Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

1…78101213…77

Comments

  • #272
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,059 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Thanks for that Cathy.

    You think it's more than just their “view".

    Is simply you expressing your view.

    To be fair, I think you are allowed to express that view and I shall not report this post or try to shut it down by calling you a racist or bigoted.

    You'd look like an idiot if you tried so it's best you don't issue any more non-threat threatening posts!


  • #273
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Like this for example. Have you ever heard anyone from the other side post in feedback that they think it is entirely unacceptable to appose different views?

    I agree but are people trying to silence different views? I don't complain about the posts I disagree with, I complain with the substance of the post not the views expressed in them. I like to debate and challenge views and this is why Current Affairs is already a good forum.

    My problem is with the posts I quoted here. They lack little in the way of content and detract from the debate and the quality of the forum. I'll give you an example of comments I disagree with in terms of view and those I have a problem with in terms of context:
    Black people are oppressed by the Democrats more than republicans

    Different view to mine and I would welcome a debate on it.

    Here's the type of posts I don't think belong in civilised debating:
    HA HA HA HA HA
    SUCK IT
    LEFTIST AGENDA
    RABID LEFT
    RIGHT WING NUTTERS.

    I think that some posters have been resorting to these sort of comments when they don't know how to formulate a response to an opposing view.

    Then you have the people who are trolling IMHO. Either doing it out contempt for those of opposing viewpoints or to just get a rise out of people.

    For example:
    Trump advocates no black people policy in his apartments

    Then the next post:
    I don't think Trump is racist.


  • #274
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Here's the type of posts I don't think belong in civilised debating:
    RIGHT WING NUTTERS.

    But yet......
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I mostly hear about her from right wing nut jobs. They do a great job of advertising her policies.

    I really hope admin aren't falling for what is going on here. I have already shown where this user suggested in a CA thread post (by means of a nonsense story about their employer) that Trump voters have a low IQ ( / 'have trouble accepting facts') and now you can see that in CA they use the exact insulting terms which they pretending here in Feedback that they are against, in the hope they will be seen as being all about "civilised debate" of course.

    Nah, they're not. I'll say it again, there are a cohort of users that are clearly trying to pull the wool over Admin's eyes and their objective is clear: they want admin/mods to act so that it will no longer be okay in CA for someone to accuse a user of having a leftist agenda. That's their aim, don't be fooled. Note how they compare someone being called a 'Right wing nutter' (to give the appearance of non-bias) to someone being told they have a 'Leftist agenda', as if these two things are in any way comparable.

    The only thing comparable to a user being told they have a leftist agenda is a user being told they have a right wing one. Would you want admin to action anyone saying the latter? No you wouldn't but yet here you are doing your utmost to see they action the former. Please.


  • #275
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    But yet......



    I really hope admin aren't falling for what is going on here. I have already shown where this user suggested in a CA thread post (by means of a nonsense story about their employer) that Trump voters have a low IQ ( / 'have trouble accepting facts') and now you can see that in CA they use the exact insulting terms which they pretending here in Feedback that they are against, in the hope they will be seen as being all about "civilised debate" of course.

    Nah, they're not. I'll say it again, there are a cohort of users that are clearly trying to pull the wool over Admin's eyes and their objective is clear: they want admin/mods to act so that it will no longer be okay in CA for someone to accuse a user of having a leftist agenda. That's their aim, don't be fooled. Note how they compare someone being called a 'Right wing nutter' (to give the appearance of non-bias) to someone being told they have a 'Leftist agenda', as if these two things are in any way comparable.

    The only thing comparable to a user being told they have a leftist agenda is a user being told they have a right wing one. Would you want admin to action anyone saying the latter? No you wouldn't but yet here you are doing your utmost to see they action the former. Please.

    In both instances of left and right wing nutters I was referring to people directing that label at the poster. Either way you're right that it's a low brow term to use and I shouldn't.

    Sorry Pete but my employer's do indeed limit the use in official documents, grants or press releases based on the level of understanding Trump, his administration and supporters have of the science. For instance it's well publicised that he doesn't want the climate change to appear on our grants.


  • #276
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    But yet......
    The only thing comparable to a user being told they have a leftist agenda is a user being told they have a right wing one. Would you want admin to action anyone saying the latter? No you wouldn't but yet here you are doing your utmost to see they action the former. Please.

    The only problem with anyone being labelled as leftist is that it's meaningless. Trust me when I say that compared to American politics all of us are on the left.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Sorry Pete but my employer's do indeed limit the use in official documents, grants or press releases based on the level of understanding Trump, his administration and supporters have of the science.

    I don't believe a research facility thinks 62 million people have a poor understanding of science based purely on how they voted in an election and I'd would suggest that if you saw their press releases before Trump was elected, there would be little differences in how they are today. Sounds to me like the employee(s) you cite were just being smartarses.

    Either way though, it's neither here nor there, as you said it on the thread in order to have a sly dig at the user you were engaging with.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The only problem with anyone being labelled as leftist is that it's meaningless. Trust me when I say that compared to American politics all of us are on the left.

    Fine, but you're not in Feedback arguing about the legitimacy of the term though are you. You're here saying it doesn't belong in a civilized debate, which is a much different thing entirely.


  • #278
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Nothing on the instances of promoting harm towards a child that has been highlighted umpteen times?


  • #279
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Nothing on the instances of promoting harm towards a child that has been highlighted umpteen times?

    oh pleeeease tell me this is about criticising greta

    amazing


  • #280
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    oh pleeeease tell me this is about criticising greta

    amazing

    Not at all, it's about people wishing for a second Titanic. That goes far beyond the criticism she gets.

    Also about people making excuses for the girl who was attacked for wearing a hijab in the Gemma thread too.


  • #281
    Mr E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55,785 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Nothing on the instances of promoting harm towards a child that has been highlighted umpteen times?

    The reason all 12 mods of the Current Affairs/IMHO forum didn't action your reported post (all 3 reports of the same post) was because it's not actionable.

    In a thread that started with lots of tongue-in-cheek remarks, it's another tongue-in-cheek remark.
    It was an attempt at a humourous comment that fell a little bit flat (or dare I say, sank).

    Nobody is wishing actual harm to Greta, her dad or anyone else on the boat.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Mr E wrote: »
    The reason all 12 mods of the Current Affairs/IMHO forum didn't action your reported post (all 3 reports of the same post) was because it's not actionable.

    In a thread that started with lots of tongue-in-cheek remarks, it's another tongue-in-cheek remark.
    It was an attempt at a humourous comment that fell a little bit flat (or dare I say, sank).

    Nobody is wishing actual harm to Greta, her dad or anyone else on the boat.

    Clearly didn't see the post by the same poster later on talking about how the waters will be getting a little bit choppy.

    You can call if humour if you want, but you've just said that 'jokes' in relation to harm of a child are fair game.

    Would you accept it if I made a comment about wishing harm on another member then followed it up with 'lol jk'? I don't think so.

    It's bang out of order, and previous admin wouldn't have stood for that. You're absolutely pandering to the trolls now.


  • #283
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Do you genuinely think they were being serious?


  • #284
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Beasty wrote: »
    Do you genuinely think they were being serious?

    Considering they follow up with another 'joke' about the waters getting choppy, I personally think they were.

    Do you honestly think 'jokes' that wish harm on children are acceptable? Can I make similar 'jokes' about who I want on here then?


  • #285
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    the absolute state of this level of sensitivity


    gwan, say 'cesspit' you know you want to


  • #286
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Considering they follow up with another 'joke' about the waters getting choppy, I personally think they were.

    Do you honestly think 'jokes' that wish harm on children are acceptable? Can I make similar 'jokes' about who I want on here then?
    I have absolutely no problem with posters trying to bring some levity into certain threads

    You clearly do have an issue with it. That does not make it actionable (and yes others reported the post, but it's well buries in the thread now and all I think you are doing now is drawing more attention to the post rather than the moderation. Of course I accept others may think differently


  • #287
    Mr E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55,785 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Faugheen wrote: »
    ... and previous admin wouldn't have stood for that.

    I've been an admin for 5 years and I can comfortably say that none of my peers during that time (or before that time) would have been heavy handed with that post.

    The faux outrage is withering.


  • #288
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I see a moderator of CA/IMHO posted a thread in CA/IMHO indirectly encouraging traveller bashing. It's pretty disgusting that there is so much traveller bashing on this site but it is disgraceful that a mod is taking actions to indirectly encourage it.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #289
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    I was pretty depressed by that thread, the OP(the mod) seemed to be pretty positive about the idea out of rejecting people from hotels because they're travelers. Basically racially profiling people. Whatever about representing another forum, a mod of the very forum they're moderating contributing to a problem of threads that target minority groups is ****e.


  • #290
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    i too have seen mods post items i personally disagree with, id like to lend my weight to this class action


  • #291
    Tikki Wang Wang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 332 ✭✭Tikki Wang Wang


    To balance this I support the mod.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway


  • #293
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,058 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

    That's why I started the thread because I thought somebody else would have started it and thought my take on it would be tamer than some.
    I also shared information about what it's like to work in hospitality industry and basically what the owners expect the staff to do.


  • #294
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,938 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway




    True, but that doesn't make it right. Having seen closehand what a second generation traveller family have to put up with in terms of discrimination that thread seems to just endorse bigotry. It was one woman as well, which makes it doubly bad.


  • #295
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

    I wouldnt ever suggest you can dictate what mods can and cannot post but lets face it, this is just an indirect invitation for traveller bashing. I stand by my original point. Mods shouldnt be encouraging discriminatory behaviour.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #296
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    How do you reconcile the start of that post with the end of that post Joey?


  • #297
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,117 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I wouldnt ever suggest you can dictate what mods can and cannot post but lets face it, this is just an indirect invitation for traveller bashing. I stand by my original point. Mods shouldnt be encouraging discriminatory behaviour.

    I read the thread only because it's mentioned here. I can't see any bashing & I think that the word "bashing" is used as an excuse too often.

    For example we have had threads closed under the excuse of Garda bashing & justifiable debate has been closed down.


  • #298
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Baggly wrote: »
    How do you reconcile the start of that post with the end of that post Joey?

    Mods posting in order to "debate" an issue but really in an underhand manner encouraging numerous ways in which the forum charter can be breached through hate speech, insults, derogatory abusive posting shouldnt be encouraged.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #299
    Baggly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    I don't know that it is being encouraged.

    But more to the point, how do you avoid telling mods what not to post, while at the same time telling them what not to post.


  • #300
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Mods posting in order to "debate" an issue but really in an underhand manner encouraging numerous ways in which the forum charter can be breached through hate speech, insults, derogatory abusive posting shouldnt be encouraged.

    Why don’t you just post a list of topics you don’t want discussed instead of making underhand weasel word accusations. That is where you are going with this...maybe you should be made an Administrator so you can card and ban moderators.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    How does Joey feel about the Gemma ‘bashing thread’?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement