ATS Decorum for members and moderators : May 2023

originally posted by: JinMI

Ill take your anecdote for arguments sake.

Now, thats 20 years old and arguably a massively different world.

Oh yes, we agree upon that - this is an entirely different world now from what it was then. That's why I live in the woods and rarely ever go into civilization, or what passes for civilization these days, and minimize my interactions with other folks. This is no longer "my" world, the world I grew up in and navigated for many years prior to my "retirement" from society.

I dont think ATS should be 100% a free speech platform.

I simply think the rules should be plain, present and equally enforced.

However I think people should be 100% pro free speech...if that makes sense.

I can live with that. I am curious, however, why the statement of "a 100% free speech platform" became an issue at all in light of that. I think it's still a matter of definitions, and mine may not exactly correspond with yours... but no one is keeping either of us from saying so.

.

a reply to: nenothtu

Oh yes, we agree upon that - this is an entirely different world now from what it was then. That's why I live in the woods and rarely ever go into civilization, or what passes for civilization these days, and minimize my interactions with other folks. This is no longer "my" world, the world I grew up and navigated for many years prior to my "retirement" from society.

We also made our exodus in 2019.

I can live with that. I am curious, however, why the statement of "a 100% free speech platform" became an issue at all in light of that. I think it's still a matter of definitions, and mine may not exactly correspond with yours... but no one is keeping either of us from saying so.

Pedantic stubborness?

It was made as a factual statement and it simply isnt true.

I also said "good, bad or ill."

Free speech is important. Unfettered free speech on a platform comes with a ton of challenges and infrastructure. I understand that.

Moderation, admins, censorship and user removal are part of this platform which eliminates a factual statement of it being 100% free speech.

Thats all Im saying here.

THIS FORUM IS IN MY OPINION ONE OF THE BEST FORMS FOR LETTING PEOPLE SPEAK WHAT'S ON THEIR MIND WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE TRUE FOR THE THE DAY OR TRUE FOR TOMORROW OR EVEN TRUE IN THE PAST.
I LIKE THIS FORUM VERY MUCH.

originally posted by: JinMI

We also made our exodus in 2019.

2019, too. September 10, to be more exact.

Pedantic stubborness?

It was made as a factual statement and it simply isnt true.

I also said "good, bad or ill."

Free speech is important. Unfettered free speech on a platform comes with a ton of challenges and infrastructure. I understand that.

Moderation, admins, censorship and user removal are part of this platform which eliminates a factual statement of it being 100% free speech.

Thats all Im saying here.

I can understand that. I can be pretty pedantically stubborn myself. I just don't believe "free" speech" means "a free-for-all" environment. Any sensible discussion, or even debate, has structure and rules. Otherwise, to my mind, it devolves into something other than actual "free speech", and that's all I'm saying.

.

in regards to the statement:

If the ATS community is truly "ahead of the curve", then you are intelligent enough to delivery your message in a civil and palatable manner that does not give ammunition to CNN, Politifact, Reddit, USA Today or any other propaganda machine to discredit the historical data that is on ATS written by the community over the last two decades.

We all should be aware that this is going to create a level of attention regardless of how we speak to one another. Of course, being civil will cause more problems in trying to force the general tag of "Conspiracy Nut" on us and to the points we present will be harder for the propaganda machine to fight against.

An example of this is what Gore Vidal said back in 1988:
"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return."

At the time not many people seemed to understand what he was talking about, and most people ignored what he was saying due to his literary history and political background and connections. Yet despite all that we see that he was telling us for decades what the Deep State was up to. He even outlined their entire agenda at one point.

Having an environment of discourse and rebuttalment also doesn't mean that wit and humor has to go out the window. It does mean that we should clearly (or attempt to at least) state our positions on a topic while willing to also front evidence to back up those claims if needed.

The functions of these propaganda machines will always be a thorn in our backsides that will hamper or even stop discourse on a topic. As an example, is Comet Ping-Pong and what happened there. A lot can still be presented over that event, but due to it being a very hot topic issue, the event itself is forced into being discussed elsewhere. If the propaganda machine wasn't digging in and attacking any and every person that questioned the narrative that was presented, then many of us wouldn't feel that a target was placed on our heads at the time.

To the point of giving ammunition to the propaganda machine, well I don't think we are giving ammunition to the propaganda machine, but instead they just target anyone that doesn't follow their narrative. Writing in an enriched and elegant manner won't prevent that but will force others to view what we write as being more than just "Conspiracy Theories" written by a bunch of nuts. This will be even more important the more on the forefront we are with disputing the propaganda machine's forced narrative.

a reply to: nenothtu

I remember you.

Or, the account anyway..

a reply to: MykeNukem

Yeah, it's me - older, perhaps wiser, but certainly more sedentary!

.

a reply to: nenothtu

I can understand that. I can be pretty pedantically stubborn myself. I just don't believe "free" speech" means "a free-for-all" environment. Any sensible discussion, or even debate, has structure and rules. Otherwise, to my mind, it devolves into something other than actual "free speech", and that's all I'm saying.

All depends upon the venue and who owns it.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: MykeNukem

Yeah, it's me - older, perhaps wiser, but certainly more sedentary!

.

There's a few more of us off-grid types now.

Glad you're back.

a reply to: JinMI

I think it's fair to say that I set my own rules regardless of the venue or the owner of that venue, and if my own rules comport well with that venue, then all is well, and if they don't, then I'll expect repercussions, and not whine when they hit me.

What the OP said really just boils down to "if you're an adult, act like one, and if your not, then be quiet so the grownups can talk", and I'm ok with that.

.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Thank you!

I dropped out of society, ditched banks and credit cards as useless accouterments and tools of slavery, but I still use electricity and have internet, so there is only so far off the grid I've gone.

I've been thinking of putting a turbine wheel in the creek to generate my own electricity, too, but have so far not been able to come up with a solution for my own internet...

.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: JinMI

I think it's fair to say that I set my own rules regardless of the venue or the owner of that venue, and if my own rules comport well with that venue, then all is well, and if they don't, then I'll expect repercussions.

What the OP said really just boils down to "if you're an adult, act like one, and if your not, then be quiet so the grownups can talk", and I'm ok with that.

.

Problem with your position is that its completely subjective.

Even if I understand and agree, that doesnt allow for dissention.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: JinMI

I think it's fair to say that I set my own rules regardless of the venue or the owner of that venue, and if my own rules comport well with that venue, then all is well, and if they don't, then I'll expect repercussions.

What the OP said really just boils down to "if you're an adult, act like one, and if your not, then be quiet so the grownups can talk", and I'm ok with that.

.

Problem with your position is that its completely subjective.

Even if I understand and agree, that doesnt allow for dissention.

Yup, it's subjective, but not entirely. That part about repercussions if the venue doesn't agree with it makes it somewhat more objective. It's not just me, the venue has a say in it, too.

If you agree, then there is no need for dissension, and if anyone doesn't agree, then it doesn't prevent their dissent. They just have to express their dissent at a level an adult would use is all. If they can't do that, then why would I give a crap what their opinion is? It's obviously not very developed if they have that much trouble civilly articulating it, no?

.

a reply to: nenothtu

Yup, it's subjective, but not entirely. That part about repercussions if the venue doesn't agree with it makes it somewhat more objective. It's not just me, the venue has a say in it, too.

Agreed, and as long as equal application is enforced, its fair

But its still not 100% free speech
.

If you agree, then there is no need for dissension, and if anyone doesn't agree, then it doesn't prevent their dissent. They just have to express their dissent at a level an adult would use is all. If they can't do that, then why would I give a crap what their opinion is? It's obviously not very developed if they have that much trouble civilly articulating it, no?

Again, getting into subjective territory. Not so much your care or indifference, but when censorship is applied

a reply to: JinMI

Ok, perhaps we are getting to the heart of the matter. What is it you are considering "censorship"? Removing posts or threads that are too far off the mark, too close to the mark, or simply "subjective" - removing the post of one user when the post of another that is substantially the same is left there? Or is it something else altogether?

.

a reply to: nenothtu

Any.

Any censorship is in direct opposition to free speech. Having arbiters of speech is in direct opposition to free speech.

Again, my position is that the rules, terms or conditions are not wrong, bad etc. My position that the claim of ATS being a 100% free speech platform, is not true.

a reply to: ats admin

I have been banned by Reddit for inciting hate. My crime? I said that the deep state is trying to weaponize the LGBT community against others and will eventually throw them under the bus and destroy them once they've served their purpose.
So I'm a hater. Hmmm. I've always followed these rules of conduct online. I never try to contact anybody I either agree with or disagree with. I consider that harassment and I'm not going to try to meet anybody if I have no idea who they are. I like my privacy. I have enough crazies stalking me already in the FBI, CIA, JD, LOL. I never insult anybody I disagree with personally. I'll shred their position or beliefs, sure. But they're welcome to shred mine if they can. That's what free speech is. I don't need to run crying to some little Hitler wannabe wanting somebody banned because they made me feel bad. I have NEVER threatened anyone online, not even those in politics or in the media that I despise. I've vilified and insulted them mercilessly , but never some anonymous user in a forum I don't like. Unless its generalized. Saying progressives are fools or morons, that I am guilty of. Maybe that is wrong. I've never said anything racist, at least. And maybe I overstep the bounds of good taste with insults against persons of notoriety I dislike. I was temporarily banned on Reddit for making fun of John Fetterman because by doing so I was being insensitive to the disabled. I've never once reported anybody on any board for saying something I didn't like. I don't need to run crying to the teacher. If this is a playground, I'll handle things on my own. Well, I did once. WAAAYYYY back when AOL had online chats and message boards, one person was monopolizing the boards with multiple online accounts . I reported them. You know, make a post, then log on as someone else and then agree with them. LOL< now AI bots do all that and shills get paid to make posts and push agendas. That's how Reddit survives, faking numbers of members to con companies to buy ad space on it. And on AOL chat rooms I've been the victim of being ganged up on by those who didn't like my views. But bullies suck..... and they know they suck so let them be little sucks.
I just want to say that I value ATS. Its one of the last few bastions of free speech and intelligent conversation and I'm sure its in the crosshairs of fascists to destroy it like they did to Reddit. Or VOAT. I'd be much happier reading you guys make a pledge to resist its destruction by outside forces rather than asking us to moderate our behavior. We're the good guys here, the ones speaking out and not demanding others think like we do. But its your ball and your playing field. If we don't like what you have planned, its our choice to play by your rules or to leave.

a reply to: JinMI

Well, this is where we will have to agree to disagree then. I cannot, for the life of me, find a definition of "free speech" that includes "free-for-all," or "knock down, drag out". It's certainly not to be found in the First Amendment, that the American concept of free speech is founded on.

To the contrary, such devolution of communication is counterproductive, and not "free speech" by any stretch of my imagination. It is, in fact, what my high school English teacher referred to as "just pushing around air, like any ape can do". it does nothing to promote discourse, at all, so, no, this is where we will have to agree to disagree. the world I came from never included brawling, verbal or otherwise, as "free speech".

Maybe it's a good thing we are no longer in my world? We could just throw bones at one another like the apes at the beginning of "2001: A Space Odyssey" nowadays and call it "free speech".

But that won't promote any sort of discussion - it will still be just another brawl.

.