Deny or Sponsor Ignorance?

ATS Warriors,

We are a motley crew, brought together from different worlds, cultures, and mindsets. ATS is not for the faint-hearted or the politically correct. Here we dissect and analyze everything from political scandals to the elusive world of UFOs, and that's what makes ATS stand out.

But folks, we're losing that edge. We're seeing an uptick in disrespect and politically-charged arguments, which are distracting us from what ATS truly stands for - an intelligent exchange of ideas.

Now, I ain't here to play the blame game. We've all come across threads that degenerate into mud-slinging contests. We're increasingly ignoring the very guidelines that ATS established for our discussions, particularly 15g (Political Baiting) and 16 (Behavior). Let's not kid ourselves – there's a world of difference between challenging each other's ideas and outright character assassination.

The hard question we need to ask ourselves is - are we willing to let ATS descend into an echo chamber of intolerance and vitriol? Or do we stand up, dust ourselves off, and get back to denying ignorance, as true ATS members?

Remember, "Deny Ignorance" isn't just a pretty phrase. It's a battle cry, a pledge we took when we chose to join ATS. It's the fuel that keeps our community going. If we start sponsoring ignorance by allowing disrespect and intolerance to reign, we're betraying the very essence of ATS.

We ARE ATS. And ATS deserves better. Let's restore our respect for each other and our shared commitment to the truth. Not for the sake of political correctness, but for the sake of keeping ATS the sanctuary for free-thinkers that it was always meant to be.

We've got the power to change. Let's use it wisely.

Best Thoughts

a reply to: briantaylor

Remember, "Deny Ignorance" isn't just a pretty phrase. It's a battle cry, a pledge we took when we chose to join ATS. It's the fuel that keeps our community going. If we start sponsoring ignorance by allowing disrespect and intolerance to reign, we're betraying the very essence of ATS.

How do you question or "deny ignorance" if you have to first "respect and tolerate"? Even asking you for an approved list of topics that can or cannot be questioned can be seen as "disrespectful" and "intolerant". So are we allowed to question everything or not?

a reply to: briantaylor

I have political opinions like the next guy and have made a couple posts about the state of society but I have noticed a downturn recently in the amount of what you call political baiting or character assassination and that is why I decided to join the site finally. There is a difference between expressing your opinion forcefully and character assassination. I think the site is much better now that the new posts page is filled with UFO/High strangeness posts rather than BUD LIGHT TRANNY BS.

a reply to: oddscreenname

Your question highlights a common misunderstanding, and it's an excellent one. The concept of "deny ignorance" doesn't mean we must accept every idea unquestioningly. On the contrary, it's a call to scrutinize, debate, and question. It's about pushing the boundaries of our understanding and challenging assumptions.

However, respect and tolerance are about how we approach those discussions, not what we're allowed to discuss. They're about treating each other with decency, even when we vehemently disagree. Respect doesn't mean agreeing with everything; it means acknowledging the rights of others to have their views, and addressing those ideas—however much we disagree—without resorting to personal attacks or derogatory language.

Tolerance doesn't mean we must accept every view as equally valid or true; it means we allow for the existence of different views and engage with them in a thoughtful, open-minded way.

In short, "denying ignorance" and "respect and tolerance" are not at odds. We can (and should) question everything, but the way we question, debate, and challenge ideas should be done with respect and tolerance.

So, to answer your question, yes, you are allowed (and even encouraged) to question everything. But how you go about it—how you treat others in the process—matters greatly.

After all, a discussion is not just about the ideas being discussed; it's also about the people discussing them. If we lose sight of their humanity in the process, then we've lost something essential, regardless of the ideas involved.

originally posted by: oddscreenname
a reply to: briantaylor

Remember, "Deny Ignorance" isn't just a pretty phrase. It's a battle cry, a pledge we took when we chose to join ATS. It's the fuel that keeps our community going. If we start sponsoring ignorance by allowing disrespect and intolerance to reign, we're betraying the very essence of ATS.

How do you question or "deny ignorance" if you have to first "respect and tolerate"? Even asking you for an approved list of topics that can or cannot be questioned can be seen as "disrespectful" and "intolerant". So are we allowed to question everything or not?

“Most of the time, we see only what we want to see, or what others tell us to see, instead of really investigate to see what is really there. We embrace illusions only because we are presented with the illusion that they are embraced by the majority. When in truth, they only become popular because they are pounded at us by the media with such an intensity and high level of repetition that its mere force disguises lies and truths. And like obedient schoolchildren, we do not question their validity and swallow everything up like medicine. Why? Because since the earliest days of our youth, we have been conditioned to accept that the direction of the herd, and authority anywhere — is always right.”

Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem

Question Everything

a reply to: briantaylor

Remember, "Deny Ignorance" isn't just a pretty phrase. It's a battle cry, a pledge we took when we chose to join ATS. It's the fuel that keeps our community going.

fwiw i have heard its now "defy ignorance"

deny is passive, defy is assertive

assert common sense and defy the matrix




a reply to: Gothmog

follow up prompt courtesy of theodore sturgeon



ask the next question

a reply to: briantaylor

When I first joined ATS…the slogan “Deny Ingnorance” was actively promoted like a mantra by the majority of regular ATS posters…but somewhere down the line we took our eye off the ball and gradually decended into political madness…

I think with the current state the world is in today and with all the recent revelations that are starting to unfold; we need to “deny ignorance” more than ever before.

- JC

a reply to: SigmaXSquared

I am sticking with Deny Ignorance .
However , I do like Cancel Ignorance .

Denying Ignorance.
Why ?
Cause I can and should .

However, respect and tolerance are about how we approach those discussions, not what we're allowed to discuss. They're about treating each other with decency, even when we vehemently disagree. Respect doesn't mean agreeing with everything; it means acknowledging the rights of others to have their views, and addressing those ideas—however much we disagree—without resorting to personal attacks or derogatory language

a reply to: briantaylor


So, as a hypothetical and in conjunction with what someone else making the same argument said, you would be okay with a tasteful holocaust number examination thread? Tastefully, of course. Or anything an AI program deemed unethical or misinformation as long as it was tasteful?

a reply to: Gothmog

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

-Evelyn Hall

a reply to: Gothmog

cancel ignorance

thats funny and true

a reply to: briantaylor

I like your OP. I would very much like to see more respectful, reasoned and thoughtful discussion here -- as it should be!

It seems we are also increasingly dealing with posters who don't think some topics should be discussed at all, much like greater society, which is also concerning. Perhaps even more so.

If I have to choose, I would take the nastiest and ugliest discussion over no discussion at all.

Let's hope it doesn't get there.

a reply to: oddscreenname

So, as a hypothetical and in conjunction with what someone else making the same argument said, you would be okay with a tasteful holocaust number examination thread? Tastefully, of course. Or anything an AI program deemed unethical or misinformation as long as it was tasteful?

What are you really asking? Or suggesting?

The OP spoke to disagreeing with respect and tolerance, so obviously the OP isn't suggesting that everyone responds with hearty agreement and praise. The OP expects that subjects will come which are not "okay" with lots of posters. It's not about the topics, but how we address those topics.

Within the parameters of the T&Cs we all agreed to when we signed up.

If respect and tolerance isn't "okay" with you, then what is? What are you suggesting?

a reply to: briantaylor

After all, a discussion is not just about the ideas being discussed; it's also about the people discussing them. If we lose sight of their humanity in the process, then we've lost something essential, regardless of the ideas involved.

And ain't this a core question to society, to human development in general? Thinkers like Popper along with too many more to list address this question and while answering as best their philosophies can muster have come only to answers easily besmirched by the intolerant. To put it simply, those who happily utilize the ''I know you are but what am I'' form of discussion.

a reply to: Joecroft

It happend somewhere around the time we realized there is no moral high ground adhering to the echo chambers created by the system. When it was either honest introspection and admitting being played or confirmation bias to maintain the illusion we all know is failing daily...

Soon the failure of the old system will become to apparent to deny, but humans psyche to create cushy delusions is really astonishing me in these last couple of years...

originally posted by: oddscreenname

So, as a hypothetical and in conjunction with what someone else making the same argument said, you would be okay with a tasteful holocaust number examination thread? Tastefully, of course. Or anything an AI program deemed unethical or misinformation as long as it was tasteful?

I would be ok with it. But, the person posting should be ready to defend their position respectfully. And... everyone posting in it should be respectful of the person posting it! We can disagree respectfully.

a reply to: Boadicea

The OP spoke to disagreeing with respect and tolerance

No, the OP is arguing that we should have the freedom to discuss topics so long as it fits a certain mindset.

The hard question we need to ask ourselves is - are we willing to let ATS descend into an echo chamber of intolerance and vitriol?

If respect and tolerance isn't "okay" with you, then what is? What are you suggesting?

If you have a topic and can present it without breaking the agreed upon T&C, regardless the topic itself, it should be allowed to be discussed regardless of feels. "Respect and tolerance" too often gets used as an excuse to forbid topics. Topics shouldn't be forbidden but they should be thought out and well defended if you're going to present them. That goes for flat earth, "budlight", or getting psychic powers at five.