The ONLY kind of hate allowed on ATS

reply to post by Roadblockx


Given the thread topic we're going a bit OT here, but I'll respond one final time.

Without knowing the specific details of situations, I'd be remiss in commenting on them, and I don't think this is an appropriate thread for doing that, anyway. We'd prefer the personal situations be resolved personally, and keep those issues to a minimum on the forums.

In general, we moderate to the T&C. The goal is to keep discussions civil and on topic and to keep a member apprised as to the status of anything affecting them directly. If that isn't happening, a u2u requesting status, or a "Complaint/Suggestion" seen by all staff isn't inappropriate.

If you're currently in communication with a staffer about an issue, it's considered bad form to try an end-run directly to another moderator merely because you don't like the answers you're getting. Remember, as staff we're generally all aware or have ready access to what's going on. And since a discussion has almost always transpired among the staff prior to action, the likelihood that a different staff member will give a different answer about a situation is remote.

That's different from there being a situation where no communication has occurred and you're in the dark. If all else fails and for some reason you can't use any other method, there's the contact us form which is an option available and linked off the bottom of every page.

Sometimes situations start, conflicting or inconsistent information is relayed, confusion results. We try to be fair (believe it or not) but we dislike being played. People who expect fair treatment would be well served to attempt to deliver the same. In the end, this place should be about a beneficial and enjoyable exchange of ideas. "Enjoyable" may be a misnomer given some of the subject matter, but the process should be pain free, even if the topics frequently aren't.

Again, this is in general. I don't want to dissect specific situations which may have occurred in the past. There's nothing to be gained by that.

If you have nothing "pending", my best advice is to look forward, press on, and do the best you can. That's what we're doing.

reply to post by yeahright


Understood, sorry if it seemed I was saying some might allow a direct attack on one group but not another. I had been awake for nearly 24 hours getting some much needed legal things done, and I just woke up from a few hour nap, so both of my posts might not be as clear as they could. That was not how I meant it to be taken. It was more of a I know not all mods are against Christians, so I can sort of assume (I know that is bad lol) that we (Christians) have some help we could turn too if we felt undue bias against us. In other words being that the mods are mixed in their culture and beliefs we have some who would fight for us if indeed we were wronged.


By the way I would never ask you to call soccer football; I am American so I know it as nothing else. Though personally I am not a fan of sports in general, if later on my son decides he wants to participate in sports I would rather he chose soccer over football myself. Soccer seems more interesting of the two to me.

Raist

Here's a tip for the mod team...if you don't have time or cant keep up to date, or can't make the correct call retire please.
Dont even start on oh I do this for free...and how that means I should simply allow for mediocrity.

Do the job right or stop..

IMHO the only reason most of these online moderators do the job is to wheedled their promoted power over the regular members.
then as marters they whinge and moan about how much time it takes away from them and how they do it for free and bla bla bla...so just shut up and do as they say...

It's not just here but rampant all over the world, look at body corp in complexes....so many rules on top of the normal laws....and for what?

Manipulation and conformity to bend to my authoritar.......


Stop the BS and pull the stupid thread so we dont have this sort of non-sense.
In other words MODERATE!

reply to post by breakingdradles


How can you even pretend like you know that Christianity is a Fairy tale? You don't..That is a fact. Part of the problem is that out of nowhere come know it alls who try really hard to rip apart a faith or someones belief that they know nothing about . I know why I am a Christian,let's say follower of Jesus. He is real,He is alive and well. I used to be one who thought no way this is real...Wow was I wrong..Thank God I didn't stay in that group..

reply to post by 297GT


In my opinion that is rather unfair. I think the mods for the most part do a very nice job, far better than I have seen on other boards where they certainly show prejudice and get away with it completely.


Things certainly happen in lives and humans do make mistakes to think a mod because they are a mod is no different.

Again though this is simply my opinion others might see it differently, that is their choice. I am not trying to get any points from mods or anyone for saying this either, so no I am not kissing anyone’s rear lol. I could care less about points or whatever. If I cared for that sort of thing I would post more often than I do being that I have been here as long as I have.

Raist

I completely agree with the OP.
The rest of you need to start denying your own ignorance.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Censorship against certain people who hold to certain beliefs is a real problem here, the way I see it.
And I\'m just a long time lurker.
I read all the posts, and it\'s so obvious.
Undo did a nice job of finding several nasty threads to prove the OP\'s point.
My My, the disease that everyone says they deny has blinded them all from the truth.

reply to post by Raist


They may see it differently as more than just a matter of choice.
It could well be they see it differently due to experience.

You are not patsying up to the mods by defending them are you?
There is bias and prejudice alive and well here as much as any other board.

As a Christian, I don't really care about the remarks he makes. People may get offended, and sure it is a bother, but that is stuff we must learn to live with. We can't always run in and start a war because we are bothered. IMO, God put us on this Earth with freewill, so he should have the freewill to say as he pleases.

reply to post by Max Hammer


Well let me see, I clearly said I was not saying what I did for benefit from anyone. Maybe I did not make it clear enough so I’ll say it again though. I could care less what the mods or another member thinks of what I have to say. I say what I think, feel, and believe.

From my experience here on ATS and other boards (notice I have been here for over 4 years compared to just signing on this year) the mods here are pretty well fair over all and do not seem to abuse any power given to them. Don’t like the mods here fine go elsewhere where mods do abuse power and nothing is done about it.

I simply stated it was unfair because the poster I replied to makes it seem as if making a mistake was not welcomed. Last I checker we are all human and therefore subject to mistakes, just as Christians are to sin. I agree there is bias and prejudice alive and well here as well as other places. I cannot say I have seen any committed by a mod though I accept that one or a few might have at one time done so. Again we are all human and therefore make mistakes.

I will not though sit by and believe for one second that the mods here are committing such acts themselves on a daily basis, which is absurd to say the least. Also to think that they should be subjected to a higher level of not making an error than any other human is silly.

Please show me though where I said we did not have bias and prejudice here on ATS?

Raist

Originally posted by 297GT The OP'er is correct 100%, as I have said many times before it get very tiresome to constantly have hate threads every 2nd day and add to that the pure attacks that occur in almost every thread where God is mentioned. Maybe the next time some attacks me personally or my beliefs beyond what would be considered an acceptable discussion level I will take some legal action and hold the moderators and owner of this site along with the poster responsible... One for the person who does the attacking, bullying..abuse... One for the moderators for allowing it. One for the owner not taking a greater care in enforcing the rules that everyone accepts to be able to post in the forums.

Oh my aching feet, how did I laugh!?! Really, I did choke with laughter.
Please, I mean really please, do mount your lawsuit. There's so much doom & gloom around these days, we could all do with a good ongoing laugh in the breaking news forum.
Please file suit in the deep south of the USA; somewhere that your claims will actually be taken seriously enough to get into a courtroom; otherwise your comedy value will be sadly curtailed.
You never know, there could be a media career in it for you. Just state your views as they are, whilst wearing a hat that doesn't quite fit your head, & you'll be a hit. They call it "post-modern irony" usually. Stick to that explanation & you'll never need another...

Unfortunately, the OP is correct. Christians are one of the very few groups one can get away with openly hating. This forum does not promote anti-Christian sentiment, but it definitely turns a blind eye to it when it occurs. It is probably best for Christians to see this as a sign of strength - people who so vehemently oppose Christians are using an external enemy to alleviate the pain and misery they feel in their own lives. I am not talking about all non-Christians, just some of those who are so inclined to post hateful, disrespectful and defaming comments about the religion and its group of followers.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee

 

i've had all of the above. christians have attacked me, muslims have attacked me, atheists and agnostics have attacked me, jewish people have attacked me, neo nazis have attacked me, pagans have attacked me, wiccans have attacked me, satanists have attacked me, mormons and jehovah witnesses have attacked me, even buddhists and hindus have attacked me.

This begs the question..

What are you doing to be so universally reviled to the point of attack?

Ha ha well, that is the point of this thread and why I have taken so much time going over the threads and where topics of Christianity are made by anti Christs and topics about masons are typically made by anti masons. 911, it appears most are made by truthers but the opposing veiws using the most out and out ridicule and getting away with it is interesting because their IS one where UNDO happens to be albeit a controversial member of that spiritual group but clearly one of the most knowledgeable concerning the ancient texts of many of religions. She happens to be in the one where it is fashionable to contaminate their present activities with the atrocities of the past (crusades) as if Christians did this last week.

The one that, while the gays and atheists can bring lawsuits against them for such evil and terrible customs like saying a prayer in school or when they accost individuals putting the there victims heads in a vice then violently shoving a leather bound 4000 year old book down their throats or when they are busy waterboarding people into converting to there way of thinking burning resistors to a stake and all the allegations that are made about this group every day. What we see is such an exagerated embellished accusations that most plane lie about. the lies seem to get bigger, sweeping the entire ideology under the buss. You can defend the free speech of nambla in this country and the virtues of man boy love but if this group undo is about, talks of the sin involved, she is a right wing nut job who can't speak or she will be reminded separation of church and state over rides her free speech. Although freedom of religious expression is protected, she will be the one they attack for her HATRED and Bigotry while they call her every name in the book.

She will be the one giving more respect and more tolerance for understanding someones need to go around spreading lies about those in her faith marching in parades dressed in letaher bar garb if at all and be called intolerant while she is sued by the ACLU for having a nativity scene in her yard because it is so offensive.

I just see a lot of unjustified criticism being thrown at Christians by people who are offended by the baby jesus but if Christians complain about an artist portraying Jesus as a transvestite, they are unreasonable xtian fundies who should just turn their head if they don't like it.

I got some screen shots of a dozen alerts and u2u's sent to me by a member here who is a Christian, showing him or her getting called an A**hole and a myriad of other things on posts related to alerts he or she sent or u2u's sent to one Christian Mod and the rest were to very vocal atheist darwinist mods. and guess which one never gave them the time of day. I won't mention the mods name but she was the only one that ever responded and lo and behold, it turns out the mod is a Christian. It gave me the impression most of the calls for help requested by Christians get largely ignored. I think most Christians however get used to this kind of thing. Goes with the territory. I know that isn't the most scientific method of finding a bias but the mods were all on the board when these issues happen and it is hard to ignore that out of all of them the ONLY one that actually helped out was this one moderator and Ill gamble that this phenomena wouldn't work in reverse. That is to say, this same moderator would NOT have ignored an atheist or mason or islamic member.

Moderators have a system in place but what makes you think large groups don't have some kind of bias too?

I mean just look at the way Public Television and Science in Schools has gotten. Years ago, I wouldn't have believed full grown men and woman of science, would act so idiotic.

Now if I were to ask any of them if their is some kind of discrimination going on, these same people would say NO we have a system that makes that impossible. Just like they did the United States Senate under oath. yet looking at a transcript of NOVA Science now TV show host Tyson and the rest of the same members that were asked, we see quite another story.

Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the
National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the
National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here.
Otherwise, the public is secondary to this.


[Moderator then turns to thepanel for responses.]


Larry Krauss: It’s hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the
question you asked about, “Why 15%,” disturbs me a little bit because of
this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that
they don’t have the same delusions—I mean, how many of them are
pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences? How many of them are
Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were
zero. That would be the news story.


But the point is I don’t think you’d expect them, in general, to view their
religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings
or whatever.


So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists
are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else.


We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we
are who we are.


Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you
have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?



Note that Larry Krauss uses the word “delusions” three times as he
refers to the beliefs of the 15% of the members of NAS who maintain
some kind of faith in God; that is, those who are not outright atheists
like the rest. In another part of his speech on this same subject, Tyson
vehemently demands to know, “How come this number, the 15% who
believe in God, isn’t zero?”

Tyson is quite correct to raise this question.

He wants to know why all the members of NAS aren’t atheists because
logically, they should be. Atheism and evolutionary Darwinism are
inextricably bound together. To maintain otherwise is to enter the realm
of, as Krauss says, “delusions.”

The serious Darwinists have always known this.

Sir Julian Huxley, considered by some to be the primary architect of Neo-Darwinism,
called evolution “religion without revelation.” In 1964, Huxley wrote,
“Evolution is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that
has ever arisen on earth.” Later in the same book he passionately argued
that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a
God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern,” going on to say that
“the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden
on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct
something to take its place.”

If you don't think this kind of double standard exists, all I can say is, you haven't really looked because it is pretty easy to come to that conclusion just doing the numbers .



[edit on 19-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]

Originally posted by lifecitizen

insulting my intelligence. assuming i'm so illogical, i can't tell the difference between the character spock, and the writers of the character spock

You told me a mentor of yours was a fictional tv character I said I couldnt reason with logic like that- you just came out of nowhere saying 'yes its true Spock is one of my mentors?' I still don't understand why you said that to begin with.

Where did I insult your intelligence? I have no clue what you're trying to say here I didn't even think about any writers all I said was I couldnt reason with someone that has a tv character as a mentor- and I can't- he's not real, lol

Yeah and ya know what someone has to do when someone plays dumb and acts like they are completely miss-understood while they assume everyone else just got off the turnip truck?

It's a pain in the ass but sometimes people have to be painted in a corner to the point they look so pathetic trying to play dumbfounded anymore, they either man up and admit it OR they just put their head in the sand hoping that method of escape actually works.

It doesn't and if you want to be painted in that corner playing innocent while you use clever verbal gymnastics to suggest your what anyone with an IOTA of sense will read between the lines, That if you are ever as stupid and weak as UNDO is for believing you would

1) kill yourself, putting you out of the misery of your stupidity

2) she should kill herself putting her out of her misery from stupidity.

3) Kill someone but who hasn't been determined.

I mean if she just told you something, YOU say, you would kill yourself or even ask someone else to shoot you for being so weak and stupid. Then what does that say about UNDO? I mean the message gets through loud and clear man. Either take responsibility for your statements or don't but please, we only get diabetes when you sugar coat them to hide the bitter taste we still have in our mouths.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Trust me when I say this, it won't be the 1st internet related victory in relation to hatred, harassment or bullying...mater of fact in many countries there is a precedent set already....
would I care if it made the news...no not at all, it's not the point.

...


[edit on 19-11-2009 by 297GT]

I don't hate members of organized religion, I just hate what members of organized religions do. Zing!

Originally posted by 297GT reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

Trust me when I say this, it won't be the 1st internet related victory in relation to hatred, harassment or bullying...mater of fact in many countries there is a precedent set already.... would I care if it made the news...no not at all, it's not the point. ... [edit on 19-11-2009 by 297GT]

Oh I'm fully aware that courts have poked their ignorant noses into what happens online. I'm also aware that "pressure groups" can afford a better rhetorician to present their case than most individuals.
This is why I urged you to go ahead in some place you might actually win. It would not only be hilarious, but another much needed wake up call to those who, as yet, do not realise that our culture really is under attack from a cancer within.
So, as I said, please, oh please, do file suit & even better, start a thread here to keep us all updated on your progress.

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak

Let me try to address this, with what will probably be a bad example

. If someone makes a post about "Jewish bankers" being evil, it's not an absolute (since not all bankers are Jewish, nor are all Jews bankers), but it is irrelevant. Why call out a specific group? Are all non-Jewish bankers honest and blameless? Are all Jewish bankers bad?

It is claimed by many that the so-called "New World Order" is a conspiracy by Jewish bankers (most in particular the Rothschild, Warburg and a few other banking dynasties) based on a Talmudic agenda. That agenda as well as the involvement of Zionist Jews at many intermediate levels is what makes their Jewish origin relevant, regardless of whether or not all or even the majority of Jews is aware or involved. Nevertheleess, the very notion of this view is considered antisemitic, whereas similar views with regards to the Vatican or the Bilderbergers are tolerated. If people have serious arguments for their claims that the drive behind the "New World Order" are Jewish bankers following a Talmudic agenda, isn't if their right to provide their arguments for this claim?

Originally posted by yeahright
If someone is using a specific group as an adjective for pejorative commentary, that's not intellectually honest and it is offensive.

Only when the Jewish background of the bankers is irrelevant, which it isn't.

Originally posted by yeahright
Not all [fill in the blank]s are anything, other than what defines them as a member of the group.

Of course, however prejudice is precisely the misjudgement of whatever traits are definitive of a specific group. Believing all hippies are lazy, all Jews are liars, all Nazis are evil, all blacks are stupid, all homosexuals are promiscuous, etc. Prejudice is the assignment of characteristics to an entire group that apply to only parts thereof.

Originally posted by yeahright
I don't know how you can possibly call anything "informed opinion" that labels an entire group as anything other than the characteristics that make them a group.

Most people would agree with the claim that all Nazis are evil and many Nazis would agree with the claim that all Jews are evil. Both would consider that opinion well-informed, however in both case it's a matter of prejudice.

Originally posted by yeahright
How Hate Speech could ever be confused with informed opinion is way beyond me.

There are scientific studies showing that the average intelligence of black people is significantly lower than that of East-Asians or Caucasians (eg. Rushton or Jensen). There are studies showing that Jewish influence in Western civilisation has been significant and very damaging (eg. MacDonald). There are studies showing that minorities are overrepresented in violent crime. etc. I've known multiple occasions where people were accused of hate speech for merely bringing up these studies and/or their conclusions, even when these people expressely denied any antisemitic or racist sentiment.

Originally posted by yeahright
Some Christians are stupid. Some homosexuals are promiscuous. So what? How does that further a discussion?

If one beliefs there is a correlation of some kind between Christianity and stupidity or between homosexuality and promiscuity, it is worthy of discussion when there are scientific arguments for it.

Originally posted by yeahright
What you're calling Political Correctness we call civility.Don't attack a member, don't smear a group.

An opinion is not smearing when it is validated by scientific inquiry, however Political Correctness attempts to stiffle precisely that and this website is guilty of such behavior no less than the liberal media.

I would also like to point out that ATS not only shows a double standard towards certain groups in comparison with other groups, they also deny the right to speak for the legalisation of Marihuana (which is already legal in Holland) or psychedelics (some of which are legal) even though many people profit from it either spiritually, medicinally or therapautically. Such a policy is prejudiced and discriminatory on its own.

everyone wants to "stand" up for freedom, yet there apparently is no freedom to hate. i agree if we all just bash each other here nothing gets solved. if its your personal opinion to hate a group, race, or whatever then fine. as for the sig you quoted i think your letting it get to you a bit too much. i was raised a christian and i have no problem with people bashing on them, heck i dont tend to like them much anymore either.

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight

Originally posted by lifecitizen

insulting my intelligence. assuming i'm so illogical, i can't tell the difference between the character spock, and the writers of the character spock

You told me a mentor of yours was a fictional tv character I said I couldnt reason with logic like that- you just came out of nowhere saying 'yes its true Spock is one of my mentors?' I still don't understand why you said that to begin with.

Where did I insult your intelligence? I have no clue what you're trying to say here I didn't even think about any writers all I said was I couldnt reason with someone that has a tv character as a mentor- and I can't- he's not real, lol

Yeah and ya know what someone has to do when someone plays dumb and acts like they are completely miss-understood while they assume everyone else just got off the turnip truck?

It's a pain in the ass but sometimes people have to be painted in a corner to the point they look so pathetic trying to play dumbfounded anymore, they either man up and admit it OR they just put their head in the sand hoping that method of escape actually works.

It doesn't and if you want to be painted in that corner playing innocent while you use clever verbal gymnastics to suggest your what anyone with an IOTA of sense will read between the lines, That if you are ever as stupid and weak as UNDO is for believing you would

1) kill yourself, putting you out of the misery of your stupidity

2) she should kill herself putting her out of her misery from stupidity.

3) Kill someone but who hasn't been determined.

I mean if she just told you something, YOU say, you would kill yourself or even ask someone else to shoot you for being so weak and stupid. Then what does that say about UNDO? I mean the message gets through loud and clear man. Either take responsibility for your statements or don't but please, we only get diabetes when you sugar coat them to hide the bitter taste we still have in our mouths.

wtf

I have no clue what you're on about, sorry- didn't understand any of that.

Iirc Undo accused someone of saying she should kill herself, which they didnt say- re read the thread, see for yourself.