A discussion on the rules.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Broken analogy, rather silly now.

Adams has said he will never disassociate himself from the IRA. I have provided the link.

Kenny was never associated with the Blueshirts. Unless you have a link with a direct quote?

I really don't get why someone who doesn't support SF is pushing this so far. There have been reasonable responses from mods and others on this issue that have explained it clearly so I think we can leave it at that.

That is a PAST association.
You do not have the right to associate anybody in SF with the IRA without proving that the IRA exist and that that member is associated with it.
If you did it outside this arena you would be required to prove what you say.

But you are right, boards/politics forum seems to be giving you right.

Scofflaw

In brief, this:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, not like the Blueshirts. The men who ran the Blueshirts are all dead, and if any former members are alive, they are about 90.

The men who ran the 'Ra are now running Sinn Féin.

If actual fascists, as in, former members of a fascist party, were running FG, I would not vote for them.

There is nobody in Fine Gael now who was in the Blueshirts, or who had any association with them. The same is not true of SF and the IRA.

And that's basically that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

In brief, this:



There is nobody in Fine Gael now who was in the Blueshirts, or who had any association with them. The same is not true of SF and the IRA.

And that's basically that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Who in modern SF is in the IRA?

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

Moderators keep complaining of 'train wreck' threads when NI or SF are discussed and this is one of the reasons they invariably head towards train wrecks.

This one way exchange of views could easily go on for another 10 pages, but not see any actual change in the view. And that's why NI and SF threads invariably head towards train wreaks, not usage of the relatively inoffensive and arguably illustrative "SF/IRA" term.

For many, including SF themselves when it suits, SF and the IRA are inseparable. You may agree, you may disagree - but its true people think that way, and its true that view it can be arguably supported by reference to Sinn Fein themselves. It ought to be clear by now after 5 or 6 pages of discussion that this rule you want is not going to be put in place.

And I think Republican posters would find themselves collecting red and yellow cards every day for similar labelling of "Brits" "RUC/PSNI" "26 Counties" "Free State" "Paisleyite" and repetitive, tiresome conspiracy theories about "Securocrats" - which exist or don't to the same burden of evidence as the IRA. All of which lower the tone and serve to prevent proper debate. I don't think you'd really welcome a rule change where using anything other than the 100% correct terminology for a group or institution would be interpreted as an allegation and punished with infractions or bans.

Its a discussion forum, not an echo chamber. People are going to discuss things and express views you don't like.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

This one way exchange of views could easily go on for another 10 pages, but not see any actual change in the view. And that's why NI and SF threads invariably head towards train wreaks, not usage of the relatively inoffensive and arguably illustrative "SF/IRA" term.

For many, including SF themselves when it suits, SF and the IRA are inseparable. You may agree, you may disagree - but its true people think that way, and its true that view it can be arguably supported by reference to Sinn Fein themselves. It ought to be clear by now after 5 or 6 pages of discussion that this rule you want is not going to be put in place.

And I think Republican posters would find themselves collecting red and yellow cards every day for similar labelling of "Brits" "RUC/PSNI" "26 Counties" "Free State" "Paisleyite" and repetitive, tiresome conspiracy theories about "Securocrats". All of which lower the tone and serve to prevent proper debate. I don't think you'd really welcome a rule change where using anything other than the 100% correct terminology for a group or institution would be interpreted as an allegation and punished with infractions or bans.

Its a discussion forum, not an echo chamber. People are going to discuss things and express views you don't like.

I know boards/politics opinion on this now that two mods have spoken.

I would still like to know who in SF is in the IRA though? If somebody on here can prove membership and existence that would be the litmus test and validation of the term SF/IRA when referring to a current political party, exactly the same criteria applied to Fine Gael.

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

I know boards/politics opinion on this now that two mods have spoken.

I would still like to know who in SF is in the IRA though? If somebody on here can prove membership and existence that would be the litmus test and validation of the term SF/IRA when referring to a current political party, exactly the same criteria applied to Fine Gael.

This is probably the wrong thread for that. Its the rule discussion thread.

Valmont

Sand wrote: »

I don't think you'd really welcome a rule change where using anything other than the 100% correct terminology for a group or institution would be interpreted as an allegation and punished with infractions or bans.

That rule is in fact already explicitly in place in politics when invoking the sacred and secret cow of the left, Karl Marx. On this issue, the moderators were crystal clear that you may not use a term to refer to a particular group of posters if they are unhappy with its usage. So the Republican posters technically have precedent on their side, if not popular opinion.

Happyman42

And yet another mod interjection because we don't have a clear rule on this kind of taunting and baiting targeted at one political party with the blessing of boards/politics forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92629308&postcount=610

It's diminishing everybody.
A simple rule that everybody can adhere to: 'All political parties are referred to by their proper name or acronym'.
If somebody then wants to make a claim to do so then they can if it is relevant.

K-9

It is not one party as repeatedly pointed out by me and others. I've seen the name FFailures used, are we to ban that as well? It's getting like a wishlist from some political party hack if that's the case. I'm sure FFailure annoys FF supporters, that isn't a reason to ban it. To much Peter Mandelson/Campbell for my liking.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who in modern SF is in the IRA?

That's not what was said:

There is nobody in Fine Gael now who was in the Blueshirts, or who had any association with them. The same is not true of SF and the IRA.

You're not helping your case here.

regards,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

It is not one party as repeatedly pointed out by me and others. I've seen the name FFailures used, are we to ban that as well?

Yes...it's simple to enforce and would rule out repetitive conversations and hi-jacks. Somebody either uses it or they don't, there is no grey area.

That's not what was said:

It's part of what was said and it's a legitimate question if you use SF/IRA in a discussion about the current SF party.
Do you agree that it's use frequently diverts threads?

walshb

SF/IRA being compared to FFailures is for me not a fair comparison. The first is wholly inaccurate, and to some, offensive. The second is more joke shop stuff!

K-9

walshb wrote: »

SF/IRA being compared to FFailures is for me not a fair comparison. The first is wholly inaccurate, and to some, offensive.

It is not wholly inaccurate as the connections between both are clear and accepted, even by Republicans. It was seen as the political arm of the IRA with very good reason, nobody can deny that. It maybe offensive to some Republicans who supported the armed campaign or sympathised with it (which is a bit bizarre, the same people getting offended would be the first to give reasons for the IRA and accept the need for an armed campaign), but mods aren't here to cater to political supporter sensitivites. It is like something from the Thick of it.

FF supporters would object to FFailure, SF supporters to SF/IRA, FG to Blueshirts or FF lite, Labour to God knows what at this stage, the Greens, and the more hardline left wing parties others.

Hell, even the defunct PD's get a touch!

Sand

walshb wrote: »

SF/IRA being compared to FFailures is for me not a fair comparison. The first is wholly inaccurate, and to some, offensive. The second is more joke shop stuff!

They're both pretty accurate references. And everything is offensive to somebody. FF might not like being referenced as FFailure or ZanuFF but corruption and failure is the FF brand no matter if they like it or not. In the same way, SF and the IRA are heavily associated and SF positively *revel* in their association with the IRA when it comes to selling T shirt and mugs.

You're right though that its not a fair comparison - SF openly associate themselves with the IRA. FF deny and renounce any link to failure or Robert Mugabe. The FFailure/Zanu FF term is much more unfair than SF/IRA.

Parties and group cant simply escape their past when they choose. Simply because the Provos have decided to embrace the ballot box over the armalite a couple of years ago doesn't mean everyone else forgets who they are and what they have done, and the acts and people they continue to openly praise to this day. The SF/IRA term is why SF is transfer toxic. Ignoring it and trying to prevent it being mentioned wont help that. Toughen up, get over it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote: »

They're both pretty accurate references. And everything is offensive to somebody

Calling someone an idiot might be accurate and offensive as well although I think the Politics mods do not like that one
[/QUOTE]

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Calling someone an idiot might be accurate and offensive as well although I think the Politics mods do not like that one

You're free to call any politician or public figure you like an idiot, just not other posters. Since we're not talking about calling other posters "Sinn Fein/IRA" the analogy doesn't really hold.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're free to call any politician or public figure you like an idiot, just not other posters. Since we're not talking about calling other posters "Sinn Fein/IRA" the analogy doesn't really hold.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How about idiotic supporters or SF/IRA supporters? Which one gets a ban? Neither or both?

A Dub in Glasgo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As if boards.ie makes that much of a difference :pac:

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

FFailure is an expression of a personal opinion.
SF/IRA in the context of a discussion of current Irish politics is an allegation.

Boards/Politics forum is standing over this and allowing it. That's the bottom line.
If it isn't, prove here and now that the IRA exist and SF are connected to them.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're free to call any politician or public figure you like an idiot, just not other posters. Since we're not talking about calling other posters "Sinn Fein/IRA" the analogy doesn't really hold.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You are not free to allege a politician is involved in illegality ( the IRA are an illegal organisation)

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are not free to allege a politician is involved in illegality ( the IRA are an illegal organisation)

Again, you've taken half of one point, and half of the other. You're free to call any politician an idiot, and you're free to point out the widely acknowledged and recent/current links between SF and the IRA.

Or to deny either, obviously.

Personally, I think it's probably well past time to point out that you're on a hiding to nothing here. No amount of special pleading or legalistic quibbling changes the reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, you've taken half of one point, and half of the other. You're free to call any politician an idiot, and you're free to point out the widely acknowledged and recent/current links between SF and the IRA.

Or to deny either, obviously.

Personally, I think it's probably well past time to point out that you're on a hiding to nothing here. No amount of special pleading or legalistic quibbling changes the reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Answer my question then, not just the ones that make this decision easy for you.

Am I allowed to allege that a politician in Dail Eireann or a party are involved in illegal activity without providing proof of that?

Referring to SF (as currently represented in our parliament) as SF/IRA is to do precisely that.

And again, to call somebody an 'idiot', is a personal opinion, not anything near the same thing.

And I have no problem with anybody pointing out historical links.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

Answer my question then, not just the ones that make this decision easy for you.

Perhaps stop trying to wring from my statements points that make it easier for you, and which I haven't made. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Am I allowed to allege that a politician in Dail Eireann or a party are involved in illegal activity without providing proof of that?

Well, people do that every day - frankly, Irish political discussion sites wouldn't exist if people weren't allowed allege that virtually every Irish party and/or politician is grossly corrupt. And corruption, of course, is an illegal activity.

We draw the line specifically at issues of libel, thus specific allegations where these are libelous. Where such allegations are common currency, so common as to not constitute libel, we don't object.

Referring to SF (as currently represented in our parliament) as SF/IRA is to do precisely that.

Nope, I'm afraid it isn't. That's not arguable, really, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

And again, to call somebody an 'idiot', is a personal opinion, not anything near the same thing.

And I have no problem with anybody pointing out historical links.

As long as you're allowed to define what constitutes "historical" and "links", apparently.

No. Sorry. You'll just have to live with the fact of extremely recent and widely known links between SF and the IRA. If that's something that turns people off SF at the ballot box, tough cheese. I don't have any particular antipathy for SF, but I do for the kind of people who want to reorder reality more conveniently for their political preferences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

maccored

'precisely why' would be because many (if not all) SF supporters dont support the IRA. they may have support the PIRA, but they are gone. SF have no attachment with the current IRA so its also a misrepresentation of facts and incredibly misleading.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Villain

Scofflaw wrote: »

P

No. Sorry. You'll just have to live with the fact of extremely recent and widely known links between SF and the IRA. If that's something that turns people off SF at the ballot box, tough cheese. I don't have any particular antipathy for SF, but I do for the kind of people who want to reorder reality more conveniently for their political preferences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So calling Fianna Fail liars based on their known links to a leader of their party who a tribunal fund lied is ok?

Happyman42

maccored wrote: »

'precisely why' would be because many (if not all) SF supporters dont support the IRA. they may have support the PIRA, but they are gone. SF have no attachment with the current IRA so its also a misrepresentation of facts and incredibly misleading.

This is the nub of the issue that Mods refuse to deal with, I keep saying that nobody has a problem with other posters making the historical link within a relevant thread. It is when the allegation is freely made about the current party that boards-politics forum is dragged into disrepute and fair allegations of bias.
It's a simple request, all democratic parties are entitled to their proper names. Using an add-on is at best mischevious and flaming, and at worst an allegation, requiring proof or back-up.
It would in many ways force everybody using this forum to be mature and think about what you are posting.

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

You'll just have to live with the fact of extremely recent and widely known links between SF and the IRA. If that's something that turns people off SF at the ballot box, tough cheese. I don't have any particular antipathy for SF, but I do for the kind of people who want to reorder reality more conveniently for their political preferences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Only so many times and ways this can be said!