nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Migrant Threads

rgossip30

I wonder are threads on migrants being closed by mods with bias notions ?

Find more posts tagged with

thread

immigration

asylum seekers

migrants

Quick Links

Comments

The Backwards Man

Have there been any closed that weren't either a complete a train wreck or hurtling rapidly down that track?

rgossip30

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Have there been any closed that weren't either a complete a train wreck or hurtling rapidly down that track?

EU immigration thread . Some got yellow cards but it was not a train wreck .

DeadHand

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Have there been any closed that weren't either a complete a train wreck or hurtling rapidly down that track?

For "train wreck" read "thread in which argument wasn't going my way".

Nody

rgossip30 wrote: »

EU immigration thread . Some got yellow cards but it was not a train wreck .

I guess we all have different definitions of train wrecks; personally I've not posted in the thread but I can clearly see why it would be locked for review based on the xenophobia in the thread (mind some could put a good argument for why but many posts were simply "They are Muslims and all Muslims want to kill Western society" circle of arguments without actual facts). That's at a glance though and I don't post/mod the forum so I can't comment much more than that on if the tone/quality was above/below required forum standards.

Lovely Bloke

"Closed for review" more than 48 hours ago though.

It's a legitimate area for discussion.

Insect Overlord

* biased

dudara

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

It's a legitimate area for discussion.

Absolutely no doubt about that. It's a hot topic and a topic of interest to many. The main challenge is to make sure that we're actually having a good discussion and not a potential train-wreck thread.

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

"Closed for review" more than 48 hours ago though.

The PC mods are working on setting up a new thread/reopening the existing thread, with new posting guidelines. This should be made available soon.

Robineen

DeadHand wrote: »

For "train wreck" read "thread in which argument wasn't going my way".

Well, those things aren't automatically synonymous. Can you elaborate?

Richard Hillman

Closing the EU Immigration thread is a disgrace. There have been people actively going into the thread to try and get it closed down, of which reporting doesn't seem to do much.

The biggest issue facing Europe right now and we don't have a thread about it?

rgossip30

Nody wrote: »

I guess we all have different definitions of train wrecks; personally I've not posted in the thread but I can clearly see why it would be locked for review based on the xenophobia in the thread (mind some could put a good argument for why but many posts were simply "They are Muslims and all Muslims want to kill Western society" circle of arguments without actual facts). That's at a glance though and I don't post/mod the forum so I can't comment much more than that on if the tone/quality was above/below required forum standards.

Such posts are just disregarded anyhow .

The Backwards Man

Robineen wrote: »

Well, those things aren't automatically synonymous. Can you elaborate?

These threads generally descend into a 'waah waah Muslims!' level of discourse, if you expect a higher class of discussion than that you're seen as being on the other side of the 'argument', if you think 'waah waah Muslims!' is any kind of argument to begin with.

Hence the train wrecks.

_Kaiser_

The Backwards Man wrote: »

These threads generally descend into a 'waah waah Muslims!' level of discourse, if you expect a higher class of discussion than that you're seen as being on the other side of the 'argument', if you think 'waah waah Muslims!' is any kind of argument to begin with.

Hence the train wrecks.

While I agree that "waah waah Muslims" adds nothing , there was very little of that now to be fair. Most people on the thread (me included) have posted reasonable, thought out concerns about the current strategy and just because you may be in favour of it, doesn't mean you can casually dismiss it with "waah waah Muslims" accusations either.

This is possibly the most significant issue Europe will face in the next decade and it absolutely should be discussed and debated - not just on Boards incidentally but at a national level. Our current Government seems to be all in favour of public consultations - why is there none on this?

There most definitely is an element of those in favour trying to dismiss or discredit anyone who disagrees as "racists" or "xenophobes" but if that's the level of counter-argument then I'd consider that far more of an issue in a discussion thread TBH.

However... If the "new"/reopened thread is going to come with a set of "rules" that will limit the ability to have a reasonable BALANCED discussion on this issue though, then I personally would rather the thread just be left locked.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

SkinnyBuddha

That thread is an Islamaphobic circle jerk.

The 2 previous threads were locked numerous times as well and eventually resulted in the Politics Cafe been shutdown for a while.

Lovely Bloke

SkinnyBuddha wrote: »

That thread is an Islamaphobic circle jerk.

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

Some people can't handle that.

DeadHand

SkinnyBuddha wrote: »

That thread is an Islamaphobic circle jerk.

The 2 previous threads were locked numerous times as well and eventually resulted in the Politics Cafe been shutdown for a while.

Ah yes, this wretched, recently and very deliberately invented word:
"Islamaphobia".

A phobia is an irrational fear. So, clearly all the regions of the world where Islam is dominant are progressive, prosperous and comfortable for minorities while all those in which it enjoys a strong minority presence are stable and safe...

Oh, wait...

Ponder this, why do the words "Christianaphobia" or "Hinduaphobia" not exist? Because those systems do not have such a propaganda machine behind them or that they do not require one because their adherents aren't massacring non-believers on a regular basis? Or they are not, in the modern era, fundamentally supremacist movements?

Calhoun

Cmon lads, someone was talking about burning a hotel down in one of the threads what do you want.

The people to blame here are the folks who go to far on either side to kill the discussion not the mod team.

Jurgen Klopp

Calhoun wrote: »

Cmon lads, someone was talking about burning a hotel down in one of the threads what do you want.

The people to blame here are the folks who go to far on either side to kill the discussion not the mod team.

Hold on that thread was a different and was closed and had nothing to do with the main EU immigration thread.

Every thread even remotely linked to immigration since then has been closed and directed to the EU Immigration thread then that was locked.

The last red card handed out was on the 14th with a poster abusing the mod for being useless and he should rename the thread "simple racism for morons" which was the same day the thread was locked, the 14th

The previous cards before that were the 11th, 3 days beforehand and it was let go no problem without needing a review. No one else bar that person abusing the mods was carded.

Stinks to high heavens of bias tbh, but then again there's been plenty of threads started about bias here before so it's no surprise to most people.

Calhoun

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Hold on that thread was a different and was closed and had nothing to do with the main EU immigration thread.

Every thread even remotely linked to immigration since then has been closed and directed to the EU Immigration thread then that was locked.

The last red card handed out was on the 14th with a poster abusing the mod for being useless and he should rename the thread "simple racism for morons" which was the same day the thread was locked, the 14th

The previous cards before that were the 11th, 3 days beforehand and it was let go no problem without needing a review. No one else bar that person abusing the mods was carded.

Stinks to high heavens of bias tbh, but then again there's been plenty of threads started about bias here before so it's no surprise to most people.

Hard to keep track of them i thought it was this one but even so its one example of stuff going to far as it sets out a tone.

Lovely Bloke

It's no secret that Boards.ie has a left-leaning editorial bent, and the mod appointment process ensures that it remains so.

Taltos

Mod note
Post removed.
DeadHand - as you are permabanned from the Cafe please do not post on threads about content there. Thanks.

Ref Charter: Users under a ban from a forum

Quin_Dub

New Thread for Immigration discussion now open.

As long as people adhere to the guidelines in the OP of the new Thread , we should have no issues.

Lovely Bloke

What constitutes a "reputable source" please?

The Guardian? (lol)

The BBC?

Breitbart?

Nody

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

It's no secret that Boards.ie has a left-leaning editorial bent, and the mod appointment process ensures that it remains so.

This is true; when you're asked to mod you have to answer 20 questions on your political alignment such as "Do you think Trump is really a reincarnation of Hitler?", "Do you know the secret socialist handshake?" and "If you see two users breaking the rules on a thread but one is a communist and the other is a right wing user who should you ban?".*

*This may also be known as sarcasm

Lovely Bloke

Nody wrote: »

This is true; when you're asked to mod you have to answer 20 questions on your political alignment such as "Do you think Trump is really a reincarnation of Hitler?", "Do you know the secret socialist handshake?" and "If you see two users breaking the rules on a thread but one is a communist and the other is a right wing user who should you ban?".*

*This may also be known as sarcasm

yeah, that's what I meant.

I outlined this before.

Quin_Dub

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

What constitutes a "reputable source" please?

The Guardian? (lol)

The BBC?

Breitbart?

The intention there is to not have post like "I heard a guy saying..." or " Check out this facebook post" etc. which the earlier thread was rife with.

Lovely Bloke

That's fine, until a mod declares some source "not reputable enough".

But we'll see where it goes I suppose.

_Kaiser_

First off, thanks for the new thread, however I've a question on the new rules...

1. No Posts which incite hatred/violence.

While reasonable and fair on the face of it, how exactly will this be defined/enforced given some of the responses on the previous thread (and even in this one) have attempted to dismiss concerns that people have about this whole topic as "simple racism for morons" or "waah waah Muslims". I'm sure those posters would consider ANY view to the contrary as "inciting hatred"

The reality is that at present, it's not "acceptable" at all in certain quarters to question this plan and labels like the above have been freely thrown around to shut down and discredit ANY conversation on the issue that's not wholly in favour of it. I'm not just talking about Boards.ie here either, but the wider media as a whole.

It's not an easy balance to strike I know especially as what defines "hatred" varies hugely from person to person, but so long as people who throw around such baseless accusations are sanctioned in the same way as those who come out with similar nonsense like "all Muslims are jihadists!" then it should be OK, but I just wanted to highlight the point anyway

Quin_Dub

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

First off, thanks for the new thread, however I've a question on the new rules...

While reasonable and fair on the face of it, how exactly will this be defined/enforced given some of the responses on the previous thread (and even in this one) have attempted to dismiss concerns that people have about this whole topic as "simple racism for morons" or "waah waah Muslims". I'm sure those posters would consider ANY view to the contrary as "inciting hatred"

The reality is that at present, it's not "acceptable" at all in certain quarters to question this plan and labels like the above have been freely thrown around to shut down and discredit ANY conversation on the issue that's not wholly in favour of it. I'm not just talking about Boards.ie here either, but the wider media as a whole.

It's not an easy balance to strike I know especially as what defines "hatred" varies hugely from person to person, but so long as people who throw around such baseless accusations are sanctioned in the same way as those who come out with similar nonsense like "all Muslims are jihadists!" then it should be OK, but I just wanted to highlight the point anyway

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.

Calhoun

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.

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.