Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Omackeral

osarusan wrote: »

People spewing shyte in the knowledge they'll never have to back any of it up is in no way any form of frank or open or robust debate, and pretty much means that the debates that are taking place get drowned in that shyte.

And being very honest, it happens across the spectrum. For example, in the George Nkencho thread you had people stating for a fact that the deceased has x amount of convictions and was out on bail yet never backed it up despite being requested to do so regularly. On the other hand, you had claims of definite racism from AGS which, again, was never backed up. It's ignorance at best and sinister at worst.

Beasty

This is getting way too personal

Discuss the forum, not individual users

Posters are entitled to mention their personal views and issues

However that is not a reason for others to discuss a user rather than the issues raised by the user

Beasty

Omackeral wrote: »

And being very honest, it happens across the spectrum. For example, in the George Nkencho thread you had people stating for a fact that the deceased has x amount of convictions and was out on bail yet never backed it up despite being requested to do so regularly. On the other hand, you had claims of definite racism from AGS which, again, was never backed up. It's ignorance at best and sinister at worst.

The "convictions" issue was addressed by a mod (me) and an instruction issued not to make such claims without a verifiable source

The issue of what constitutes "racism" is much more subjective. However in this particular case I have seen no-one posting anything that would support any views of racism against AGS. If a public figure makes such a claim then of course it's possible to discuss those allegations, but again, having spent a lot of time in that thread, I have seen absolutely nothing that would support any allegations of racism against AGS

If posters are making such claims, beyond repeating and discussing what such public figures (or indeed family members of the deceased) have said, please report and we will have a look

Discodog

Beasty wrote: »

The "convictions" issue was addressed by a mod (me) and an instruction issued not to make such claims without a verifiable source

The issue of what constitutes "racism" is much more subjective. However in this particular case I have seen no-one posting anything that would support any views of racism against AGS. If a public figure makes such a claim then of course it's possible to discuss those allegations, but again, having spent a lot of time in that thread, I have seen absolutely nothing that would support any allegations of racism against AGS

If posters are making such claims, beyond repeating and discussing what such public figures (or indeed family members of the deceased) have said, please report and we will have a look

Just for clarification what constitutes a verifiable source ?

Invidious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I do participate from time to time but get shouted down. It really isnt a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

You acknowledge that you're free to express your views in CA/IMHO ... but you don't want to because other posters can disagree with you and state contrary views, which you interpret as being shouted down.

Robust, frank, and open debate cannot take place in forums from which anyone holding "incorrect" views is swiftly banned. So that leaves CA/IMHO as the main remaining arena on Boards for anything approximating free speech. You don't have to agree with everything that is posted there — but the essence of free speech is tolerating people's right to hold opinions that others find distasteful.

osarusan

Omackeral wrote: »

And being very honest, it happens across the spectrum. For example, in the George Nkencho thread you had people stating for a fact that the deceased has x amount of convictions and was out on bail yet never backed it up despite being requested to do so regularly. On the other hand, you had claims of definite racism from AGS which, again, was never backed up. It's ignorance at best and sinister at worst.

Agreed, it happens across the spectrum, and goes on far too much and for far too long.

For a website whose abiding motto is "Don't be a dick", it tolerates an astonishing amount of utter dickishness.

EmmetSpiceland

Discodog wrote: »

Just for clarification what constitutes a verifiable source ?

By the looks of it, Twitter is fine but the Irish Times is not.

Discodog

Invidious wrote: »

You acknowledge that you're free to express your views in CA/IMHO ... but you don't want to because other posters can disagree with you and state contrary views, which you interpret as being shouted down.

Robust, frank, and open debate cannot take place in forums from which anyone holding "incorrect" views is swiftly banned. So that leaves CA/IMHO as the main remaining arena on Boards for anything approximating free speech. You don't have to agree with everything that is posted there — but the essence of free speech is tolerating people's right to hold opinions that others find distasteful.

CA is the only area where one can discuss current affairs. So there is a choice. Tolerate the way that posters in CA are allowed to express their opinion or don't discuss current affairs.

Why can't we have CA with no rules, for those that want it & CA with firm rules for those that want it ?

Annasopra

Invidious wrote: »

Robust, frank, and open debate cannot take place in forums from which anyone holding "incorrect" views is swiftly banned. So that leaves CA/IMHO as the main remaining arena on Boards for anything approximating free speech. You don't have to agree with everything that is posted there — but the essence of free speech is tolerating people's right to hold opinions that others find distasteful.

You appear to be advocating that a number of recently banned users who were racist should be unbanned. Sorry no. A racist free for all isnt robust frank or honest. The idea that some of the CA forum is merely "distasteful" and not outright racist is frankly laughable and absurd.

Sir Oxman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You appear to be advocating that a number of recently banned users who were racist should be unbanned. Sorry no. A racist free for all isnt robust frank or honest. The idea that some of the CA forum is merely "distasteful" and not outright racist is frankly laughable and absurd.

Where on earth did that poster say that?
Sheesh.

Sir Oxman

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

By the looks of it, Twitter is fine but the Irish Times is not.

Twitter from unverified accounts is not fine. And memes. And unverified whatsapp etc messages. From anyone.
Politicians (or any verified public figure/organisation) own words typed by their own fingers are fine. They are their own words and views and pretty much a solid source to dissect and debate.

The Irish Times and other media is fine if they actually report factually and completely and impartially.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You appear to be advocating that a number of recently banned users who were racist should be unbanned. Sorry no. A racist free for all isnt robust frank or honest. The idea that some of the CA forum is merely "distasteful" and not outright racist is frankly laughable and absurd.

You will struggle to see a lazier "so you're a -ist then" response to a point this year, and it only 4th Jan

Beasty

Discodog wrote: »

Just for clarification what constitutes a verifiable source ?

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

Smee_Again

Beasty wrote: »

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

Secondary sources should just be banned, it’s a current affairs forum if a poster can’t find a primary source to back up their claims they shouldn’t be making the claim.

Overheal

Smee_Again wrote: »

Secondary sources should just be banned, it’s a current affairs forum if a poster can’t find a primary source to back up their claims they shouldn’t be making the claim.

Politics Cafe already failed as an experiment.

osarusan

I don't see the point of the discussion about sources anyway.

CA has no rule requiring posters to source or otherwise back up anything they say*.

It's this freedom to make any claim whatsover that causes so many problems.



*I've seen a poster be required by a mod to quote something they accuse other posters of having said, but that's within boards, not outside sources.

I think it's abundantly clear that there's a cohort of posters that don't think certain topics should be discussed at all if they can't control the outcome.

That's where you see ridiculously high bars being posited for what is essentially a conversation.

It's not a bit genuine imo that anyone could demand citation in a current affairs forum.

I cannot understand why posters cannot just live with others disagreeing with them, tbh. That's the world out there, folks. Boards shouldn't be sanitized from it beyond covering their legal obligations and keeping the conversations from genuine chaos and ugliness, which is a line I think they draw pretty well.

Smee_Again

osarusan wrote: »

CA has no rule requiring posters to source or otherwise back up anything they say

IMO this is a major flaw of CA.

Smee_Again

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it's abundantly clear that there's a cohort of posters that don't think certain topics should be discussed at all if they can't control the outcome.

That's where you see ridiculously high bars being posited for what is essentially a conversation.

It's not a bit genuine imo that anyone could demand citation in a current affairs forum.

I cannot understand why posters cannot just live with others disagreeing with them, tbh. That's the world out there, folks. Boards shouldn't be sanitized from it beyond covering their legal obligations and keeping the conversations from genuine chaos and ugliness, which is a line I think they draw pretty well.

Opinions are fine, it’s when they are posted as fact that is the problem.

But I just realised that it’s CA/IMHO so my suggestion of banning secondary sources wouldn’t really work wrt opinions.

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

Opinions are fine, it’s when they are posted as fact that is the problem.

Yep, in fairness i can see that and we've *all* been frustrated in threads at different times and at different levels of investment in whatever topic when you are debating a chimera or repetition or "what the dog in the street knows".

You either think that the debate matters, in which case you have to engage people where *they are* not where you *think they should be*

Or you think that the debate doesn't matter, in which case you should be able to let it go on without demanding control over it.

The only other angle I can think to add right now is the argument for you to take the high road, engage to your best level and demonstrate the superiority of your viewpoint, if not for the person frustrating you, then for the gallery and readers you might be getting through to.

But coming in here crying out for shutting down a debate that you dislike (I wont use a stronger word, once a mod has ok'd it to continue) is very weak stuff indeed

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's abundantly clear that there's a cohort of posters that don't think certain topics should be discussed at all if they can't control the outcome.

That's where you see ridiculously high bars being posited for what is essentially a conversation.

It's not a bit genuine imo that anyone could demand citation in a current affairs forum.



I cannot understand why posters cannot just live with others disagreeing with them, tbh. That's the world out there, folks. Boards shouldn't be sanitized from it beyond covering their legal obligations and keeping the conversations from genuine chaos and ugliness, which is a line I think they draw pretty well.

But it isn't anything to do with 'disagreement', not on my part at least.


An example from the Nkencho thread is the claim, oft repeated, that he had 30+ convictions. Posters were repeatedly asked to provide some kind of source, evidence, anything to back this up, but offered sweet f**k all.


And that kind of stuff is rife in CA, from all sides. Claim what you like: X said this, Y did that, Z never did that. Ignore requests for evidence, let some posters latch onto it and others bitch about it, job done.


That's not an issue of disagreement, it's just trying to esablish basic facts.

EDIT: All that said, somebody linking to some randomer on social media achieves nothing either, as it's still unreliable. So I appreciate the difficulty in identifying 'reliable' sources, but I don't think anything is as bad as the complete lack of need for any source.

Discodog

Beasty wrote: »

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

People don't use common sense. The thread in question is full of totally unverified information. So why isn't it this in the charter & enforced?

Sweetemotion

Discodog wrote: »

People don't use common sense. The thread in question is full of totally unverified information. So why isn't it this in the charter & enforced?

It's a discussion forum.

Beasty

Discodog wrote: »

People don't use common sense. The thread in question is full of totally unverified information. So why isn't it this in the charter & enforced?

I posted this 2 days ago

Beasty wrote: »

If anyone has a reliable source for any prior convictions of George Nkencho please post it. Otherwise drop the point

Then yesterday I posted

Beasty wrote: »

Do not post any such "rumours". Stick to verified facts

If posters are ignoring either instruction report it and we will have a look

In terms of the Charter, have you actually read it? It is deliberately short and to the point. We are not going down the route of trying to spell out everything that warrants action. "Don't be a dick" is essentially a "catch-all". If a poster is acting the dick, it may be a straight card or ban, or perhaps a warning. If they disobey any warning then it's easy to apply a threadban, card or forum ban

KyussB

Beasty wrote: »

I think you need to adopt a common sense approach

If something is stated in the mainstream press, or an official press release from a relevant authority that would constitute verified information.

If someone sees something on Social Media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter and the like, including this site), or hears a rumour, or speaks to someone directly involved, none of that is verified or verifiable.

The treatment of mainstream press as verified informatiion bit, doesn't seem to be applied consistently...

Separate to that: We see Facebook, Twitter and other major social media platforms rising to make themselves arbiters of 'truth' today, with their fact-checking and even censoring of stories - am I right in feeling a hint that Boards may be taking a similar more active role like this, as well?

If so, there are extreme dangers to free speech in doing that. Twitter and Facebook for example, censored the Hunter Biden story just prior to the US election - potentially influencing the outcome of the US election - a story which now is proven to be true, with Hunter Biden under investigation.

Additionally, the archetypal example of mainstream press 'verified information' which turned out to be the most dangerous type of lie, was the Iraq War Dossier and supposed 'evidence' of WMD's in Iraq. The mainstream press lies all of the time - even the most supposedly 'reputable' news outlets.

So, while I get that Boards mods/admins want to curb the worst of disinformation etc. - you can quickly get into very dangerous territory where key details of important news stories get censored - which, with the popularity of Boards, could potentially have an actual influence on real world politics by suppressing information.

Glenn Greenwald (think I linked him here before) - a journalist of extremely high repute, and with extremely strong/consistent principles - writes on these dangers a fair bit:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/instagram-is-using-false-fact-checking

Ya, next stop is Beasty with a clicker getting the country involved in a ground war in Iraq, definitely

Fr_Dougal

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I, personally, think the problem there is that you have a small number of users who think the usual “standards” from across the site apply to CA. Which they don’t and nor should they.

Maybe this needs to be addressed, more prominently, in the charter? To be honest, it would suit the place better to do away with cards, bans and thread bans for all but the more serious “attacks”.

This would, hopefully, lead to less contamination of normal forums, like AH. The longer threads like the ‘Wokeism of the Day’ or the ‘Onlyfans’ threads are left in AH, with posts calling for “leftists” to be thrown into a “ghetto” with, albeit implied, black people to be “cannibalised” really have no place in AH and they really do create quite a nasty, and hateful, atmosphere.

Threads, such as these, would thrive in “Current Affairs”. Especially one with a “lighter touch” moderation. The “regulars” could get it all out, could actually be, somewhat, therapeutic for them.

If you’re talking about “cleaning up” AH, and are “looking” for more “suitable” fora for threads, that repulsive “toilet thread”, with undertones of the “Thunderdome”, would be better “suited” to the Cuckoos Nest. It would certainly “thrive” there, where it belongs.

Discodog

Beasty wrote: »

I posted this 2 days ago


Then yesterday I posted


If posters are ignoring either instruction report it and we will have a look

In terms of the Charter, have you actually read it? It is deliberately short and to the point. We are not going down the route of trying to spell out everything that warrants action. "Don't be a dick" is essentially a "catch-all". If a poster is acting the dick, it may be a straight card or ban, or perhaps a warning. If they disobey any warning then it's easy to apply a threadban, card or forum ban

Yes & quoted it here .....twice.

You are adopting the Coronavirus approach. Giving advice & hoping people will take it. The obvious problem is you have to act after the "crime". The lies can sit there for hours & by then, others have piled in to reinforce them.

I have no problem with a no rules approach. I just wish there was somewhere to discuss Current Affairs that is moderated.

Invidious

Discodog wrote: »

I have no problem with a no rules approach. I just wish there was somewhere to discuss Current Affairs that is moderated.

First, CA/IMHO does not adopt a "no-rules" approach. It might be handy for you to portray it as such, but it's also a lazy generalization that denigrates the moderators and admins who have put effort into building and running the forum.

It's more correct to say that, in CA/IMHO, the proverbial line in the sand is not where posters like yourself and Joeytheparrot want it to be. Calling for less free speech and more politically correct crackdowns on allegedly -ist and -phobic expression is all very well, but it completely misunderstands the intent behind creating CA/IMHO in the first place. It was never meant to be a sanitized safe space — if that's what you want, there are numerous other forums on Boards that cater to that need.

Second, if you want more stringently moderated forum where you can discuss current affairs, have you tried posting in Politics or Humanities?

EmmetSpiceland

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If you’re talking about “cleaning up” AH, and are “looking” for more “suitable” fora for threads, that repulsive “toilet thread”, with undertones of the “Thunderdome”, would be better “suited” to the Cuckoos Nest. It would certainly “thrive” there, where it belongs.

“Repulsive”, really, D? I do get that there are a cohort of “bound up” individuals who seem to really dislike that others are discussing, enlightening, supporting, and, even, celebrating something that, most of us, do everyday.

But, let’s face it, the ‘Etiquette’ thread is one for everyone, all are welcome, man, womxn, people of colour, all creeds, and orientations. Everyone. To see nothing wrong with a thread that is just an excuse to abuse and mock others (the ‘Wokeism of the Day’ thread) or to hate on women (the ‘Onlyfans’ thread) while disparaging a thread that brings people together is just wilful ignorance, if you ask me.

“Thunderdome”? Like ‘two enter, one leaves’? I don’t follow. There has, certainly, been some combative posts in the ‘Etiquette’ thread but it’s in no way an “aggressive” thread.

If the mods decided to move the thread, although I can’t see why they would, that’s up to them. But considering I’ve never heard of the ‘Cuckoos Nest’ I’m not sure the thread would do well there. Maybe some of the other, if you’ll pardon the pun, “regulars” in the ‘Etiquette’ thread are familiar with it, I don’t know, you’d have to ask them.

I understand that it may be hard for some to read post after post of others having very regular “movements” when they, themselves, are straining to get any joy. But, believe me, every poster in that thread is there to support, encourage and advise anyone who wants to “reach out”.

While the ‘Etiquette’ thread may not sit well with those users, it is not the stain on the AH forum that both the ‘Wokeism’ and ‘Onlyfans’ threads are. I’m not a mod, myself, but I just can’t see how they are still there, fouling up the rest of the forum. Especially, considering there is a forum that is perfectly welcoming and, indeed, encouraging for that sort of thing right there, in CA.