ATS and Keeping Polite Company...

a reply to: RonnieJersey

What I find great too is that here if we get upset, some members can help us out. Happens everytime.

"Hey! Youre theory's flawed but...heres what you can read..."! Its great. Always learning. Positive and negative.

Best

This place is certainly, unequivocally a place of deep and firey passions. Guess what?
It's one of the things I love about this place.
I can get info from books.
You all bring your fire into the info. That's what makes this place special. It is the minds behind the words. You can see great wisdom here. And knowledge beyond knowledge wrapped up with insight into insight.
We discuss things here that, yeah, just can't be discussed anywhere else because of feelz. I have seen people tear into each other in one thread and the best of friends in another.

That's class, ATS!
There is good company up in here.
I have also seen the power of respect, humility, sincerity, manners, and compassion on here...

So, I bring my fire to this table as well. ..
And glad to know many of you already. I have very much enjoyed my time here. The proof is in the pudding.

I have discovered that there is something of value here that simply cannot be found anywhere else ... you.

I would wager that of all "the other places" where we might have encountered one another ...

... this conversation could NEVER have happened ...

That's worth keeping for me... and I hope for you all too.

a reply to: Maxmars

It's because most people have not self=analyzed themselves and still go about life in a reactionary state, it's sad. We are delayed in our intellect when our technological is light-years beyond us. Paradox.

An important way to cut down on emotional overflow is to utilize existing threads that have similar topic content, to post new issues. Everyone jumps to create a new thread on topics that have been here for years.

Doing this creates a great history for the way ideas morph over the months and years and bring way more people into the discussion as well as helping to evaluate the effect of current input on older ideas.

a reply to: Maxmars

The blessing & curse of online discussion is that it takes away the need for sugar-coating the meaning away.
I'm for sure one of the most obnoxious people here on ATS. But I don't hold grudges against anybody.
In the one encounter I might call you all kinds of names, in the next I might be really impressed and learn sthg from you.
Because people are multifaceted and I can appreciate that.


I think how we engage here is on the one hand less social dance and self-presentation on the other that's exactly what makes it better, the unmasked raw 'internal truth of the moment'.
It's not always pretty, but more interesting. And I'd rather have you people call me names and challenge me to clear up my stance, than having to read through nothing but polite empty phrases.

No matter how mean I for sure sometimes am I really do appreciate all of you.

originally posted by: charlyv
An important way to cut down on emotional overflow is to utilize existing threads that have similar topic content, to post new issues. Everyone jumps to create a new thread on topics that have been here for years.

Doing this creates a great history for the way ideas morph over the months and years and bring way more people into the discussion as well as helping to evaluate the effect of current input on older ideas.

That's a really interesting approach. You may have identified a real important idea that many take for granted about how we should "self-curate" our collective thoughts and discoveries. It would be difficult to put into practice for the sake of people who want 'instant information'... and even I get that way from time to time.

I suppose we would have to create a new way to index conversations, or enable the smooth merging of existing conversations... in the case of ATS that would be something to achieve... some of our discussions - looked at from that perspective - are far ranging and very long standing... noice!

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Maxmars

The blessing & curse of online discussion is that it takes away the need for sugar-coating the meaning away.
I'm for sure one of the most obnoxious people here on ATS. But I don't hold grudges against anybody.
In the one encounter I might call you all kinds of names, in the next I might be really impressed and learn sthg from you.
Because people are multifaceted and I can appreciate that.


I think how we engage here is on the one hand less social dance and self-presentation on the other that's exactly what makes it better, the unmasked raw 'internal truth of the moment'.
It's not always pretty, but more interesting. And I'd rather have you people call me names and challenge me to clear up my stance, than having to read through nothing but polite empty phrases.

No matter how mean I for sure sometimes am I really do appreciate all of you.

First off, we want you here with us.

I've said elsewhere and will risk repeating here.. no one (as in not a single member) can always avoid a misunderstanding, or a passionate flub. Sometimes our own language choices can defeat all our good or even neutral intentions.

I am one of those who likes the challenge of not resorting to names and prodding to make my point (assuming I have one.) But ultimately what matters is the sum of the conversation, not its' parts. It helps to have a common objective... and usually that common objective is not to have one of the participants be rendered humiliated or injured.

As long as we can work together there's hope... I only ask of others what I am willing to give. And frankly, I don't mind sugar coating a thing or two... I have a sweet tooth after all. (I can be obnoxious too... but I'd rather not... it kind of shames me to go back and read such things, but that's just me.)

Politics ideology and religion are being used as tools for control of the elite.

They have paid - either directly or indirectly - people to act hostile towards opposing views.

The system is set-up to create hostility and a fear of discussion. It really doesn't matter what the topic is - they will pick any issue.

It's not the issue but the divide it creates.

When was the last time people read something like... I agree with these three points but I disagree with these...

What people do today is pick snippets of a post and attack that. I see people pick one line in a post of mine that has 4 paragraphs and just reply to that one line which wasn't even a main point. People also cannot see both sides of a debate and I think it is more of a contest for them to "win" than to have an honest dialog. Due to all this, it seems people get upset quicker than just discussing a topic as they want to win and so it gets personal for them and not just maybe learn something new or adjust their perceptions.

a reply to: Maxmars

As if it was an actual component of the argument. I can;t imagine where that idea actually comes from - if not 'political theater' and I'm not sure if the important observation there is that it s "political" thing, or perhaps more a "theater" thing...

"Political theater" -- I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes. That's what it is. It doesn't contribute anything to further understand or resolve the matter at hand. It doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable or wiser on the matter. It doesn't foster greater cooperation or coordination. It simply widens the divide and creates more hard feelings and more obstacles to overcome.

But it does serve the "masters". Those who can't afford for the people to unite and stand strong together. The people do the dirty work for them.

a reply to: Maxmars

You have made some good points and there are indeed some topics that people would rather not introduce to every gathering. Of course religion and politics are the two biggies. That is because they both, in their own way, represent something very important to most people.

You mentioned

Religion in the US has several characteristics that are often unaddressed. The US social order has been predominantly influenced as Christian; but the US also made a strong stand to systematically separate that from government. The US is also young. These elements lead to a social order that needed to be forever reaffirmed to Christians, in Christian terms... enter the potential perception of disparity.

Yes, it does need to be reaffirmed. But that is because no other religion has undergone such blatant attacks in this country. A muslim can throw down a rug and pray anywhere at any time and no one dares to say a single word. Yet a high school girl was sent home from a public school and disciplined for silently praying to herself. The person who complained said it "looked like she was praying". You cant have a Christian club at a public school, but you can have a wicken club... The disparity is not in having to reaffirm religion for Christians, its censoring one nearly out of existence and allowing other to run wild and free.

Broad stroking is only correct a percentage of the time but there are some things that can be broad stroked with little argument. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in general its not wrong to broad stroke some things. This is almost always met, however, with vehement and often derogatory resistance. For example, atheists, vegans, and gay people have to tell everyone they meet who and what they are. Of course that does not apply to absolutely every single person, but we have likely all experienced that event from the people in question. Alternatively, I have never felt the need to introduce myself as a Christian heterosexual omnivore. Unless the topic of conversation is religion, sexual preference, or dietary habits, no one needs to know those things and including them is just baiting people.

Civility in the company of stupidity is going to clash at some point. We take Christian religion out of schools but let other religions proliferate. Something bad happens, a student is killed. We all hold hands and pray together. That would be a criminal offense before the horrific event. But after, well its obviously the right thing to do. No one dares to suggest that if we had been allowed to do that before the event occurred, it may not have happened at all.

If you make that observation it is likely someone will respond by saying something like, "Some people need to educate themselves and not humiliate themselves publicly." In a nut shell that person just called the other person uneducated (dumb) and foolish. "Remove thy cranial computer from they rectal orifice" is acceptable but "Get your head out of your a$$" is not? You can gift wrap an insult, but its still an insult. Either its ok or it isn't. More disparity.

Some people keep saying that the mud-pit is the most popular area. The mud-pit is the most active, blah, blah, and then saying that people are leaving the site if the mud-pit is gone. But I have an alternate thought, which is how I really feel. What if all the good posters left BECAUSE of the mud-pit and attitudes seeping over already and the site got way too politicized due to their absence and the absence of substantive threads on interesting topics like UFOs, actual conspiracy theories, cryptids.

originally posted by: Antimony
Some people keep saying that the mud-pit is the most popular area. The mud-pit is the most active, blah, blah, and then saying that people are leaving the site if the mud-pit is gone. But I have an alternate thought, which is how I really feel. What if all the good posters left BECAUSE of the mud-pit and attitudes seeping over already and the site got way too politicized due to their absence and the absence of substantive threads on interesting topics like UFOs, actual conspiracy theories, cryptids.

It would be fascinating to see some of you put names to the “wonderful people who left”. I know we shy away from names, but if they’re gone why not ?
I remember some guys that I don’t see anymore ……. Can’t imagine that they’re missed. Or maybe they just have new names. I see some of you insiders make note of that also. Now that would be fun discussion.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Maxmars

... It doesn't contribute anything to further understand or resolve the matter at hand. It doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable or wiser on the matter. It doesn't foster greater cooperation or coordination. It simply widens the divide and creates more hard feelings and more obstacles to overcome.

But it does serve the "masters". Those who can't afford for the people to unite and stand strong together. The people do the dirty work for them.

I congratulate you on making me respond. I try not to clutter the threads I create with input from me, where what I really wanted was input from you. But your comment furthered my consideration of this aspect of the matter (namely, 'ATS and Keeping Polite Company.')

If we grant that many who converse here seem to behave often as if you simply 'must' diminish their counterparts' credulity, respectability, and or validity, I would ask "why?" The "why" of it would necessarily tell us something which must be included in any evaluation of the conversation (assuming we wanted to 'pick a side' or 'be convinced of who is right and who is wrong.')

But that's kind of a presumptuous, yes? Maybe I don't want to pick a side, I just don't care, or I don't really appreciate why it matters either way. Or maybe I have a side, in which case as long as the 'side I am on' prevails, it can get dirty as long as ... I (vicariously) win (the notional conflict.) Could it be a 'tribal' thing? All about tribal sides, or prideful detachment from whatever 'tribal sides'?

It seems that the practice of crapping all over the other side doesn't really serve to make one side more attractive than the other. It's not like people seek the most acerbic, witty, viscerally entertaining "side" for that reason alone... or perhaps they don't recognize that they possibly do?

Since such exchanges are frequently most entertaining to observe, especially when executed by skilled orators, they call attention to themselves. In this virtual world of measured clicks and attention metrics, that presents an exploitable opportunity... this is what "the market" values. Since the entire construct of our social interactions (specially on the internet) are framed around a "marketplace," it stands to reason the "divide" is desirable...

Perhaps the "divide" of which you speak is more affected by that framework than we would like to admit. Perhaps the "masters" to which you refer are the part of us collectively that forms the "market" through our behavior and social policy...

"I blame myself." said Igon; and Venkman agreed, ... "I blame you too."

Well.. that's enough of me prattling for now...

Thanks, sincerely.

You've given me quite a bit to ponder as well. Thank you!



a reply to: Maxmars

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Maxmars

Oh, thank you so much for your post.

I hear you. There is much there to think on.

Our species is not enlightened... it's a moving target, so I suppose we never will be, but I can live with that as a horizon upon which to fix my gaze.

Truthfully, it has become my understanding that many or most of our contentions regarding religious groups and their collective infelicities are specious. It's all a matter of circumstance, (and most rarely self-inflicted and/or dogmatically-derived posturing.)

If one religion dominates the public dialog, the others are "oppressed." If one race outnumbers all others in a nation, the others are "oppressed." If one set of voices are not heard in the public sphere, they are "oppressed." Now, in a world where "public virtue signaling" has become a useful artifact of communications, people use the "oppression" trope to amplify their visibility... all in the name of [insert warm-fuzzy pablum here.]

Its' telling that the most powerful method of increasing a religious groups' fervor and self-certainty is oppression. The more oppressed, the more zealotry. This has apparently been observed and somehow measured in some academic circles, but the specifics are not known to me. I think, it's not limited to religion, but to some degree, political affiliations and ideological grouping as well... (perhaps this relates to how religion and "politics" often manifest cultish social behaviors.) Enter the deployment of manufactured oppression ... "it's OK to kind of lie, if it's in a good cause..."

This is not to validate the idea that they are oppressed... it's to point out that there is no realistic reason to avoid recognizing that the shoe could just as well be on the other foot. Race, religion, whatever surface categorization we may obsess over doesn't really matter... humans do this to each other ALL the time everywhere ... Or at least we continuously choose to perceive it as such. It even manifests in children... cliques, gangs, to some degree even clubs, and teams.

Its an apparent human obsession to define oneself explicitly. But the definition is in terms that are mostly insubstantial, often even transient. I remember once being asked by someone, in all seriousness, "are you gay?" They were just curious, and I thought hard about the answer (no, I'm not) but given the context of our conversation, and me being a jerk.. I said "Why? Are you coming on to me?" (meant, playfully) And it drove home my prior point, "Why ask, when it can make no difference to anything relevant to me, my job, or what I think?" I find it as intrusive as asking who I voted for, or what party I align with. That really should never be the basis, or even a condition, for a conversation (barring personal considerations.)

Truth is, 'civility' is as subjective a concept as 'freedom of speech' ... I contend it is a matter of 'expectation' and not a definitive 'state of being.' The concept depends on not just one person, but we argue about it as if it were the totality of an individual's reality.

All communication involves risk. Risk to offend, risk to be offended. And somehow it always seems to be reducible to one thing... 'expectations.' These expectations are internal, personal, and to be blunt... baggage brought to the conversation by a single participant. If it were shared baggage there would be no risk, there would be overt effort to compromise, there would be patient tolerance for the vagaries of language and self-expression.

I have heard many exchanges ending in "you're wrong" with no follow-up or explanation, and "your an idiot" or other such denigration... it happens even here, where most of us are more or less committed to actually speaking "to" one another, not "at" one another. Which is to say I think it's not a malignancy, but a "human" thing... missing the mark, and misfiring our volleys may just be how we best learn... assuming we want to learn... (that's a big assumption.)

a reply to: Maxmars

Could it be a 'tribal' thing? All about tribal sides, or prideful detachment from whatever 'tribal sides'?

Yes it could and imo that's exactly why ATS has devolved into competitive mean spiritedness regardless of subject matter.
I think "political theater" is the wrong analogy; more akin to religious zealot cults where tolerance of anything outside the
prescribed protocol is viewed as the enemy. There is evidence that "tribalism" may be more genetic than purely cultural.

The behavior we see on ATS, is a microcosm of real life with the added impetus of anonymity. imo....if racism, homophobia etc. wasn't against the T&C it would be rampant and expressed openly. There's a disturbance in the force! At the risk of getting to metaphysical, I can feel the tension on the street, in groups, and on 1 on 1 exchanges. Perhaps it's just my innate cynicism; I hope so!! Can you feel it?

a reply to: olaru12

I could not agree with you more.

The behavior we see on ATS, is a microcosm of real life with the added impetus of anonymity. imo....if racism, homophobia etc. wasn't against the T&C it would be rampant and expressed openly. There's a disturbance in the force! At the risk of getting to metaphysical, I can feel the tension on the street, in groups, and on 1 on 1 exchanges. Perhaps it's just my innate cynicism; I hope so!! Can you feel it?

This says it all.

originally posted by: Antimony
Some people keep saying that the mud-pit is the most popular area. The mud-pit is the most active, blah, blah, and then saying that people are leaving the site if the mud-pit is gone. But I have an alternate thought, which is how I really feel. What if all the good posters left BECAUSE of the mud-pit and attitudes seeping over already and the site got way too politicized due to their absence and the absence of substantive threads on interesting topics like UFOs, actual conspiracy theories, cryptids.

Grrr... the Mud Pit

Listen, I am going to be very honest with you. I did not want to talk about the Mud Pit. You see as a moderator, the Mud Pit is the domain of ATS management.

I can't really 'speak for' ATS. I'm not some policy-maker of our community. I'm just a moderator, someone who volunteers to help with our collective virtual home; In the sense of 'speaking about ATS' I am about the Terms and Conditions of membership as I understand them... I accepted that form of relationship with ATS as a whole.

Hating to get into that kind of talk (about me) I would ask that you include in your reading of my thoughts, that I am a member, I wasn't born a moderator... and what I think is what I think... so I'm on tough terrain when it comes to the "Mud Pit" forum and all the baggage that comes with it. If I say something you find offensive, it is Maxmars that offends you, NOT ATS.

The Mud Pit... a Haiku (senryū)

Conflict as premise,
Isolate, engage, destroy,
This is a battle.

The concept of the Mud Pit was always sound. It sort of still is. "What the hell do you mean "sort of?" I hear asked.

"Sort of" means that in essence the object of the Mud Pit was well conceived. As I understood it, the need to provide a further opportunity for members to 'get muddy' in political discussions was appropriate in terms of encouraging dialog and exchanges between members. In our stage of communication evolution, information streams from the larger world were changing, and becoming more commonly looked at ... and everyone had their own opinions and wanted to exchange them quickly, getting almost instant feedback from their community. From that perspective it was a 'no-brainer.'

The 'uncivilized' behavior was not unexpected. The evolution of 'uncivilized' behavior could NOT be expected.

So there were rules (aren't there always rules when human interactions are involved?)

The Mud Pit grew... for reasons you might resent my bringing up. It didn't grow, because its' a good thing. It didn't grow because it was "fun." It grew because it became a 'no-holds barred' argument platform which featured brutal characterizations, salacious verbal violence, rampant sloganeering, memery, and insulting and humiliating personal attacks. This is the kind of place where the disagreement is less often resolved (in fact, is it ever?) than it is cast aside for another disagreement.

The Mud Pit breeds the kind of material that comedians and social commentators cannibalize, that other members look to for witty phrases to throw around among friends elsewhere. It as if no one goes there to learn anything more than how to destroy someone on-line.

I liken it to battle rap, except with no rhythm, no art, and no soul.

It's often no more than an exercise in inflicting humiliation and derision... topic notwithstanding.

Imagine starting a thread entitled "Tolerance" in the Mud Pit... then just wait and see what input you get back ... go on... I'll wait.... No.. Don't do that... it would only be an exercise in hateful retorts ranging from the idiocy of expecting them to seriously discuss that, or denigrating your existence as a member... and your lack of intelligence for even trying.

People who find themselves "leaving ATS" because of the lack of that activity likely did not come here "because of the Mud Pit... even if they do stay just for it. If they wish to discard the entire ATS universe, because of that, well...it's their choice. I suspect they will find numerous other places that engage in the kind of 'post and run' content they are looking for. Except one thing.... and it's a big one.

Repeat customers. The Mud Pit allows for "personalities" to be expressed in continuity there. Contenders, I would call them. Everybody wants to be a contender. And here we have long-time presences with whom they can challenge their "strength." Enter the D-Ego. And that D-Ego is the death knell of conversation.

We come here, most of us anyway, not to contend, but to converse.
Contention can be, and often is, part of the conversation.
In the Mud Pit contention IS the stated point.

I prefer my contention to take place in debate... but I don't see all those passionate screamers and yellers of "La la la - I'm not listening to you!" ever DARING to face off in debate.... I wonder why?

It tells me that for them, there is no point other than being free to hurt you verbally... That for all the "importance" of the matter... it doesn't rise to actually discussing it... that it is more important to question the sanity, intelligence, and personal validity of the opposition than it is make a cogent point.

I would have, in a perfect world, that EVERY Mud Pit slug-fest end in...
"I'll see you in the Debate Forum... then we'll see who is right and who is wrong!"

... but no...

Is it too challenging for them, too much work, too much to ask? Or is it feeble cowardice, masquerading behind the flash of wit and meanness? Or is it not important enough to invest the time... but important enough to disrespect anyone who dares to disagree?

Sorry for going on and on.... You sort of popped a cork there....

In defense of the Mud Pit I would have to add that ATS has always been a platform to encourage, house, and share human discourse. Our discourse. NOT human constrained discourse. NOT artificial exchanges with precepts of 'comforting realities' and 'pleasant feelings.' In order for conversations to be real... to feel true... we must be able to express ourselves freely, without some extraneous judgement inflicted on its form and content. For that, you could go anywhere else where moderation is rife with feelings masquerading as robotic policy.

At the time, the Mud Pit was a bold compromise to decorum and manners... an experiment. And as with all human experiments, the boundaries were often crossed recklessly, limits were sorely tested, and in the end, members responded by adjusting to it - even becoming comfortable with it. And most moderators were left grinding their teeth. For many of us (I presume) the T&Cs are very valid, and adequate, and loosening that constraint can create unpleasant difficulties.

The Mud Pit is not really the problem... it's how it is used... people seem to think that they should be encouraged to 'get muddy'... that won't happen from me, at least. I didn't come here just to get muddy. "Muddy" is too easy.

Don't give up on us... ATS is alive... that means change and growth, and even at times, some discomfort.

Like life, it's all part of the deluxe package, I'm afraid.