ATS and Keeping Polite Company...

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Maxmars

... 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.

I suggest that the distinction you draw between the political and religious is only cosmetic. I have seen political zealotry in my life... there is no difference between the religious, in this context, and the political. This actually serves to bolster your point about tribalism perhaps being genetic.

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.

I have often heard the application of "anonymity" to this context. However, I can only see that being true insofar as the "post and run" class of internet user.

You and I know that if 'true anonymity' were ever achievable, it would never survive the internet.

Not that it is realistic to dwell on, the truth is, almost no one on-line could ever "guarantee" anonymity. So I accept anonymity as an excuse, not a reason. People who contribute and discuss on ATS, at least reasonably can be assumed to want to continue to post here. The counter pressure to behave in a socially acceptable manner counters the faux-anonymity aspect quite well. I will grant there are those who simply don't care, but wouldn't count us fortunate to have them as members anyway.

A person proudly revealing bias has their own issues to deal with, and believe me they all will... base hostile bias even more so.

Respectfully, I would add that cynicism is not always uncalled for. But only you can discern when it is and isn't appropriate for you.

a reply to: Maxmars

It is just annoying to me personally when you make a post and someone comments with political rhetoric that has nothing whatsoever to do with the post topic, like for example i made a post awhile ago in general conspiracies titled "eerie deaths of 17 women baffle miami." It was about the war on drugs propaganda from the 80s and 90s. The first comment was someone saying that they changed the definition of women and maybe they weren't women because being a woman is confusing in the US. Like I wanted actual conversation about the hysterical war on drugs messaging that went on and instead the very first comment was political rhetoric, which then someone responded to and ironically that comment with the rhetoric having nothing to do with the topic at all I believe got more stars than any other comment on the thread. Why is that?

a reply to: Antimony

That is disappointing. I would also feel somewhat discouraged by that.

There are a couple of ways to look at it though, none of them good.

I find it often akin to disrespect when someone denies your conversation without so much as an explanation. Not good.

I think this is bleed from other 'hot' talking point which get injected into the public dialogue, it haunts the poster, and it appears in your thread as it would any other persons thread... you just provided them with an opportunity to bring up "women" in an ostensibly 'clever' context... even if you and I don't see it that way. Still not good.

But as for the "stars".... that's a problem for me. I usually think of stars as an indicator that someone read the post. Not much more than that. I can take comfort in the sense that I feel my thread was used to further the conversation, even if it was not necessarily 'to me.'

I don't like presuming that stars mean someone "liked" my post because I could never be certain that was the case. But they certainly do indicate that someone read it.

a reply to: Maxmars

Thanks for your reply. I had hoped that ATS could reclaim it's glory days and in the past I would have paid to play but that isn't the case now. It's evident to me the direction ATS will take with the new people at the helm and I don't trust them to change anything and infact, make it more unpalatable and toxic to real and civil discourse. If I'm wrong, I will gladly eat my words...time will tell.

I truly appreciate your efforts!

a reply to: stevieray

I know there are some accounts that made or make a game out of trying to provoke people into popping off and getting banned. I've seen it happen to a few who added value when they weren't angry.

I've been targeted once or twice in that game, but I don't play.

a reply to: Antimony

That might have been me, and if it was, I am sorry. I was likely feeling salty that day because of something else having to do with that topic. It does tend to piss me off. I truly don't care about what some people want to do with themselves ... until they start telling me what I have to do with myself for their personal happiness.

a reply to: Maxmars

Very well said!

Personally, I think much of what we perceive as incivility is just the frustration of not being heard or validated in some way. Rarely do I see any kind of discourse begin with hostility though it can easily end that way. I think this is compounded by the belief, factual or otherwise, that we are right and have proven it even though the opposing side is still trying to argue a point proven moot.

When do you abandon a position you truly believe to be correct? I have reached the limits of my patience with people and ended my participation with the idea that no amount of discourse is going to open their eyes to the truth. I have returned to that thread some time later to find they have responded with something along the lines of, "See? You cant answer because you know I'm right." No, I stopped answering you because talking to you is like banging my head on a rock - the rock doesn't learn anything, but I do...

originally posted by: Maxmars

The T&Cs are requirements of participation... we "get" to "speak" within that framework here ... and yet some seems to characterize it as a "yoke"... they rail against it as a 'limitation' or a suppression of speech... and I can't help but feel this is illogical.

It IS illogical, but I think that comes from an imperfect understanding of "rights" on the part of quite a number of individuals these days. Along with every right one has, there is a corresponding responsibility to not abuse that right by intruding on the rights of others, which they have as well as we do.

For example, the right to "keep and bear arms" carries the corresponding responsibility to not infringe needlessly on the right of another to life. Just because we have a right to be armed, that does not mean we have the right to end someone else "just because". They have to be threatening us with imminent death before we can use that right in response, as a defensive measure, because they have rights too, just as we do.

The right to free speech carries with it the responsibility to not trash the bearer of an alternate opinion, just because they have an alternate opinion. Ad hominems are not a "right" just because free speech IS a right. On the contrary, an attack on the person rather than on their idea is a tacit admission that the attacker is all out of ammo - all out of counter arguments that would counter the idea being postulated., and his or her "free speech" is coming up short in the exchange. It's the last resort of the desperate, and that should clue them in right there that their argument is too weak to bear scrutiny, and the "other" might just be right in that case.

BUT - people will still go onward, like a mad woman slinging # with a sock, and that is a strong indication that they have already lost their argument. It's entertaining for some, but off-putting for others - they are able to see that the speaker has already lost, and cannot fathom why they continue to make asses of themselves by stooping to the level of attacking their opponent's person. They can SEE, clearly, that it's because the attacker is all out of logical argument at that point.

So, yeah, it's the epitome of illogical action.

It is ALSO the epitome of "running on pure emotion", the absolute absence of logic.

.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: JinMI

Free speech is like a the fruit Ackee. When ripe and prepared correctly, it has a creamy buttery, mild taste. If not truly matured and properly prepared, it will make you sick and possibly cause death.

Free speech does not mean you can say the vilest thing that you can think of and not expect for it to come without a cost.

That's exactly right. There is always a cost to exercising rights, sometimes higher and sometimes lower, according to the level of offense. When one exercises their rights, but ignores their responsibilities, then They have to be brought back to Earth Saying vile things just for the sake of saying vile things generally has a fairly high tariff, in whatever world one circulates in. If authority doesn't come crashing down upon the speaker, then very often karma will handle it in the form of the community - assuming the community has not been corrupted.

The best thing to do, I think, is to exercise responsibility along with exercised rights - the cost is a lot lower then, and the speech is far more effective.

.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Antimony

That might have been me, and if it was, I am sorry. I was likely feeling salty that day because of something else having to do with that topic. It does tend to piss me off. I truly don't care about what some people want to do with themselves ... until they start telling me what I have to do with myself for their personal happiness.

It was not you. I know I get pissed at certain topics too. It is just disheartening to have your thread almost derailed by comments that have nothing to do with the topic of the post.

originally posted by: nenothtu

It IS illogical, but I think that comes from an imperfect understanding of "rights" on the part of quite a number of individuals these days. Along with every right one has, there is a corresponding responsibility to not abuse that right by intruding on the rights of others, which they have as well as we do.

Well, I suppose we all have to accept that emotionalism and illogic are part and parcel of human communications. And it seems that such a hurdle is worthwhile to overcome. All I can do about it myself, is try. I'm willing. Because when it works, it's stellar.

Furthermore, members are like you and I, people. People grow accustomed to a certain social environment, often adopting the culture and conduct of their surroundings, bringing that custom forward in their travels. Many members have come here from other sites with other cultures embedded within them. There's the now infamous woke culture, with its endless devotion to 'virtue signals' and emphatic nods to coddling inclusion, the free-for all culture, with it's punch and glory, the "post and run" culture, with its psychotic randomness, and so on. etc.

ATS remains different. I would like to see it remain so.

I place 'responsibility' along side 'freedom' because its evaluation and measure are expectation-based. Both demand a measure of self-sacrifice, and a degree of cooperation. And saliently,, both demand harmony to exist. I often find myself perplexed when I discover that I have entered a conversation with someone who does not respect any thoughts but their own.

My expectation is that of all the conversations I might pursue at ATS, I choose to have a real conversation, you know... with answers, comments, interjections, objections, explanations, maybe some odd humor and grace, and maybe even a bit of knowledge and creative human interactions.

That expectation is my responsibility, and I am free to speak of it, honor it, and hold it as true.

Thanks for your post.

a reply to: Maxmars

Hello ATS and dear Maxmars!
I want to support you in your thread.
In my opinion, the standards of tolerance artificially imposed on all of us not only harm social and just interpersonal communication, they are fraught with the tendency to destroy all the freedoms that God has given humanity. They are perverted, then introduced into the norm, and then repressions are introduced for violations of artificially introduced rules.
It is in our power to resist this and protect the natural Freedom given to all of us by birthright.
Thanks for the thread.

Unfortunately, I can't log in to the forum, as I used to go through my YouTube profile before, but the rules of the game, which is typical for the USA, have suddenly changed. Therefore, my nickname is now with the number 1 at the end.

a reply to: RussianTroll1

check your PMs

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Greetings!
I have repeatedly tried to log in to the ATS through my YouTube profile. But every time I opened a form in which it was written that identification through social networks on the ATS was temporarily suspended. (((

a reply to: RussianTroll1

check your messages please

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

OK! Got you

So...is the Mud Pit gone for good?

a reply to: Erno86

You can still access it through the Recent tab.

a reply to: Erno86

As Augustus said, it's still there. I also see posts in the new topics page...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And here is the direct link to the forum...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Erno86

You can save it to your favorites and access it through myATS also.