Off Topic Thread 4.0

Dubinusa

Was watching Rory McIlroy earlier and he looked great. I can't figure him out. Every tourney he shoots 1 round like a superstar and the other 3 he's just ok. It's strange that he seems incapable of stringing consecutive good days together.

Synode

Lyster and Mccaffrey nearly got drenched in the Gibson when doing the man of the match award :pac:

Dave_The_Sheep

Dubinusa wrote: »

He's sleazy. He's predatory. He's the Harvey Weinstein of politics. He's a serial pervert. But, he likes cigars!

Everything, bar cigars, about what you just said is equally, actually no, far more applicable to the person who beat Clinton's husband in the election against Clinton. It's absolutely non-sensical to point to it as a reason for Trump winning. There's plenty of reasons, Clinton being a **** candidate being top of the list, for Trump winning, but Bill is not even among the top five.

That's not even touching Trump on his own as a candidate, and not even touching what's come out about Trump - and his family - since the election. The USA is absolutely ****ed (socially and politically) as a nation. Irredeemably, totally, utterly ****ed. I honestly don't see how it's recoverable. Not for at least half a century or more.

Neil3030

The one thing that truly baffles me about Trump is how he got away with his comments about McCain. He can say what he wants about women, minorities, the poor, foreigners, etc. etc., Republicans won't bat an eyelid. They'll actually like him more for it. However the military is sacred to those people, and he, a rich kid from New York, who dodged the draft 5 times, took the piss out of a Vietnam War veteran for being captured and serving nearly six years as a POW. In a strong field, it's one of the most disgraceful things he has ever said, but that his military deifying supporters let him away with it (and even, in some cases, regard it as one of his best put downs), just bewilders me. Were they that terrified of a female president?

Dubinusa

Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. She ran 2 poor campaigns. John McCain also was a poor candidate when he ran. Politics has changed since the internet became mainstream. I remember Gary Hart dropping out for an affair in 1988. Nobody would even blink about it now. I'd wager that Kim Kardashian could become a viable candidate in this day and age.
Politics is like American idol . The more recognizable the person the better they'll do. If they are likeable.

Dubinusa

I know registered Democrats that voted for Trump. They disliked Hillary. They also voted for Obama. One even has the Obama 12 sticker on his car.
I also know registered Republicans who detest Trump. One co worker didn't vote as he detested both of them. By the way, his guy was Rubio.

mfceiling

Dubinusa wrote: »

I'd wager that Kim Kardashian could become a viable candidate in this day and age.
Politics is like American idol . The more recognizable the person the better they'll do. If they are likeable.

This is an actual worry with America. Was there not talk that the brain dead idiot Kanye West was going to run for office? If that clown even got as far as being a viable candidate then can the last person on earth please turn off the light and put the key under the mat.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

I know registered Democrats that voted for Trump. They disliked Hillary.

Then frankly, they are idiots. Anyone who watched any 60 second segment of any of the three debates and thought there was even slight parity between the candidates is a brainwashed buffoon.

It's an incredibly powerful office and only one of the candidates showed anything like the seriousness you would want from the occupant of that office.

Regardless the entirety of the US now has to take ownership of an administration that has put 6 month old babies in detention facilities as an immigration detterance policy. The outright shame of it.

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

So I have:

Buer
Podge_irl
Scrubsfanchris

We need a few more! Any takers? Drop me a PM.

I haven't heard from anyone else so let's forget about it.

errlloyd

thomond2006 wrote: »

I haven't heard from anyone else so let's forget about it.

Was it the official NFL one. If so I'll allow my team to be autodrawn and just make a few touches up every now and then if it'll make a difference.

thomond2006

errlloyd wrote: »

Was it the official NFL one. If so I'll allow my team to be autodrawn and just make a few touches up every now and then if it'll make a difference.

Official NFL one. We'll need 8 players at least to make it worthwhile, otherwise all the teams will be stacked.

Dubinusa

Do you get the nfl on tv?
Espn just picked up the pro14. Thank God. Sick of watching on my phone.

wp_rathead

I know it's not kosher to talk about other Forums on boards but yikes since when has After Hours has turned into Stormfront lite?

Buer

wp_rathead wrote: »

I know it's not kosher to talk about other Forums on boards but yikes since when has After Hours has turned into Stormfront lite?

Makes a difference from Stormont lite, at least.

I rarely read much in there. Take a look at the odd threat that has potential for a good story but the current affairs/social issues aspect of it is utterly manic.

I was having a conversation with a mate last week and after seeing the likes of AH, The Journal and r/ireland I wondered whether there are groups of people actually posting in an organised fashion to sway public opinion and gather traction for certain parties and/or political movements. There seems to be the same names that appear again and again. These people must be literally online 15 hours a day scouring the internet for suitable avenues to publish their agenda.

Mookie Blaylock

Buer wrote: »

Makes a difference from Stormont lite, at least.

I rarely read much in there. Take a look at the odd threat that has potential for a good story but the current affairs/social issues aspect of it is utterly manic.

I was having a conversation with a mate last week and after seeing the likes of AH, The Journal and r/ireland I wondered whether there are groups of people actually posting in an organised fashion to sway public opinion and gather traction for certain parties and/or political movements. There seems to be the same names that appear again and again. These people must be literally online 15 hours a day scouring the internet for suitable avenues to publish their agenda.

I think it's been that way for a few years tbh... you see it when it's poppy or lilly season and the same old rhetoric from the same posters every time...
AH used to be quite a fun environment... but it's turning into a bit of a cesspit right enough.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Makes a difference from Stormont lite, at least.

I rarely read much in there. Take a look at the odd threat that has potential for a good story but the current affairs/social issues aspect of it is utterly manic.

I was having a conversation with a mate last week and after seeing the likes of AH, The Journal and r/ireland I wondered whether there are groups of people actually posting in an organised fashion to sway public opinion and gather traction for certain parties and/or political movements. There seems to be the same names that appear again and again. These people must be literally online 15 hours a day scouring the internet for suitable avenues to publish their agenda.

If you had asked me a few years ago should people be tied to their online presence I would have said a very strong no.

After the weaponisation of misinformation through social media sharing I'm not sure I still hold that opinion.

I haven't thought or extrapolated out the negative connotations no doubt but I think the internet has allowed for a significant amount of people to act in very bad faith in a way that they otherwise wouldn't thanks to anonymity and worse it's allowed for organisations to push some pretty insidious agenda's subversively.

I've also come to the realisation that people are far far stupider online than I had previously thought possible. I include myself in that plenty of the time.

I'd say my facebook is close to half what it used to be because of people (sometimes relatives) constantly arguing bull**** they've no clue about, promoting nonsense they haven't thought about or trying to sell crap from some ridiculous pyramid scheme they haven't seen through yet. I went on a pretty big booting spree and whilst a few people noticed and were a bit indignant, they actually acknowledged why I had kicked them and agreed that they were getting a bit too into it which I found quite interesting.

I had a reddit account up until around 4 years ago and I'm glad I lost it when I changed jobs because the place has gone so downhill I only read the rugby subreddit and a few gaming related ones. Everything else I used to read there has gone so hysterical I just don't have the patience.

I was a complete nerd growing up and the internet was actually a pretty great place to share and discuss for the first decade or so. It's just a complete ****-show now (bar here of course ). Facebook came on the scene early 2000's and I firmly believe that was the start of it.

Putting idiots, lunatics, teenagers and adults in the same arena without anyone knowing who is who has had the grand effect of bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

Makes a difference from Stormont lite, at least.

I rarely read much in there. Take a look at the odd threat that has potential for a good story but the current affairs/social issues aspect of it is utterly manic.

I was having a conversation with a mate last week and after seeing the likes of AH, The Journal and r/ireland I wondered whether there are groups of people actually posting in an organised fashion to sway public opinion and gather traction for certain parties and/or political movements. There seems to be the same names that appear again and again. These people must be literally online 15 hours a day scouring the internet for suitable avenues to publish their agenda.

It's got to the stage where it's not tinfoil hat stuff to see this as a possibility. Look at all the bots on Twitter.

thomond2006

Impeccable timing from Nike on their campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick. It's taken the attention from the start of the regular season which is Thursday and the weekend.

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's got to the stage where it's not tinfoil hat stuff to see this as a possibility. Look at all the bots on Twitter.

I believe it's quite likely. I wasn't surprised at all to see the release of a book this week claiming Leo Varadkar discussed setting up anonymous online accounts to promote good PR.

I saw it claimed somewhere else that the youth branches of many political parties are encouraged to have a strong online presence and promote the agenda of their organisations. Of course, that may have been propaganda in itself. It's near impossible to discern between fact and fiction to an extent when there is such a volume of misinformation being peddled.

mfceiling

I said that Facebook gave a voice to the stupid, uneducated and general idiots.
Free to spout rubbish and their "theories" about the world.
I deleted my account years ago and have never given it the slightest thought since.
Motivational quotes, pictures of your kid, humble bragging and "interesting" snippets of your family life.
No thanks, you're grand.

errlloyd

thomond2006 wrote: »

Impeccable timing from Nike on their campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick. It's taken the attention from the start of the regular season which is Thursday and the weekend.

If they don't call the shoes Colin Naeper-kicks I am protesting.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

I believe it's quite likely. I wasn't surprised at all to see the release of a book this week claiming Leo Varadkar discussed setting up anonymous online accounts to promote good PR.

I saw it claimed somewhere else that the youth branches of many political parties are encouraged to have a strong online presence and promote the agenda of their organisations. Of course, that may have been propaganda in itself. It's near impossible to discern between fact and fiction to an extent when there is such a volume of misinformation being peddled.

When political parties engage in this we are in big trouble. My F*ke N*ws is better than yours etc.

connemara man

Buer wrote: »

I believe it's quite likely. I wasn't surprised at all to see the release of a book this week claiming Leo Varadkar discussed setting up anonymous online accounts to promote good PR.

I saw it claimed somewhere else that the youth branches of many political parties are encouraged to have a strong online presence and promote the agenda of their organisations. Of course, that may have been propaganda in itself. It's near impossible to discern between fact and fiction to an extent when there is such a volume of misinformation being peddled.

They do this for radio interviews so I don't see why they wouldn't online.

IE if a party member or a person from a government agency is beiy interviewed people from the party or department are asked to listen and if the interview seems to be going against them flood the station bwitg tweets and texts to try and guide the conversation back to a more positive angle

Yeah_Right

wp_rathead wrote: »

I know it's not kosher to talk about other Forums on boards but yikes since when has After Hours has turned into Stormfront lite?

Stormfront is right wing site isn't it? I read AH and comment on some threads. I'd see it as strongly left wing. Then again that's probably my own perception bias.

pickarooney

errlloyd wrote: »

If they don't call the shoes Colin Naeper-kicks I am protesting.

Or get him to change his name to Colin Kapaernike/Coolpairo'nikes

Dubinusa

Was reading the pundits claiming Gaelic football is dying due to the Dubs. I can't recall such hysteria when Kerry were racking up titles or Kilkenny in hurling for that matter.

stephen_n

I don’t understand how any sane person survives reading more than a couple of posts on AH. It’s actually quite disturbing reading it and I can’t imagine ever posting in it. I deactivated my Facebook, because there were to many friends of friends, who were extremists on one end of the spectrum or the other. It’s almost impossible to have a normal conversation on Facebook or Twitter, that doesn’t become a free for all argument. Unfortunately I’m not one to avoid and argument, so I’m better off out of it. At least the rugby forum is moderated in such a way to keep things reasonably civil.

Squidgy Black

AH is pretty much an exact replication of the comments section on The Journal.

It's painful to read, but also quite amusing.

Neil3030

stephen_n wrote: »

I don’t understand how any sane person survives reading more than a couple of posts on AH. It’s actually quite disturbing reading it and I can’t imagine ever posting in it. I deactivated my Facebook, because there were to many friends of friends, who were extremists on one end of the spectrum or the other. It’s almost impossible to have a normal conversation on Facebook or Twitter, that doesn’t become a free for all argument. Unfortunately I’m not one to avoid and argument, so I’m better off out of it. At least the rugby forum is moderated in such a way to keep things reasonably civil.

Typical triggered snowflake, can't debate the FACTS so he runs and hides. :pac:

bilston

I've been close to closing my Facebook a few times because of people spouting political crap. Being a middle of the road liberal sort of person I find that propaganda from the left and right annoy in equal measure which doesn't give me many places to hide!!

Then again I still find Facebook useful for lots of things so I just put up with it. I suppose unfriending people is an option but then doing that because I don't agree with their politics would be a bad route to go.