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

Censorship in Politics Forum: political bias showing?

Options
  • 05-06-2013 8:13pm
    #1
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭


    I would not in a million years like to be a moderator on a website. I just don't have the heart for all the conflicting egos. It would make me a smaller, more sullen human consumed by all the pettiness. This would be intolerable... unless I could use my moderator status to play "God" in the online world.

    The latter, I feel, is happening over in Politics.

    Here is what I posted earlier today:

    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    It's not acceptable really. It just shows that they don't really recognize the current state and government as legitimate. A bit treasonous in my eyes.

    For the purpose of full disclosure, it should be recorded that Pablo Makaveli has elsewhere on this website admitted to being a member of the British Army, specifically of what used to be known as the UDR, and before that as the B Specials, and is now known as the Royal Irish Regiment.

    When somebody like that is shouting about something being "treasonous" in Irish politics, even the (quite substantial) Paddy Cooney fanclub of rightwing ideologues here should be worried.


    I provided a link to his admission, also. Despite this little-known history and background of the poster being especially relevant to the political view he was espusing, it was removed by moderator Scofflow. Nobody would analyse a document without a context or a politician without reference to her/his earlier statements. I was merely highlighting that the poster who attacked Irish republicans as "treasonous" has actually given his loyalty to the British state, and sworn an Oath to that end, something which he omitted from the post in which he attacked us for, ironically "treason". This hypocrisy and political context is, therefore, extremely relevant.

    Moderator Scofflow's removal was, in my view, a clear act of censorship of a highly pertinent fact admitted to by the poster in question.
    Post edited by Shield on


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    No personal attacks/ad hominems is a sitewide rule regardless of forum, political bias, or otherwise.


  • Options
    #3
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Seanchai wrote: »
    I would not in a million years like to be a moderator on a website. I just don't have the heart for all the conflicting egos. It would make me a smaller, more sullen human consumed by all the pettiness. This would be intolerable... unless I could use my moderator status to play "God" in the online world.

    The latter, I feel, is happening over in Politics.

    Here is what I posted earlier today:




    For the purpose of full disclosure, it should be recorded that Pablo Makaveli has elsewhere on this website admitted to being a member of the British Army, specifically of what used to be known as the UDR, and before that as the B Specials, and is now known as the Royal Irish Regiment.

    When somebody like that is shouting about something being "treasonous" in Irish politics, even the (quite substantial) Paddy Cooney fanclub of rightwing ideologues here should be worried.


    I provided a link to his admission, also. Despite this little-known history and background of the poster being especially relevant to the political view he was espusing, it was removed by moderator Scofflow. Nobody would analyse a document without a context or a politician without reference to her/his earlier statements. I was merely highlighting that the poster who attacked Irish republicans as "treasonous" has actually given his loyalty to the British state, and sworn an Oath to that end, something which he omitted from the post in which he attacked us for, ironically "treason". This hypocrisy and political context is, therefore, extremely relevant.

    Moderator Scofflow's removal was, in my view, a clear act of censorship of a highly pertinent fact admitted to by the poster in question.

    As i said in the thread i'm not in the Royal Irish im in the Royal Artillery which i have said several times on the Military forum. Not that what i do for a living should matter. I'd still feel the same regardless.Secondly im entitled to my opinion. I've been labelled a traitor by Republicans before and i didn't go off complaining.

    This personal attack on me though is really over the line.


  • Options
    #4
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    As i said in the thread i'm not in the Royal Irish im in the Royal Artillery which i have said several times on the Military forum. Not that what i do for a living should matter. I'd still feel the same regardless.Secondly im entitled to my opinion. I've been labelled a traitor by Republicans before and i didn't go off complaining.

    This personal attack on me though is really over the line.

    You made a personal attack on the grounds of "treason" against Irish republicans, yet you failed to disclose that you have taken an oath of loyalty to defend a foreign monarch against everybody, including the Irish state. At very best it's rank hypocrisy. As such, at the very least it needs to be disclosed in any accusation against other people of "treason".

    I disclosed it, and it was censored. That is not fairness.


  • Options
    #5
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    bluewolf wrote: »
    No personal attacks/ad hominems is a sitewide rule regardless of forum, political bias, or otherwise.

    Pointing out that he has admitted he is a member of the British Army is a statement of fact, and a particularly relevant one at that given his accusations against others that they are "treasonous" to the Irish state for espousing an Irish republican view which he patently dislikes.


  • Options
    #6
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Seanchai wrote: »
    You made a personal attack on the grounds of "treason" against Irish republicans, yet you failed to disclose that you have taken an oath of loyalty to defend a foreign monarch against everybody, including the Irish state. At very best it's rank hypocrisy. As such, at the very least it needs to be disclosed in any accusation against other people of "treason".

    I disclosed it, and it was censored. That is not fairness.

    How was it a personal attack? I didn't name any specific.

    And how is it hypocrisy? Is the Irish State at war with the UK? Is it illegal for an Irish citizen to join the British Army.

    I'm under no obligation to disclose anything. My career has no bearing on my opinion. I was expressing the same views on this site years before i joined the British Army.

    This is a case of you disliking my opinion and trying to have me silenced for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    How was it a personal attack? I didn't name any specific.

    And how is it hypocrisy? Is the Irish State at war with the UK? Is it illegal for an Irish citizen to join the British Army.

    I'm under no obligation to disclose anything. My career has no bearing on my opinion. I was expressing the same views on this site years before i joined the British Army.

    1) It is, obviously, not illegal for an Irish person to use the term "Free State" yet this didn't prevent you from accusing them of treason....

    2) You presumably were once an Irish citizen. You now, however, have sworn an oath to defend a foreign monarch against all others, including Ireland. In short, your loyalty is not to Ireland, yet you declare Irish republicans to be "treasonous". Pointing out this hypocrisy should not be censored.

    3) It is a personal attack because I know plenty of people who use the term to reflect their disappointment with the politics of the current state. They have more loyalty to a better, more inclusive Ireland than most. Calling them "treasonous" because they don't share your politics is a cheap shot, made even cheaper and objectionable by your own undeclared (in the thread) loyalty to a foreign state.


  • Options
    #8
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Seanchai wrote: »
    1) It is, obviously, not illegal for an Irish person to use the term "Free State" yet this didn't prevent you from accusing them of treason....

    I said treasonous in my eyes. As in its my opinion. I never said they were breaking the law.
    2) You presumably were once an Irish citizen. You now, however, have sworn an oath to defend a foreign monarch against all others, including Ireland. In short, your loyalty is not to Ireland, yet you declare Irish republicans to be "treasonous". Pointing out this hypocrisy should not be censored.

    And i still am an Irish citizen. The status of my citizenship isn't decided by you.
    3) It is a personal attack because I know plenty of people who use the term to reflect their disappointment with the politics of the current state. They have more loyalty to a better, more inclusive Ireland than most. Calling them "treasonous" because they don't share your politics is a cheap shot, made even cheaper and objectionable by your own undeclared (in the thread) loyalty to a foreign state.

    A personal attack on this site is personally attacking a specific poster. A bit like your doing to me.

    The hypocrisy of your statement is also obviously lost on you as well. You're effectively accusing me of treason because my political opinions and outlook are different to yours.


  • Options
    #9
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    This is a case of you disliking my opinion and trying to have me silenced for it.

    You are only correct in that it is a case of my disliking your opinion, a less relevant issue than my dislike of hypocrisy. I was contextualising your opinion on "treason" by pointing out your declared political allegiances to a foreign state on a nether region of the Boards.ie website. I have no interest in getting anybody silenced. Allowing people to be aware of your declared allegiances on the issue of "treason" is a public service on my part. They can make up their own opinion after that. You are clearly conscious that such an opinion would not be favourable to you, yet all I did was point out those allegiances in the context of your initial accusation against others that they are "treasonous" for their Irish republican views. You reap what you sow, as they say.

    Trying to silence a poster who highlights your declared allegiances is censorship.


  • Options
    #10
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    And i still am an Irish citizen.... The hypocrisy of your statement is also obviously lost on you as well. You're effectively accusing me of treason because my political opinions and outlook are different to yours.

    But not one whose loyalty is to Ireland as you have declared your allegiance to a foreign monarch, against all countries including Ireland. That is the principal fact here when you accused Irish republicans of 'treason'. I merely brought this hypocrisy to readers' attention. After that, they can make up their own minds. For that, the post was deleted.


  • Options
    #11
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Seanchai wrote: »
    You are only correct in that it is a case of my disliking your opinion, a less relevant issue than my dislike of hypocrisy. I was contextualising your opinion on "treason" by pointing out your declared political allegiances to a foreign state on a nether region of the Boards.ie website. I have no interest in getting anybody silenced. Allowing people to be aware of your declared allegiances on the issue of "treason" is a public service on my part. They can make up their own opinion after that. You are clearly conscious that such an opinion would not be favourable to you, yet all I did was point out those allegiances in the context of your initial accusation against others that they are "treasonous" for their Irish republican views. You reap what you sow, as they say.

    Trying to silence a poster who highlights your declared allegiances is censorship.

    I held the same opinion long before i joined the British Army. My joining had no bearing on it. If that discussion came up a few years ago i would have expressed the exact same opinion.

    And anyway hat i said was only hypocritical in your eyes. How exactly could i be prosecuted for treason? As i said nothing i'm doing breaks Irish law. So i'm not committing treason.

    I dont know what you want from me exactly. I've never hid the fact im in the British army. I've mentioned it plenty of times outside the military forums. I believe there was a thread in the politics forum a few weeks ago where mentioned it and another poster made reference to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Seanchai wrote: »
    But not one whose loyalty is to Ireland as you have declared your allegiance to a foreign monarch, against all countries including Ireland. That is the principal fact here when you accused Irish republicans of 'treason'. I merely brought this hypocrisy to readers' attention. After that, they can make up their own minds. For that, the post was deleted.

    So what does that matter? How does that affect what i said? It's not illegal to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch. Again since i'm not committing treason it's not hypocritical. Also several other posters thanked my post which shows others have a similiar opinion.


  • Options
    #13
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'm not seeing feedback here; I'm seeing a row. Unless some feedback shows up, the thread won't have much longer to live.


  • Options
    #14
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    I'm happy for the thread to be locked. I've made my point and there's nothing more i have to say. Given it's obvious Seanchai just wants to have a go at me i don't think there's any point in discussing it further.


  • Options
    #15
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Taking a personal gripe with one member to the general Feedback forum - classy stuff.


  • Options
    #16
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    I'm happy for the thread to be locked. I've made my point and there's nothing more i have to say. Given it's obvious Seanchai just wants to have a go at me i don't think there's any point in discussing it further.

    Trying to derail this thread away from its purpose is indicative of the way you act. A refresh, then. You accused Irish republicans who merely use the term "Free State" of being "treasonous" to the Irish state. You initiated this attack. When I pointed out the hypocrisy of your allegation, namely that you have forsaken this entire state, joined the British Army and that you have taken an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch, this very pertinent point of information was censored by a Boards.ie moderator and you whinge foul play because I pointed this fact out.

    Purpose of thread reminder: I still haven't heard why a Boards.ie moderator decided to delete the comment pointing out your own deep personal hypocrisy on the issue of allegiance to the state of Ireland in the context of your attack on other people for treason to the same sovereign state. Well, Boards.ie?


  • Options
    #17
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Taking a personal gripe with one member to the general Feedback forum - classy stuff.

    Being unable to read English - not enough classes.


  • Options
    #18
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Being unable to read English - not enough classes.
    Shouldn't you be writing as gaeilge in order to be really like... real and true to your cause n' stuff?


  • Options
    #19
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not seeing feedback here; I'm seeing a row. Unless some feedback shows up, the thread won't have much longer to live.

    I would expect, oddly enough, that the feedback should come from the people responsible for this politically-motivated censorship of relevant facts.


  • Options
    #20
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    It's not too often I venture into the Politics forum, so I would consider mine an unbiased view (I treat all politicians and their allegiances with equal disdain!), but from what I can see here, the post would have been deleted because it is covered under the "don't be a dick" rule that you not reference a posters posts in another forum, no matter how tempting it might be sometimes to "win your argument".

    It's a discussion forum at the end of the day, not an e-penis measuring contest. If you can't argue the posters points as they're laid out in front of you, then you've already "lost your argument" by resorting to attacking the poster.


  • Options
    #21
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Shouldn't you be writing as gaeilge in order to be really like... real and true to your cause n' stuff?

    Ba chóir dom é a scríobh i nGaeilge ach ní dóigh liom go mbeadh tú in ann a bheith a thuiscint mar is cosúil go bhfuil tú i dtrioblóid leis an mBéarla é féin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    It was deleted because it's an ad hominem attack on a poster rather than what he posted. That is, rather than addressing any argument he might make on its own merits, you dismiss it, and invite others to dismiss it, on the basis of his membership of the British Army - in your opinion, his arguments cannot have any validity, no matter what they say, because of what he does. To you, because of what he does, he is, in terms of discussion, a non-person with no right to opinions.

    That's unacceptable in any discussion, and clearly flagged as such in every charter.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #23
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Ba chóir dom é a scríobh i nGaeilge ach ní doigh liom go mbeadh tú in ann a bheith a thuiscint mar is cosúil go bhfuil tú i dtrioblóid leis an mBéarla é féin.
    Childish insults? You're really covering yourself in glory here dude.


  • Options
    #24
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    the post would have been deleted because it is covered under the "don't be a dick" rule that you not reference a posters posts in another forum, no matter how tempting it might be sometimes to "win your argument".

    It's a discussion forum at the end of the day, not an e-penis measuring contest. If you can't argue the posters points as they're laid out in front of you, then you've already "lost your argument" by resorting to attacking the poster.

    I'm unaware of that rule. When a poster condemns others for treason to this state but has himself shifted his loyalties away from the same state to a different state I'm sure that's covered under the "highlight the hypocrisy" rule.


  • Options
    #25
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Childish insults? You're really covering yourself in glory here dude.

    "dude". What is this, Wayne's World? Next time, perhaps you ought not to goad a poster about not writing in Irish and then react like a petulant child when he responds in it.


  • Options
    #26
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Seanchai wrote: »
    "dude". What is this, Wayne's World? Next time, perhaps you ought not to goad a poster about not writing in Irish and then react like a petulant child when he responds in it.
    Erm.... if you think I was shocked at you writing in Irish in response to my goading, you're sadly mistaken. :)
    You said I have problems with English and Irish apropos absolutely nothing. Pointing out that that is resorting to childish insults is hardly reacting like a petulant child, it's merely stating a fact.
    Ba chóir dom é a scríobh i nGaeilge ach ní dóigh liom go mbeadh tú in ann a bheith a thuiscint mar is cosúil go bhfuil tú i dtrioblóid leis an mBéarla é féin.
    "I would prefer to write in Irish but I don't think you'd be able to understand, seeing as you appear to have trouble with English let alone Irish."

    What's not a childish insult about that?


  • Options
    #27
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It was deleted because it's an ad hominem attack on a poster rather than what he posted. That is, rather than addressing any argument he might make on its own merits, you dismiss it, and invite others to dismiss it, on the basis of his membership of the British Army - in your opinion, his arguments cannot have any validity, no matter what they say, because of what he does. To you, because of what he does, he is, in terms of discussion, a non-person with no right to opinions.

    That's unacceptable in any discussion, and clearly flagged as such in every charter.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


    Actually, I contextualised his allegations against others of "treason" by pointing out that he has, in fact, joined the British Army and has sworn allegiance to a foreign country against all others, including Ireland. When this hypocrisy is highlighted his accusation can be seen in a different light. It is up to people to judge it then. However, censoring a post which points it out allows his incredible hypocrisy to go unchallenged.

    Anyway, now that it has been answered I'm happy for this thread to be closed before more time is wasted.


  • Options
    #28
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Seanchai wrote: »
    I'm unaware of that rule. When a poster condemns others for treason to this state but has himself shifted his loyalties away from the same state to a different state I'm sure that's covered under the "highlight the hypocrisy" rule.


    It's a Boards.ie site-wide rule, and as I'm on touch and the search function is pants, it's a little difficult to find, but here's a diagram that might help you understand the idea of an ad-hominem attack as referred to by scofflaw earlier in this thread (didn't take me 30 seconds to get it from the politics charter that you seem to have failed to read; ignorance of the rules, no defence, etc) -


    media_httpimgskitchcom20090726nkcke5k2pcrgx4e2gt9ifgiyhkjpg_HiprbesEtEEevjH.jpg


    After that, the rest of your argument becomes irrelevant.


  • Options
    #29
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Anyway, now that it has been answered I'm happy for this thread to be closed before more time is wasted.
    If you want to avoid wasting time in future, try simply asking a question by PM. Starting a thread in Feedback - particularly one that contains no actual feedback - smacks of dragging your ad hominem attack into a different arena.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement