Are immigration threads allowed?

Macmorris

Can someone more knowledgeable on this please have a read through the immigration thread on the politics forum ([url=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055034184
]Questions for immigration supporters[/URL]) and explain to me why it deserved to be closed? I started the thread earlier today because I believe mass immigration into Ireland is a very serious political issue and one that should be discussed more openly in this country, particularly considering that the general election is only a few months away.

The discussion seemed to be proceeding in a very civilised and adult manner when suddenly this Tristrame character came out of nowhere and decided to close the thread without offering any explanation other than that I was a 'pseudo-racist'.

I sent him a friendly pm asking him to give a fuller explanation for why he closed the thread but all I got was a one word answer - 'no'.

There are three possible reasons I can think of why the thread was closed:

1. It was closed because it contained langugage that was hurtful or offensive to other people and so under boards.ie guidelines it deserved to be closed out of respect for those people.
   
2. It was written by a 'psuedo-racist' and any thread written by a pseudo-racist will be automatically closed on boards.ie
   
3. It took a negative view of immigration and only threads that present a positive view of immigration are allowed on the politics forum.

As for the first one, if there was any offensive language used in the thread I can guarantee it didn't come from me. I went out of my way to make sure that I didn't refer to any racial or ethnic group or use any hurtful or personal language. You'll notice for example that I didn't mention things like crime or anything that might add support to xenophobic scare-mongering about immigrants. That's because I didn't want the thread to be about immigrants. It was supposed to be about immigration in general. I've read through the thread a few times and I'm confident that even the most sensitive person could find nothing in it that could cause offence. If you can find anything then please let me know so I won't make the same mistake again.

I admit that I am a 'psuedo-racist' in the sense that I hold politically-incorrect views on race and I admit as well that I used to contribute to the Stormfront Ireland website. But so what? That shouldn't disqualify me from offering my opinion on a subject, as long as I offer that opinion in a responsible and lawful manner. Or since when is it illegal to be a racist in this country? I don't support violence or the mistreatment of foreigners. I work with plenty of foreigners and I treat them no differently than I do Irish people. If you disagree with what people like me have to say on these things then try to change our minds through arguing with us. Trying to shut us is a tacit admission on your part that we're right, otherwise you could show us we were wrong by discussing our opinions openly. Can someone clarify whether or not ex-stormfronters are allowed to contribute to threads on boards.ie that deal with immigration and racial matters?

Getting back to the reason for the thread closure, I'm inclined more to the third reason as the only time I've seen this kind of arbitrary thread-closing before on boards was where the OP took a negative view of immigration. Maybe I'm wrong but I detect a certain bias on the politics forum where people who hold unfashionable nationalistic views are more likely to be the victims of bannings and thread closures.

Anyway, simple question - do you think the thread deserved to be closed, and if you do, why? If you don't, then do you think I should be allowed to start another thread on immigration? I asked Tristrame about this and he said no.

CiaranC

Totally unwarranted locking IMO.

The arrogance of some of the mods here is unreal.

Boards might as well write 'no right-wing opinions allowed' into the rules and have done with it.

Boston

Seemed like you banned on past behaviour on the forum.

Nevyn

Thread on most topics are allowed, retarded threads are not.

billy the squid

Tristrame lamped you good for being a stormfronter

Can't speak for tristrame, but I would imagine the thread was locked because threads of that nature tend to attract muppets like flies are attracted to ****e.

There is no such thing as a pseudo-racist, you is either racist or not racist.

CiaranC

So why not just have a rule stating right-wing opinions on immigration are not allowed so it doesnt keep coming up?

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

So why not just have a rule stating right-wing opinions on immigration are not allowed so it doesnt keep coming up?

Thats simply not the case, that's why. Don't try to make racisism less ulgy by pretending it's right wing.

Nevyn

There is right wing and there is stupid right wing.
That position is valid but not when it is a knee jerk reaction and spouted only to rile people up.

Sangre

Pretty ridiculous locking from what I saw.

mike65

Con will proberly tell me off but I thought it was very previous of him to lock it. The damn thing had hardly got off the ground and there was plenty of time of some reasoned debate before the decent into flaming and trollery.

Mike.

CiaranC

Boston wrote:

Thats simply not the case, that's why.

lol, hilarious. It clearly is the case.

Thaedydal wrote:

There is right wing and there is stupid right wing.
That position is valid but not when it is a knee jerk reaction and spouted only to rile people up.

I dont know what thread you were reading. :rolleyes:

Seriously, a simple rule stating only liberal opinions on immigration will be tolerated is needed.

Karl Hungus

I think it was incredibly poor form locking that thread. Just reading it now, it seemed to be a very interesting, and civil debate. I just cannot see any justification for locking it.

As for banning racist opinions, well there's two sides to the coin in real life, so I don't see any reasoning that online, it should be a one sided coin. If people from Stormfront would like to join up here and debate, I don't see any problems if they conduct themselves as civil as Macmorris has. Stuff like this should be met with debate, not swept under the carpet as if to deny any such opinions exist.

I'm kinda getting the impression that it's the people with unpopular racial views who are the real second-class citizens here in Ireland. They're people too, they have to live in this society aswell, but their concerns and opinions are not heard, it's simply swept under the carpet.

Maybe it's time the admins would consider a new board for exactly this kind of Immigration debate?

mike65

Karl Hungus wrote:

If people from Stormfront would like to join up here and debate,

I think its fine if they say Heil There!







/I'll get me coat....:o

Mike.

Karl Hungus

mike65 wrote:

/I'll get me coat....:o

Mike.

Yeah, I think that's best.


Anyway, boards.ie has never shyed away from debates on immigration, and while threads have been locked because they've become unruly, full of flaming, or trolling, and I certainly agree that threads that have become hotbeds of abuse should be locked, but this isn't the case. It's been locked for being "Pseudo Racist", wtf is that anyway? I'm sure there's plenty of my posts that could be construed as pseudo racist.

I think this kind of thing sets a very dangerous precident, and if it keeps up, boards.ie could be in danger of becoming something akin to indymedia.ie where any views that are contrary to their views are instantly deleted. That's the last thing I want to see boards becoming.

gandalf

Just noticed that this thread was closed there now.

I will have a chat with Tristrame about reopening the thread. My reading on why he closed this thread is because the OP is trying to push his own agenda and has not contributed in any way other than this to boards.ie.

Whats my reason for saying this, the last 20 posts he has contributed to boards are as follows.

Feedback Are immigration threads allowed? 30/12 18:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 15:14
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:55
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:34
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:45
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 11:10
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:57
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 17:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:35
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:20
Politics 134,000 PPS numbers issued to non-nationals in 2004 alone 21/05 10:50
After Hours Very interesting rumour RE: immigrants 07/01 17:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 21:01
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 20:09
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 27/11 16:51
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 27/11 16:46
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 26/11 15:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 26/11 15:10

18 of those 20 on one topic. Not really in the spirit of the community now is it.

Wibbs

Boston wrote:

Seemed like you banned on past behaviour on the forum.

So what. I've been banned before for "past behaviour" in threads. A lot of people have. Indeed some very respected members have. Doesn't mean that those same people can't bring up another debate. If the same OP brought up a topic on politics in Iraq would it have also have been locked so quickly?

Thaedydal wrote:

Thread on most topics are allowed, retarded threads are not.

Sounds awfully like a knee jerk reaction you got going there as the OP was reasoned and not at all inflammatory regardless of whether one agrees or not(personally I agree with some and disagree with most). People were responding without some of the muppetry often seen in other more "innocent" threads.

There is right wing and there is stupid right wing.

There's your opinion and there are others opinions. Surely as Karl Hungus has said it's far better to get this into the open in civil and reasoned debate as appeared to be the case here(Plus he was open about his "pseudo-racist" views. Whatever the Fck that means). If not how can both sides be educated on the matter? It also smacks of the unwillingness to confront such issues, which to the real nutters only fans the flames.

That position is valid but not when it is a knee jerk reaction and spouted only to rile people up.

Maybe some got riled up but I honestly don't see it myself. Not in this case anyway.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah, I think that's best.

What he said

I certainly agree that threads that have become hotbeds of abuse should be locked, but this isn't the case.

Agreed and agreed.

I'm sure there's plenty of my posts that could be construed as pseudo racist.

And lump me in there too, though I would say we're more "pseudo culturalists".;)

boards.ie could be in danger of becoming something akin to indymedia.ie where any views that are contrary to their views are instantly deleted. That's the last thing I want to see boards becoming.

God I agree with you there. Indymedia are generally beyond a joke in that respect. Full of God awful left wingers propped up at some student's union bar draining pints on their daddies money and feeling guilty for it. They can nearly be as blinkered as the stormfront types. I must say there's still the odd chaps and chappesses that do make good points. Have to dig though. End of rant I swear.

gandalf wrote:

Whats my reason for saying this, the last 20 posts he has contributed to boards are as follows.

Certainly that puts a slant on it, to be sure. Then again maybe one more try may work. Hope springs.....

mike65

Was'nt aware we had to be multi-faceted to be worthy contributors.

Mike.

CiaranC

gandalf wrote:

Just noticed that this thread was closed there now.

I will have a chat with Tristrame about reopening the thread. My reading on why he closed this thread is because the OP is trying to push his own agenda and has not contributed in any way other than this to boards.ie.

Whats my reason for saying this, the last 20 posts he has contributed to boards are as follows.

Feedback Are immigration threads allowed? 30/12 18:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 15:14
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:55
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:34
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:45
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 11:10
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:57
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 17:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:35
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:20
Politics 134,000 PPS numbers issued to non-nationals in 2004 alone 21/05 10:50
After Hours Very interesting rumour RE: immigrants 07/01 17:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 21:01
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 20:09
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 27/11 16:51
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 27/11 16:46
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 26/11 15:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 26/11 15:10

18 of those 20 on one topic. Not really in the spirit of the community now is it.

Wtf is this? Now we have to spread our posts outside stuff that interests us to avoid a banning?

Lets just have the rule and stop the stupid excuses.

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

lol, hilarious. It clearly is the case.

I disagree. There are a number of people right wing. Btw since when did we adopt this bull**** black & white approach to politics of the yanks.

Wibbs wrote:

So what. I've been banned before for "past behaviour" in threads. A lot of people have. Indeed some very respected members have. Doesn't mean that those same people can't bring up another debate. If the same OP brought up a topic on politics in Iraq would it have also have been locked so quickly?

Not if the posts are symptomatic of why the guy was banned (if he was banned at all) in the first place.

The_Minister

To be honest Gandalf, most of us have our own personal drums to bang.
There are people who are otherwise civilised, but foam at the mouth about travellers, and some who do it about civil servents. There are people on boards who claim to be unbiased and unaffiliated, yet pimp one political party continually. There are those who are so sad and have such a huge chip on their shoulder, that in the Christmas wish thread, they had to wish that the government was kicked out, because they just couldn't let their grudge go and ask for something that was personal. They just had to stick that little comment in there, get that jab in there, to validate themselves, and I pity those people, rather then dislike them.
We all have our hang-ups, but as long as we deal with them and discuss them in a calm and polite manner, then there is no reason to censor them. The Banned raised some interesting points, some of which I have recently come to agree with, and did not violate the charter while doing so. He has a splinter in his eye, big deal, half the posters in politics do.

Macmorris

billy the squid wrote:

Tristrame lamped you good for being a stormfronter

I'm not a stormfronter. I'm an ex-stormfronter and even if I was a stormfronter it shouldn't make any difference. I only posted a few times at the stormfront site and most of my posts was to try to argue with some holocaust revisionist who said the holocaust was a myth.

Gandalf wrote:

18 of those 20 on one topic. Not really in the spirit of the community now is it.

You're right, it does seem as though I'm obsessed with the issue doesn't it?

Thanks for looking into opening the thread though.

Karl Hungus

gandalf wrote:

Just noticed that this thread was closed there now.

I will have a chat with Tristrame about reopening the thread. My reading on why he closed this thread is because the OP is trying to push his own agenda and has not contributed in any way other than this to boards.ie.

Whats my reason for saying this, the last 20 posts he has contributed to boards are as follows.

Feedback Are immigration threads allowed? 30/12 18:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 15:14
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:55
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:34
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:45
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 11:10
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:57
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 17:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:35
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:20
Politics 134,000 PPS numbers issued to non-nationals in 2004 alone 21/05 10:50
After Hours Very interesting rumour RE: immigrants 07/01 17:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 21:01
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 20:09
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 27/11 16:51
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 27/11 16:46
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 26/11 15:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 26/11 15:10

18 of those 20 on one topic. Not really in the spirit of the community now is it.

So he's interest in discussing these issues. What's your point?

I can show you some posters who've pretty much only ever posted on the Rock/Metal board, or the Instruments board. Lets not forgot all the people who only like to waffle on After Hours. Do all these people have "Agendas" or is an agenda limited to people who post in Politics? Would you like to measure their worth to the community, and lock their threads for vague and arbitrary reasons?

Now, I have to ask, in all seriousness, are you not afraid of setting this kind of precident? Because it is a pretty big one.

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

Can someone more knowledgeable on this please have a read through the immigration thread on the politics forum ([url=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055034184
]Questions for immigration supporters[/URL]) and explain to me why it deserved to be closed? I started the thread earlier today because I believe mass immigration into Ireland is a very serious political issue and one that should be discussed more openly in this country, particularly considering that the general election is only a few months away.

Personally I disagree with the locking of that thread but largely because it has denied people an opportunity to debunk and, frankly, make fun of your arguments.

Your position appears to favour a broad rejection of all foreigners in Ireland as, to begin with, you repeatedly refused to consider that not all foreigners are the same. Additionally your reasoning was contrived, being unable to argue on an economic level (by your own admission, your knowledge of economics is limited) and simply stating that in your opinion continued immigration would be bad for the economy and somehow the cultural fabric of Irish society. The best you were able to come up with was a pie-in-the-sky study that claimed that the Irish would become a minority in Ireland. In 2050. If there are no changes in social, economic or political trends. Right.

You’re offering a wild hypothesis based upon your own gut feeling and backed up with nothing more than a smattering of pseudo-science and then wondering why people think you’re talking through your arse.

I admit that I am a 'psuedo-racist' in the sense that I hold politically-incorrect views on race and I admit as well that I used to contribute to the Stormfront Ireland website. But so what? That shouldn't disqualify me from offering my opinion on a subject, as long as I offer that opinion in a responsible and lawful manner.

Except you’re not really offering an opinion in a responsible manner. Your opinions are, given your associations, most likely based upon some form of racialism, which you’ve desperately tried to put a more acceptable face to in the thread. If this is incorrect, I apologise, but so limited were your public arguments that I can only assume that your position is based upon something else.

Or since when is it illegal to be a racist in this country?

Quite a few years – you’ll find that it’s covered by incitement to hatred and equality legislation.

CiaranC wrote:

Boards might as well write 'no right-wing opinions allowed' into the rules and have done with it.

I post right-wing opinions here on a regular basis and have rarely had a problem doing so.

gandalf

Karl Hungus wrote:

So he's interest in discussing these issues. What's your point?

The point I am making is that is the reason I think Tristrame closed the thread.

I can show you some posters who've pretty much only ever posted on the Rock/Metal board, or the Instruments board. Lets not forgot all the people who only like to waffle on After Hours. Do all these people have "Agendas" or is an agenda limited to people who post in Politics? Would you like to measure their worth to the community, and lock their threads for vague and arbitrary reasons?

Ok lets say those posters kept putting up threads on how they think Ibanez Guitars are ****e all the time and didn't post anything else other than this. Would that make you happy that they are taking part in the community.

Now, I have to ask, in all seriousness, are you not afraid of setting this kind of precident? Because it is a pretty big one.

TBH threads have been closed on Politics before for various reasons and will be in the future. Threads have also been reopened after discussions by the moderators as well and this may happen with this. Until I have a chance to talk to Tristrame nothing is going to happen with this thread.

Dark Hair

gandalf wrote:

Just noticed that this thread was closed there now.

I will have a chat with Tristrame about reopening the thread. My reading on why he closed this thread is because the OP is trying to push his own agenda and has not contributed in any way other than this to boards.ie.

Whats my reason for saying this, the last 20 posts he has contributed to boards are as follows.

Feedback Are immigration threads allowed? 30/12 18:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 15:14
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:55
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 14:34
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:45
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 13:22
Politics Questions for immigration supporters 30/12 11:10
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:57
Politics Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA 02/12 14:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 17:04
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:35
Politics Have EU Imigrants Benefited The Irish Republic? 23/09 12:20
Politics 134,000 PPS numbers issued to non-nationals in 2004 alone 21/05 10:50
After Hours Very interesting rumour RE: immigrants 07/01 17:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 21:01
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 01/12 20:09
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 27/11 16:51
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 27/11 16:46
Politics Irish ferries dispute/flags of convenince/low wages/ and the Nice treaty etc 26/11 15:12
Politics Multiculturalism = a total crock of poo 26/11 15:10

18 of those 20 on one topic. Not really in the spirit of the community now is it.

Besides the miss use of mod tools (privacy etc)

Tell you what... if you have the balls......
Search Mike65 (As thread starter) and then see his agenda standard anti ira/republican postings. (regardless or rights/wrongs) then see if your thinking is correct. People are allowed to have issues with one thing or another. It is not for mods to say other wise.

looking forward to you reply... which wont apper with stats on mike65 no doubt....

Hell do Sands while you are at it Community spirit = bias btw


xxx

CiaranC

The Corinthian wrote:

I post right-wing opinions here on a regular basis and have rarely had a problem doing so.

Please cite an example of a post where you openly opposed immigration and had no problem.

Dark Hair

CiaranC wrote:

Please cite an example of a post where you openly opposed immigration and had no problem.

Dude don't worry about it.

The mike65 thing will cause a paradox.

Trust me....

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

Please cite an example of a post where you openly opposed immigration and had no problem.

Their not mutually inclusive.

Dark Hair; It's not a mod tool, I can do what Gandalf did. All you need is a user id.

Dark Hair

Boston wrote:

Their not mutually inclusive.

Dark Hair; It's not a mod tool, I can do what Gandalf did. All you need is a user id.

Sorry... I didn't know that joe.

My point is that searchs will only be done on matters that are "undesirable"

Searching mike65 will show a constant theme... which is why/reason the thread was locked?

The OP's point stands in some ways.

The Corinthian

CiaranC wrote:

Please cite an example of a post where you openly opposed immigration and had no problem.

I'm sorry, you said right-wing - is that simply defined by being anti-immigration now? Or would you like to qualify what you said?

But to keep you happy, while I do not oppose immigration per say I do believe that not all immigrant groups should be treated the same. For example, some ethnic groups have a higher propensity for anti-social behavior than others and so I would favour greater restrictions on them. Happy?

CiaranC

Boston wrote:

Their not mutually inclusive.

Dark Hair; It's not a mod tool, I can do what Gandalf did. All you need is a user id.

Surely you mean mutually exclusive?

Are you going to continue to make blanket statements, or can you cite an example? Lets see a thread on the topic that wasnt locked and didnt have anyone who opposed immigration banned.

CiaranC

The Corinthian wrote:

I'm sorry, you said right-wing - is that simply defined by being anti-immigration now? Or would you like to qualify what you said?

But to keep you happy, while I do not oppose immigration per say I do believe that not all immigrant groups should be treated the same. For example, some ethnic groups have a higher propensity for anti-social behavior than others and so I would favour greater restrictions on them. Happy?

I made the same point four times, each time using the phrase 'right-wing opinions on immgration' each in the context of a discussion on immigration, you picked the one time I didnt use 'on immigration' to quote.

Im not talking about right-wing opinions in general, Im explicitly talking about those who oppose immigration.

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

Surely you mean mutually exclusive?

How would that make sense? They as not mutually inclusive. One does not include the other. They are separate things.

Are you going to continue to make blanket statements, or can you cite an example? Lets see a thread on the topic that wasnt locked and didnt have anyone who opposed immigration banned.

I'm bored of this allready.

You specifically said

" Boards might as well write 'no right-wing opinions allowed' into the rules and have done with it."

The Corinthian said

"I post right-wing opinions here on a regular basis and have rarely had a problem doing so."

To which you said some thing silly.

anyway point is, you define right wing as racist. The rest of us don't.

Dark Hair

CiaranC wrote:

I made the same point four times, each time using the phrase 'right-wing opinions on immgration' each in the context of a discussion on immigration, you picked the one time I didnt use 'on immigration' to quote.

Im not talking about right-wing opinions in general, Im explicitly talking about those who oppose immigration.

making your point 4 times counts for nothing. Sure poor Gandalf is busy searching... and now desperatly hoping for an opt out

trust me... the paradox/useless moderating has been shown.



All that can be proved is the OP is right. oH nOE sOME oNE hAS A pASSION oN A sUBJECT!

But its a naughty subject..... and not right!!! and so say all of us... well the community at least...

The Corinthian

CiaranC wrote:

I made the same point four times, each time using the phrase 'right-wing opinions on immgration' each in the context of a discussion on immigration, you picked the one time I didnt use 'on immigration' to quote.

I just picked the first one. I didn't read the rest of your posts.

Im not talking about right-wing opinions in general, Im explicitly talking about those who oppose immigration.

Well, I just posted one and I've not been struck down by lightning.

Karl Hungus

gandalf wrote:

Ok lets say those posters kept putting up threads on how they think Ibanez Guitars are ****e all the time and didn't post anything else other than this. Would that make you happy that they are taking part in the community.

Depends on whether or not they're actually engaging in a discussion about the pros/cons rather than actually stating it trollishly. Macmorris seems open to debate, and that's exactly what was happening before the thread in question was prematurely closed.

CiaranC

Well, I just posted one and I've not been struck down by lightning.

It will be interesting to see the moderator response to your post, which strikes me as far more racist (Im sure your arbitrary reason to deny particular ethnic groups access doesnt chime with your personal views on those groups at all) than anything the OP posted.

Distasteful as I find your opinion, I think you should still be allowed to voice it and debate with others.

The Corinthian

Dark Hair wrote:

oH nOE sOME oNE hAS A pASSION oN A sUBJECT!

So what? I was under the impression that what mattered in debate and discussion was that someone employed reason rather than passion.

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

Distasteful as I find your opinion, I think you should still be allowed to voice it and debate with others.

The Corinthian is basically supporting Profiling tbh. Load of Bull tbh but thats another story.

The Corinthian

CiaranC wrote:

It will be interesting to see the moderator response to your post, which strikes me as far more racist (Im sure your arbitrary reason to deny particular ethnic groups access doesnt chime with your personal views on those groups at all) than anything the OP posted.

There’s nothing racist in what I posted, unless you don’t actually know what racist means. I am citing the influence of nurture, not nature.

Dark Hair

the real clever posting detracts from the facts.

You gotta love Gandalfs outs!!

Dirk Gently

I think it was a bit early for lockage. I fully expected it to be locked at some point but was surprised it was so early considering the civil enough tone and fairly structured responses. I think Tristrame was fairly spot on with the stormfront remark as it sprung to my mind immediately from reading the OP but maybe he should have just let it run a little longer until the OP either ran out of steam after a good logical counter by other posters or until such a stage that he got abusive.

Sometimes prevention isn't better than a cure.

I reckon we might have gotten another couple of pages out of it before the OP either gave up or said something worthy of bannage.

Macmorris

The Corinthian wrote:

Personally I disagree with the locking of that thread but largely because it has denied people an opportunity to debunk and, frankly, make fun of your arguments.

I would really love you to make fun of my arguments. That's why I can't wait for the thread to be reopened.

Quite a few years – you’ll find that it’s covered by incitement to hatred and equality legislation.

Being a racist in itself though is not against the law, at least not that I'm aware of. If I said, for example, that I believe races differ in their average levels of intelligence I would be expressing a racist opinion, but I don't think I could be prosecuted for it.

Expressing views that are likely to incite hatred of others on account of their race is, and rightly so in my opinion.

some ethnic groups have a higher propensity for anti-social behavior than others

Really, would you care to name those ethnic groups who have a higher propensity for anti-social violence, while at the same keeping your feet firmly on the higher moral group that you would presume to preach to me about racism?

Dark Hair

clown bag wrote:

I think it was a bit early for lockage. I fully expected it to be locked at some point but was surprised it was so early considering the civil enough tone and fairly structured responses. I think Tristrame was fairly spot on with the stormfront remark as it sprung to my mind immediately from reading the OP but maybe he should have just let it run a little longer until the OP either ran out of steam after a good logical counter by other posters or until such a stage that he got abusive.

Sometimes prevention isn't better than a cure.

I reckon we might have gotten another couple of pages out of it before the OP either gave up or said something worthy of bannage.

the reasons for closing the thread have been clearly stated.

Lets talk about that.

Your and mine opinion have already been decided to be usless.

wheres Waldo/gandalf? Maybe the mike65 thing didn't work out for his argument?

Macmorris

Dark Hair wrote:

the reasons for closing the thread have been clearly stated.

Lets talk about that.

Would you mind recapping on those reasons again, just so we're all clear on what is and is not acceptable on the politics forum.

CiaranC

The Corinthian wrote:

There’s nothing racist in what I posted, unless you don’t actually know what racist means. I am citing the influence of nurture, not nature.

Tell us which ethnic groups you want kept out and show us the according proof that they are more involved in criminality then.

That way we'll be able to see that you didnt just invent a reason to justify your racist agenda.

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

Really, would you care to name those ethnic groups who have a higher propensity for anti-social violence, while at the same keeping your feet firmly on the higher moral group that you would presume to preach to me about racism?

Who mentioned violence? And, other than yourself and CiaranC who’s suggesting my point was racist? I would have hoped that with your past association you would have at least learned what the term means.

CiaranC wrote:

Tell us which ethnic groups you want kept out and show us the according proof that they are more involved in criminality then.

I’ve no intention of discussing it further as the point I made was that one can proffer an anti-immigration opinion here, despite your claim to the contrary, not to start a debate on it. Why don’t you comment on how your earlier claim was false instead?

That way we'll be able to see that you didnt just invent a reason to justify your racist agenda.

Are you actively ignoring what I said so that you can call me racist or are you having difficulty comprehending?

Dark Hair

Macmorris wrote:

Would you mind recapping on those reasons again, just so we're all clear on what is and is not acceptable on the politics forum.

I have made my/the points.

if gandalf searches Mike65 his point beomes a threat to his... point.

My point is.. If I post "The Ira shall never have power" no search...kicking in your front door is done.

If it suit Gandalf... your door is kicked in...

Come on Gandalf.. refute all this?

Dark Hair

Seriously people... at this rate Talliesin will quote some one off the first few posts with his real clever thoughts (Bar repeated drivil minus the sexual conictations) and drag this all back to yesterday.

Where is waldo?!?!?!?!?

We need a Waldo!!!!!!!

Macmorris

The Corinthian wrote:

Who mentioned violence?

I misread, looking back I see that you actually said Anti-Social behaviour.

And, other than yourself and CiaranC who’s suggesting my point was racist?

It would help if you would list the ethnic groups that you believe are more likely to be anti-social.

I would have hoped that with your past association you would have at least learned what the term means.

I could have spent a lifetime in the KKK and I don't think I would have any better idea of what the term means. The word racist is probably the most abused and ill-defined word in the English language. Anyone can throw it around without explaining what it means. When people get sick of it they can move on to more intellectual sounding phrases like 'pseudo-racist' or xenophobe. It doesn't make any difference in my opinion, the word racist is a tool that's used to shut people up and prevent reasoned debate.

amp

dUR TEKKIN RRRRR JORBBbbes!!!!