How to Raise the Quality of This Forum's Threads

I was thrilled to see this forum take form. I supported it strongly from the beginning. Sadly, it has become, for the most part, nothing but stupid, wild and crazy conspiracy theories and rumors aimed at the nominees.

I think the membership of ATS is better than that. I hope it is. I think we can do better.

I have been seduced into the defense of "my candidate" one too many times on these ridiculous threads. And I'm making a personal pledge to NOT participate in these meaningless, mudslinging threads any more. I invite you to join me.

I want to talk about the issues, not the rumors of the religion of the candidate and not his birth certificate and not what his estranged brother supposedly said or what he called his wife. We have an important election coming up and we need to vote on what's important, not nonsensical rumors and trivialities.

I'm a dog trainer and the VERY best way to train a dog not to do something is to IGNORE the bad and PRAISE the good. Now, I'm not saying that ATS members are dogs, but some dog psychology actually works on humans, too, if you know what I mean. Ignore a behavior and it will fizzle out.

I want to do my part to raise the quality of the threads in this forum. Please join me. Go to On the Issues or another similar site and tell us what you think of the issues of your favorite (or least favorite) candidates. You can post in the thread in my signature or start a thread of your own about a particular issue you wish to talk about and explore. Let's make this forum something that people will use as a reference when they want to see where their candidates stand and the "good" and "bad" about them.

As nefermore said, Be the Change You Wish to See Let's change this forum from a trash dump of wild speculation to intelligent discussion about the upcoming election. Something respectable that we can be proud of instead of embarrassed of.

Thanks for your consideration.

Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hear, Hear!
There seems to be a concentrated and calculated effort against Obama to bait members into emotional responses. These attacks are usually false, racist, xenophobic, and ugly.
So yes, let's discuss the issues.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

you seem to be a very thoughtful and reasonable person. however people against obama far far out number any posts put out about mccain. and they are NOT, NOT, intent on discussing anything useful, only deragatory attacks on his charecter. i have been adding up these posts and it's more then 10 to 1 attacking obama. in fact, it's hard to find any (charecter-bashing) posts that attack mccain. this has been for the most part all one-sided.

I posted this thread on June 5:

Pledge for a Respectful Debate?

I've been very conscious of living by this "pledge" in all of my threads. I have really gone out of my way to avoid any personal attacks or insults aimed at candidates or fellow ATS members.

That said, criticizing Obama, or any other candidate, is not a personal attack. Raising questions about his background, the authenticity of the released bc, or his leadership ability is fair game.

The TRUTH is that many times even questioning Obama has led to direct accusations of racism, and repeated personal insults.

The problem here, if there is one, is how Obama supporters are handling the valid criticisms.

By the way, my "Pledge for a Respectful Debate" got only 1 person "pledging" to be respectful to other members.

One last point, this IS a conspiracy site, so I would suggest that discussing possible *conspiracies* about political candidates is to be expected.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by jamie83]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
There seems to be a concentrated and calculated effort against Obama to bait members into emotional responses. These attacks are usually false, racist, xenophobic, and ugly.

This is a perfect example of the PROBLEM, not the solution. Criticism of Obama is being called an "attack." "Attackers" are called "racists."

(edited to remove content out of respect for Rilence's point of view)



[edit on 16-6-2008 by jamie83]

I agree, jimmy, but the "two sides" that are keeping these threads going are the "Attack" and "Defense".

If you want to see a behavior extinguished, ignore it. If these attacks don't seduce anyone into defending them, they will die of neglect. Only the "attackers" will post and it will be a little bash-fest and then die. Imagine a thread where everyone feels the same way and no one disagrees. Imagine a thread where someone says, "Here's the latest! Obama beat his wife and here's the blog that proves it"!

"I read that, too! He's a monster"!

"Here's another blog that says he hit his kid"!

"Yeah, he's a violent negro! He should be in jail, not the White House"!

"Where are all the Obama defenders, now, huh? They must agree with this if they don't come and defend him..."

*crickets chirping*

"Well, I'm not voting for him."

"Me neither."



The death of a thread...

There's only so much a person can say before it gets boring, IF no one is arguing. The threads that go on for pages and pages are the ones where there are 2 distinct "sides" arguing back and forth.

I suggest we make those 2 "sides" be about real issues instead of trivialities.


[edit on 16-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Of course, speaking of training dogs, this is how Obama's campaign has condition his followers to respond since day 1. It's part of their strategy.

And if that is not baiting and designed to encourage "knuckle dragging" as per the T&C, I'll go he...

How dare you come into a thread like this designed to encourage a sensible discussion of the ISSUES and post tripe like this

reply to post by jamie83


What's the name of this thread?
All I'm saying is that I am observing thread after thread being started which have nothing to do with the serious problems we have in this country.
I can't pay for my gas and people are posting about photoshopping birth
certificates. Please!
Post all you want about issues and I'll never call anybody anything no matter who they support.

Originally posted by jamie83
Of course, speaking of training dogs, this is how Obama's campaign has condition his followers to respond since day 1. It's part of their strategy.

As opposed to the Republican strategy of association by design with regard to Al Queada and Iraq?

You know the one I mean - the one thats caused a McCarthyist style outbreak on ATS and across America where some people immediately associate all things muslim with terrorism.

Its the one it seems a lot of people fell for.

Not voting for Obama because of his politics is one thing. Theres no race issue there.

Coming up with continual slurs about his supposed religion, his family ties and what he "might" do has altogether more sinister undertones along lines that don't have a place in an educated society where all people are equal.

Originally posted by Rilence

Of course, speaking of training dogs, this is how Obama's campaign has condition his followers to respond since day 1. It's part of their strategy.

And if that is not baiting and designed to encourage "knuckle dragging" as per the T&C, I'll go he...

How dare you come into a thread like this designed to encourage a sensible discussion of the ISSUES and post tripe like this

Well, the second post in the thread characterized critiques of Obama like this: "These attacks are usually false, racist, xenophobic, and ugly."

I pointed out that this type of characterization of anybody who criticizes Obama is part of Obama's campaign strategy -to fend off attacks against Obama by painting the attacks as racist. This is a core strategy of the Obama campaign.

And it's worked. Just yesterday I read an entire article about how editorial cartoonists are holding back in their critiques of Obama because they fear being accused of being racist if the even inadvertently do something like draw Obama with bigger lips.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
it has become, for the most part, nothing but stupid, wild and crazy conspiracy theories and rumors aimed at the nominees.

ATS discusses these things to verify or debunk them.
And as far as conspiracy theories .. this IS a conspiracy site. Remember?

these ridiculous threads. ... these meaningless, mudslinging threads ... not the rumors of the religion of the candidate and not his birth certificate and not what his estranged brother supposedly said or what he called his wife.

What is ridiculous or meaningless to you is important to others. If you do not wish to verify/debunk rumors or conspiracy theories, then don't. If you don't wish to participate and get to the truth of things, then don't. But for you to belittle what other see as important ... well that's just as far as I'm concerned.

Well, the second post in the thread characterized critiques of Obama like this: "These attacks are usually false, racist, xenophobic, and ugly."

I addressed these comments and their context. So don't keep bringing it back up to make a point which they do not address.

Originally posted by neformore

Coming up with continual slurs about his supposed religion, his family ties and what he "might" do has altogether more sinister undertones along lines that don't have a place in an educated society where all people are equal.

I see where you're coming from, but to say these discussions have no place in educated society is the completely wrong approach.

If people try to falsely smear Obama and try to get people to believe that he's a closet Muslim and that he'll do things counter to U.S. interests then the answer isn't to silence these false claims, it's to shine the light of truth on them.

The birth certificate is the PERFECT example of how NOT to handle the rumors and the "smears." The "smear" rumors began to spread, and instead of dispelling these rumors once an for all, the Obama campaign released a photoshopped copy of a document printed in 2007.

And in case you aren't following that story, it's not in dispute whether the document was photoshopped or printed in 2007.

So rather than say these discussions have no place in educated society, I would suggest the the purpose of an educated society is to allow people discover the truth. This can never happen if the issues aren't discussed.

Thanks for all the positive feedback!

And remember one of the important points in the first post here:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ignore a behavior and it will fizzle out.

Let's practice that in this very thread, whaddya say?

And another reminder: There are other areas on the board to discuss rumors and have great fun bashing one's favorite (or least favorite) candidates. Don't forget Slug Fest and Politicians and People.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You got my vote BH

Much kudos

Peace

reply to post by schrodingers dog


these attacks are the same as 2000, and 2004,.....they want you to use your time to defend obama and NOT attack mccain.

If people try to falsely smear Obama and try to get people to believe that he's a closet Muslim

Wow, that's just terrific.
What exactly is a closet muslim?

You know what, it's my fault for letting myself be trapped into these comments.
If you've got something to say about any candidate on the issues that face this country let us know.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

What's the name of this thread?
All I'm saying is that I am observing thread after thread being started which have nothing to do with the serious problems we have in this country.
I can't pay for my gas and people are posting about photoshopping birth
certificates.

No, that's not all you were saying. You were making a blanket accusation that people questioning Obama were racists.

Post all you want about issues and I'll never call anybody anything no matter who they support.

Why is it that invariably part of the mindset of people who support or defend Obama is this pervasive attitude that they should be telling other people what to talk about???

I've seen a lot of issues on ATS an the only other forum I've seen this type of thing is the creationist vs. evolutionists debates, and the 9/11 threads. I don't know... maybe it's more common than I think.

That said, I think vetting a candidate's character is CRITICALLY important. Anybody can claim to have any position they think will get them elected. But if they're not going to follow through on their promises, then what difference does it make about what they claimed?

Bush is a perfect example. He claimed he was against "nation building" and look what happened. He claimed he was a uniter and instead he divided the country. Bush Sr. vowed not to raise taxes, and yet he did.

Obama claims he's also a uniter, and yet time after time his speaks in divisive terms. Obama claims he's a different type of politician, not one influenced by big business, yet he delegates the selection of his VP to James Johnson, board member of Goldman Sachs, and partner of George Soros.

So what a guy claims he is going to do regarding issues is only part of the vetting process. Whether he's going to actually do what he says he's going to do is probably more important. Anybody can promise anything to get elected. If it can be shown ahead of time that a candidate is dishonest and misleading his followers, then that would be an important thing to know.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

If people try to falsely smear Obama and try to get people to believe that he's a closet Muslim

Wow, that's just terrific.
What exactly is a closet muslim?

You know what, it's my fault for letting myself be trapped into these comments.
If you've got something to say about any candidate on the issues that face this country let us know.

Ive seen people attempt to "smear" Obama by claiming he's a "closet Muslim." Apparently they've used this term to imply that Obama is just pretending to be a Christian, when in fact he is hiding the fact that he is a Muslim. I should have put this term in quotes to make this reference more clear.

Sorry.

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

these attacks are the same as 2000, and 2004,.....they want you to use your time to defend obama and NOT attack mccain.

I guess. I wonder if they get paid for it.