Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

There is a thread in AH that is allowing offensive language about women

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    nc19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭nc19


    efb wrote: »
    Never say anything you wouldn't say in a work canteen

    Depends on where you work


  • Options
    #93
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    nc19 wrote: »
    Chosing to open a thread/look at a picture/read a book that offends you just so you can tell everyone how offended you are is pathetic.

    That little red 'X' in the top right of your screen can help with how many things offend you.

    Well people have to open the thread or look a the picture sometimes, otherwise they don't know what it is. And yes, sometimes things are offensive, that's why we've reported posts and moderators. I think the mods acted well, it's very rare something doesn't get acted on quickly in AH which considering the size of it is pretty impressive.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #94
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    K-9 wrote: »
    Well people have to open the thread or look a the picture sometimes, otherwise they don't know what it is. And yes, sometimes things are offensive, that's why we've reported posts and moderators. I think the mods acted well, it's very rare something doesn't get acted on quickly in AH which considering the size of it is pretty impressive.

    Not only that but they got the op to voluntarily change the thread title to be less inflammatory and he did get banned when he crossed the line one too many times.


  • Options
    #95
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    nc19 wrote: »
    Chosing to open a thread/look at a picture/read a book that offends you just so you can tell everyone how offended you are is pathetic.

    That little red 'X' in the top right of your screen can help with how many things offend you.


    That doesn't give people a carte Blanche to post whatever they like


  • Options
    #96
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    humanji wrote: »

    Again, it's the minority of posts in a very large thread.

    Which is predominantly the case in AH. Or at least the minority of people involved. It's a shame so many users tend to focus on the noise as if it was an integral part of AH. It clearly isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    efb wrote: »
    That doesn't give people a carte Blanche to post whatever they like

    But people don't have carte Blanche to post what they want hence the several infractions and bans.


  • Options
    #98
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    efb wrote: »
    That doesn't give people a carte Blanche to post whatever they like

    There is no Carte Blanche


  • Options
    #99
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    There is no Carte Blanche

    This is an interesting one in relation to the thread being talked about. Justifying what could be considered assault and advocating punching someone in the face overly merely restraining them or trying to diffuse a situation. I've seen it quite a bit in AH where "smacks" "digs" etc are justified in all sorts of situations. Yet thy are all advocating violence and in a lot of cases illegal behaviour.
    No advocating criminality or violence
    Any threads or posts advocating illegal activities or asking for help in such activities will be deleted. Please do not attempt to advocate or incite criminality or violence as this is a bannable offence.


  • Options
    #100
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    This is an interesting one in relation to the thread being talked about. Justifying what could be considered assault and advocating punching someone in the face overly merely restraining them or trying to diffuse a situation. I've seen it quite a bit in AH where "smacks" "digs" etc are justified in all sorts of situations. Yet thy are all advocating violence and in a lot of cases illegal behaviour.

    It could also be considered self defence, It's a bit of a grey area when you think about it though.


  • Options
    #101
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    bumper234 wrote: »
    It could also be considered self defence, It's a bit of a grey area when you think about it though.

    Well it clearly wasnt self defence given the OP wasnt assaulted. He admitted himself that he lost it and punched the girl in the face in retaliation for her hitting his friend. As for the defence argument, it may go some way to alleviating a crime in regards to the OP but to condone it is still advocating violence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    bumper234 wrote: »
    It could also be considered self defence, It's a bit of a grey area when you think about it though.

    In the thread in question, it cannot be considered self defence, as the OP of the thread was not hit. It was defence of his friend, if it were any form of defence.


  • Options
    #103
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Well it clearly wasnt self defence given the OP wasnt assaulted. He admitted himself that he lost it and punched the girl in the face in retaliation for her hitting his friend. As for the defence argument, it may go some way to alleviating a crime in regards to the OP but to condone it is still advocating violence.

    Sometimes violence is the answer.
    I'm not saying it was in this case but it can often be the only answer.


  • Options
    #104
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Well it clearly wasnt self defence given the OP wasnt assaulted. He admitted himself that he lost it and punched the girl in the face in retaliation for her hitting his friend. As for the defence argument, it may go some way to alleviating a crime in regards to the OP but to condone it is still advocating violence.

    But defence of another person when an assault is taking place is not considered assault. And i don't see how someone saying op was in the right to protect and defend his friend from an assault is considered "advocating violence".


  • Options
    #105
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    This is an interesting one in relation to the thread being talked about. Justifying what could be considered assault and advocating punching someone in the face overly merely restraining them or trying to diffuse a situation. I've seen it quite a bit in AH where "smacks" "digs" etc are justified in all sorts of situations. Yet thy are all advocating violence and in a lot of cases illegal behaviour.
    No advocating criminality or violence
    Any threads or posts advocating illegal activities or asking for help in such activities will be deleted. Please do not attempt to advocate or incite criminality or violence as this is a bannable offence.

    Yeah it's a bit odd and there seems to be no stipulations on it, however I understand it to mean no to advocate or incite criminality or violence towards a named/singled out/identified individual or anyone setup as a target. Where as the main bulk of discussion on the thread after people got over the OP, was in reference to a reaction in a hypothetical situation. So not towards a specific target.


  • Options
    #106
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    Sometimes violence is the answer.
    I'm not saying it was in this case but it can often be the only answer.

    In self defence or as a last resort where its arguably unavoidable then yeah. But not in the way I so often see it in AH where its advocated as a means to solve any sort of dispute or grievance and dole out a beating to someone who's perceived to deserve it.


  • Options
    #107
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    In self defence or as a last resort where its arguably unavoidable then yeah. But not in the way I so often see it in AH where its advocated as a means to solve any sort of dispute or grievance and dole out a beating to someone who's perceived to deserve it.

    In the ops situation though it was (imo) justified to protect his friend from further attack.


  • Options
    #108
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    bumper234 wrote: »
    In the ops situation though it was (imo) justified to protect his friend from further attack.

    And imo it wasn't. It was unnecessary.


  • Options
    #109
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    And imo it wasn't. It was unnecessary.

    Who are you though and why does you opinion matter than other people? Yes the thread started off in a very grey area but there was valid discussion happening.


  • Options
    #110
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Who are you though and why does you opinion matter than other people? Yes the thread started off in a very grey area but there was valid discussion happening.

    When did I say it matters more than others ? Am I not allowed to have an opinion now ? I'm just discussing the advocating of violence aspect of the thread which I find interesting and something that has cropped up before in AH. The OP himself admitted he acted in retaliation. Justified by some or not its still violence.

    I recall another thread where a guy swung a kick at a dog who took a sliotar. The OP of that thread claimed to have knocked him out. Plenty agreed and said he deserved a slap and the guy was defending the dog. Yet that too was advocating violence.


  • Options
    #111
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    I think humanji (along with, I presume, the other AH mods) has made a good case for trying to save the thread.

    It is reasonable to discuss the circumstances in which one person can justify striking another. When the one delivering the blow is male, and the person being struck is female, it adds some spice to the discussion - but it might be that there are circumstances when a man can justify striking a woman.

    The unfortuante thing about the particular thread is that the OP coloured it by describing the woman in very unflattering terms. If he had not done that, there probably would have been far less need for mod action.

    I tip my hat to the mods for working hard to clean up the thread, and trying to get the discussion focused on the core question. But I would not have objected if they had decided that it was a bit of a trainwreck, and locked it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    And imo it wasn't. It was unnecessary.

    At what point does it become necessary?


  • Options
    #113
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    bumper234 wrote: »
    At what point does it become necessary?

    When other more civilised ways of diffusing the situation dont work. He could have pushed her back, grabbed her, stood between her and his friend, waited for the bouncer (This was in the middle of a dance floor).

    The OP admitted himself he got angry and acted in retaliation. Whatever about having sympathy its not justifiable in my book to lash out and punch people when you get angry. It wasnt ok for the girl who hit the OP's friend and it wasnt ok for him to do it.


  • Options
    #114
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    bumper234 wrote: »
    It could also be considered self defence, It's a bit of a grey area when you think about it though.


    In the thread in question, it wasn't self-defence. You don't have to think too hard about it either, just read sections 18 and 20 of the non-fatal offences against the person act. Self-defence of another person only applies to family members, not friends, and reasonable force is not "dropping the fat cnut like the twin towers".
    That's just pigeon chested bravado that displays a clear ignorance of the law, especially when the OP had a means to escape any immediate threat, so the use of force wasn't reasonable either.


  • Options
    #115
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    When did I say it matters more than others ? Am I not allowed to have an opinion now ? I'm just discussing the advocating of violence aspect of the thread which I find interesting and something that has cropped up before in AH. The OP himself admitted he acted in retaliation. Justified by some or not its still violence.

    I recall another thread where a guy swung a kick at a dog who took a sliotar. The OP of that thread claimed to have knocked him out. Plenty agreed and said he deserved a slap and the guy was defending the dog. Yet that too was advocating violence.

    When your specifically calling out your opinion I had to wonder, you can of course have an opinion but when you look at things in black and white expect it to be challenged.

    There is a difference between advocating someone go out and burn someone's house down for example and a conversation about defence. You may not agree that the op was acting in defence but many don't.

    As the ops have clarified why they have kept it open , I think it's being pedantic to want to close discussion down based on a black and white view of the rules.


  • Options
    #116
    Masked Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭Masked Man


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You don't have to think too hard about it either, just read sections 18 and 20 of the non-fatal offences against the person act. Self-defence of another person only applies to family members, not friends,

    ehm no.
    (a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or


  • Options
    #117
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Calhoun wrote: »
    When your specifically calling out your opinion I had to wonder, you can of course have an opinion but when you look at things in black and white expect it to be challenged.

    I have no problem with my opinion being challenged, I do however have a problem with someone making out I think my opinion matters more than everyone else's.
    There is a difference between advocating someone go out and burn someone's house down for example and a conversation about defence. You may not agree that the op was acting in defence but many don't.

    As the ops have clarified why they have kept it open , I think it's being pedantic to want to close discussion down based on a black and white view of the rules.

    You may need to read over my posts as I'm inclined to think you have taken me up completely wrong.

    I dont want to close the discussion down. I hold a similar view to P. Breathnach which I stated on the first page of this thread. I didnt think it warranted the effort it took to clean it up and keep it in line but the mods did a good job of it.

    The thing I'm discussing here now is advocating physical violence in relation to the charter which caught my eye when it was linked to earlier. Its not black and white view of the rules I just find it interesting that its mentioned in the charter and yet advocating violence is so prevalent in AH.

    Perhaps it is as Dravokivich views it simply about criminal activity and violence towards a specific target. But I'd have thought advocating criminal activity would be in a general sense and then seeing violence in the same context to mean advocating violent behaviour in general or specific to cover all bases.


  • Options
    #118
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    From the AH thread's OP:
    jamo2oo9 wrote: »
    Was that punch I threw justified or did I step over the line?
    Self-defense or not, I don't see how this question could be see as incitement to violence, so that complaint is a complete red herring.


  • Options
    #119
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    I have no problem with my opinion being challenged, I do however have a problem with someone making out I think my opinion matters more than everyone else's.



    You may need to read over my posts as I'm inclined to think you have taken me up completely wrong.

    I dont want to close the discussion down. I hold a similar view to P. Breathnach which I stated on the first page of this thread. I didnt think it warranted the effort it took to clean it up and keep it in line but the mods did a good job of it.

    The thing I'm discussing here now is advocating physical violence in relation to the charter which caught my eye when it was linked to earlier. Its not black and white view of the rules I just find it interesting that its mentioned in the charter and yet advocating violence is so prevalent in AH.

    Perhaps it is as Dravokivich views it simply about criminal activity and violence towards a specific target. But I'd have thought advocating criminal activity would be in a general sense and then seeing violence in the same context to mean advocating violent behaviour in general or specific to cover all bases.

    I have read your posts on here and in thread and your point of view is very clear, the thing is you do want to close down discussion and you are being pedantic over charter information to advocate doing this.

    I agree 100% with you on the OP and the poorly constructed start to the thread but when the mod's have cleaned it up and it becomes more than the original thread i fail to see the problem.

    You make it sound like every second post in AH is awash with violence but i havent observed that the mods i find are very proactive in this area. The only time i have ever seen it in recent times being discussed is in these morale defense discussions.

    Honest question if the place is so bad why keep posting there why not just ignore the thread?


  • Options
    #120
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Calhoun wrote: »
    I have read your posts on here and in thread and your point of view is very clear, the thing is you do want to close down discussion and you are being pedantic over charter information to advocate doing this.

    Where have you gotten this from ? Show me one post I made to suggest I want this discussion closed down ?

    I reported the OP of that thread as I thought it was trolling. I still think he was and as I have said in this thread I didnt think the effort involved in cleaning it up and keeping it on track was worth it.

    At no point in this thread or anywhere else after I reported the OP have I argued to close that thread down and at no point have I been pedantic over the charter in order to achieve that. You are 100% wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Where have you gotten this from ? Show me one post I made to suggest I want this discussion closed down ?

    I reported the OP of that thread as I thought it was trolling. I still think he was and as I have said in this thread I didnt think the effort involved in cleaning it up and keeping it on track was worth it.

    At no point in this thread or anywhere else after I reported the OP have I argued to close that thread down and at no point have I been pedantic over the charter in order to achieve that. You are 100% wrong.

    Its a natural conclusion based on your posts in this thread and on the forum, why bring up the charter and discuss it in a black and white manner if you didnt want the thread closed down?

    If you can see that this was a grey area in between and that although it contained discussion of violence it was the context that kept it open.

    What would you like done with this thread and others like it if you dont want them closed?


Advertisement