Migrant Threads

_Kaiser_

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I wouldn't think that your examples above ("simple racism for morons" or "waah waah Muslims") would fall under that category. For me they'd probably be covered under normal "uncivil" rules. The "All Muslims are XXX" stuff definitely falls into the "No Sweeping Generalisation" bucket..

Stuff like some of the posts in the Roscommon thread about burning down the hotel etc. clearly fall into the incitement category though and that's the kind of stuff we do not want.

Look - It's an emotive topic on both sides , but people need to be able to calmly argue their points and not get into silly spats etc..

Everyone posting in the thread regardless of their viewpoint, will be expect to remain civil and coherent.. Those that don't will be swiftly shown the door.

Cheers, appreciate the feedback and clarification.

You might want to have a look at this one already though. It ironically is exactly what I was referring to above

Quin_Dub

Calhoun wrote: »

That makes no sense so you can label based upon religion but when it comes to labeling based upon belief / political leaning its uncivil? Even when folk were going around calling others Nazi's.

I'm not understanding your point?

I've said that all the examples given would qualify for sanction in my view , I just clarified the reasons why they'd qualify...

Calhoun

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'm not understanding your point?

I've said that all the examples given would qualify for sanction in my view , I just clarified the reasons why they'd qualify...

How serious is one taken against the other does being called a Nazi rank on the same level as generalisation about Islam?

jackofalltrades

I still don't get why the EU Immigration thread was closed.
It seems that someone made a comment about burning a hotel in another thread, then someone came in and made a "you're all racists" comment and it was closed.
Migration threads seem to be moderated on the basis of worries about reputational damage to Boards.
Which is somewhat understandable, given the rest of the rest of the media is so biased on the matter that are normal discussion could come as a bit of a shock to some people.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##MOD NOTE##

Given how off the rails previous threads on this topic have gone we have some rules for this new thread.

1. No Posts which incite hatred/violence.
2. No Newsdumping.
3. No sweeping generalisations.
4. No making claims without a reputable source to back up what you are referencing.

It mightn't be a bad idea to clarify what exactly is considered inciting hatred.
If someone talks about burning down hotels, that makes complete sense.
But what if someone makes a point about increased migration leading to increased crime and uses statistics to back this up. Is this allowed?
Also who decides what a reputable source is?

Can I make a request that false allegations of racism/xenophobia be infractable offences?
These words carry too much negative weight to be thrown around without justification.
And just to be clear I've no problem with them being used where they are justified.

Lovely Bloke

yeah the "tone" seems to be any criticism of the policy, or discussion of crimes committed by migrants in Europe, or the attempted cover up of such, cultural mixing issues, is met with the kind of comments that then lead to reaction.

Talking about those things is not;

Islamaphobic (not even a thing)
Racist
"Right Wing"
alt-right
Nazi
wah-wah-Muslim
"for morons"

or any other moniker the people on the "for" side (for want of a better term, but I'm trying not to be pejorative here) use to try to get a reaction that ultimately leads to the shutting down of discussion from the "less liberal" people.

Even from the answer given here;

I wouldn't think that your examples above ("simple racism for morons" or "waah waah Muslims") would fall under that category. For me they'd probably be covered under normal "uncivil" rules. The "All Muslims are XXX" stuff definitely falls into the "No Sweeping Generalisation" bucket..

You are giving more weight as an "offence" to the "All muslims are..." comments than to the "wah wah muslims" posts.

BOTH type of comments should be equally actionable, in my opinion, as BOTH types are only going to end up in eventual thread closure.

And, in my opinion, there is only one side of this debate that actually wants to see it shut down.

SkinnyBuddha

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Afraid not, it's a thread where people post and discuss legitimate concerns.

and why is it getting closed down so often along with other threads across boards involving anything to do with muslims?

SkinnyBuddha

DeadHand wrote: »

Ponder this, why do the words "Christianaphobia" or "Hinduaphobia" not exist?

not so sure about that....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment

rgossip30

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

yeah the "tone" seems to be any criticism of the policy, or discussion of crimes committed by migrants in Europe, or the attempted cover up of such, cultural mixing issues, is met with the kind of comments that then lead to reaction.

Talking about those things is not;

Islamaphobic (not even a thing)
Racist
"Right Wing"
alt-right
Nazi
wah-wah-Muslim
"for morons"

or any other moniker the people on the "for" side (for want of a better term, but I'm trying not to be pejorative here) use to try to get a reaction that ultimately leads to the shutting down of discussion from the "less liberal" people.

Even from the answer given here;


You are giving more weight as an "offence" to the "All muslims are..." comments than to the "wah wah muslims" posts.

BOTH type of comments should be equally actionable, in my opinion, as BOTH types are only going to end up in eventual thread closure.

And, in my opinion, there is only one side of this debate that actually wants to see it shut down.

To the same with these terms as is done with swear words add the * ** .I suppose .