good idea for those who it genuinely bothers. Right or Left.

Yes.
And as you and seabag (

guys) have said, "if you can't stand the heat...."
I, too, have learned a LOT in the 25+ months I've been here.

We have to remember that not all members have as much mileage behind them, or perhaps have not been exposed to, or explored, other points of view.

Still, it does hurt the cause (to find common ground) to call people names and label them unjustly due to ignorance of what one is talking about.

Oh, very true on that. In fact, I can't help but notice at least 4 threads since early this afternoon where name calling or outright ridicule and attack on the OP came almost instantly. Folks wonder why the threads aren't as plentiful as perhaps they have been. Yikes...... It really is like walking into a shooting gallery some days, just to post something that isn't "acceptable" to other cliques of folks. The mods work hard ..but only so much they can ever realistically do.

I think it's that self-regulation we all see a good deal of epic failure on. 'Course, that's just my two cents and in the spirit of pretty much agreeing with you across the board.

(One poor guy was attacked from multiple directions within ..literally, under 2 minutes of thread submit by what I could see)

reply to post by wildtimes


Earlier in this thread you posted this:

Which pov comes from the Extreme Far Right-Wingers who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Jones, Beck, Bachmann, Robertson, and the entire vicious lying group of them. The members who follow these sensationalist nutjobs refuse to see how they've been 'misled', despite numerous evidence that ought to dissuade a normal, intelligent human being.

-You describe an ideology that you do not agree with as "extreme far"

-You hold up a few media personalities, a single politician, and a tv preacher as representative of that ideology, and imply causality between the opinions of those few and the existence of the ideology itself.

- You describe the same small group as an "entire vicious lying group" and "sensationalist nutjuobs"

- You say that this group is "followed", again implying causality between their existence and the existence of the ideology

-You describe the opposite of this as the actions of a "normal, intelligent human being", implying the assumed normalcy of your own viewpoint

None of this seems compatible with this statement:

Still, it does hurt the cause (to find common ground) to call people names and label them unjustly due to ignorance of what one is talking about.

It doesn't seem like common ground is what you are actually pursuing.

There is no political discrimination here. If you express a viewpoint, here or anywhere else, with the hope that it will be hailed as untouchable truth you are setting yourself up for disappointment. It doesn't matter how obvious a truth may seem to you, and it doesn't matter what you are discussing. It could be politics, science, art, or fishing tackle. There will always be someone who thinks you are wrong, and there is a good chance that they are correct. If someone truly wants to avoid being challenged about their opinion the only option is to remain silent. Silence is no fun at all.

reply to post by charles1952

Then you have these shills/brainwashed blogger trolls such as Charles1952 further confusing and swaying peoples belief systems.

Charles, whomever you quoted for your new signature has a lot to learn about life because you, my friend, are the definition of common sense and experience.

Take note, young’uns!! Charles is the voice of reason!! Any who deny this are silly and uninformed IMO.

reply to post by Slugworth


Have a look at my threads for more information.
Good night.

reply to post by wildtimes


I did look at your threads, and you do have a tendency to describe opposing views in similar ways (nutjobs, vicious, etc). The fact is I agree with you more than I disagree, even when you are describing people in those ways. I just don't think its a productive way to express it. You say that the goal is to find common ground. Insulting people is counterproductive to that goal, as is any definitive statement that a viewpoint is obviously and untouchably right or wrong.

Originally posted by muse7
I know that 90% of the people on the ATS political forums are conservative/republican.

Ok I led up team Romney (lesser or 2 evils) during the election and I was the minority, The majority here wanted Obama in office. Now this has certainly changed. So has everyone finally come to their senses on Obama? Can it really be? I mean he was just sworn in months ago.

I have never noticed political discrimination here, but I have notice an almost non-existent middle ground. If you support gun rights, you're a conservative gun nut, if you gay marriage, you're a libtard.

I have come to avoid posting in anything political, because I'm tired of being accused of being one or the other.

Is there nobody else who's in the middle?

reply to post by neformore


I can't help but agree entirely with your post.

We have had a couple of andverse views in the past, especially on guns and the role of .gov in the security of a populous.

I have never seen you try to deny my viewpoint or my beliefs though, nor would I dream of denying you yours.

No matter how misguided we both may seem in the eyes of the other.

I guess I am just too thich skinned to see what the op is talking about, though seeing how most members don't see it either so far, maybe it isn't just myself.

reply to post by seabag


Great post as usual seabab!

I am still in the point deductions and butt woopin stages of enrolement.

I believe I have been getting a lot better with time though, like a good scotch.

Somday, I will be all grown up and participate like those I see as super stars of ATS, wrabbit, beezerN youself destiny1 etc...

I think your right on the head of the real issue here, it is a perspective problem, they are seeing it from their own, and not a bigger picture view.

Though I could be wrong, as I walk around with my head so far up my own posterior, I can see the woods through the trees.

reply to post by unb3k44n7


Like a few others have said here, I'm a little confused by the OP. All I can ascertain is that the OP thinks that the political and religious ideologies held to by various factions of members leads to strife here, and that the OP feels that strife is bad. One could say the same thing about the various ideological camps in the UFO forum -- and no doubt others as well.

Not sure what precisely is meant by discrimination. That some camps' ideas are censored by the ATS staff? I'd say there is a little bit of that, but not a whole lot. I was put off by the closing of some Margaret Thatcher is Dead threads because, evidently, of people speaking ill of her. Also I am bummed when some thread is started with a real bigoted/trogladytic view, which I then spend some timing replying to, but then the entire thread is "disappeared". That happened with some thread by a person claiming that homosexuality is learned behavior, and can be changed -- akin to someone learning to wash their hands before coming to the dinner table. But these instances are more the exception than the rule, so I can't complain about heavy-handed censorship by the ATS PTB.

Discrimination of one mindset group against another? Yeah, there is some of that, but what are you going to do, particularly if an ideologue puts out a thread wearing their extreme views on their sleeves? People are going to push back.

If threads on such matters bother a person, then I recommend sticking to less divisive forums and threads.

I do think that many of the political threads are heavily biased and use extreme hyperbole. I think one political paradigm group does this more than others, but I don't want to get into politics here, so I am not going to say who that is. For all I know, the other side would say the same about their loyal opposition.

I have been rather reticent to wander into these waters because... well because the fact of the matter is that I am a staff member, a known political poster ( holding currently unpopular beliefs ) and I know, from vast experience that waters, such as these, can appear calm on the surface - while hiding a killer undertow. However, just as it usually happens, my urge to swim is overpowering my gut instincts to stay clear.

ATS, and maybe the entire Internet itself, by nature can become far more divisive than face to face, real life interactions might customarily be. I have varyingly blamed this phenomenon upon things like anonymity, text lacking nuance and tone, people creating ( and enjoying ) and enjoying strife and discord for the lulz, the nature of this medium lending to a sort of stream of consciousness, and online "image building". I have seen people issue blunt death threats against others here - simply because a person voiced their apparently honest opinion on some given issue... opinions that were not taboo, nor shocking, nor worthy of anything more than a nod. I know that others in this thread have seen the same... as they often haunt the same environs as I.

Obviously this is not how these people would react in real life - as they'd either be locked away in solitary or long buried if they did.

There is something about "here" that seems to bring out the fight in us... seems to make us express ourselves in absolutes rather than seeking to engage in polite and considerate dialogue.

Part of it, I am sure, is that some folks learn to post elsewhere. Places where completely inordinate levels of hostility are not only commonplace, such acts are rewarded and necessary to fit in and to be accepted. There are many such places. ATS tends to be an exception in that regard. Some come here and require a bit of time to become accustomed to this environment. During their adjustment period they can stir up a bit of trouble and also negatively influence others. After all... if we see one member getting away with calling another member names? Well we tend to think "Must be OK because that person did it and their post is still there..." When these things happen it can take some time for the spasm of vitriol to totally die down.

Another part of I think is that we tend to feel safer exposing our negative feelings online. I am of a liberal mind set. My family is not. I tend not to argue with them about our differences, or my opinions of their views very often because those arguments cause me real life difficulties and tribulations. With them I sometimes have to bite my tongue. But on the Internet? No such worries really exist. Here I have to find other methods of self-regulation. Other motives to be polite.

I am better at doing this than some people, and worse at it than others. I think, if we are to be honest, all of us will admit the same.

Regarding the OP...

In reading through the replies I see some have interpreted it as a call to censor... as one person seeking to control others. I did not read it that way at all. To me it read like a imploring for civility and equity. The OP stated no political leaning or affiliation. They did not use left or right paradigms that I saw. They simply voiced concerns that certain viewpoints tend to get shut out or shut down in the political forums. With this I do agree. Those forums attract some very strong minds and personalities and it can become a warzone where we get so caught up in the debate that we stop caring about collateral damage to the more timid or hesitant posters who might come along.

Many of the customary political posters ( including myself ) have chimed in on this thread. To them I ask a very modest question... Are we doing a good job of creating a hospitable environment for those people? Are we making those forums welcoming enough that new or shy people would feel safe expressing their heartfelt views, no matter what they might happen to be? The truth is that if I were to ask a friend to create an account and post a political thread, either from the right or the left point of view, I could easily predict that they'd be hammered with a hateful post within the first three replies... and I'd be right in my prediction. I could further predict that they'd be called a shill, at least once, and get at least two "Attaboy posts" all within the first page.

My point is that I do agree with the OP that there is needless political discrimination here on ATS in the political threads. It is rife and rampant currently and the saddest part is that it is totally unnecessary and counter productive. We, IMO, need to work on respectfully disagreeing rather than waging war.

Originally posted by fltcui
I personally haven't witnessed political discrimination here on ATS. I perceive that there are more conservatives posting than liberals but I could be wrong....but discrimination, I haven't seen it.
I consider myself a financial conservative and a social moderate and am not registered with any political party.
I try and keep an open mind when reading opinions that run contrary to my own. I figure I may learn something new.
Differing and well thought out, documented opinions is what makes this site so unique. I want to see both sides of the argument.

May I take it a step further from the OP and continue what you are intimating at, in that it is a site for people that tend to be non-conformist so do tend to be critical of those perceived to be holding the reins of power.

One thing that dismayed me about the last American election was the obvious fraudulent hysteria whipped up by the MSM over Romney's chances of being elected. I went on an extremely Liberal/Democratic party site to warn them of hubris immediately after the election as it was part of what I perceived as an objective observer to be the 'playing' of the American public for the eventual total destruction of the Union, and I have to state the creation of a theocratic State.

It wasn't just this last election, does anyone feel in retrospect that the McCain/Palin ticket stood a snowball in hell's chance of being elected?

This I feel along with Romney/Ryan shows a political party wishing to create a sense of persecution in it's own supporters, and let's deal with the idea that they wouldn't throw their own supporters under the bus for a longer term and more insidious aim. Of course they would. Anybody truly disagree they're all cut from the same cloth? This creation of diametric opposition has always and will always suit them down to the ground.

The last time such secessionist ideas were promulgated, though it was more single issue, was the campaign for prohibition. Then, as they seem to be doing now, the idea of taking it straight to the house seemed to be understood as inviting defeat. Instead they worked the legislation through the State Houses until they had enough States voting for a constitutional change, apparently back then it had to be done in a constitutional manner. If one looks at for instance the way Illinois uses the emergency proviso in their legislature to railroad legislation through and the increasing number of States requiring a political test for office and you can begin to see what an objective observer thinks he sees.

I have to take to task the religious elements of your politics as they have become inseparable and sadly the root cause of much of today's rancour in politics. The Supreme Court's handing down of the decision of 1892 that America was indeed a Christian nation was unfortunate to say the least and that through Kuyper's protege Schaeffer you have ended up with a Dominionist movement seeking to impose Biblical will on what many, many commentators and experts alike view as a nation found as secular.

So why the loss of elections on purpose?

Well it comes in as the religious need to be perceived as suffering for their faith and what they presume as the only way. In suffering for their faith they identify with the Jesus figure. So any vote against their candidate is viewed as a vote for Satan and moral decay no matter how sound the policies, and of course the more liberal minds view a vote for them a vote for whack jobs and moral decay of a different sort no matter the soundness of their ideas. The whole electorate voting on emotional issues "got to keep those '______' out at any cost, which leads to a less critical look at your own policies and drags the debate into bitterness and hatred. Back to my point of you being 'played' by affecting the result by the sin of omission, they omitted to put a decent candidate forward. We've seen it in the UK at most of the elections of my lifetime. As to my mind both sides are the same the only thing they have to say are comments about how awful the other candidate is because they are all worthless.

What also is being highlighted is that slight flaw in the American character. Exceptionalism works well for you most times, apart from when you don't get your own way. Hence the deterioration of dialogue and the airings of hatreds I thought the Americans had at least set aside even if there were remnants of it here and there.

Just a tongue in cheek comment to finish with.

Here's hoping you get over your teenage angst and adolescently violent stage. We all might have something to shout about then.

reply to post by Slugworth


Touche. I do use those terms about public figures (journalists, preachers, politicians, authors) who espouse ideas that I consider deliberately divisive, delusional, or violently rabid, based on their 'product'. I would hope that if I were laboring under belief in what a known liar or psychopath said, someone would tell me that the person I've been listening to is a vicious nutjob. It doesn't make the fan a bad person - we are all subject to believing authority figures or public 'limelight' holders.

Thanks for your feedback.

reply to post by wildtimes

I would hope that if I were laboring under belief in what a known liar or psychopath said, someone would tell me that the person I've been listening to is a vicious nutjob.

Think of a person that you admire. Now consider the inevitability that someone, somewhere, has a very low opinion of that person. If this other person told you that you have been following and believing in a vicious lying psychopath nutjob would you suddenly change your mind about them? Just like that? POOF

"I'm sure glad you cleared that up for me, much appreciated! I always thought they were awesome, but now I know the truth!"

It just doesn't work that way. Even if the person was presenting proof that the person was a vicious lying psychopathic nutjob you, or anyone else, would be unlikely to believe it if it is packaged as a personal attack on that person. The more you admire the person being attacked the more likely you would be to reject the proof in conjunction with the personal attack. If the attack language were simply left out of the discussion completely the attempt to give you the new information would be more likely to succeed.

ETA: If you attack a belief as a realm of idiocy you are in effect attacking the intelligence of anyone who identifies with that that belief. There is a big difference between saying "Pat Robertson sucks" and "Pat Robertson sucks and you would have to be a moron to believe otherwise".

reply to post by Slugworth


Okay then. Thanks. Point taken.

Heads up and listen,

In 08 when Mr. O was running for prez and I posted many things to warn people of the dangers to come, my posts were deleted, I got stickers, and warnings and had threads taken down. I was not going with the love the O thing which was the trend at the time. That being said, when I complained to head staff and owners I got a reply similar to this.

The ATS is neither a democracy nor a free speech site. It is privately owned and the terms and conditions are set by those who are the owners or either employed by the ATS to monitor speech.

To continue as I was saying....

So, post what you will, and depending on which way the political wind blows, you can tell if your post or thread will be allowed. Sorry, but that's just the way it is on the ATS. It's not so bad, and if you carefully choose your words, with skill you can get your point of view across, even with the strict speech control. You just have to get good at it is all. You can't just slander and hate, you have to actually use logic, reason, and understanding in any subject matter.

I would like to invite the input of the owners and chief mods to speak to this and clarify for everyone here, the actual scope and purpose of the ATS and the manner of allowed discussion.

I thought there was a survey from way back when with the demographics of the ATS population. I tried searching but couldn't find it. Anyhow ATS seems to be against whomever is in power. When Bush Jr. was President this site was a seething Republican hate-fest 24/7. Now that Obama is in power it has swung the other way.

The Anti- side will vary according to the current president. This president is getting more heat for um.. obvious phenotypic reason too.

But according to the posts and the ratio of star/flags it receives, i can say the ATS is predominantly conservative/republican.. maybe a 65:35% ratio. Few posters are known to start severely biased threads, a good indication would, a full attack on one political sides, or use of strawman and of course the flags and stars and barely any reply..

I for one think Politics have taken over this website. I see more threads about politics than actual conspiracy topics!

I see 7 threads at the moment, all near the top that have something to do with politics. SEVEN on just the front page alone. Rarely does politics have anything to do with Conspiracy - most can be attributed to the ineptitude of our elected officials - and most threads devolve into that anyway (or bickering among members). The most politically relevant conspiracy recently *might* be the Benghazi issue.

ATS needs to return to it's roots. I know this is a money making venture for SO / Springer et.al, and I realize the more content they allow, the more "user generated" content we produce = profit. I get that.
However, I'm quickly getting sick of all the useless crap that flows through this board on a daily basis. Rarely is there a good thread about a geniune conspiracy anymore.

So, in essence - I agree with the OP and raise him. Junk the political / forums and lets get back to the roots that made this website great!