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…1011131516…77

Comments

  • #362
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 636 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Beasty wrote: »
    So why don't you post that in the thread rather than assume everyone interprets the comment the same way as you, and indeed trying to then make a big play of it over here

    When I saw the post I saw nothing wrong with it, but a simple correction in-thread was all that was needed

    To be fair it's been pretty well established that there isn't generally a link between the sexual abuse of minors and the sexuality of the abuser so it is easy to assume that when someone does try to link the two that they are trying to associate homosexuality with paedophilia.


  • #363
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Beasty wrote: »
    So why don't you post that in the thread rather than assume everyone interprets the comment the same way as you, and indeed trying to then make a big play of it over here

    When I saw the post I saw nothing wrong with it, but a simple correction in-thread was all that was needed

    Because the poster is clearly trying to push a particular implication(later said "But its totally unacceptable and completely out of bounds to point out when Homosexual Males are statistically overrepresented within certain contexts.") and to engage in it will do absolutely nothing. But it's great to know the general quality of post that's acceptable. Thanks for clearing that up.


  • #364
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Ward J. Littell wrote: »
    To be fair it's been pretty well established that there isn't generally a link between the sexual abuse of minors and the sexuality of the abuser so it is easy to assume that when someone does try to link the two that they are trying to associate homosexuality with paedophilia.

    I did not and do not interpret the post that way

    As I said though a simple note explaining that from the complainant would avoid escalating it in this way


  • #365
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Beasty wrote: »
    I did not and do not interpret the post that way

    I'm actually shocked at that. To me there are obvious attempts to more or less say all gay men are child abusers and linking homosexuality to paedophilia. I don't get how it could be interpreted differently. Why mention the sexual orientation of child abusers if you are not trying to demonstrate a link?

    In relation to that thread I think the moderation on it was terrible. I would have thought suggesting Ireland is "pussified" to be unacceptable homophobia/mysogyny but I didn't see any moderators calling it out.

    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



  • #366
    Mr E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55,785 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    In relation to that thread I think the moderation on it was terrible. I would have thought suggesting Ireland is "pussified" to be unacceptable homophobia/mysogyny but I didn't see any moderators calling it out.

    That was 4 days ago. I just checked the reported posts forum for 'pussified'. Nothing there...

    We rely on users to report posts they deem offensive. We can't read every post in every thread.

    FWIW, plenty of posters have been carded and banned in that thread. I count 7 cards in the last 5 days. Mods will react to reported posts, if they are actionable.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    No real interest in the subject matter but I have just read that thread to see what all the fuss was about and I really don't get what the issue is.
    Ward J. Littell wrote: »
    To be fair it's been pretty well established that there isn't generally a link between the sexual abuse of minors and the sexuality of the abuser so it is easy to assume that when someone does try to link the two that they are trying to associate homosexuality with paedophilia.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I'm actually shocked at that. To me there are obvious attempts to more or less say all gay men are child abusers and linking homosexuality to paedophilia. I don't get how it could be interpreted differently. Why mention the sexual orientation of child abusers if you are not trying to demonstrate a link?

    Seems to me the argument both of you are making is that a user is wrong and you want them actioned for it. I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this stage but you should be delighted that they are saying what they are as it gives you chance to make a show of them by posting up the relevant research leaving it in no doubt that their opinion has no basis in fact.
    In relation to that thread I think the moderation on it was terrible. I would have thought suggesting Ireland is "pussified" to be unacceptable homophobia/mysogyny but I didn't see any moderators calling it out.

    Again it would seem you want a user moderated for having a view you believe is wrong. Are you not a little bit more thick skinned than that? Seems to me some users had no trouble responding to it anyway.

    For years there were threads in Feedback criticising Boards for a level of over-moderation that had stifled the place to the point that it was hemorrhaging users. I know you were never one of the mods/users who believed that over-moderation was an issue. Either way, it would appear to me that there is somewhat of a desire to moderate CA in a manner which is a little less zealous and frankly I think it's a good thing.

    Don't get me wrong, there are lots of stuff I'd sure love moderators to action on the regular. I could list a dozen things which annoy me that users often post which I believe to be factual inaccurate, ad hominem in nature or just downright baiting, but that's the nature of debate which is not being over-moderated and so I need to just follow my own advice there I guess and not expect mods to come and pamper me.

    As long as the line in the sand is the same one all users are being subjected to, with regards to the rules, and moderation is largely consistent, as opposed to only applying to one side of a discussion, then no user should really have a problem. Again that is something which I feel was a major factor before but it would seem that an effort is being made to address that too.

    tl;dr

    If someone is wrong, or appears to have an agenda, roll up your sleeves and post a reply which leaves that in no doubt. That will frustrate such users far more than being moderated actually will. As then they can't pretend that they were right and moderators stopped them from proving it.


  • #368
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I always thought the 'child molester = gay' thing was cardable. Apparently not.

    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



  • #369
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,219 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Beasty wrote: »
    I did not and do not interpret the post that way

    As I said though a simple note explaining that from the complainant would avoid escalating it in this way


    Beasty can I ask, what way do you interpret the post?

    From my understanding and in the context in which it was posted, I’m failing to come up with any alternative explanation other than an attempt to claim a link between child abuse and the sexual orientation of the perpetrators. The obligation is on the poster making the claims to provide evidence for their claims, and seeing as there was no evidence provided in their post, I dismissed their claims as complete nonsense rather than entertain them.

    Their claim didn’t make me uncomfortable, because I know it to be complete nonsense. I would suggest their attempt to bait posters into entertaining their nonsense constitutes being a dick though and IMO should have been a cardable offence for it’s implied association in what I would see as a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of other posters - the implication being of course that if anyone was uncomfortable with that posters claims it wasn’t their problem. I would suggest that their claims are their problem, because all posters here are responsible for the content of their posts, and they shouldn’t be permitted to suggest responsibility for their claims or the consequences of their claims, are anyone else’s problem.


  • #370
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I always thought the 'child molester = gay' thing was cardable. Apparently not.

    Okay, so that's what you feel the user was essentially saying but you can't (imo) expect mods to card and ban users because they have expressed wrongheaded views (no matter how abhorrent or idiotic they are).

    That user believes that because the vast majority of abusers in the church were men, and victims boys, that therefore those men must have all been gay - clearly a foolish thing to think, much less say.... but why does users replying to them, and showing precisely how (and why) what they said was foolish not suffice... is my point. What do you want them carded for?

    There's been a few replies to the post since they posted, most of which made the user look to be not the brightest and so doesn't that help dispel bigotry and ignorance far more than cards would? Don't you see that when you muzzle a user they can hide behind that. Whereas refuting their view and leaving it in no doubt that what they said was preposterous, means they don't have that option any longer.

    Just don't get the obsession some have with wanting users carded and/or banned and I actually think it's an issue we are dealing with in society at large given that there have been campaigns to not allow certain guests appear on TLLS, for example. Some seem to want all dissenting voices removed from society. Only one opinion allowed.

    No issue with the following mod intervention by the way, although I do think had more users done what they should have done it most likely wouldn't have been needed.
    If you wish to continue posting in this thread, provide actual proof to back up that statement. Otherwise, don't post in this thread again.

    If a user continues to make a line of argument despite it being shown to be totally and utterly false, then that's of course a different issue, and becomes more about them having a desire to derai/troll than actually, and genuinely, having an opinion which the majority of people do not agree with, which happens quite a bit too.


  • #371
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,219 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Okay, so that's what you feel the user was essentially saying but you can't (imo) expect mods to card and ban users because they have expressed wrongheaded views (no matter how abhorrent or idiotic they are).

    That user believes that because the vast majority of abusers in the church were men, and victims boys, that therefore those men must have all been gay - clearly a foolish thing to think, much less say.... but why does users replying to them, and showing precisely how (and why) what they said was foolish not suffice... is my point. What do you want them carded for?

    ...

    If a user continues to make a line of argument despite it being shown to be totally and utterly false, then that's of course a different issue, and becomes more about them having a desire to derai/troll than actually, and genuinely, having an opinion which the majority of people do not agree with, which happens quite a bit too.


    It wasn’t just the expression of a wrong-headed view though Pete. I didn’t even care that it was just ill-informed nonsense. It was the way in which the view was expressed though, as “undeniable fact”? It’s clearly neither of those things as it is easily deniable if I cared to, and it is certainly not a fact. To claim that if their claims made anyone else uncomfortable it wasn’t their problem, I was of a mind to suggest would they ever go and shìte, but I couldn’t say that because it would likely be carded as uncivil.

    I’m not suggesting any double standards be applied here or anything else, I’d say the same of any posters attitude to other posters regardless of their opinions. That’s why I asked Beasty how did he interpret the post when he didn’t appear to see what other posters are seeing. Beasty didn’t mention in his post how he actually interpreted the post.

    I think it was a deliberate attempt to troll other posters, regardless of whether or not the user themselves believe what they posted (I’m sure they do, it’s just not relevant whether they believe it or not). The point is the way they expressed their opinion and the context in which they expressed their opinions.

    I don’t think they were attempting to argue anything in good faith, and I’m one of the most charitable posters in terms of trying to interpret a posters post through the lens of arguments made in good faith and with no malicious intent. I’m just not seeing anything other than a bad faith claim made with malicious intent in that post tbh.

    That’s why I’m curious to know how Beasty is interpreting the post and are they interpreting the post in their capacity as a normal poster in the forum, or as an Administrator of the site, because to me allowing a post like that to stand sets a terrible precedent for the way posters are or aren’t to be encouraged to engage with other posters.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,004 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Let's not kid ourselves that the user in question posted in good faith and actually gives a sh!t whether what they claimed was true or not, and that this was some kind of 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' moment.


  • #373
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    What do you want them carded for?

    For breaking points 1,2 and 3 of the forum charter.

    1 Dont be a dick - The poster is clearly being a dick here. He is deliberately coming in with trollish posting to inflame harsh responses against himself
    2 The premise of his argument clearly linking gay men with paedophilia is based in hate and false mistruths. By repeating such slurs he is posting posts that are hateful, abusive, false and inaccurate
    3 A post like this is uncivil, deliberately tried to spread hate speech and to troll in order to receive inflammatory responses.

    In my view an on thread warning was very lenient. Lets not pretend this was a discussion where he actually wanted to debate the issue in a civil manner.

    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



  • #374
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,938 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Okay, so that's what you feel the user was essentially saying but you can't (imo) expect mods to card and ban users because they have expressed wrongheaded views (no matter how abhorrent or idiotic they are). ..........


    So every time somebody says gay men are all paedophiles or imply same we have to humour them as if it was the first time it was trotted out?


    Do we have to do the same when somebody espouses antiquated racist views? Sexism? Society has moved on, why should we tolerate this crap.


  • #375
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Also, it wasn't until I reported his followup post that there was any form of actioning. It's pretty easy to spot when a poster wants to have a genuine discussion, that one was pretty obviously a homophobic nonsense. But I guess that is what that thread descended into in general. Minimal moderation and hateful rhetoric is tolerated across the board.


  • #376
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    So along with ‘jokes’ about children being harmed and traveller bashing, we can add gay-bashing to the list of acceptable mindsets.

    Great work.


  • #377
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Just out of curiosity, could this thread actually be moved to the “Current Affairs” forum?

    Or even a “complaints” thread could be stickied in there so that the forum denizens could have their little vent and tattle on each other.

    “It matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be” - A. Dumbledore

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #378
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    The current affairs forum is like the radio forum in that it can be fun to visit occasionally and even post the odd time. But you thank your lucky stars that your life ended up differently to those of the obsessive 20 hours a day posters.


  • #379
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Just to initially repeat the wording in question
    It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of clerical sexual abusers were Homosexual men and the majority of victims were boys.
    If thats uncomfortable for you then so be it.

    Now it's not an area I would claim any particular knowledge/understanding of, and I fully accept how I interpret the wording may be very different from someone else's interpretation. I also accept that what I am going to say may be factually incorrect, but I do think it's a reasonable way that it could be interpreted by the "uninitiated"

    My reading was the poster was saying that (male) clerical abusers who typically abused boys would typically be homosexual. He was certainly not saying homosexual=paedophile.

    Again I accept these interpretations may not be factually correct, but in my view it is a reasonable conclusion for the "uninitiated" to draw. Hence looking at it that way I did not think any action was required. Equally as I have already mentioned twice, it would have been very easy for someone to post a clarification if they felt the wording was either ambiguous or inaccurate

    So I apologiise if I have got this completely wrong, but if I can get this so wrong I'm not going to punish someone else for getting it equally wrong


  • #380
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Beasty wrote: »
    Just to initially repeat the wording in question



    Now it's not an area I would claim any particular knowledge/understanding of, and I fully accept how I interpret the wording may be very different from someone else's interpretation. I also accept that what I am going to say may be factually incorrect, but I do think it's a reasonable way that it could be interpreted by the "uninitiated"

    My reading was the poster was saying that (male) clerical abusers who typically abused boys would typically be homosexual. He was certainly not saying homosexual=paedophile.

    Again I accept these interpretations may not be factually correct, but in my view it is a reasonable conclusion for the "uninitiated" to draw. Hence looking at it that way I did not think any action was required. Equally as I have already mentioned twice, it would have been very easy for someone to post a clarification if they felt the wording was either ambiguous or inaccurate

    So I apologiise if I have got this completely wrong, but if I can get this so wrong I'm not going to punish someone else for getting it equally wrong


    I think you have got it wrong. The way in which the poster said that what he is saying may be uncomfortable does suggest a homophobic undertone and that the poster is aware of this too.

    From what I can see a good few other posters interpreted it that way too. My own view on this was that the poster was saying "gay=child abuser" and to link homosexuality and paedophilia together. It may have been subtle and perhaps indirect but I do think that was the clear implication of what was being said. I also think that "gay=child abuser" type posts are quite seriously hateful, false, bigoted and homophobic and break points 1,2 and 3 of the forum charter and in that context would deserve a minimum yellow card.

    Personally I was the victim/target of homophobic bullying for approximately 12 years. This has had numerous negatibe consequences on my life including contempating suicide at 13. I am quite sensitive to homophobia as a result because for me it is personal. I dont believe thats necessarily a bad thing though I know many here feel I am oversensitive.

    Having said all that I think though having reflected on your post though Beasty I would like to say A) Thank you for apologising. I accept your apology. B) I take your point that from your perspective and viewpoint it could be viewed differently. I don't view it that way but I can see how you might. C) on the other hand some posters that are not necessarily LGBT (and wouldnt have as an acute/sensitive perspective as me) clearly took the same interpretation as me so this isnt just me being oversensitive at all.

    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



  • #381
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Not even a card for the poster saying he would blame himself if he was Ana Kriegel’s father.

    Lads that is an absolute joke. Why are you being so lenient with some of these posters?

    Guarantee I’ll get one for being so annoyed about it though. Priorities and all that.

    That poster has trolled multiple threads and you play the ‘agree to disagree’ card to be nice to them.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,599 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Not even a card for the poster saying he would blame himself if he was Ana Kriegel’s father.

    Lads that is an absolute joke. Why are you being so lenient with some of these posters?

    Guarantee I’ll get one for being so annoyed about it though. Priorities and all that.

    That poster has trolled multiple threads and you play the ‘agree to disagree’ card to be nice to them.

    CA is just the trolling part of the site. Once you accept that it becomes much more amusing.


  • #383
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Beasty wrote: »
    Just to initially repeat the wording in question



    Now it's not an area I would claim any particular knowledge/understanding of, and I fully accept how I interpret the wording may be very different from someone else's interpretation. I also accept that what I am going to say may be factually incorrect, but I do think it's a reasonable way that it could be interpreted by the "uninitiated"

    My reading was the poster was saying that (male) clerical abusers who typically abused boys would typically be homosexual. He was certainly not saying homosexual=paedophile.

    Again I accept these interpretations may not be factually correct, but in my view it is a reasonable conclusion for the "uninitiated" to draw. Hence looking at it that way I did not think any action was required. Equally as I have already mentioned twice, it would have been very easy for someone to post a clarification if they felt the wording was either ambiguous or inaccurate

    So I apologiise if I have got this completely wrong, but if I can get this so wrong I'm not going to punish someone else for getting it equally wrong



    surely the statement is either demonstrably factually correct, or it isnt.

    if it is, then its hardly possible to action it unless it was the basis for a very blatant "all gay men are paedophiles" statement (like beasty, i did not read that into it and i do think anyone who claims that it is that bald a statement are not on solid ground). any such statement would clearly be ridiculous and certainly offensive enough to warrant action.

    if its either uncorroborated or can be disproven then the normal methods are in place to rebut, ignore or demand evidence on pain of action.

    in either case, people claiming that its a simple statement claiming that it says "gay=paedophile" are demanding mod action based more on their own projection than what's been posted and i think its a big ask tbh.


  • #384
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Deleted User wrote: »
    surely the statement is either demonstrably factually correct, or it isnt.

    if it is, then its hardly possible to action it unless it was the basis for a very blatant "all gay men are paedophiles" statement (like beasty, i did not read that into it and i do think anyone who claims that it is that bald a statement are not on solid ground). any such statement would clearly be ridiculous and certainly offensive enough to warrant action.

    if its either uncorroborated or can be disproven then the normal methods are in place to rebut, ignore or demand evidence on pain of action.

    in either case, people claiming that its a simple statement claiming that it says "gay=paedophile" are demanding mod action based more on their own projection than what's been posted and i think its a big ask tbh.

    It's possible snd plausible that you can accuse me of projection but much less so others. I think thats just trying to lump everyone who complained in together into some sort of stereotype and nothing really to do with the point at all. More of a playing the man snd not the ball argument with your own projections added in.

    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



  • #385
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Firstly, as already pointed out it is demonstrably untrue. The second thing is, making such claims always drags the thread down into a pretty nasty wormhole when you argue with such posters. It attracts similarly nasty posters and creates a load of work for mods as people too and fro.


  • #386
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    It's possible snd plausible that you can accuse me of projection but much less so others. I think thats just trying to lump everyone who complained in together into some sort of stereotype and nothing really to do with the point at all. More of a playing the man snd not the ball argument with your own projections added in.

    joey the very first line is that its either a factual statement or not. the rest of the post is my pointing out that it could still be actionable in some circumstances but that in this case that does depend on the reader taking a certain line, which leaves the mod with a question mark.

    i have genuinely no idea where you get from that position to me breaking site rules in that post, but tbh i think it does actually demonstrate a tendency for you/others to go straight from "i disagree with this" to "i will find a way to action this" on issues you have strong personal views on, which you might think is irrelevant but is actually the core point.

    there is absolutely nothing anyone could fairly object to in my post above other than just disagreeing with it. im taken aback that anyone would consider it playing anything but the ball, but hey that's message boards.


  • #387
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    batgoat wrote: »
    Firstly, as already pointed out it is demonstrably untrue. The second thing is, making such claims always drags the thread down into a pretty nasty wormhole when you argue with such posters. It attracts similarly nasty posters and creates a load of work for mods as people too and fro.
    It's also treating the post in good faith as if it's serious, plausible, genuine, respectful and unmotivated by particular biases.

    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



  • #388
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

    I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

    Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

    The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

    It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.


  • #389
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

    I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

    Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

    The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

    It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.

    the verdict says nothing about the complainant but it clears the defendants outright.

    do you hold the position that people should be "allowed" to say what they believe about one but not the other?

    seems a strange position to take, let alone plead for mod enforcement on.


  • #390
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

    I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

    Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

    The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

    It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.

    the verdict says nothing about the complainant but it clears the defendants outright.

    do you hold the position that people should be "allowed" to say what they believe about one but not the other?

    seems a strange position to take, let alone plead for mod enforcement on.

    No surprise that you are the first to reply to this and completely missing the point.

    People are blatantly lying and doubling down on those lies when it’s pointed out to them that the verdict says nothing about the complainant. The verdict does not mean that she is lying. That is a fact.

    For anyone to say otherwise is a complete and utter liar - and it’s a dangerous lie to spout as well.

    I haven’t seen anyone in the thread say the verdict is wrong and claim the pair are rapists. If that is the case, then it only enhances my point about blatantly lying and doing so dangerously. Why are you taking an issue with this?

    Do you believe that posters should be allowed to lie about the complainant in this case and should be allowed to incorrectly say the verdict means she is lying?

    My point is about people lying about the complainant but you use it to make it about the two lads. Seriously...


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    likewise, it's no surprise that you are missing the point im making.

    you want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you dislike.

    you dont want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you like.

    this thread is full of exactly this type of request- "posters are posting things i disagree with, something must be done!"

    and these requests are coming from the same handful of posters.

    its very interesting to watch, more interesting than the actual topics themselves most of the time tbh.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement