Politics Forum

Southsider1

What's the story with the Politics forum? I have been posting on Boards.ie for a while but rarely in Politics. I posted a couple of times this week, in Politics, and the Moderation seems all over the place there. One Mod has a definite "Green" agenda whereby he closes any thread criticising the Green party giving various reasons why but, yet, allows threads similarly criticising other parties to go on even though they would be "guilty" of the same breaches. There's no consistency and total bias in favour of the one party. This is daft! It makes a mockery of the whole concept of the Politics board and makes the whole set-up look stupid.

Furthermore, there seems to be no consistency in policies between Moderators. For example I got banned yesterday for criticising one of the Government parties yet another Moderator (after I was banned) sent me a pm merely threatening to ban me. WTF? Is it being Moderated by Dermot Ahearn and Noel Dempsey and being directed by the Taoiseach?:rolleyes:

Also on the last note, if one Mod says you're banned and the other says, later, that you may get banned.... Who is correct? Who has more right than the other?

Southsider1

What? Nobody has a comment to make?

Insect Overlord

There's already a huge thread about moderating the Politics forum. It's right under yours in the list

Wolfe Tone

I too have noticed glaring inconsistencies with modding. I suggest PMing the mods and explain your case. I got nowhere, but they are generally responsive and will lay out why they did x or y quite clearly. I suggest talking to either Scofflaw or Sceptre.

Southsider1

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I too have noticed glaring inconsistencies with modding. I suggest PMing the mods and explain your case. I got nowhere, but they are generally responsive and will lay out why they did x or y quite clearly. I suggest talking to either Scofflaw or Sceptre.

Ah, you know, I couldn't be bothered. It's obviously Boards.ie policy or else they'd have addressed it. And, let's face it, he'll be banning left right and centre now that the Greens finally succumbed today so open debate in Politics will be taboo.

Wolfe Tone

Yet you can be bothered complaining here? I am gonna presume you are talking about scofflaw? Tbh I think e is generally pretty fair.

hondasam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yet you can be bothered complaining here? I am gonna presume you are talking about scofflaw? Tbh I think e is generally pretty fair.

Only if you agree with his political view. he has his favourites on there who argue with everyone and he ignores it.

Wolfe Tone

hondasam wrote: »

Only if you agree with his political view. he has his favourites on there who argue with everyone and he ignores it.

He has been pretty fair in dealing with me tbh, and I would not share his political views.

Argue/debate?

hondasam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He has been pretty fair in dealing with me tbh, and I would not share his political views.

Argue/debate?

He should remain neutral and not let his own policies dictate what other posters think. arguements and comments are usually two ways which should result in posters been treated equally. I think he takes things personally and is to judgemental. he obviously has no time for ps workers.

Wolfe Tone

hondasam wrote: »

He should remain neutral and not let his own policies dictate what other posters think. arguements and comments are usually two ways which should result in posters been treated equally. I think he takes things personally and is to judgemental. he obviously has no time for ps workers.

I suggest gathering up some examples of this.

Cabaal

Southsider1 wrote: »

Ah, you know, I couldn't be bothered. It's obviously Boards.ie policy or else they'd have addressed it. And, let's face it, he'll be banning left right and centre now that the Greens finally succumbed today so open debate in Politics will be taboo.

Boards.ie has a clear dispute procedure, if you can't be bothered using it why bother starting a thread on feedback just to bitch and moan?

Scofflaw

Nearly every mod action in the Politics forum generates the complaint that the action is being taken on political grounds. The thread in question was almost entirely content-free, and I can't not moderate threads about the Greens simply because I happen to vote for the party. I do, however, try to ensure that when I am dealing with a thread about the Greens, my personal views aren't involved, and I have no such doubts about that particular thread, or the one attempting to use the tragedy in Cork for political gain. Southsider1's existing thread, on the other hand, is open for him to complain about the Greens in, as are many other threads in which people are doing exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Southsider1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Southsider1's existing thread, on the other hand, is open for him to complain about the Greens in, as are many other threads in which people are doing exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And, do tell, how can I contribute to it.... You banned me..,. Remember? Yet another Mod warned me AFTER you banned me that I may face a ban... So, as I originally said there's no consistency! I hear you banned 22 posters in one hour on Saturday and all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens!

hondasam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He has been pretty fair in dealing with me tbh, and I would not share his political views.

Argue/debate?

I just read in there now and have no intention of posting. his pm was pretty patronising and insulting.

Scofflaw

Southsider1 wrote: »

And, do tell, how can I contribute to it.... You banned me..,. Remember? Yet another Mod warned me AFTER you banned me that I may face a ban... So, as I originally said there's no consistency! I hear you banned 22 posters in one hour on Saturday and all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens!

You were banned for discussing moderation on thread. For the very good reason that discussion of moderation derails any thread it's in, that's not allowed - instead, there are channels set up specifically to dispute moderation decisions.

I'm amused by the idea that I banned 22 posters on Saturday, "all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens". The Greens are not now, and never have been, the popular choice in Ireland - if I actually banned people because they said they don't like the Greens, there would be about 5 posters left on the forum.

As I said, everyone who gets banned from Politics likes to think it's political in their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Southsider1

Scofflaw wrote: »

You were banned for discussing moderation on thread. For the very good reason that discussion of moderation derails any thread it's in, that's not allowed - instead, there are channels set up specifically to dispute moderation decisions.

I'm amused by the idea that I banned 22 posters on Saturday, "all because they expressed a contrary view on the Greens". The Greens are not now, and never have been, the popular choice in Ireland - if I actually banned people because they said they don't like the Greens, there would be about 5 posters left on the forum.

As I said, everyone who gets banned from Politics likes to think it's political in their case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So: A. What you stated above is incorrect in that I cannot post on the thread. You speak with forked tongue!

and B. You don't dispute that you banned 22 posters in one hour. And you feel that's healthy for the forum or for boards.ie as a whole?

Scofflaw

Southsider1 wrote: »

So: A. What you stated above is incorrect in that I cannot post on the thread. You speak with forked tongue!

You'll be back in a week.

Southsider1 wrote: »

and B. You don't dispute that you banned 22 posters in one hour. And you feel that's healthy for the forum or for boards.ie as a whole?

Not only have I not done so, but I'm not even sure it would have been possible on a normal day, never mind Saturday. As a result, I'm amused by the idea rather than anything else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

To be fair to Scofflaw I have not seen any Green threads that have been unnecessarily dealt with by them.

It is preferable in best moderation practice that they do not deal with Green issue threads if possible given their bias as this thread can attest to. However given what is a severe bandwidth problem in Politics I can understand why they dealt with those threads.

Wolfe Tone

I think that any mod who is greatly biased against anything should not act as a mod in said threads, that goes equally for everything, such as critical attacks on political parties or indeed threads of a republican vein.

FlutterinBantam

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think that any mod who is greatly biased against anything should not act as a mod in said threads, that goes equally for everything, such as critical attacks on political parties or indeed threads of a republican vein.

Why don't you say it?


You want a Shinner for a Mod.


At least be honest.

Overheal

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think that any mod who is greatly biased against anything should not act as a mod in said threads, that goes equally for everything, such as critical attacks on political parties or indeed threads of a republican vein.

So you're saying criticism of a political entity should be against the charter?

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

So you're saying criticism of a political entity should be against the charter?

Sorry for not being clear, I don't think an avid supporter of a party should be modding a thread which is a critical attack on that party, it leaves him open to accusations of bias, even if there is none, just makes things messy.
So no, I am not saying that at all.

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Why don't you say it?


You want a Shinner for a Mod.


At least be honest.

Not at all. Someone apolitical(if such a person exists) would be ideal.

Overheal

I get the feeling that if we set up alt accounts for all the politics mods and gave them all the same names (one of them could be 100110 the next could be 0101100, etc.) that would probably solve many of the accusations of bias.

Jams has been a moderator for an hour and without so much as waving a twig he's already been accused of political bias, this has nothing to do with how the mods mod, it has everything to do with problem posters deciding to vilify the moderation team.

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

I get the feeling that if we set up alt accounts for all the politics mods and gave them all the same names (one of them could be 100110 the next could be 0101100, etc.) that would probably solve many of the accusations of bias.

Jams has been a moderator for an hour and without so much as waving a twig he's already been accused of political bias, this has nothing to do with how the mods mod, it has everything to do with problem posters deciding to vilify the moderation team.

Lol, what has he been accused of?


I agree to an extent... But say we have an instance of a mod getting heavily involved in a debate on a particular side. I think that mod should remove himself from modding duties for that thread.

Overheal

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I agree to an extent... But say we have an instance of a mod getting heavily involved in a debate on a particular side. I think that mod should remove himself from modding duties for that thread.

Generally speaking this already happens. Users like OscarBravo and Scofflaw regularly contribute to threads without burdening them down with all but the necessary amount of moderation.

Ultimately, if the politics mods were stifling the conversation in an unjust manner, you'd hear a lot more negative feedback, and not just from the one guy and his buddy that accuses a moderator of being in bed with political party X because the user wasn't allowed to call politician Y a corrupt ****** with no basis in reality. I for one (and I don't think I'm alone) wouldn't be interested in the forum if insightful yet opposing views were censored. There are other websites out there for anyone who wants to participate in a unilateral wankfest, this is not it.

Wolfe Tone

Here, I will cut to the chase, my major issue is, and has been, a blatant double standard(in my mind this is because of the specific brand of politics involved) which has arisen within many republican threads since I joined this site. Basically it boils down to myslef and others being accused of supporting republican dissidents(I don't, I have condemned their actions many times) because we have made attempts to examine their motivations and actions subjectively. Now, I do not think it is fair for posters to have carte blanche to say things like that, it simply is not fair. And I basically got an admission that in the same circumstances except instead of dissidents it was Al Queda, it would not be allowed. I have raised this with politics mods(they must be sick of me) to no avail. I have asked for clarification on issues like this(being accused of supporting proscribed terrorist organisations if an attempt is made to look at them subjectively[you know, so we can have this higher level of debate] despite CATEGORICALLY condemning them) Such clarification has been point blank denied. I feel that the only reason such clarification has been refused is because of the political persuasions involved. Just to be clear I am not saying that the big bad mods are out to get me, for the most part I have no issue with them. Scofflaw in particular has been most accommodating.
I am not the only one who has this view. So that is my experience with perceived bias.

Thus I feel that every step should be taken to separate a mods political opinions from the actions they take.

Overheal

Well I wouldn't regard those accusations as civil (Charter pt.4) but I'm unclear as to whether or not they're fair comment. I recall in the Student Protest thread I was allegated as being some Pro FF Pro Gardai insurgent, but it was easy enough to point out that I live in the United States, am american, and can't vote and don't benefit from Irish Politics. I think after that the most offensive comment I heard was "why are you posting here then" but even that was pretty tame in comparison to the standard. That poster however was infracted for it.

I'm in agreement that a poster shouldn't have to listen ad nauseum to accusations about party or political affiliation, it's a cheap way of deflecting the central argument and dragging everything off topic.

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

Well I wouldn't regard those accusations as civil (Charter pt.4) but I'm unclear as to whether or not they're fair comment. I recall in the Student Protest thread I was allegated as being some Pro FF Pro Gardai insurgent, but it was easy enough to point out that I live in the United States, am american, and can't vote and don't benefit from Irish Politics. I think after that the most offensive comment I heard was "why are you posting here then" but even that was pretty tame in comparison to the standard. That poster however was infracted for it.

I'm in agreement that a poster shouldn't have to listen ad nauseum to accusations about party or political affiliation, it's a cheap way of deflecting the central argument and dragging everything off topic.

When you factor in that said organisation is ILLEGAL and goes around trying to kill people it is even more unacceptable. However,it apparently is fair game as "we cannot protect posters from the impression they give" No warnings given or anything. The reason why I think it is accepted is because of the fact it is republicans.
Ive been down this road lots of times so it is probably pointless to raise it again.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

When you factor in that said organisation is ILLEGAL and goes around trying to kill people it is even more unacceptable. However,it apparently is fair game as "we cannot protect posters from the impression they give" No warnings given or anything. The reason why I think it is accepted is because of the fact it is republicans.
Ive been down this road lots of times so it is probably pointless to raise it again.

Pretty much, for all the reasons that have been given before - it's not a line it's possible to police. It's nothing to do with whether it involves republicans or not, because when it comes down to the whole Northern/National Question, I am almost 100% apolitical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

I was not refering to you, I was referring for the most part to oscarBravo who has made his views on all things republican quite clear.


I really don't understand Scofflaw, the logic doesn't add up. You basically said that it would not be ok to make similar accusations if a poster had been talking about Al Queda. You pretty much said that. I asked if it would be ok in the exact same circumstances and you would not say that it would be ok. I think that the very fact that you wont clarify the "official" stance on accusing people of supporting terrorist organisations is very telling. You MUST see the contradiction. I think you know exactly where I am coming from.

We have had a debate about wanting higher standards, however it seems that any deviation from "they are scumbags, rabble rabble, terrible act" to "Terrible act, I condemn this utterly. It appears that the dissidents did xyz because" or correcting allegations that the dissidents are trying to massacre people by pointing out that if they wanted another Omagh they could have one, they would not be setting off bombs at 4am, or if they wanted to blow up a school and kill kids they would not have the bomb OUTSIDE the school grounds in a bin, makes it open season to be accused of being a supporter of an illegal organisation.

This is not the same as being accused of supporting FF or FG or anything like that, this is much more serious.

Scofflaw

I don't really want to go over the same ground again, but I can't help but note the rather odd middle part of your post:

We have had a debate about wanting higher standards, however it seems that any deviation from "they are scumbags, rabble rabble, terrible act" to "Terrible act, I condemn this utterly. It appears that the dissidents did xyz because" or correcting allegations that the dissidents are trying to massacre people by pointing out that if they wanted another Omagh they could have one, they would not be setting off bombs at 4am, or if they wanted to blow up a school and kill kids they would not have the bomb OUTSIDE the school grounds in a bin, makes it open season to be accused of being a supporter of an illegal organisation.

That's a very nuanced non-condemnation, and an essentially defensive one. I don't think "the dissidents are blowing things up carefully" can really be construed as anything other than a defence of the organisation responsible for the "careful" bombing. We get exactly the same kind of statements in respect of the actions of the IDF by people who say things like "of course they were careful when they boarded the Marmara - if they'd wanted a massacre they could easily have killed everyone on board". I don't have any difficulty seeing that as a defence of IDF actions, and by extension the IDF, and I don't really see any major difference between that statement and yours?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't really want to go over the same ground again, but I can't help but note the rather odd middle part of your post:



That's a very nuanced non-condemnation, and an essentially defensive one. I don't think "the dissidents are blowing things up carefully" can really be construed as anything other than a defence of the organisation responsible for the "careful" bombing. We get exactly the same kind of statements in respect of the actions of the IDF by people who say things like "of course they were careful when they boarded the Marmara - if they'd wanted a massacre they could easily have killed everyone on board". I don't have any difficulty seeing that as a defence of IDF actions, and by extension the IDF, and I don't really see any major difference between that statement and yours?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Did that person say "they should never have gone near the ships, it was 100% wrong" first? The situation you have there seems to be from the point of view of a person who thinks that the ships SHOULD have been boarded. Now, if I was a dissident supporter, and supported the bombs being planted, the comparison would be apt. But I am not.
Lets make this clear, we had a case were the dissidents were being accused of wanting another Omagh, wanting to massacre civilians.
I pointed out that if they WANTED that, they could do it, they would:
Not bomb in the middle of the night
Not have warnings
Etc etc.....
I also pointed out that the very last thing the dissidents would want is civilians dead, it would destroy what little support they have. Some posters could not accept this.
Or we have the case where I offered factual corrections, they bombed a school trying to kill kids, eh no they didn't, they phoned in a warning, lured the cops, and then blew up a bin to try and kill those PSNI men. I understand how that could be viewed as defending the dissidents in some sort of roundabout way, but only if I supported the PSNI being attacked, or the bombs being planted.
I don't support the PSNI being attacked. I don't support the dissidents. I don't support bombings. I have made this abundantly clear.


I have simply looked at these things subjectively.

The reason why I keep bringing this up is because I think you are wrong, simple as. I do not think it is fair. And I honestly cannot understand why you think you are right.
I am convinced that if it was Al Queda you would act differently. Why else no definitive clarification? Why say that you will deal with it on a case by case basis?

Scofflaw

The reason why I keep bringing this up is because I think you are wrong, simple as. I do not think it is fair. And I honestly cannot understand why you think you are right.

I'm definitely aware of that at this stage...

I am convinced that if it was Al Queda you would act differently. Why else no definitive clarification? Why say that you will deal with it on a case by case basis?

Because it would depend on what was being said, obviously. I think I've said all this before, but if someone says you're a shill for the dissidents, or dismisses some unrelated point you raise because you're a "terrorist supporter", those are ad hominems, and those can be dealt with. If, on the other hand, someone takes exception to your clarification of an incident and says that it means you support the actions of dissidents, it's up to you to clarify that misconception, not for me to police it, unless it's very obviously a piece of trolling on their part - and by "very obviously" I mean that it will be obvious to me as well as you.

Same if someone says "it couldn't be Al-Qaeda because if they wanted to kill x many people they'd fly a plane into a building" and someone else takes issue with that. If they come back by calling the first poster a "terrorist-lover" then that can be dealt with. If they say that they feel the poster is defending Al Qaeda, that's their opinion, and it's up to the first poster to clarify it. The only real difference in the Al Qaeda case is that it's pretty unlikely that the poster does support Al Qaeda, something that cannot be said about any form of republicanism.

We're not there to defend posters from what other people think of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm definitely aware of that at this stage...



Because it would depend on what was being said, obviously. I think I've said all this before, but if someone says you're a shill for the dissidents, or dismisses some unrelated point you raise because you're a "terrorist supporter", those are ad hominems, and those can be dealt with. If, on the other hand, someone takes exception to your clarification of an incident and says that it means you support the actions of dissidents, it's up to you to clarify that misconception, not for me to police it, unless it's very obviously a piece of trolling on their part - and by "very obviously" I mean that it will be obvious to me as well as you.

Same if someone says "it couldn't be Al-Qaeda because if they wanted to kill x many people they'd fly a plane into a building" and someone else takes issue with that. If they come back by calling the first poster a "terrorist-lover" then that can be dealt with. If they say that they feel the poster is defending Al Qaeda, that's their opinion, and it's up to the first poster to clarify it. The only real difference in the Al Qaeda case is that it's pretty unlikely that the poster does support Al Qaeda, something that cannot be said about any form of republicanism.

We're not there to defend posters from what other people think of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So what if I do clarify it and it surfaces again? What about the fact that it ends up derailing the whole thread into posters having to defend themselves from said accusations? It is not as if I have gone "Jayzus thats terrible, report post" I have defended myself to such an extent that the thread becomes derailed.

southsiderosie

One of the main objectives in setting off bombs with the potential to be lethal is to demonstrate to the public and to law enforcement that these groups have the capacity to kill and maim large numbers of people and destroy property. The fact that they choose not to do so - at this time - does not take away from the chilling impact that this demonstration of force has on the population.

For most people, it doesn't matter that they weren't 'meant' to kill. It doesn't matter that they were phoned in. What matters is that these groups are saying to the world that they have the potential capacity to drag Ireland back to a 1990s situation. It also demonstrates a complete disregard for the democratically expressed wishes of their fellow citizens.

You say "the very last thing the dissidents would want is civilians dead, it would destroy what little support they have". Not only us the use of the term "civilians" disturbing as a modifier, but regardless of what these groups say they want, enough has gone wrong with car bombs historically to know that there is a strong risk that something will go to **** and people will get hurt. To paraphrase the PIRA, the dissidents only have to be unlucky once. And when they are, God help the rest of us.

Ultimately, based on the qualifiers "intent" and "civilians" that consistently come up in these threads, I think that you and others leave yourselves open to charges that you do, to some extent support the actions of the dissidents.

Overheal

Scofflaw wrote: »

"the dissidents are blowing things up carefully"

Surgical Strike. The term has been in use for decades or longer.

MUSSOLINI wrote:

However,it apparently is fair game as "we cannot protect posters from the impression they give" No warnings given or anything. The reason why I think it is accepted is because of the fact it is republicans.
Ive been down this road lots of times so it is probably pointless to raise it again.

Well don't give off "an impression", take a stance. I make it clear that I'm neither a democrat or a republican, and I have a couple libertarian beliefs.

When a user makes their position clear and another user decides without any cause to ignore that and call you a liar, republican, guerrilla advocate, etc. in spite of stating you clearly are not: that's black and white against The Charter (again under Part 4, Civility), and the Mods do have an interest in enforcing that.

Or we have the case where I offered factual corrections, they bombed a school trying to kill kids, eh no they didn't, they phoned in a warning, lured the cops, and then blew up a bin to try and kill those PSNI men. I understand how that could be viewed as defending the dissidents in some sort of roundabout way, but only if I supported the PSNI being attacked, or the bombs being planted.

If I was in the same thread with the same data I'd have drawn the same conclusion, to be perfectly fair, that they weren't targeting children.

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So what if I do clarify it and it surfaces again? What about the fact that it ends up derailing the whole thread into posters having to defend themselves from said accusations? It is not as if I have gone "Jayzus thats terrible, report post" I have defended myself to such an extent that the thread becomes derailed.

Thread derailment is thread derailment, and the hounding of one poster is hounding - feel free to report those issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

For most people, it doesn't matter that they weren't 'meant' to kill. It doesn't matter that they were phoned in. What matters is that these groups are saying to the world that they have the potential capacity to drag Ireland back to a 1990s situation. It also demonstrates a complete disregard for the democratically expressed wishes of their fellow citizens.

I would agree with that. So what you are saying is that the actual targets dont matter?

You say "the very last thing the dissidents would want is civilians dead, it would destroy what little support they have". Not only us the use of the term "civilians" disturbing as a modifier, but regardless of what these groups say they want, enough has gone wrong with car bombs historically to know that there is a strong risk that something will go to **** and people will get hurt. To paraphrase the PIRA, the dissidents only have to be unlucky once. And when they are, God help the rest of us.

I would not regard soldiers or police men as civilians, wether they be Irish, British, American or whatever. I dont want them dead.
I agree 100%, hence my repeated condemnation of any and all bombings in the current climate, those days are gone.

Ultimately, based on the qualifiers "intent" and "civilians" that consistently come up in these threads, I think that you and others leave yourselves open to charges that you do, to some extent support the actions of the dissidents.

So by not describing soldiers and cops as civilians(they are not) it appears that we support dissidents? Come on.
So the intent is not relevant? Thats strange, I feel it is important that we know and examine the intent. The FACTS of the matter are important. Unless you want to engage in a sensationalist debate where such things as facts don't get in the way. Motivations are important in examining any act. As is the intent behind them. That is true in the courts, its true here too.

Wolfe Tone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thread derailment is thread derailment, and the hounding of one poster is hounding - feel free to report those issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thats a bit difficult when a mod is behaving in a similar vein.

Wolfe Tone

Overheal wrote: »

Well don't give off "an impression", take a stance. I make it clear that I'm neither a democrat or a republican, and I have a couple libertarian beliefs.

I think I have been pretty clear, however I will try to be more so in future.

When a user makes their position clear and another user decides without any cause to ignore that and call you a liar, republican, guerrilla advocate, etc. in spite of stating you clearly are not: that's black and white against The Charter (again under Part 4, Civility), and the Mods do have an interest in enforcing that.

Apologist is one that is used too, defender.

If I was in the same thread with the same data I'd have drawn the same conclusion, to be perfectly fair, that they weren't targeting children.

At the time I though that conclusion obvious.





I should really sleep now, thanks for all your time, I will be back tomorrow. If a mod deems it prudent to split this thread into two separate ones(I may have hijacked this a bit!!) that would be cool.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would agree with that. So what you are saying is that the actual targets dont matter?

I would not regard soldiers or police men as civilians, wether they be Irish, British, American or whatever. I dont want them dead.
I agree 100%, hence my repeated condemnation of any and all bombings in the current climate, those days are gone.

So by not describing soldiers and cops as civilians(they are not) it appears that we support dissidents? Come on.

Then why not make an unqualified statement? Why not just say "it would be bad if people got killed"? By saying it would be bad if "civilians" were killed, the implication is that it wouldn't be so bad if police or soldiers were killed.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So the intent is not relevant? Thats strange, I feel it is important that we know and examine the intent. The FACTS of the matter are important. Unless you want to engage in a sensationalist debate where such things as facts don't get in the way. Motivations are important in examining any act. As is the intent behind them. That is true in the courts, its true here too.

The stated intent has become irrelevant. It does not matter that these people don't "intend" to hurt anyone. Their actions say that they think it is legitimate to use explosives to make a political point.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

Then why not make an unqualified statement? Why not just say "it would be bad if people got killed"? By saying it would be bad if "civilians" were killed, the implication is that it wouldn't be so bad if police or soldiers were killed.

I thought I said that the LAST THING THE DISSIDENTS WOULD WANT would be civilians dead. Of course they want state forces dead.
To the people saying they want civilians dead, I say they don't, why would they? Look at it subjectively. It would make no sense for them to have another Omagh.

The stated intent has become irrelevant. It does not matter that these people don't "intend" to hurt anyone. Their actions say that they think it is legitimate to use explosives to make a political point.

So the debate should simply be "They used a bomb" and discard all other details?

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

The stated intent has become irrelevant. It does not matter that these people don't "intend" to hurt anyone. Their actions say that they think it is legitimate to use explosives to make a political point.

Which can't really be condoned, imo. But the problem becomes, I've seen over the years, that someone will come along and support the rest of the platform (Unification, or whatever the case may be) and then the reaction is "Oh if you agree with that then you must also enjoy killing babies" etc.

There are those out that that abhor the violence, there are those that just want to watch the world burn, and there are those people in the middle of that equation which believe that force is necessary in particular circumstances. In particular they see it as a war with battle lines and combatants and non-combatants.

You have to understand that in politics, things are very rarely Binary.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Apologist is one that is used too, defender.

Apology is just a style of debate; it's not a viewpoint.

southsiderosie

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I thought I said that the LAST THING THE DISSIDENTS WOULD WANT would be civilians dead. Of course they want state forces dead.
To the people saying they want civilians dead, I say they don't, why would they? Look at it subjectively. It would make no sense for them to have another Omagh.

And yet, based on Ireland's history of car bombings, another Omagh is inevitable because nobody can guarantee that something will not go wrong when there are explosives involved. And, again, it does not matter what the intent is; the reality is that bombs do not always go off according to plan and they KILL PEOPLE.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So the debate should simply be "They used a bomb" and discard all other details?

"Dissidents placed a bomb"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school, but called ahead and it was evacuated"

Once we've established the fact that dissidents placed a bomb, I honestly don't give a **** what any of the qualifiers or circumstances are: they are using VIOLENCE to make a POLITICAL point. Although the school as a case only makes it more horrible, not less.

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

Which can't really be condoned, imo. But the problem becomes, I've seen over the years, that someone will come along and support the rest of the platform (Unification, or whatever the case may be) and then the reaction is "Oh if you agree with that then you must also enjoy killing babies" etc.

There are those out that that abhor the violence, there are those that just want to watch the world burn, and there are those people in the middle of that equation which believe that force is necessary in particular circumstances. In particular they see it as a war with battle lines and combatants and non-combatants.

You have to understand that in politics, things are very rarely Binary.

In a democracy it is quite binary.

What is the point of having a political process if someone can just come along and say "no I don't like this so I am going to kill agents of the state?"

There is a constitutional path to unification. Not everyone may like it, but it is there.

The use of violence prior to the GFA is debatable. But in a post-GFA context, far less so. And what is particularly disturbing today is how many dissidents and sympathizers have no actual experience of repression; they are simply going off of history and feeding off of dissidents strains in their communities.

Overheal

It was not actually my intent to engage in a North discussion, it was an example used by MUSSOLINI to convey the problem he is trying to address in Politics.

southsiderosie wrote: »

And yet, based on Ireland's history of car bombings, another Omagh is inevitable because nobody can guarantee that something will not go wrong when there are explosives involved. And, again, it does not matter what the intent is; the reality is that bombs do not always go off according to plan and they KILL PEOPLE.

"Dissidents placed a bomb"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school"
"Dissidents placed a bomb at a school, but called ahead and it was evacuated"

Once we've established the fact that dissidents placed a bomb, I honestly don't give a **** what any of the qualifiers or circumstances are: they are using VIOLENCE to make a POLITICAL point. Although the school as a case only makes it more horrible, not less.

Which is your opinion but in the context of this Feedback Thread (...guys?) this is the problem I think MUSSOLINI was getting at, is that other posters are unable to differentiate one viewpoint from the other (edit: case and point, "Once we've established that dissidents placed a bomb I dont give a ****") and it's resulting in miscommunication and ultimately false accusations, muppetry, and ad hominem attacks.

I'd have a real problem with US Politics for instance if it employed Sean Hannity logic, ie. "You support the Ground Zero Mosque?! Then you support the terrorists. You want the Terrorists to win. You are a terrorist, get out of my country. You hate America! Bla rabble rawr"

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

Which is your opinion but in the context of this Feedback Thread (...guys?) this is the problem I think MUSSOLINI was getting at, is that other posters are unable to differentiate one viewpoint from the other and it's resulting in miscommunication and ultimately false accusations, muppetry, and ad hominem attacks.

Yes, that's true, and happens to virtually every poster with a political opinion at some point most days. Some posters are unable to distinguish any form of nuance whatsoever, but apart from them, if many people make the same misinterpretation of your viewpoint, then the common thread is likely to be that you're not explaining yourself well enough. Or too well, depending.

As I said, if it spills over into something actionable, we can take action - otherwise I'm afraid it's the small change of discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

It was not actually my intent to engage in a North discussion, it was an example used by MUSSOLINI to convey the problem he is trying to address in Politics.


Which is your opinion but in the context of this Feedback Thread (...guys?) this is the problem I think MUSSOLINI was getting at, is that other posters are unable to differentiate one viewpoint from the other and it's resulting in miscommunication and ultimately false accusations, muppetry, and ad hominem attacks.

I think the fundamental problem is that the starting premises and underlying assumptions are completely different. If you are coming from a position where violence is sometimes legitimate, then yes you can engage in these debates. If you are coming from a position where political violence in a democratic context is rarely if ever legitimate, then no, there is no space for debate.

As I see it, these issues get muddled in threads. If someone who has identified as a republican says, in response to a bombing "Well, they don't want to hurt civilians", what this reads as is: 1) the use of bombs is legitimate to make a political point, and 2) the targeting of "non-civilians" is legitimate. Both perspectives may technically be correct, but they will inevitably lead to clashes in a thread.

The first has obvious problems, as I have pointed out. The second is more problematic, however, because the definition of "civilian" has been quite elastic historically, depending on the political situation. Unfortunately, what often happens is that "non-civilians" are dubbed to be "anyone who takes a position in this conflict in opposition to me", and this is how you end up with journalists, politicians, and businessmen being murdered (the Basque Country is a prime example of this). Ultimately it is a slippery slope: violence is OK as long as it targetes the state security apparatus, then people who work with the state security apparatus (touts!), then people who are non-security agents of the state (politicians) then people who criticize the use of violence (journalists, activists)...and so on and so forth.

Overheal

See the reason I'm not getting into a North debate is because I don't know any of the specifics, I've never even heard of Basque County, and for the purposes of this thread do not feel the need to be taught about it right now, either.

As long as you're not assuming people are right-wing extremists because they understand the [violent] intentions of an organisation - especially when they've expressly stated they don't belong to or agree with the organisations views - then there isn't a problem here. That is of course only for the purposes of this example. It would be the same situation if you could agree that someone might understand the argument for Pro Choice despite them personally being Pro Life. The problem only arises (and this is not aimed at you Dosie) when a poster attacks another poster accusing them of being "Pro Abortion" because they convey and understanding of the platform.

To make a long story short, I think this thread has run it's course. Moral of the story: don't make yourself too ambiguous, it avoids a lot of problems further along

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

See the reason I'm not getting into a North debate is because I don't know any of the specifics, I've never even heard of Basque County, and for the purposes of this thread do not feel the need to be taught about it right now, either.

As long as you're not assuming people are right-wing extremists because they understand the [violent] intentions of an organisation - especially when they've expressly stated they don't belong to or agree with the organisations views - then there isn't a problem here. That is of course only for the purposes of this example. It would be the same situation if you could agree that someone might understand the argument for Pro Choice despite them personally being Pro Life. The problem only arises (and this is not aimed at you Dosie) when a poster attacks another poster accusing them of being "Pro Abortion" because they convey and understanding of the platform.

To make a long story short, I think this thread has run it's course. Moral of the story: don't make yourself too ambiguous, it avoids a lot of problems further along

I think the abortion debate is a perfect analogy, not only for the reasons you have posted, but because the threads tend to descend into the same 8 people yelling at each other, and everyone else just bows out.

As for the Basque Country, it's like Ireland except rainier and with much better food.;)