The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

Then the best idea is to talk about the policies, not the man. In fact, speaking of him as a human being with only cursory knowledge gleaned from the media is not in line with motto of the site at all. Speaking out about policies is another matter.

reply to post by seagrass

---

I guess so....your last comment confused me.... but i think i misread it
My bad

My apologies

Look, all this derogatory, condescension is Unnecessary!

I don't remember getting ONE warn since I've been here.
If asking questions is ridiculous, then whatever.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Clearskies]

I will accept any apology from a Carlin fan.
no bad.

reply to post by seagrass

---

All sorted then.

Cool as cats
These blooming heated discussions eh?

reply to post by Clearskies

---

What are you talking about? I was trying to help out and clarify what this is all about.

It is nothing new; it is just being strictly enforced now.

I don't see the source for all the confusion and misunderstanding of this topic.

That is actually the Problem with Censorship and Hate speech Laws. They Punish things which are illegal anyways, violence is already illegal under Law. So what then, if anything do such Laws protect, if not the views and the agendas of those whose media are it's protectors?
It is patentendly impossible to discuss both sides of a specific debate upon whose protected shoulders refuge under these Laws take. If the issue is the person, entity, individual, or group, and the actions of that group cause one to feel strong emotion and there words though not direct have no feeling at all, but, are construed by the censoring beholder, then how can the world ever hope to understand the true nature of their fellow man. If the man from KKK spouts his propaganda, what then about all other categories, like Global Warming, Evolution. And if we cannot use vague references to which we are accustomed can we be certain, it will be know by the majority of what we speak?
for instance if I say that all our wars are the fault of the Welf's-- I have potentially, hatefully, incited untruth's about the Welf's, yet, who would even know who they are? Would they know about the European War, and the battling Prince's, or the Pope, see, religion is now involved to the side of the dissent, who sided with the German Prince Welf (oops, now it's going to offend the KKK, or the Nazi's, or the National Socialist's, perhap's I may even be thought a Semite, and bring's Ant- Semitist's into the mix, if I suggest that their people, historically might have sided with the Prince to create the International Banking System Cartel we suffer (oops, that could also be hateful, depending who you ask, or, what the Censor's (oops hatefully, grouping again) think. this implies I may not agree with them, and, if I say as much, then, it could be implied as innuendo to incite an active retort-- which could be read as violent acts.
And the Danger still, legal or offensive, if I referred to the Black Nobility, would, I be supporting or dissenting another's race, what arbitrary position would the people or censors take. Never mind that maybe some will recognize that the Black Nobility are the European Party of the German Prince Welf, who, last I checked, was not black himself.
I'd prefer to hear that someone hated some one or thing and why, that way I could better understand, and, they gain the healthful benefit of venting. Then maybe we could resolve the core of their hateful issue. I would never suppress emotion. There are already enough Laws governing actions.
And I would prefer to hear all the oppositions have to say. I hate myself, from time to time. Like, I hate hearing all about Semitic points of view, while, Anti Semitism is targeted for censure. I hate anyside who censors the under, pretending to be fair, when really, they saw, or heard, or read, something that they did not want to read, see, or hear.

BTS is light-hearted and all,
but ATS is for more controversial subjects.
I, personally have not seen many racist remarks. Maybe I'm not looking hard?
Anyway, I just hope the 'subtle' in this thread doesn't mean we're in for crazy policies!

It doesn't mean you are racist if you disagree with the ideas of a particular race.
How you disagree is the key in this. What form you structure your argument is the basis of ATSs policy here. They will give you plenty of freedom to disagree, but if you push it, you will have consequences to face. simple.

I have noticed that truth is hate to those who hate the truth, and that there are some truths that are taboo.
Some of those truths are becoming more and more taboo.
And...mmm...many are unpopular truths about certain groups.

Kind of like saying that it is taboo to give travelers maps showing where the land mines are. No, I'm not intending to say that people are land mines.

And then there is the situation where a truth is written and the responses are hateful.
I once pointed out that the hair of the negroid races is different from the hair of all other mammals on Earth, in that in cross section it has no core.
Well, following came a volley of accusations of "racist", "bigot", "hate monger"...

I agree that in any discussion there is never a need to add vulgar adjectives.

reply to post by PhyberDragon

---

This is not about censorship or laws.

This is not about political correctness.

This is not about offending someone's delicate sensabilities.

It is about common sense, intelligence, respect, and responsibility.

If you can't argue your position or state your opinion without resorting to insults, hate, and name calling, then you need to find somewhere else to argue. This board is not the place to do it.

Assuming you know the truth is one land mine I see on the map.
Cutting hairs, analyzing hairs is not racist. The hair is a good analogy here in that it is a "fine line" to walk.

This folks really does say it all. You can discuss any topic under the sun, all we're asking, as staff, is that you do with respect for your fellow members.

And the funny thing is, I can recall in a thread quite some time ago where a Mod kinda lost their cool for a second but kept the high road and laid out some old time stereotypes for comedic effect. Now that might sound bad, but it was the context in which they were said that kept it on the high road.

Me being the irreverent person that I am, included a few as well. Several posts were exchanged back and for a while as well as a few conversational U2U's between us.

Taken out of context, these stereotypes would fall under hate speech, I suppose. But in context they most definitely were not. It would be perfectly clear to anyone reading the thread that they were not.

The danger that some are expressing here is that given the large volume of posts per day not every Alert sent by someone with an agenda that a post or idea expressed could be removed when the words reflected by the example were not the case.

Subtle is an operative here as well, a poor turn of a phrase or expression could also be exploited as well. The example of "man up" or perhaps something like "you are such a guy" would fall into these terms of subtlety as well.

Carrol O'Conner was a superb actor, especially talented at pantomime and working a live audience. His best know character is of course Archie Bunker. Very few people understand the subtle poking at bigotry. Fewer still know that O'Conner was far removed from the character of Archie. The accents use by both himself and Jean Stapleton were not their natural accent.

How many would be offended to know that his chair sits in the Smithsonian? How many more would cheer were it removed from public exhibit due to the insensitivity that is perceived by the display as an endorsement by our government of bigotry?

Not many of Carlin's seven words are permitted on ATS. Funny thing is we all seem to like what it is that Carlin has to say about a number of things.

In Clerks 2, there were many references made that would fall under hate speech. Although not very many of them were used in that context.

The staff have asked us to use our heads. It is my faith that they will as well.






[edit on 5-2-2009 by Ahabstar]

Well, let's not cut ATS to the quick: tip-toeing around differences of beliefs and ideas is not part of creative conflict, or life in this world.

I don't like the way bush ran his office, or the usa into the ground.

I like Obama; I wouldn't want his job.

That's safe, right? People will leave this site when they find nothing but marshmellows and watermelons, banality, post after post. I agree no hate: strong dislike, I favor, as long as it's couched in presentable form, and not mere vituperous vitriol (hate).

Let's consider: Good and Evil: it's HOW creation is, well, maintained: it's called resistence, friction.

How do you have an intelligent discussion between two or more parties, and each sitting there, their hands tied, roped down, and they don't know what is permissable to say, without bringing on the whip of subjective interpretation?

For example: I dislike the way the Controllers of humanity have brought the human race to a point of insipidity, and (common term now, y'all), sheeplike behavior? No, I detest their policies, and the inane response from the sheep they rule.

Speaking of insipid, is this what is to become of ATS?

A close eye, a timely u2u warning from a mod, or editing, is also a good approach to 'middle of the road' infringements ("I detest melchizedeks, christians"). I dislike christians, and all religions; I detest the melchizedeks.

Yes, I have feelings for republicans and democrats, terrorists, and brave protectors of the helpless (woman, children, crippled, &c). So now our freedom of speech is curtailed on a site because a strong feeling may be misconstrued as hate?

I think a warning for the greyzone is appropriate, rather than just post ban or outright banning. I'd hate (?) to see some intelligent posters, who got caught in a crossfire, be forced elsewhere over unfair exercising of subjective interpretation, when a warning might cause them to couch their concepts more carefully in the future.

Sure, harsh, blatant behavior will get a slapdown, and rightfully, timefully so. We DO have a 'Grey Area,' don't we? I wonder why????????

Consider.

Any Administrator feedback on this?

reply to post by SS,Naga

---

How, exactly, is your freedom of speech curtailed by not being allowed to spew hateful rhetoric?

You can present a strong argument without resorting to racism, bigotry, name calling, nastiness, insults, degredation, hate, and broad, inflammatory generalizations. If you can't separate hateful speech from strong, critical, intelligent discussion, then that is a problem you need to resolve within yourself.

If you can't, if any of us can't, then the problem is with us....not with this board.

hang on, the OP clearly states........



it seems clear enough to me, this says that certain news articles and disagreement with certain government policies constitutes hate speech on ATS. if thats the policy, fine, your site, but you guys should be honest about it.

the existing T&C are clear, the fuzziness was introduced. i guess it's just a matter of no longer discussing certain subjects, same as prohibition and the christian/athiest debates.

i guess the economic forum will be next, there might be some rich/poor or EU/US conflict that causes issues there.

Exactly.
If you can present a strong argument is what is difficult for some, resorting to the lessor is what people who don't have anything useful to say do to sustain their position. It isn't effective.

reply to post by skeptic1

---

Did you read my post at all? I said "if had had not been presented as a NEW policy, but rather as an old policy that was going to be enforced by x, y, z, actions, there would not have been any confusion in my mind at all."

So apparently all this means is that the mods are going to start enforcing the old policy. Great. No problem.

No offense to you, but I dont need to make YOU happy and follow your T&C, I need to understand and follow theirs. Including any new changes they make. I have read the original T&C, this was presented as an amendment. If it hadnt been, I would not have been concerned at all.

Individual people (members and some not even members) offering their opinion what the OP meant was little help at all. Because for as many different posters as their were, there were that many different interpretations of what "subtle" meant. Some didnt even get "subtle" at all, they were just saying outrageous violations.

The only thing "obvious" that should be "plain" "clear" is that it was apparently very difficult to give a clear and easy description of what constitutes "subtle" hate speech. Even among the mods. The closest we got was "dont generalize to whole groups of people." Which was a very good description that Intrepid and yeahright were able to verbalize clearly in the thread. I dont tend to do that anyway, and so if that is an accurate description, then I am fine.





[edit on 5-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by skeptic1

---

I 'luv' people that have all the answers. Never a problem: their way, or you're just wrong. Now, that's ATS! (and almost every other site).

Let's digress from the hope of a response from a competent administrator, shall we, while I address your, uh-hum, personal viewpoint?

As said, the word 'hate' exists, as the opposite (opposed) of love. As said, I said "I'd hate to see an intelligent...etc." That isn't name calling, it's use of the word, and similar strong feelings, like, 'detest.'

If they aren't permitted, that's curtailing freedom of speech.

You can have your opinion: I noticed how you threw 5 or 10 more at me there, while you were downing me a good one, eh? Feel good for you?

"Work it out inside," like, perhaps, the last 7-8 pages of posters should do, who don't comply with your overview? Perhaps careful thought would bring greater understanding to given topics, rather than 'downing' another poster's queries.

I'm beginning to see what Springer and Co. mean...
(didn't even give hate once, and I got told off!).

Try be nice!

[edit on 5-2-2009 by SS,Naga]