Location based arguments

MadsL

5starpool wrote: »

So you want to be the first to be infracted under this new order?

If the mods want target practice I'll take one for the team.

As I said above it may well be annoying, but I don't think someone saying "you don't even live in Ireland, how would you know" should be a blanket against the rules offence. If it is the same person who does it to you a number of times then I'm sure it would be due to harassment, or if they said it an abusive way "wtf would you know, you don't even live here you twat", then obviously that is a different matter.

How about "Typical American response!"

I am only a fairly casual reader of AH, so by no means an expert, but I haven't noticed it being a general problem worthy of stamping out. If it is happening to you on a large number of threads, then I would bring it to the attention of mods of that particular forum, but as there are a large number of non Irish posters, if it were a larger problem I would imagine it would have come up before.

I PM'd you a nasty response I saw today on boards.

I would advise to essentially ignore anyone who makes the point on an irrelevant thread, but in some cases it is probably somewhat relevant at least, for example on the recent thread about beer where you said Ireland had nowhere you could really get craft beers, you living outside of here for the last number of years really was a relevant point as things have changed somewhat, both in a growing number of bars, and most off licences.

On thread, yes I ignore such nonsense. And your point above it is valid to say that if things have changed it is fine to point them out. Compare however the following responses.

"Things have changed since you were last here, has it been a while?" with
"What the f*ck would you know about it, yank!"

I'm sure you see the difference.

Insect Overlord

MadsL wrote: »

We have nine grounds of discrimination protected in Irish law, could I suggest that they might be considered as a prohibited basis for attacking a poster. I'm not sure why race is afforded protection against attack on boards, but not nationality?

Nationality isn't the issue. Location is.

MadsL

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nationality isn't the issue. Location is.

Well true. I admit that location isn't the same.

However, xenophobic statements. "Typical Yank" "Typical Aussie" "A Brit would say that" are permitted on boards, so there isn't even protection of nationality under the charter.

Penn

MadsL wrote: »

The drip drip effect. Happens with baiting all the time, innocuous not to get infracted, but end up forming a pattern.

I also saw a post today (not aimed at me), that referenced nationality as a means to open an attack on the poster's political views, and how those views would lose the poster friends in Ireland. Complete nonsense, but offensively framed, but within the rules. Consider the cumulative effect on a poster subjected to attacks on nationality/location repeatedly whilst posting on boards.

We have nine grounds of discrimination protected in Irish law, could I suggest that they might be considered as a prohibited basis for attacking a poster. I'm not sure why race is afforded protection against attack on boards, but not nationality?

Because discrimination against someone because of their nationality is not the same as pointing out that a point someone is making may be flawed due to their location. Again, wild example, but if a German poster said he's never been to Ireland but knows there are no good restaurants, are you implying that it's discrimination to point out that them having never been in Ireland weakens the point they're making?

Again, even closer to home, someone from Kerry saying there's no good restaurants in Dundalk. It would be completely valid for someone to point out they live in Kerry and therefore wouldn't know as well as those who live in Dundalk. Likewise, it'd then be valid for the Kerry person to say they went to college and lived in Dundalk for 5 years up until a few months ago, thereby providing a basis for their point.

If it's being done repeatedly by the same posters and directed at the same posters, then that's being a dick and already covered by the charter. If you can show the mods that's the case, it'd be dealt with if they see fit. But adding it to the charter is the equivalent of trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. It's an OTT solution to a problem that barely exists.

Delirium

MadsL wrote: »

Well true. I admit that location isn't the same.

However, xenophobic statements. "Typical Yank" "Typical Aussie" "A Brit would say that" are permitted on boards, so there isn't even protection of nationality under the charter.

Of which forum(s)?

AH, for example, has it in the charter prohibiting racism/xenophobia

MadsL

Penn wrote: »

Because discrimination against someone because of their nationality is not the same as pointing out that a point someone is making may be flawed due to their location. Again, wild example, but if a German poster said he's never been to Ireland but knows there are no good restaurants, are you implying that it's discrimination to point out that them having never been in Ireland weakens the point they're making?

Again, even closer to home, someone from Kerry saying there's no good restaurants in Dundalk. It would be completely valid for someone to point out they live in Kerry and therefore wouldn't know as well as those who live in Dundalk. Likewise, it'd then be valid for the Kerry person to say they went to college and lived in Dundalk for 5 years up until a few months ago, thereby providing a basis for their point.

If it's being done repeatedly by the same posters and directed at the same posters, then that's being a dick and already covered by the charter. If you can show the mods that's the case, it'd be dealt with if they see fit. But adding it to the charter is the equivalent of trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. It's an OTT solution to a problem that barely exists.

Let me PM a couple of posts as an example, they fall under your CMod anyway, and exhibit perfectly the kind of behaviour that I am talking about: Bashing the validity of someone's views/opinions on the basis that they live in a particular location.

PM in 3...2...

MadsL

koth wrote: »

Of which forum(s)?

AH, for example, has it in the charter prohibiting racism/xenophobia

xenophobia is specifically NOT included in the AH charter.

clairefontaine

Yes it does fall under ad hominem.

Given the amount of threads on AH obsessing over American, UK, and foreign events, of the "you don't even live here" argument stood any ground they'd be locked immediately.

It really depends on how strict you want to get about it. It is a continuum.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes it does fall under ad hominem.

Given the amount of threads on AH obsessing over American, UK, and foreign events, of the "you don't even live here" argument stood any ground they'd be locked immediately.

It really depends on how strict you want to get about it. It is a continuum.

I imagine you have suffered such disparaging comments however Claire, living as an American in Ireland then moving from Ireland to the US.

I'm frankly getting sick of it and thinking about updating my location tag. I don't see why I should though...

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Let me PM a couple of posts as an example, they fall under your CMod anyway, and exhibit perfectly the kind of behaviour that I am talking about: Bashing the validity of someone's views/opinions on the basis that they live in a particular location.

PM in 3...2...

Damn...that was fast.
*slaps Penn on back*

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

I imagine you have suffered such disparaging comments however Claire, living as an American in Ireland then moving from Ireland to the US.

I'm frankly getting sick of it and thinking about updating my location tag. I don't see why I should though...

How is updating your location tag going to stop it?

The way I deal with it, is if I get any sniff of an ad hominem, they go on ignore. I know the mods will let this stuff slide, so I can only do my own form of moderation and ignore it.

As you know because I've disagreed with you many many times, I am we'll able to disagree with people and still respect them. I expect the same for others,and if someone has to resort to the "well you've been out of the country for three days, what the hell do you know ya dumb yank?" They are not worth your attention. Immediate ignore list.

Penn

MadsL wrote: »

Let me PM a couple of posts as an example, they fall under your CMod anyway, and exhibit perfectly the kind of behaviour that I am talking about: Bashing the validity of someone's views/opinions on the basis that they live in a particular location.

PM in 3...2...

Those posts you linked to went way above the "pointing out someone's location as part of a discussion" problem you're implying, and were actionable on their own merits as they breached more than one section of the existing forum charter. Just because the mods hadn't had a chance to deal with them yet (I have now), doesn't mean they were okay.

clairefontaine

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nationality isn't the issue. Location is.

Why is location a basis on which to invalidate an opinion? Why not clarify without then personal insult?

MadsL

Penn wrote: »

Those posts you linked to went way above the "pointing out someone's location as part of a discussion" problem you're implying, and were actionable on their own merits as they breached more than one section of the existing forum charter. Just because the mods hadn't had a chance to deal with them yet (I have now), doesn't mean they were okay.

Oh, not a bother. I wasn't implying those particular posts had been let slide. I knew you (the mods) hadn't seen them yet. Cheers for the action.

Insect Overlord

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why is location a basis on which to invalidate an opinion? Why not clarify without then personal insult?

Penn summed it up nicely in post #35.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86939555&postcount=35

Dades

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why is location a basis on which to invalidate an opinion? Why not clarify without then personal insult?

Again, on a basic level, there is no personal insult involved. Only yourself and MadsL seem to think there is.

If there is a personal insult - it'll be in something else tacked on - not simply in suggesting someone's location invalidates their argument.

clairefontaine

Dades wrote: »

Again, on a basic level, there is no personal insult involved. Only yourself and MadsL seem to think there is.

If there is a personal insult - it'll be in something else tacked on - not simply in suggesting someone's location invalidates their argument.

Ok I know madsl is well able to speak for himself, but I've seen on a number of occasions where people have tried to invalidate his opinion with the fact he's no longer in the country.

It's personalising the argument.

And I'm not trying to convert the mods here on this, it's just how I see it so when it happens to me, I put the user on ignore. Whomever comes up with the rules here, can keep the rules as they like obviously, but I see it as disrespectful so I won't engage.

MadsL

Dades wrote: »

Again, on a basic level, there is no personal insult involved. Only yourself and MadsL seem to think there is.

If there is a personal insult - it'll be in something else tacked on - not simply in suggesting someone's location invalidates their argument.

Is "Typical Yank" or "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" an insult and actionable?


Look - I think what I am arguing for in a nutshell is inclusion of xenophobia in the charter. Where it is clear that the poster is attacking the poster, rather than probing his knowledge of Polish cuisine.

[Insert Warrior Princess joke]

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Is "Typical Yank" or "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" an insult and actionable?


Look - I think what I am arguing for in a nutshell is inclusion of xenophobia in the charter. Where it is clear that the poster is attacking the poster, rather than probing his knowledge of Polish cuisine.

[Insert Warrior Princess joke]

Selective bigotry. Yanks are not on the protected species list.

But seriously, madsl, let them spout it. At least it's visible and you know where you stand.

Insect Overlord

clairefontaine wrote: »

Selective bigotry. Yanks are not on the protected species list.

But seriously, madsl, let them spout it. At least it's visible and you know where you stand.

Or you could, you know, report it...

clairefontaine

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Or you could, you know, report it...

Yeah I could, but I have in the past and nothing seems to happen so I prefer either addressing it or put the user on ignore.

There's no point in reporting it if its within the rules of the charter.

MadsL

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Or you could, you know, report it...

I have reported "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" previously on AH. It was deemed an acceptable post.

Xenophobia is not currently against the charter.

Dades

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why is location a basis on which to invalidate an opinion? Why not clarify without then personal insult?

Dades wrote: »

Again, on a basic level, there is no personal insult involved. Only yourself and MadsL seem to think there is.

Clear enough I thought...

MadsL wrote: »

Is "Typical Yank" or "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" an insult and actionable?

More than likely. As is "you're a complete tool and I'm going to call around to your house and kill you". Neither of which are a feeble, location-based opinion as per the OP.

Look - I think what I am arguing for in a nutshell is inclusion of xenophobia in the charter. Where it is clear that the poster is attacking the poster, rather than probing his knowledge of Polish cuisine.

What you're doing now in this thread is changing the behaviour at the centre of the original complaint. The latest examples offered up are already covered in the AH charter.

MadsL

Dades wrote: »

What you're doing now in this thread is changing the behaviour at the centre of the original complaint. The latest examples offered up are already covered in the AH charter.

Yes, I accept that. I probably should have started a thread on xenophobia. My bad.

Fact is however, "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" has been run by the AH mods and passed as an acceptable post.

Other mods here disagree.

Do we need to have that discussion in another thread?

Dades

Was it just a general comment, or was aimed at you as 'the yank'? That would be personalising it.

In the case of the former, I can't help but think it overly PC to censure a throwaway generalisation which is so trite as to be almost harmless. Context and intent are key here.

MadsL

Dades wrote: »

Was it just a general comment, or was aimed at you as 'the yank'? That would be personalising it.

In the case of the former, I can't help but think it overly PC to censure a throwaway generalisation which is so trite as to be almost harmless. Context and intent are key here.

I have PM'd you the context, see what you think.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, I accept that. I probably should have started a thread on xenophobia. My bad.

Fact is however, "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" has been run by the AH mods and passed as an acceptable post.

Other mods here disagree.

Do we need to have that discussion in another thread?

This stuff seems to happen a lot on US Politics. Yet its a US politics forum.

Somehow I doubt, shut up you stupid micks what do you know you've never even been here would be ok.

But stupid retarded yanks has become normal enough I barely notice it anymore.

Overheal

I've felt for years that moderation could probably stand to hand down verbal warnings to frequent abusers of argumentum ad hominem. Its that one step before you reach the stage of personal abuse, but definitely qualifies as attacking the poster

I can see where location can genuinely come up in conversation though. When you're talking about a geocentric topic its going to come up as a matter of course. Same for people arguing "why should anyone care about [latest US violence]" So making a hard rule for it is difficult and probably ill advised. Best thing to do is remind people from time to time what an Ad Hominem argument is

ken wrote: »

Are people outside Ireland allowed start feedback threads?.

Actually, posters outside of Ireland aren't normally allowed to post anonymously in forums like RI and PI.

MadsL

*right-clicks and saves image as...*

Dades

MadsL wrote: »

I have PM'd you the context, see what you think.

Only just remembering this now the thread got bumped.

I saw the post you linked to. It's obviously someone who read the first post in an AH thread (about a weird American couple) and posted his one-line response 858 posts in.

I have to ask, would you really be offended by some drive-by generalisation from a some random AH poster? Like actually offended? Should taking offence not really require an element of thought on behalf of the offender, or a shred of credence for their post?

I'd have told the poster to cop on or offer something useful (or maybe just deleted it) but the post was just chaff.