It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zepherian
I'm sorry, but to me your post seems like debate moulding. You're taking a few choice examples and framing them as a conspiracy against ATS, when in reality it is ATS, scared of the atention those subjects would cause, that is trying to hide them away.
Specifically the two very hot topics are Zionism (in as much as this conspiracy theory would branch out into revisionist history of the holocaust, Isreal and possibly even organised religion) and drugs (in as much that it would branch out into drug advocacy because of the alleged spiritual enlightenment and natural connection attained by the use of psychadelics).
Originally posted by neformore
Before I became a mod, as a member, I noticed that ATS was being visited by a "cluster" of bigots. These people manifested themselves in a number of ways, some were subtle, some more direct. Their MO was to appear "reasonable" whilst they lined up their agenda, and then they banded in to promote it - the eventual subject of choice for them at that time was holocaust denial. There were two or three of them tag-teaming each other in threads, all with the same or very similar message. I could, and did, make predictions of who would post in certain threads at certain times.
Originally posted by gormly
I mean you are a conspiracy site so by definition you must be PRO theories no matter what.
>>>snip
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If all we do is our best to provide a tolerable venue for anyone to say what they believe (which is indeed all that we try to do), how can you make the claim you're making?
Originally posted by gormly
The only claim I have ever made against ATS is that it is biased in it's own rule enforcement.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In the smaller online circles of extreme conspiracy theories, we're often seen as a den of debunkers. There are precious few UFO sightings or 9/11 conspiracies that survive the kind of intense scrutiny that happens here on ATS. I'm really at a loss as to how you can come up with such a statement.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by gormly
The only claim I have ever made against ATS is that it is biased in it's own rule enforcement.
Do you have an example where you believe rule enforcement was focused on a topic rather than the behavior of the contributor?
Originally posted by ExamineAllViews
Originally posted by Zepherian
I'm sorry, but to me your post seems like debate moulding. You're taking a few choice examples and framing them as a conspiracy against ATS, when in reality it is ATS, scared of the atention those subjects would cause, that is trying to hide them away.
Specifically the two very hot topics are Zionism (in as much as this conspiracy theory would branch out into revisionist history of the holocaust, Isreal and possibly even organised religion) and drugs (in as much that it would branch out into drug advocacy because of the alleged spiritual enlightenment and natural connection attained by the use of psychadelics).
You make some valid points and I agree with you in some ways. The problem with the term "Zionism" is it actually has so many meanings and implications just at face value. To name a few:
1) A Jewish person's support for the State of Israel and allegiance to the land.
2) The belief that Jewish people deserve a homeland.
3) A Jewish person's belief that other Jewish people should have the right to a home land.
4) A term that describes the perseverance and livelihood of Judaic history and culture.
5) A sinister group of elite and corrupt individual who control and are behind anything secretive, including non-Jewish people.
6) A dangerous ideology that is aggressive and unwavering in its pursuit to fulfill its goals.
7) The acknowledgment that Semite individuals deserve a homeland.
8) A word used to describe people who may confirm a supposed "Protocols" type organisation.
(I'm sure there are even more that come to mind for the reader.)
I do not necessarily agree or endorse any of these above points, I just feel they sum up the many interpretations that this word holds.
Keeping this in mind, I think it is easy to see why the topic of "Zionism" is so tricky AND vulnerable. Especially people who endeavour to portray "Zionism" in a negative manner.
Unfortunately, for many people, the word "Zionism" is the convenient answer to all their problems and misfortunes. It is a word that can be used in any context to describe anything sinister that has, does and will happen in the future. Since for many this word is so "factual" and "'logical" in its use, practically ANYTHING can be somewhat linked and associated with "Zionism". The way some individuals use this word, and the passion and certainty they seem to express as a result when using this word, leads me to question this: "Can anti-Zionism exist in a world without Zionism?" For some strange reason, I think it could...
Originally posted by gormly
But you're not really asking me for proof are you Bill?
What makes me a tiny bit different from many here is that I see bias in life on both sides... For example, I see bias in Fox News AND MSNBC where most would see one or the other and fight that opinion tooth and nail.
ATS is like that, many of the MODs are biased against those who hold an opposite opinion of the "majority" in a particular thread.
I know that you know a majority doesn't make something real or truthful. So it can and should be challenged.
More often than not I have witnessed someone on the minority side get stickered or otherwise silenced while a more agressive majority player gets away with breaking the rules to a greater extent.
ATS is like that, many of the MODs are biased against those who hold an opposite opinion of the "majority" in a particular thread.
Do you have an example? It would really help the discussion here if you could link to and explain a specific thread where you believe this is happening. I think you may be interpreting our agnosticism as being supportive of one viewpoint over another.
Secondly, and very nearly as important as the first item, we are, by definition, an editorially agnostic organization that values the opinions of our users well-above the opinions of the owners.