The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Hannibal_Smith

Mr.H wrote: »

DubInMeath wrote:

If there was/is evidence of bullying as you state report it, but don't think that someone asking you to provide evidence not opinion as per my request doesn't constitute bullying in my opinion.

I have been told to not bother posting here. Accused of baiting. Insulted and ganged up on by pro choice. In fact I have also been fairly reported to the point where a mod closed the thread and told people to stop reporting just to get someone banned. Yet nobody was warned about it.

Yes it is very conceivable that there is bullying here from the pro choice side.

FFS I claim to be pro choice and i am still "bullied" in this thread.

Everyone seems to have a right to an opinion as long as its pro choice.....

You weren't accused of being complacent about the murder of two children though.

The problem is it is being viewed as two camps. Pro choice and pro life, whereas it should be seen as people discussing a topic as it appears to them.

The thread I'd say is going to be very short lived if it continues to be seen as two sides lobbing attacks on each other.

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

I have been told to not bother posting here. Accused of baiting. Insulted and ganged up on by pro choice. In fact I have also been fairly reported to the point where a mod closed the thread and told people to stop reporting just to get someone banned. Yet nobody was warned about it.

Yes it is very conceivable that there is bullying here from the pro choice side.

FFS I claim to be pro choice and i am still "bullied" in this thread.

Everyone seems to have a right to an opinion as long as its pro choice.....

Are you sure the mod was taking about you in this case as in we're you personally informed of this being the reason for the thread being locked?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but others are entitled to ask for proof to back up an opinion when said opinion is posted as a fact. It happens on all threads involving subjects such as this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why do you have to come back to 'deal with anyone in the thread?

I do not mean "have to" literally. I of course do not need to acquiesce to invitations to post on the thread. But if I am asked to post on a thread and deal with a particular post or poster, I generally am happy to do so.

But the "have to" was more directed at catching up on the thread, not posting on it. Again my own fault, but I have a general personal rule that I do not post on a thread unless I have read every post on it first.

I do not think it is an unusual occurrence or I am in any way special here. If there is a deep physics point I would like to see dealt with better than I could myself... I would PM Morbert. If there was a biblical point I wanted to see dealt with better than I could myself.... I would PM OldrnWisr. I guess on certain topics some people feel that way about me too.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest I find it kind of boring and it's basically made up of the same posters.

I find it odd that if you find it boring you keep coming back to post in it.

January

Waterford whispers... Love it
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/03/26/abortion-is-bad-do-not-have-abortions-sponsored/?utm_source=WWN_Facebook_Page&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Social_Link&utm_content=Article

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I find it odd that if you find it boring you keep coming back to post in it.

I was just trying to keep people informed of things I've noticed/heard even shared the results of the Red C survey but I suppose I'm odd to you then.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, polling so far says it will be a resounding win for Yes, but it does seem to be tightening.

I'd interpret polls with caution. Polls on marriage equality had Yes at 72% a month before polling day and the final result was 62%.

Yesterday's poll had Yes at 56% and a lot can happen (either way) in the next two months as everyone gets into full campaign mode.

That said, unless some majority flaw is found with the referendum question or the legislation, I think the biggest challenge for the Yes side will be turnout. I think the majority of people are in favour of change, but how many will be motivated to turn up on the day. Because you can be sure everyone opposed to it is going to be at the polling booth.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mr.H wrote: »

I have been told to not bother posting here. Accused of baiting. Insulted and ganged up on by pro choice. In fact I have also been fairly reported to the point where a mod closed the thread and told people to stop reporting just to get someone banned. Yet nobody was warned about it.

Yes it is very conceivable that there is bullying here from the pro choice side.

FFS I claim to be pro choice and i am still "bullied" in this thread.

Everyone seems to have a right to an opinion as long as its pro choice.....

I think quite often will narratives of bullying people see what they want to see.

There has been good AND poor behavior on both sides of this issue. And while I hold MYSELF to higher standards, I am sure I have given into pure emotion on an occasion or two.

But when one decides one is being bullied or targeted or victimized, one can quickly parse the data to make it fit that narrative. You will literally start to see what you want to see.

Your parsing of the moderator actions is a great example of this, so I am glad you used it. If you scroll back to the moderators post in question you will find they wrote "STOP using report post to try get others banned. Ye are all as bad as each other.".

All. As. Bad. As. Each. Other. Yet from this you seem to have constructed a narrative that it is the pro-choice side specifically doing this, and specifically doing it against YOU. Neither of which you appear to have substantive data points to support.

There is only one way to improve the discourse on a subject like this, and imaginary victimization is not it. Rather simply ignore the posts you think are poor, and respond to the ones you think are good. Alas the opposite happens. For example quite often I have seen people respond to insulting posts directed at them, to moan about the insults. But they then wholesale ignoring the reasonable and well articulated rebuttals directed at them too.

Seeing what you want to see if alas a factor in this. But I do not think you are victimized AT ALL as much as you seem to imagine you are. What I did see from you was some quite fantastical claims which you refused to back up when called on. Such as your claim of "never!" when asked about the conception rates of people using contraception correctly. A claim that appears to go against the reality that when people use contraception, correctly, even multiple types at once.... pregnancies STILL occur.

And assertions people refuse consistently to substantiate do tend to attract first derision, then ire, and I am afraid you would mostly only have yourself to blame in that equation. Even if and when those people unfortunately let themselves down in their discourse with you.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yesterday's poll had Yes at 56%

56-26, which would translate to a 68-32 win on the day if the Don't Knows split evenly or don't vote. That would be a bigger win than the SSM ref.

It would be 56-44 if every Don't Know voted No, still a clear majority.

The only card No have left is if the No people vote and the Yes people don't.

January

January wrote: »

Waterford whispers... Love it
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/03/26/abortion-is-bad-do-not-have-abortions-sponsored/?utm_source=WWN_Facebook_Page&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Social_Link&utm_content=Article

Just outright lies from the liberal marxist sodomite media I tells ya

markodaly

NuMarvel wrote: »

It'll definitely be close, no matter which way it goes. Not 1995 Divorce Referendum close, but it's not going to be a Marriage Equality Referendum landslide either. Not that I think anyone's expecting that anyway.

As it stands, its not going to pass. Most people would be sympathetic repealing the 8th but there would be many of these who do not trust the Dail in these matters alone.

I would see a rejection of the referendum not as an endorsement of the 8th per say but more of a rejection of the 'what happens after' and the public telling the Dail to give us a say in future decisions like this.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

56-26, which would translate to a 68-32 win on the day if the Don't Knows split evenly or don't vote. That would be a bigger win than the SSM ref.

It would be 56-44 if every Don't Know voted No, still a clear majority.

The only card No have left is if the No people vote and the Yes people don't.

It could also depend on the actual date of the vote. I know May is the month being purposed, but if delayed into later in the summer when a lot of students who might vote repeal are away this could be a factor also. Basing this on the number of young students etc who voted yes for SSM which was I believe a factor, but open to correction on this.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

As it stands, its not going to pass. Most people would be sympathetic repealing the 8th but there would be many of these who do not trust the Dail in these matters alone.

I would see a rejection of the referendum not as an endorsement of the 8th per say but more of a rejection of the 'what happens after' and the public telling the Dail to give us a say in future decisions like this.

Why do they vote for people to be their representatives in the government then?
That's their job.

Zubeneschamali

markodaly wrote: »

As it stands, its not going to pass. Most people would be sympathetic repealing the 8th but there would be many of these who do not trust the Dail in these matters alone.

Are you basing this on any actual data? polls? Surveys?

Both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachteas Committee effectlively recommended the pro-life people's worst nightmare, abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, and all the polling since still says a referendum will pass.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

As it stands, its not going to pass. Most people would be sympathetic repealing the 8th but there would be many of these who do not trust the Dail in these matters alone.

I would see a rejection of the referendum not as an endorsement of the 8th per say but more of a rejection of the 'what happens after' and the public telling the Dail to give us a say in future decisions like this.

From what I've heard, that's not what's coming up on canvasses. Anyone who's objecting is doing so on a far more fundamental basis; eg the morality of abortion itself.

I'm sure there's a cohort who have concerns about it becoming a legislative matter, but it doesn't seem to be one large enough to sway the result.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Why is the exact condition your business?
It is identifying for people who know outside the family and you can’t tell me who posts and doesn’t post on boards.

Well it's not my business, just as a mother with a child with a heart condition I'm interested in learning about all different kinds of them and would have liked to have been able to read about one where the child wasn't given much chance of life outside the womb but has grown into a strapping ten year old who plays football.

It's not identifying information at all.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr.H

DubInMeath wrote:

Are you sure the mod was taking about you in this case as in we're you personally informed of this being the reason for the thread being locked?

At the time the debate had me on one side and everyone else replying. While a mod didn't say exactly, it is very clear.

Even if it wasn't about me. Why would pro choice posters try to report people to get them banned? Surely that alone is bullying? You don't need to answer because it is!

I have no problem with people asking for proof. If some is given great, if not you can call them out on it. No point in going on about it.

My issue is when someone questions your lack of brain cells, accused you of baiting. Calling you a liar and telling you you are talking sh**. Then proceeding to tell in the same post that it's the last time they will reply because they are putting you in ignore. All of these are breaches of the charter all if these happened me in this thread alone and despite reporting, nothing has happened. Bot even mod note to tell people to calm down.

So yes there is bullying and a lot of mod bias on one particular side.

One poster has told me in a pm that they have been told by a mod here that they have been banned because they are just too opinionated. They were told that there is one side who are a little too full on and since they are the majority there is no point in doing anything about it. Obviously they are a disgruntled banned poster and could be lying. I also can't provide proof as it was messages to them. But from my experience in here the mods are only protecting one side.

Mr.H

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

I think quite often will narratives of bullying people see what they want to see.

While I get exactly what you mean, I can't point to anywhere where I personally attacked anyone on this thread. The narrative is often misunderstood because of emotion yes but not here. In fact I have went back on some of the things I said (not because I don't agree but because I was willing to let the mass thinking lead that part of the argument) and tried to move on from that so we could ups actually talk about this stuff. But person insults were used and ignored when reported.

I can count on one hand how many times in all the time I have been on boards that I have reported someone. I don't do it because I believe everyone has a right to their opinion. I agree that we are all faceless internet profiles.

But that poster was a little full on and I used that as an example of how bullying has occurred in this thread and has been allowed and ignored by the mods.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

At the time the debate had me on one side and everyone else replying. While a mod didn't say exactly, it is very clear.

Even if it wasn't about me. Why would pro choice posters try to report people to get them banned? Surely that alone is bullying? You don't need to answer because it is!

I have no problem with people asking for proof. If some is given great, if not you can call them out on it. No point in going on about it.

My issue is when someone questions your lack of brain cells, accused you of baiting. Calling you a liar and telling you you are talking sh**. Then proceeding to tell in the same post that it's the last time they will reply because they are putting you in ignore. All of these are breaches of the charter all if these happened me in this thread alone and despite reporting, nothing has happened. Bot even mod note to tell people to calm down.

So yes there is bullying and a lot of mod bias on one particular side.

One poster has told me in a pm that they have been told by a mod here that they have been banned because they are just too opinionated. They were told that there is one side who are a little too full on and since they are the majority there is no point in doing anything about it. Obviously they are a disgruntled banned poster and could be lying. I also can't provide proof as it was messages to them. But from my experience in here the mods are only protecting one side.

I'm sure plenty of ban requests reach the mods from both sides the thread lock you mention actually states this.

You also need to read the posts of those banned from the the thread i.e. the content they post and refusal to answer questions before claiming the mods of the thread are pro choice because I'd say it's a poor argument as there have been pro choice people being banned for losing their temper when reacting to personal attacks.

baylah17

The more it becomes apparent that they are going to lose the more likely I think it will be that the anti choice camp will call on their supporters to boycott the referendum because of media bias and will claim a moral victory for the silent majority

Mr.H

DubInMeath wrote:

You also need to read the posts of those banned from the the thread i.e. the content they post and refusal to answer questions before claiming the mods of the thread are pro choice because I'd say it's a poor argument as there have been pro choice people being banned for losing their temper when reacting to personal attacks.

Listen I'm not trying to start a revolution here. I am pointing out that it is not unreasonable to assume bullying does go on here in this thread as I have been the subject of subjective bullying.

I've given some of my examples and all would constitute breaking rules. I do however think that we should stop making this about the modding as I fear one of them will act and it will be an easy way to get rid of me. Very hard for me to question them afterwards.

My point is purely on the fact that more leeway is given to a certain majority group

Mr.H

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

There is at least one as far as I am aware. Only outcome of it is I get a site ban or this thread gets permalocked.

Mr.H

DubInMeath wrote:

I'm sure plenty of ban requests reach the mods from both sides the thread lock you mention actually states this.

Unless the ban requests were from someone else on the pro life side, the mod was exaggerating about both sides.

seamus

baylah17 wrote: »

The more it becomes apparent that they are going to lose the more likely I think it will be that the anti choice camp will call on their supporters to boycott the referendum because of media bias and will claim a moral victory for the silent majority

Not a hope in hell. They're not interested in moral victories. Only actual victories.

Those actually campaigning to keep the eighth are not campaigning on the basis of ethics or morals. This is not about being "correct" for them. It's a matter of faith and belief. They believe abortion is wrong, and there is nothing which can sway them from that. As a result, the ends will always justify the means. They're not interested in being right, in having all the facts, in being honest, or moral, or fair.

Their only goal is to win.

The pro-choice side would not be campaigning for choice, if they did not have the data and the facts to back it up. If the data and the facts all said that yes, having access to abortion harms women and gives them less control over their bodies, then there would be no pro-choice campaign.

The pro-life side campaign regardless of a lack of data or facts.

It is an unbalanced debate. Because on one side you have a campaign who are held to a standard that requires absolute honesty, verifiable facts, independent data and transparent funding.

And on the other side you have a campaign who do not feel the need to abide by any standards. Anything they can use to win the argument is absolutely ethical, because all that matters is the win.

baylah17

baylah17 wrote: »

The more it becomes apparent that they are going to lose the more likely I think it will be that the anti choice camp will call on their supporters to boycott the referendum because of media bias and will claim a moral victory for the silent majority

Can't see that happening but if they lose they will claim media bias etc, the same way they did when marriage equality went against them

https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

There is at least one as far as I am aware. Only outcome of it is I get a site ban or this thread gets permalocked.

OK your really reaching now, sorry your statement is losing any credibility.

applehunter

DubInMeath wrote: »

Can't see that happening but if they lose they will claim media bias etc, the same way they did when marriage equality went against them

https://brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/issue-137-march-april-2014/

Who is the "us" in this analogy?

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

Unless the ban requests were from someone else on the pro life side, the mod was exaggerating about both sides.

You do realise that you can report a post for trolling etc without actually posting in the thread itself.

It sounds like your actually trying to be mod banned from the thread from what your posting.