Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Banned from After Hours

  • 06-05-2015 6:34pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭


    This was because of my "racist" (according to 'whoopsadaisydoodles') posts on the Freddy Gray thread (that has since been closed), . Since I don't see how my posts on that thread, nor any other, qualify as "racist", I have opened the thread here. It appears that Whoopsa has her own views on certain political stories and doesn't like my postings. Fair enough, but it seems quite baffling that I would be banned for having opinions at odds with her own/others on a political thread.

    I have contacted her twice (via pm) over the course of a week and had no reply at all. So not sure what to make of that. Thanks.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,817 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    Hi there. Thanks for confirming that you have attempted to discuss this with the mod. Please forward me a copy of the PMs you sent & I shall take a look at this for you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,817 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    Thanks for the PM.

    Just to note - it may be a couple of days before I get to look at this in-depth & get feedback from the mod team due to other commitments.

    Edit: In the meantime, I suggest that you try to resolve this again with the mod via PM. It may be that this is still under consideration by them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    There's no rush at all, really, so take your time.
    On your advice I have now sent a third pm to her and will let you know the outcome.
    And again thanks for checking into it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Amazingfun,
    Apologies for making you wait so long. The Hill Billy has asked that I take over this DR for him.

    The basis for your ban was that several times in several different threads, you have been posting what appear to be attempts to show that black people are predisposed to criminal behaviour. You've been posting statistics about crime levels of mainly poor black communities and been trying to compare them with statistics about crime levels in poor white communities. You post articles about increase in black populations while also posting articles referring to "white flight".

    I'm at a loss to see what you were trying to prove if it wasn't your intention to infer negative connotations on a specific ethnic group. What were your intentions for posting these things?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    The threads that data was posted in was germane to the discussion and in context at the time. And why is such data -factual data-grounds for banning anyways? FBI stats are not permitted?

    Frankly it is a bit strange that you are now in charge of this. You closed a thread I started awhile back on a young girl burnt alive in her car, Jessica Chambers, for no other reason than you deemed my "having an agenda" to be worthy of thread-closing. We then had a very long and tiresome exchange via pm where I asked you how only white on black crime postings seem to merit the label of being "agenda free", yet not the other way round. If I had an "agenda" it would be an attempt at balance given the massive media overload on cases like Michael Brown (a victim narrative propped up on here for yonks and yet was proven to be bogus with no penalties/retractions at all for those who were clearly in the wrong) ,etc.

    Anyways, this current situation was based on the Freddy Gray thread- a thread that was closed. Despite her saying she (whoopsa) would get back to me with examples of my supposed "many racist posts" she claimed I made-none have been forthcoming. And that's because there weren't any, really. I just posted facts neither of you find comfortable.

    Further, since both you and WHoopsa have been involved with banning/closing threads regarding this kind of matter (race/crime/media) in the past, I don't see the value in attempting to reason with you now. Shall I not incur further penalties for re-stating material you've aready deemed worthy of censoring?

    A.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    I asked what your intentions for posting those stats were. What was the point you were trying to get across? Singling out two areas mostly inhabited by different ethnic groups and to point out the one area has a higher crime rate than the other, doesn't seem like you're just posting stats for the hell of it. Why did you post articles about "white flight"? Why stats about the increase in the black populations of the areas in those threads? Nobody even mentioned them, you just posted them and didn't refer to them again. Surely there's a definitive point you were trying to get across. I'm trying to find out what that point was.

    Because as it is, it gives the impression that you were trying to tie in ethnicity to the crime rate. That's the reason you were banned. Now if it was taken completely out of context then just show me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    Well if bannings are based on the "impressions" (thought crimes) you two glean from pages long threads.....and then are permitted to grill said thought criminal on their "intentions" for mysterious posts you never actually present but allude to out of context......there simply isn't much left to say, is there?

    ***Now that I see this forum is merely a chance for you to continue using your mod privileges to enforce your own personal political positions, I can erase the quaint notion this was meant to be a hearing presided over by an impartial "judge". Cuz that sure as hell ain't you ;)

    Bye.


Advertisement