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…2122242627…77

Comments

  • #692
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    In my opinion the level of moderation has gone up recently. I used to see many objectionable actions from moderators but I have not seen any recently, and in fact I see many good interventions that previously were more spiteful 'this is for you taking my time into looking into the matter'.
    Baggly wrote: »
    I'd also like to see where people were being sanctioned for that specific reason vs being sanctioned for rule breakages like trolling, being uncivil or being a dick. There is a distinction between a sanction for these and a sanction for someone holding what you may classify as a wrong opinion.

    This is a very good point I would second. The difference in those reasons being subjectivity.


  • #693
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,559 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mike_ie wrote: »
    No, it's not. One poster attempted to, and was unreservedly actioned, threadbanned, and their post removed.

    As I said in the thread itself, criticism of a gay man for his poor choice of personal associates isn't in itself homophobia, any more than questioning a straight man for the same associations would be. There is plenty of scope for that discussion to take place as long as it doesn't go down the path of equating one with the other.

    The association amounts to a gay man at a pride rally with another highly regarded gay rights activist who has done much in the way of activism on gay rights. The thread relies on a letter from 1997 that the minister is likely oblivious to. By the above logic, making the same association with every politician who has a photo with David Norris at pride etc as an example of a "poor choice of personal associates". It's also ignoring that this politician is largely being targeted by far right idiots because he is gay, this started as soon as he is kissed his partner days ago.

    So I would say the primary motivator is being ignored.


  • #694
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,040 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    mike_ie wrote: »
    As I said in the thread itself, criticism of a gay man for his poor choice of personal associates isn't in itself homophobia, any more than questioning a straight man for the same associations would be. There is plenty of scope for that discussion to take place as long as it doesn't go down the path of equating one with the other.

    Oh come on. We all know why he is being singled out, it's far from subtle. Many of the posts on the thread are straight out of the Gemma playbook.

    There's also the posts saying that a Minister for Children shouldn't be gay.

    I was going to post in that thread, but I remembered the old line about wrestling with a pig. The pig enjoys it, and you get covered in sh*t.

    That thread is an absolute cesspit and Boards should be ashamed to host it.

    If this is the standard now for Boards, what is the site going to become?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #695
    Hodors Appletart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,918 ✭✭✭Hodors Appletart


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    There's also the posts saying that a Minister for Children shouldn't be gay.

    link?

    that sounds horrendous


  • #696
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,040 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Here's one

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113908903&postcount=48

    The implication there is very very clear given the current and previous incumbents' sexual orientation.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Advertisement
  • #697
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,904 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Here's one

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113908903&postcount=48

    The implication there is very very clear given the current and previous incumbents' sexual orientation.

    it's not though.
    while there can be multiple interpretations if one wants to interpret it in a way that suits whatever viewpoint they hold, the reality is that post is just an impractical suggestion, and it was challenged sufficiently by other users from my reading of that page of the thread.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #698
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Here's one

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113908903&postcount=48

    The implication there is very very clear given the current and previous incumbents' sexual orientation.

    Not really. That post is specifically asking for a minister for children who actually has children.
    It is you who is twisting it into something different


  • #699
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    Not really. That post is specifically asking for a minister for children who actually has children.
    It is you who is twisting it into something different

    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058046008/1/#post112267049


    This is a thread,which basically says someone who said virtually same thing,is homophobic



    Now.....whether you agree with that point of view (i dont),there is large swades of population,who view that/similar statements as homophobic


  • #700
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058046008/1/#post112267049


    This is a thread,which basically says someone who said virtually same thing,is homophobic



    Now.....whether you agree with that point of view (i dont),there is large swades of population,who view that/similar statements as homophobic

    Well they are wrong on this one. The poster asked for a minister for children who actually has children.

    No more was added. People looking for opinions to twist. That's how the world works now


  • #701
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    That thread is an absolute cesspit and Boards should be ashamed to host it.

    If this is the standard now for Boards, what is the site going to become?

    Is it the standard? A few posters who post all the time about something they care way too much about defines us all? I'd much rather boards.ie let the conversations take place and moderate it like they're doing. A lot of people are far too fond of censorship these days and cheer on the shutting down of anything they don't like. It would be far more shameful for boards.ie to shut down conversation because you don't like it.


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,117 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is it the standard? A few posters who post all the time about something they care way too much about defines us all? I'd much rather boards.ie let the conversations take place and moderate it like they're doing. A lot of people are far too fond of censorship these days and cheer on the shutting down of anything they don't like. It would be far more shameful for boards.ie to shut down conversation because you don't like it.

    I think the conversation will shut itself down & the forum become an echo chamber. It's already so predictable. Gradually those that oppose the toxic views expressed won't bother to interact. The disappointing thing is the way that the attitudes prevalent in CA now permeate many other Boards fora. Maybe people aren't either interested or intelligent enough for reasoned discussion ?


  • #703
    Pintman Paddy Losty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Pintman Paddy Losty


    Still no examples of these toxic and racist posts. The best that could be come up with is one where someone said the minister for children should have children. Lots of whinging and not many facts.


  • #704
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    Still no examples of these toxic and racist posts.

    I put it specifically to the poster Better Than Christ to put up one or two examples that weren't mod actioned because he was repeatedly adamant this is the case... and he wouldn't or couldn't. Reason I asked was because he kept saying the place is a ''racist cesspit'' and allowed to be by the people in charge. So I assume it's easy to share an example or two? I respect him as a poster usually but he couldn't do that simple task. I now notice this morning that his account is closed, which I think is a shame.


  • #705
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Discodog wrote: »
    I think the conversation will shut itself down & the forum become an echo chamber. It's already so predictable. Gradually those that oppose the toxic views expressed won't bother to interact. The disappointing thing is the way that the attitudes prevalent in CA now permeate many other Boards fora. Maybe people aren't either interested or intelligent enough for reasoned discussion ?

    I don't think it will become and echo chamber yet. Out of boredom, I've been active there in the last while and it's pretty balanced.

    As for attitudes there being prevalent elsewhere, that's just a sign of the times. Things are predictably swinging to the right as people realise that these extremely loud and vocal minorities just have to stamp their feet a bit and they get their way.
    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    Still no examples of these toxic and racist posts. The best that could be come up with is one where someone said the minister for children should have children. Lots of whinging and not many facts.

    It's been like that since the thread opened. One poster claimed a thread was full of a type of post and I went and found one example of it and it was post #168 or something.


  • #706
    Pintman Paddy Losty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Pintman Paddy Losty


    I think these people spend their day to day lives surrounded by very like-minded people. So they probably perceive someone with a different viewpoint as being a racist or some other undesirable characteristic. Easier to just say opinions you don't like are toxic than to engage in discussion. Cancel culture has proven very effective in silencing views you don't like. Seems like they're trying the same here.

    Just keep saying it's a racist cesspit and eventually the admins will close it down or be seen as complicit.


  • #707
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,586 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    You don't have to post "I'm a racist/homophobe/bigot" for it to be perfectly obvious that you are. People are perfectly capable of reading nuance, inference and implication, no matter how clever the deniers on here think they're being with their "Prove where someone typed *exactly* those words" nonsense.

    The place is a cesspit and has been pretty much since its inception. I avoid it like the plague but had another quick look in light of all the ardent defence of it going on in here and it's as bad if not worse than ever. Quite frankly if I had the option to even hide the threads showing up on my front page, I would.

    As others have said, leave it open, it serves as a handy corral for the perpetually angry/persecution complexers. But let's not pretend it's not Boards' safe space for ineffable ****.


  • #708
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    You don't have to post "I'm a racist/homophobe/bigot" for it to be perfectly obvious that you are. People are perfectly capable of reading nuance, inference and implication, no matter how clever the deniers on here think they're being with their "Prove where someone typed *exactly* those words" nonsense.

    The place is a cesspit and has been pretty much since its inception. I avoid it like the plague but had another quick look in light of all the ardent defence of it going on in here and it's as bad if not worse than ever. Quite frankly if I had the option to even hide the threads showing up on my front page, I would.

    Get yourself banned from Current Affairs and the threads will disappear.


  • #709
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    You don't have to post "I'm a racist/homophobe/bigot" for it to be perfectly obvious that you are. People are perfectly capable of reading nuance, inference and implication, no matter how clever the deniers on here think they're being with their "Prove where someone typed *exactly* those words" nonsense.

    The place is a cesspit and has been pretty much since its inception. I avoid it like the plague but had another quick look in light of all the ardent defence of it going on in here and it's as bad if not worse than ever. Quite frankly if I had the option to even hide the threads showing up on my front page, I would.

    As others have said, leave it open, it serves as a handy corral for the perpetually angry/persecution complexers. But let's not pretend it's not Boards' safe space for ineffable ****.

    Not only did you have a quick look you also posted about your findings on the threads.

    The cheek of you to just call out people as ****


  • #710
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    You don't have to post "I'm a racist/homophobe/bigot" for it to be perfectly obvious that you are. People are perfectly capable of reading nuance, inference and implication, no matter how clever the deniers on here think they're being with their "Prove where someone typed *exactly* those words" nonsense.

    Point to raise here. Not everyone is a ''denier''. I myself merely asked a poster to provide one or two examples of posts which are indicative of a ''racist cesspit'' and which the mods let slide without sanction.

    Can you provide quotes of same yourself? If they're so ubiquitous, it shouldn't be a problem.


  • #711
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,833 ✭✭✭joe40


    I don't think it is a racist cesspit but there is definitely a very marked consensus of opinion.
    That's not the individual posters fault, it is up to others to post alternative opinions.

    But you do know if you enter any discussion on CA with any kind of liberal left leaning slant, it doesn't have to be extreme, you will be in the minority.
    That is just an observation, not a complaint against individual posters.
    Plenty of opposing opinions will be respectful, but not all.

    A guy has just registered to a thread with a username "slave owner" how does that contribute to serious debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #712
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    joe40 wrote: »
    I don't think it is a racist cesspit but there is definitely a very marked consensus of opinion.
    That's not the individual posters fault, it is up to others to post alternative opinions.

    But you do know if you enter any discussion on CA with any kind of liberal left leaning slant, it doesn't have to be extreme, you will be in the minority.
    That is just an observation, not a complaint against individual posters.
    Plenty of opposing opinions will be respectful, but not all.

    A guy has just registered to a thread with a username "slave owner" how does that contribute to serious debate.

    How about a username like ‘Better than Christ’ or ‘Matt Barrett’? Do they contribute to serious debate?


  • #713
    Deebles McBeebles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭Deebles McBeebles


    Discodog wrote: »
    Gradually those that oppose the toxic views expressed won't bother to interact.

    100%.


  • #714
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    How about a username like ‘Better than Christ’ or ‘Matt Barrett’? Do they contribute to serious debate?

    Is better than christ not just a beetles reference??....kinda shows up the age profile.of the outraged boomers tbh

    Your fairly far down rabbithole to know,who matt barrett is though,ìd have passing enough interest in irishpol and had to google the name



    (Whole discussion is pointless as website is dying and if they removed the rage/edgy posting from.CA....advertisers would walk,due to not enough interest/views,and money talks)


  • #715
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Is better than christ not just a beetles reference??....kinda shows up the age profile.of the outraged boomers tbh

    Your fairly far down rabbithole to know,who matt barrett is though,ìd have passing enough interest in irishpol and had to google the name



    (Whole discussion is pointless as website is dying and if they removed the rage/edgy posting from.CA....advertisers would walk,due to not enough interest/views,and money talks)

    No, a Beatles reference would be ‘Bigger than Jesus or More Popular than Jesus’. No suggestion of ‘better’ there. Try again.

    As for ‘Matt Barrett’ you are being disingenuous. Anyone with even a passing interest in Irish politics would know the name, plus he has appeared in public with Varadkar numerous times(official and unofficial) since Varadkar came out, with lots of articles mentioning him in papers and online since. You would need to have lived under a rock not to know the name and know who he was.

    But yeah, boomers, right? FFS.


  • #716
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    No, a Beatles reference would be ‘Bigger than Jesus or More Popular than Jesus’. No suggestion of ‘better’ there. Try again.

    As for ‘Matt Barrett’ you are being disingenuous. Anyone with even a passing interest in Irish politics would know the name, plus he has appeared in public with Varadkar numerous times(official and unofficial) since Varadkar came out, with lots of articles mentioning him in papers and online since. You would need to have lived under a rock not to know the name and know who he was.

    But yeah, boomers, right? FFS.

    Tbf i assume it was a beatles reference anyway.....tbh i hadnt a clue who matt barett was,it just deosnt feature on news etc,(nor do i particularly care)



    Yeah...likely boomers,doubt most are racist/homo/transphobic etc etc....just lads trying to be edgy/contarian,which given the likely age profile of those involved...is kinda sad,when ya think on it


  • #717
    circadian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,031 ✭✭✭circadian


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Tbf i assume it was a beatles reference anyway.....tbh i hadnt a clue who matt barett was,it just deosnt feature on news etc,(nor do i particularly care)



    Yeah...likely boomers,doubt most are racist/homo/transphobic etc etc....just lads trying to be edgy/contarian,which given the likely age profile of those involved...is kinda sad,when ya think on it

    I don't get the whole contrarian thing. I have a family member who is very successful in their chosen career and a very intelligent person. However, he's been progressively getting more and more invested in conspiracy theories, climate change is a hoax, covid is just a flu, the EU is evil etc. He loves a good debate and was always contrarian. He definitely has some emotional issues and I'm starting to think that being so contrarian, so much to do he point of actively seeking out subjects to go against, that it's part of some sort of stunted development in his teenage years.


  • #718
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Tbf i assume it was a beatles reference anyway.....tbh i hadnt a clue who matt barett was,it just deosnt feature on news etc,(nor do i particularly care)



    Yeah...likely boomers,doubt most are racist/homo/transphobic etc etc....just lads trying to be edgy/contarian,which given the likely age profile of those involved...is kinda sad,when ya think on it

    It clearly wasn’t a Beatles reference but you still ‘assume it was anyway’. (I could tell you the exact reference, it wasn’t the Beatles.)

    You still claim not to know who Matt Barrett was.

    Then you rant about contrarians... :)


  • #719
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,117 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    joe40 wrote: »
    I don't think it is a racist cesspit but there is definitely a very marked consensus of opinion.
    That's not the individual posters fault, it is up to others to post alternative opinions.

    But you do know if you enter any discussion on CA with any kind of liberal left leaning slant, it doesn't have to be extreme, you will be in the minority.
    That is just an observation, not a complaint against individual posters.
    Plenty of opposing opinions will be respectful, but not all.

    A guy has just registered to a thread with a username "slave owner" how does that contribute to serious debate.

    Why bother ? Look at any thread title & you can guess the first ten posts & probably the posters. It's utterly predictable. Yes you can try to put an opposing view but, in a way, it's like feeding them. Best to just leave the thanks collectors to post on their own.

    Reasoned debate works when there is a chance that open minded people will listen & maybe change their opinion. That will never be CA.


  • #720
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    It clearly wasn’t a Beatles reference but you still ‘assume it was anyway’. (I could tell you the exact reference, it wasn’t the Beatles.)

    You still claim not to know who Matt Barrett was.

    Then you rant about contrarians... :)

    I know who he is now,(google is a great thing)

    What is better than christ about??
    as any google i do,shows up beatles reference (all results after that,are about bible?)


  • Advertisement
  • #721
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,442 ✭✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    As for ‘Matt Barrett’ you are being disingenuous. Anyone with even a passing interest in Irish politics would know the name, plus he has appeared in public with Varadkar numerous times(official and unofficial) since Varadkar came out, with lots of articles mentioning him in papers and online since. You would need to have lived under a rock not to know the name and know who he was.
    the only reason I know his name is because of that user on Boards, don't think ive heard him named in any media reports, or if he was i wouldn't have taken much notice of it, like I wouldn't know Enda Kenny's wifes name or Micheál Martin's either


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement