Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

AH Gone to the Dogs

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Raconteuse


    You're the one who brought up women saying things that are as bad, and you said I only call the men who say such stuff misogynistic (which isn't true, as I clarified, but now you've a problem with that!)

    That woman is having shreds torn off her for no reason whatsoever. As there are no concrete reasons, the standard fare used to discredit women is being thrown out there: gold digger, social climber, bitch, nagging and demanding of Harry, diva, etc. Now of course there are women like that, but there is no evidence whatsoever in this case, just "she's a woman, enough said". And yes, it is dismaying to see women get on board with that. Agreeing with such a putdown of their own sex. It's like men doing the self loathing white knight thing.

    Nobody's not allowing those women to express those opinions though. And they are the ones who are stuck in the 50s.


  • Options
    #123
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Raconteuse wrote: »
    You're the one who brought up women saying things that are as bad, and you said I only call the men who say such stuff misogynistic (which isn't true, as I clarified, but now you've a problem with that!)

    That woman is having shreds torn off her for no reason whatsoever. As there are no concrete reasons, the standard fare used to discredit women is being thrown out there: gold digger, social climber, bitch, nagging and demanding of Harry, diva, etc. Now of course there are women like that, but there is no evidence whatsoever in this case, just "she's a woman, enough said". And yes, it is dismaying to see women get on board with that. Agreeing with such a putdown of their own sex. It's like men doing the self loathing white knight thing.

    Nobody's not allowing those women to express those opinions though. And they are the ones who are stuck in the 50s.

    So women are being misogynistic also? Might it be a case that nobody is being misogynistic?

    I don’t think the female opinions are trying to put down their sex, might it be a case that there merely commenting on one particular celebrity?

    I think you might be reading too much into the comments on that thread, I can’t see it as a gender attack.


  • Options
    #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,679 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I notice there are a number of current affairs style threads being left in AH. Are the mods deciding to go back to how it was?


  • Options
    #125
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Raconteuse wrote: »
    That woman is having shreds torn off her for no reason whatsoever. As there are no concrete reasons, the standard fare used to discredit women is being thrown out there: gold digger, social climber, bitch, nagging and demanding of Harry, diva, etc.

    But what's the solution here?

    Public figures are torn to shreds on AH all the time. There's a Piers Morgan–bashing thread underway in After Hours as we speak. On the first page alone, he's called "cnut," a "narcissistic dickhead," a "horrible pr1ck," a "horrible cúnt," a "contemptable [sic] human being," and a "wan*er." I'm sure the thread carries on in a similar vein.

    Groups of people (Travellers, welfare recipients, Americans, right-wingers, unionists, etc.) are also maligned on After Hours all the time.

    The problem is that if the moderators set out to ensure that nobody got away with these kinds of comments, it would necessitate a crackdown that sucked the life out of the forum. Like it or not, some posters are attracted to AH because they get free rein there that they don't get elsewhere.

    I can appreciate that some posters hide behind "having a discussion" or "having the craic" to propagate misogyny. But it's extremely difficult to ferret that out systematically without making everyone else feel that a regime of political correctness is being instated.


  • Options
    #126
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,539 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I notice there are a number of current affairs style threads being left in AH. Are the mods deciding to go back to how it was?

    That’s it, P. And what’s worse is that it’s causing the CA “overflow” to hang around in AH, stinking up the joint with their foul mouth breathing and poor standard of hygiene and morals.

    The tide is turning…



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,679 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I just find it strange. It's as if the mods have just given up moving threads. At the minute I see two on the front page that could go to CA, the Ireland leaving the EU and the commemoration thread.


  • Options
    #128
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Raconteuse


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    So women are being misogynistic also? Might it be a case that nobody is being misogynistic?

    I don’t think the female opinions are trying to put down their sex, might it be a case that there merely commenting on one particular celebrity?

    I think you might be reading too much into the comments on that thread, I can’t see it as a gender attack.
    I think it is gendered though, because in the absence of any evidence as to what she's like as a person but an insatiable need to attack her, insults based on her being a woman (the ones I listed above) get resorted to. And it's done in a "she's a woman - what do you expect?" way. This isn't just about Meghan Markle at all - it's about a bigger picture: the way women get demonised in certain contexts. And men absolutely get demonised in certain contexts too of course - several - but does that mean criticism of one should be objected to? The vast majority of people on the general discussion forums on Boards aren't hostile to women but there is a vocal minority. The only prominent man hater is that Sarah woman who was deservedly site banned recently.
    Niko Hollow Threesome wrote: »
    But what's the solution here?

    Public figures are torn to shreds on AH all the time. There's a Piers Morgan–bashing thread underway in After Hours as we speak. On the first page alone, he's called "cnut," a "narcissistic dickhead," a "horrible pr1ck," a "horrible cúnt," a "contemptable [sic] human being," and a "wan*er." I'm sure the thread carries on in a similar vein.

    Groups of people (Travellers, welfare recipients, Americans, right-wingers, unionists, etc.) are also maligned on After Hours all the time.

    The problem is that if the moderators set out to ensure that nobody got away with these kinds of comments, it would necessitate a crackdown that sucked the life out of the forum. Like it or not, some posters are attracted to AH because they get free rein there that they don't get elsewhere.

    I can appreciate that some posters hide behind "having a discussion" or "having the craic" to propagate misogyny. But it's extremely difficult to ferret that out systematically without making everyone else feel that a regime of political correctness is being instated.
    Ah here, the attacks on Piers Morgan (a much shorter thread) are based on his behaviour. That's fair game when it comes to anyone. In the context of the royals, princess Margaret was an absolute ****.

    Traveller culture is criticised because of the massive problems associated with it. Hardline unionism because of the sectarianism. Social welfare recipients who game the system and have a massive sense of entitlement. Far right, far left - these have traits that deserve criticism. None of this can be equated with tearing strips off people who have literally done nothing, and are just members of a particular group (like Americans as you listed). Another example is Kathryn Thomas - people literally cannot answer when asked why such rage and hatred towards her.

    It will never be ferreted out, but it's just laughable when people say "oh you just don't like people disagreeing with you" if you call out blatant toxicity.


  • Options
    #129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ah, so attack people you don’t like but the ones you do like are off limits. It can’t work that way.


  • Options
    #130
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,381 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Beasty wrote: »
    Please PM me with details of any posts you have reported from AH over the past few weeks that you consider have not been adequately dealt with and I will have a look

    I'm still waiting....


  • Options
    #131
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,381 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I just find it strange. It's as if the mods have just given up moving threads. At the minute I see two on the front page that could go to CA, the Ireland leaving the EU and the commemoration thread.
    Just had a look now and seen one (election based) thread probably better suited to CA. In addition I can understand your point on the commemoration thread. Not sure about the Ireland leaving the EU thread as I can barely see this as a half-serious subject (admittedly I've not looked through it)

    I'm sure we will see some GE discussion in AH, but hopefully more focussed on some of the less serious aspects.

    The other thing I would point out though is it's perfectly acceptable to report a thread anyone considers is better suited to CA (which I have just done with the thread I mentioned above)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Raconteuse


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    Ah, so attack people you don’t like but the ones you do like are off limits. It can’t work that way.
    Nonsense. I clearly said there's no comparison between attacking people for nothing and attacking them due to their behaviour. You just cannot fathom that there is a huge difference between heated debate and just having a go for no reason. Saying the two are the same thing is beyond disingenuous.


  • Options
    #133
    Woke Hogan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭Woke Hogan


    After Hours is a cesspit but it seems to me that this particular discussion is being overrun by the “I don’t like how people speak” crowd.

    In other words, some people are insisting that people follow their own personal definition of civility. I suggest ideas are debated rather than tone.


  • Options
    #134
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Woke Hogan wrote: »
    After Hours is a cesspit but it seems to me that this particular discussion is being overrun by the “I don’t like how people speak” crowd.

    In other words, some people are insisting that people follow their own personal definition of civility. I suggest ideas are debated rather than tone.

    It would be great if you could demonstrate using examples.

    It could be very true that people have different issues of civility.


  • Options
    #135
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Raconteuse


    Some amount of hypocrisy in this thread:

    "Don't shut people down" - proceeds to shut people down.

    "You only have a problem with people disagreeing with you" - being said by people who have a problem with people disagreeing with them.

    "People shouldn't say they don't like how others speak" - posts after posts attacking how others speak.


  • Options
    #136
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    When you report something, do you get a response to say what action has been taken?


  • Options
    #137
    Woke Hogan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭Woke Hogan


    Raconteuse wrote: »
    Some amount of hypocrisy in this thread:

    "Don't shut people down" - proceeds to shut people down.

    "You only have a problem with people disagreeing with you" - being said by people who have a problem with people disagreeing with them.

    "People shouldn't say they don't like how others speak" - posts after posts attacking how others speak.

    “You’re talking ****e” - proceeds to talk ****e.

    It’s very, very easy to accuse people of bringing the tone down.


  • Options
    #138
    Notdeco
    Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭Notdeco


    anewme wrote: »
    When you report something, do you get a response to say what action has been taken?
    No, mods look at the posts that have been reported.
    And make a decision. Only way you will know about it is if a mod posts in bold.

    Or you go back and see the msg deleted /poster banned.


  • Options
    #139
    Raconteuse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Raconteuse


    Woke Hogan wrote: »
    “You’re talking ****e” - proceeds to talk ****e.

    It’s very, very easy to accuse people of bringing the tone down.
    All you do is write bullying posts here. No wonder you don't like toxic posting being pointed out.


  • Options
    #140
    Woke Hogan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭Woke Hogan


    Raconteuse wrote: »
    All you do is write bullying posts here. No wonder you don't like toxic posting being pointed out.

    Show me one example. I have never bullied a single person. Ever.


  • Options
    #141
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Raconteuse wrote: »
    It will never be ferreted out, but it's just laughable when people say "oh you just don't like people disagreeing with you" if you call out blatant toxicity.

    I'd agree with you that there's toxicity in After Hours and other parts of Boards. The overall tone of the site has become much nastier and more combative in recent years. But I'd note that the toxicity isn't directed just at women. It's perfectly acceptable on Boards to take potshots at Catholics, Americans, conservatives, unionists, and numerous other groups — even though many of them have done nothing wrong whatsoever.

    The problem is that clamping down on this would require stringent moderating that risks driving posters away. If there's a balance to be struck between a toxic cesspit and a ghost town, I'm all ears — but it's historically been hard to find the middle ground between too hands-off and too hands-on. Heavy-handed modding has killed many forums across Boards.

    That said, it's worth noting that After Hours currently has ten mods, all of whom are male, and two Cmods, both of whom are also male. I don't know that there are any currently active female admins, either. If you want someone to see the AH culture from a woman's perspective, a good place to start would be lobbying for more female representation on these teams.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,393 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    Niko Hollow Threesome wrote: »
    That said, it's worth noting that After Hours currently has ten mods, all of whom are male, and two Cmods, both of whom are also male. I don't know that there are any currently active female admins, either. If you want someone to see the AH culture from a woman's perspective, a good place to start would be lobbying for more female representation on these teams.

    I've brought that up on several occasions. Deafening silence.


  • Options
    #143
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    I've brought that up on several occasions. Deafening silence.

    Well, I'm a man, but I can see the issue when the ratio of AH mods and Cmods is 12 men to 0 women.

    At very least, female posters will have reasonable justification in believing that their complaints about misogyny are falling on deaf ears.

    Bring in some female mods and see if that changes things.


  • Options
    #144
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Niko Hollow Threesome wrote: »
    I'd agree with you that there's toxicity in After Hours and other parts of Boards. The overall tone of the site has become much nastier and more combative in recent years. But I'd note that the toxicity isn't directed just at women. It's perfectly acceptable on Boards to take potshots at Catholics, Americans, conservatives, unionists, and numerous other groups — even though many of them have done nothing wrong whatsoever.

    Spot on.

    That's the problem with thundering bullies - they try to pick on those they deem "weaker".

    And this excuse...."its just a different opinion" does not wash.


  • Options
    #145
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Niko Hollow Threesome wrote: »
    Well, I'm a man, but I can see the issue when the ratio of AH mods and Cmods is 12 men to 0 women.

    At very least, female posters will have reasonable justification in believing that their complaints about misogyny are falling on deaf ears.

    Bring in some female mods and see if that changes things.

    If people don’t report posts you’re on a hiding to nothing.


    Are posters actually reporting misogyny and nothing is being done about it? Any posts I’ve reported have been actioned pretty quickly, they’re usually by reregs.


  • Options
    #146
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Are posters actually reporting misogyny and nothing is being done about it?

    I don't know. That's a question that only a mod or admin could answer.

    That said, a number of female posters have complained repeatedly about misogyny in AH. This is an issue that has come up time and again over the years, and so I don't think people are imagining it.

    As a starting point, the issue of zero female representation on the team overseeing the largest forum on Boards should be addressed, IMO.


  • Options
    #147
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Ok. Go to the thread about the woman who fell over the jostle stone.

    Every second post needs to be deleted.

    I have no time for people who push false claims.

    However, the comments on this thread are low brow filth. Between saying people living in Dublin 1 are lowlife, her family are scummy, poking fun at people who just have liked a photo, saying she has an STI.

    I note there is no such vitriol - the solicitor(s) who constantly take on these makey up cases. Probably because hes Male and i d reckon doesn't live in Dublin 1.

    Edited: I see it's been cleaned up pretty promptly, thanks.


  • Options
    #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    By saying the problem stems from 12 male moderators is just a thinly veiled way of saying all men are misogynists. At best you’re just slandering 12 people. Absolute tripe.


  • Options
    #149
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    By saying the problem stems from 12 male moderators is just a thinly veiled way of saying all men are misogynists. At best you’re just slandering 12 people. Absolute tripe.

    Boards needs a gender quota haha.


  • Options
    #150
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,865 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Boards needs a gender quota haha.

    They need a gender balance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    They only need a gender balance if the current moderators are what you’re accusing them of being.


Advertisement