ATS Decorum for members and moderators : May 2023

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nenothtu

So you're ok with speech, any speech, even speech that violates the rights of another (calls for their death, for example), because we can "walk away" at the end of the violating speech? That seems to me to be a pretty flimsy framework to support a civilization on, but then again, as I've previously mentioned, civilization ain't what it used to be.

We've laws against that, so that is by definition not lawful speech.

"Free speech", in your conception, is being able to say any thing, any where, any time, because people could just walk away when you are finished speaking?

Lawful speech, yes.

Well, I think we are done here then. I simply cannot compete with goalposts in motion like that - two rules expanded to "whatever else is lawful", and "free speech" conflated with "only lawful speech",

"Lawful" would imply to me a framework of rules, which is all I've been saying is needed.

Thanks for the civilized debate.

.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nenothtu

So you're ok with speech, any speech, even speech that violates the rights of another (calls for their death, for example), because we can "walk away" at the end of the violating speech? That seems to me to be a pretty flimsy framework to support a civilization on, but then again, as I've previously mentioned, civilization ain't what it used to be.

We've laws against that, so that is by definition not lawful speech.

"Free speech", in your conception, is being able to say any thing, any where, any time, because people could just walk away when you are finished speaking?

Lawful speech, yes.

Well, I think we are done here then. I simply cannot compete with goalposts in motion like that - two rules expanded to "whatever else is lawful", and "free speech" conflated with "only lawful speech",

Thanks for the civilized debate.

.

There was no moving of the goalposts.

My first response to you:

I understand the notion of consequences that arrive from free speech.

"You cant yell fire in a crowded theater."
"You cant incite violence."

I offer, what if the theater is on fire?
What if the incitement is political or a politician?

These arguments can be made.

My point however that if the consequence is censorship, how can a platform possibly be 100 percent free speech?

(No, I dont remember you, apologies.)

Unlawful speech exists.

In that same spirit the phrase "my rights end where yours begin."

These precedents have existed for well over 100 years.

Link

Honest question: Does taking away the mud pit change what people can post and have an opinion on (take away free expression) or just change the way people can express that opinion?

Sorta brings it more in line with the expected decorum of a protected public protest, in my opinion. Unless, I missing something...

Example:

If I was super-fundimentalist, I can put on a sandwich board and go to a public place outside of a Satanic LGBT Drag Festival and All Ages Rave and pick the most condemning passages from the bible and yell them through a megaphone. All day long scream passages about chastity and moral righteousness, about Satan decieving and destroying society. I Can even add my own thoughts paralleling the scripture. That is acceptable free speech as long as it stays impersonal and non-profane.

But as soon as I say, "You, taking your child. You're what's wrong with the country! You are a sick and depraved piece of trash that's abusing your child. I hope you burn in hell you sodomite abomination!"

Now you're breaking 1st amendment decorum. It's not entitled free religious expression, it's verbal assault trampling another's rights.

Verbal assault can include the act of harassing, labeling, insulting, scolding, rebuking, or excessive yelling towards an individual.

Same thing if I start swearing.

Yeah, it's his free speech to demean and condemn everyone that passes him. But it's not protected free speech as soon as it devolves into personalized condemnation and belittlement.

That's the line I think this move aims to keep people on the constitutionally protected side of.

a reply to: Degradation33

I've posed this question to people before but have never received an answer so I pose this question to you in the spirit of conversation. Have you ever changed your mind because someone was yelling at your or calling you names? I haven't. That's what drove me completely away from Christianity and all religions. I'm kind of a paradox, lean right but still in the middle, I'm repelled by the left but also equally repelled by the religious right, Have you ever seen that episode of wife swap (or whatever that show is called) where they have the new age family switch with the crazy christian lady?? The family loved the new age chill vibe the mother brought to the uber religuous household and the pagan family was welcoming and even went to church with the uber christian lady. At the end of the show she starts yelling like she's demon possessed and her family is just looking at her in shock comparing and contrasting in their minds.

If I was a third person observer without any belief system i would definitely gravitate towards the loving calm energy rather than the screaming "you're going to hell"/

However, I admit, when it comes to children then I can understand how the passion comes out because that is really messed up to expose children to the lgbt BS.

Anyway "circling back" lol... have you ever changed your mind because someone was screaming at you? I guess I kind of did when someone was yelling "911 was an inside job purported by the globalists to bring in a New World Order".. but that was the only time it's ever worked on me and I was like 21 years old, I felt like something was seriously wrong and this one particular radio show host was resonating at the frequency I was feeling at the time. But it didn't last long until I moved along to something less "in your face" and more "higher vibration".

What do you think?

a reply to: Darko

When in the "why the hell are you yelling at me?" context, I tend to channel the inner Gene Wilder. "You should open your mouth a little wider when you talk!" When it's some random insight they want to scream at me until they convince me about it weakens their position.

Makes me just want to shut them down with, "Why are you trying so hard to convince me? My opinion is irrelevant and you shouldn't need me to cosign the position to hold it yourself. And when you go so over-the-top it comes off as you trying to convince me. So why are you trying so hard to convince me?"

I guess I have a natural reaction to pull further away from anyone that gets louder until I agree.

a reply to: Guyfriday

So are you saying that the moderation of the Mudpit became too overwhelming for the moderators and so since there was enough complaints that gave them the excuse to "lighten their workload"?

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Darko

When in the "why the hell are you yelling at me?" context, tend to channel the inner Gene Wilder. "You should open your mouth a little wider when you talk!" When it's some random insight they want to scream at me until they convince me about it weakens their position.

Makes me just want to shut them down with, "Why are you trying so hard to convince me? My opinion is irrelevant and you shouldn't need me to cosign the position to hold it yourself. And when you go so over-the-top it comes off as you trying to convince me. So why ate you trying to convince me?

I guess I have a natural reaction to pull further away from anyone that gets louder until I agree.

I agree with you 100%

I see Jin's points and I understand the need for civility within his points become a fine line in practice.

I would say that having a set of rules we all play by in the normal threads is for those who cannot stomach a verbal argument. I find it easy to not go in there if I am not into that stuff, yet some of the posters come in to the mudpit just to whine about the mud pit being uncivil and not representing ATS. They are wrong, it does represent ATS's ability to separate the mud slinging old timey comedian style in the mudpit from the civil discussions. I say bring back the mud pit and let it roll like you were about to do. The people who don't like it should stay out of it and be happy they did. The people who feel they need a platform to let it out like they see it can go there.

The mudpit is/was the last bastion of actual free speech and it was partially censored. I do agree with the go after the ball and not the ball carrier as a reason to prevent thread drift. It also dials back the lack of civility.

Some people need calling out for not being factual when they claim to be the facts like how Fauci said he is the Science, and those types tend to get their feelings hurt. Well, stay out of the mudpit if you are afraid for your feelings would be a smart idea. I

I love ATS and will play by the rules as best as I can. If it happens I miss the mark, I expect to be treated as others who did also with no bitterness. I will do better next time.

a reply to: EternalShadow

yea, I'm not going to get dragged further into this. I stated what I meant, and I never said any of that. The Mods here do a great job here, and I believe that the Mud-Pit was unnecessary due to it being redundant.

a reply to: Darko

I feel ya.

I used to tell folks that I was just to the Right of Attila the Hun... but then the "Far Rght" went bat# crazy, and lost their ability to speak coherently. The "far left" was already there, and had been for years... So I was left wondering just where in the hell I actually WAS.

I dunno, man. I hate the notion of being "Centrist", but here I am. I test out as a Libertarian, but that doesn't quite cover it, either.

I'm wondering if the "left-Right" paradigm has been broken. I just don't see that much difference in their Authoritarian stances any more.

.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: EternalShadow

yea, I'm not going to get dragged further into this. I stated what I meant, and I never said any of that. The Mods here do a great job here, and I believe that the Mud-Pit was unnecessary due to it being redundant.

Ok, but I am lost on the redundant part?

a reply to: Justoneman

I stated earlier in this thread:

It was kind of redundant as of posting board really. We had/have those election boards, a board for breaking political news, another one for political madness, and even 5 whole boards in the Political Forum to post in.

The Mud-Pit really didn't foster anything that wasn't already covered by a different board or forum.

a reply to: Degradation33

Great points. Free speech isn't the right to attack individuals and since this is the internet there's very little blowback for people more than willing to attack others.

Acting like that doesn't get anyone far in life, it's been a long time since the biggest can simply take what they want since we've invented equalisers such as laws, rights or even guns. The issue for me is the internet does bleed over into real life and then back again, we're spiraling backwards.

Using the US Constitution is a great way to drive the point home. If we fail to use the 1st effectively we're going to resort to the 2nd. Isn't that the direction things are heading?

Getting back to the basics is great imo. Their was always free speech at ATS it's just some comments deserve slapping down. Irl that slap down is usually a lot worse than a virtual ban or a post removed.

a reply to: ats admin

Thank you all for your dedication to making and keeping this community for us! Thank you all for all that you do. And, thank you for pulling the MUD PIT. It was a scourge on this site.

It's nice to see so much info, threads and input from the new administrators, so many old members coming back around and it always feels like home when Sceptic Overlord pops in!

ATS has been a daily ritual for me for years, and it's good to know that there is "Pride in Ownership" on display with the new owners!

Thanks again!

originally posted by: Darko
What I find the most interesting is that people are upset with the staff but no one's upset with the people who got the mud-pit pulled in the first place? All of this happened because a handful of people kept whining about the mud pit not being on the front page. In fact, I was in the process of adding a 100% moderator-free forum where people can click on a button and gain access and no mods what so ever.. but there were about 5 people whining about the fact that it wasn't on the front page, so, they decided to do like building 7 and just "pull it".

Complain to the people who got it pulled...

...which adds to the fact, that not much has changed at all.

I'm flabbergasted how quick people jumped to their freedom of expression while the actual problem seems to revolve around it's perception, and the emotional baggage that happens to come with those honest exchanges. And no amount of projection is going to change this lack of a true community effort in coming to terms with our differences.

a reply to: Insurrectile
It appears they don’t understand.
Even at this late date.
Worse, they don’t want to.

a reply to: ats admin

Just don't become like Reddit. Keep the bots and shills away, keep ATS like it has been which was almost completely problem free.

a reply to: ats admin

100% Sensible in light of things like the U.S. R.e.s.t.r.i.c.t. Act and other #1A squints online.
I am really looking forward to ATS having a 24/7 live stream radio aspect of this caliber.
I do not use this lightly: Godspeed.