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…5354565859…77

Comments

  • #1652
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,841 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    Gatling wrote: »
    Definitely not looking for names just something propped up ,I know they have their private forum ,I don't think I've actually ive heard anything about a mod been stripped ,I remember calls for various people calling for mods to be appointed based off liking something more than someone else.
    Boards wouldn't post about it ? Like if say I was a mod and was removed there wouldn't be a Gatling removed as a mod of insert forum here because

    The lad that went mad in Political Cafe carding everyone was removed eventually.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • #1653
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,859 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Just to reiterate from the charter users on the site less than 3 months or with less than 100 posts are not permitted to post in feedback:
    To post in Feedback, you must have 100 posts on the site and have been a registered member for at least 3 months. Anyone closing their account will be subject to this restriction on any new account opened. The Help Desk will still be available to anyone wishing to raise an issue but who does not satisfy these conditions.

    If your posts have just been deleted this is why.

    Thanks.


  • #1654
    excludedbin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 241 ✭✭excludedbin


    Gatling wrote: »
    Lol

    Yeah, that's about what I expected. More fool I for wasting my time, I suppose. Nothing to say to the examples of "grooming" (or variations) being used and nothing done about it?
    Gatling wrote: »
    Plenty of people don't post here anymore ,it's got nothing to do with lifestyle choices ,

    Some of the greatest and down right funniest people don't post any more , life goes on and you can only speak for yourself nobody else
    Or maybe, just maybe, they've seen how on one of the site's largest, busiest forums, abuse against them is allowed go by with the apparent sanction of the mods. It's just a little bit convenient to be written off as mere coincidence.

    Quite telling, though, that you've brought out the old "lifestyle choices" canard. Being gay I've heard more than my fair share of that throughout my life and I can't say I find it any more compelling when turned against trans people.


  • #1655
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    Just one example of how poorly and inconsistently moderated the Current Affairs forum is:
    .anon. wrote: »
    The gleeful reaction from racists whenever something like this happens is very distasteful.
    V8 Interceptor wrote: »
    Christ :(

    Like I said you guys are dangerous, very dangerous.
    haphaphap wrote: »
    When Gervais08 is thanking your posts you need to reassess your opinions.


    Two of the posts I've quoted received yellow cards. I'm not here to argue that I should be allowed to call a racist a racist. But surely calling other posters 'dangerous' is in breach of the exact same rule? No?

    And it's not like the mods can pretend they didn't see the post in question, because they gave a yellow card to a post that quoted it.


  • #1656
    Tom Mann Centuria
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,535 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    My god it is a dreadful forum, and can't think why anyone would want to mod there. Plenty of opinions there wouldn't have been out of place on Voat when that cesspit was busier.

    When it's a Muslim related terror attack maybe some of the posts would be more acceptable, and the anger concerns etc a bit more justified. But when the perpetrator isn't even known, the presumption is made and away they go, and even after the events become more clear, it's the same old sh*te even if it turns out it was nothing to do with radicalised Islam.

    Don't see how you can improve it unless you lock threads until actual facts are known, but that would go down like a lead balloon.

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • Advertisement
  • #1657
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »
    Don't see how you can improve it unless you lock threads until actual facts are known, but that would go down like a lead balloon.

    They could start by applying their own rules consistently, as in my previous example. Also, it speaks volumes that there are consequences for pointing racism out, but none whatsoever for making racist posts like the one I received the yellow card for referring to.


  • #1658
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    .anon. wrote: »
    They could start by applying their own rules consistently, as in my previous example. Also, it speaks volumes that there are consequences for pointing racism out, but none whatsoever for making racist posts like the one I received the yellow card for referring to.

    I understand you completely. A crackdown on racism and racist terms needs to be visible and clearly understood to all posters. Like you say, sometimes those who point it out get sanctioned. Here is an example from the last day or so:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115485844&postcount=73

    In this post, a poster refers to Leo Varadkar as 'the indian'. A clear racist term, and the particular poster has previous when it comes to abuse of politicians. However, while the post was reported, there is no clear visible sanction for the use of the racist term.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115485913&postcount=77

    Later in the thread another poster engages in some backseat moderation commenting about the racist reference "He'll get away with it too. Most of us would be banned" and correctly receives a visible yellow card for the backseat moderation.

    The problem is the visuals on this. Even if the poster who made the original racist comment is banned, there is no visible evidence of this, and the message being sent by boards.ie is that the site tolerates racist references to politicians while people who raise the issue of the tolerance of racist terms get yellow-carded.

    It is definitely not a good look for boards. It is not enough to claim to address racism, by actions racism must not be tolerated. A zero tolerance approach must be adopted. I am sure that the poster will claim that they were quoting a public figure's use of the term in defence, but can we all use the n-word because some politician used it once? No, is the answer and that should be the answer here too.


  • #1659
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    .anon. wrote: »
    They could start by applying their own rules consistently, as in my previous example. Also, it speaks volumes that there are consequences for pointing racism out, but none whatsoever for making racist posts like the one I received the yellow card for referring to.

    Would not be a better idea to ease off on the “rules” in there?

    You could call out racists, bigots, TERFs, homophobes, misogynists, Islamophobes, Aunt Lydias and other angry oddballs but, on the “flip side”, they could post their poisonous opinions without fear of mod punishment.

    Stricter moderation really isn’t good for that forum. AH is clearly suffering as a result, at the moment. Would be great to have a “Move Thread” button to recommend a thread for moving to CA but that’s never going to happen.

    “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



  • #1660
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

    You could call out racists, bigots, TERFs, homophobes, misogynists, Islamophobes, Aunt Lydias and other angry oddballs but, on the “flip side”, they could post their poisonous opinions without fear of mod punishment.

    The problem with any of the above they are usually used to try shut down discussions by a small cohort of posters who use the terms as insults usually because they want one side discussions that are one sided and censored
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #1661
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Here is an example from the last day or so:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115485844&postcount=73

    In this post, a poster refers to Leo Varadkar as 'the indian'. A clear racist term, and the particular poster has previous when it comes to abuse of politicians. However, while the post was reported, there is no clear visible sanction for the use of the racist term.

    In deciding whether something is racist, mods need to look at the poster's intent. Here is the context for what he wrote:
    Loyalists, by definition, will always be loyalists. They likely got great laugh out of 'the indian' kissing their arse.

    The quote marks here indicate that this is a reference to a now-deleted tweet by former senior Ulster Unionist Lord Kilclooney, which referred to Varadkar as "the Indian."

    If the poster is indicating that some in the Loyalist population know Varadkar as "the Indian," per Kilclooney, that makes his post free of racist intent, in my view.


  • Advertisement
  • #1662
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 78,513 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Invidious wrote: »

    If the poster is indicating that some in the Loyalist population know Varadkar as "the Indian," per Kilclooney, that makes his post free of racist intent, in my view.
    That highlights how everyone's definition of "racism", "racist" etc can be slightly different. In my view it has to be the intent rather than the terminology

    Clearly the "N" word is now one that pretty much everyone considers racist. Calling someone "Indian" though? Someone of Indian descent?

    We regularly get reports because people consider words to be racist without ever considering context.


  • #1663
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,810 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Not the CA forum but I cant have been the only one who was astonished to see the Late Late Toy Show thread on the Television forum descend into racism at the weekend. I only read a few pages of it but it seems the racists were up in arms that there was a 9 year old black girl on the tv, even children are a target for them now. Unbelievable. i think its time Boards takes a look at this problem across the site.


  • #1664
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Not the CA forum but I cant have been the only one who was astonished to see the Late Late Toy Show thread on the Television forum descend into racism at the weekend. I only read a few pages of it but it seems the racists were up in arms that there was a 9 year old black girl on the tv, even children are a target for them now. Unbelievable. i think its time Boards takes a look at this problem across the site.

    Not the CA forum, but it was, certainly, a number of CA forum “regulars” that were “at it” in that thread.

    Didn’t seem to be any moderation of the thread at all. Something which, again, I would have no problem within CA, itself. But once that “nonsense” is brought outside of the forum it should be punished and punished harshly.

    “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



  • #1665
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Beasty wrote: »
    That highlights how everyone's definition of "racism", "racist" etc can be slightly different. In my view it has to be the intent rather than the terminology

    Clearly the "N" word is now one that pretty much everyone considers racist. Calling someone "Indian" though? Someone of Indian descent?

    We regularly get reports because people consider words to be racist without ever considering context.


    Of course, the context and intent are key, but unlike abusive terms in general, you have to be very careful with racist and homophobic terminology because of the wider societal context. In this particular case, we have a poster who regularly and repeatedly abuses Leo Varadkar and the Fine Gael party in general. He then uses a term "the indian" to describe him. The excused context is set out in the following post:
    Invidious wrote: »
    In deciding whether something is racist, mods need to look at the poster's intent. Here is the context for what he wrote:



    The quote marks here indicate that this is a reference to a now-deleted tweet by former senior Ulster Unionist Lord Kilclooney, which referred to Varadkar as "the Indian."

    If the poster is indicating that some in the Loyalist population know Varadkar as "the Indian," per Kilclooney, that makes his post free of racist intent, in my view.

    So we have a claim that it is in reference to a tweet by a unionist Lord Kilcooney. There are some interesting points to note about this reference.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42103510

    (1) The tweet was made in November 2017, three years ago
    (2) The tweet was withdrawn by the tweeter
    (3) It was widely condemned as racist pretty much across the board - "Sinn Féin's Alex Maskey and Alliance Party deputy leader Stephen Farry both described the tweet as racist."
    (4) Interestingly Anne Cadwaller put it well when she said "Kilclooney clearly intended here to belittle and insult which is, frankly, repulsive." A motive that is very similar to the poster's motive.
    (5) The excuse proffered by Kilcooney was that "he was unsure of how to spell Mr Varadkar's name and had used the word Indian as "shorthand"." That does not apply in the current case.

    Given the above, and the particular posting history of the poster, I find it astonishing that the excuse for the use of the racist term is acceptable on boards.


  • #1666
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Not the CA forum but I cant have been the only one who was astonished to see the Late Late Toy Show thread on the Television forum descend into racism at the weekend. I only read a few pages of it but it seems the racists were up in arms that there was a 9 year old black girl on the tv, even children are a target for them now. Unbelievable. i think its time Boards takes a look at this problem across the site.

    I didn't see that but I am not surprised as the low-level tolerance of racist terms tends to be toxic in nature and leads to further propogation and acceptance.


  • #1667
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So we have a claim that it is in reference to a tweet by a unionist Lord Kilcooney.

    That's my assumption, yes.

    As for whether it's an appropriate label, Varadkar was born in Dublin, has a white Irish mother, and has lived in Ireland all his life. Calling him "the Indian" is analogous to calling Barack Obama "the Kenyan," so those who condemned the Tweet for racism and xenophobia did have a point.

    But if a poster observes that some Loyalists know Varadkar as "the Indian" (in quotes) then he's essentially noting racism on the part of Loyalists rather than being racist himself. That's a key distinction here.


  • #1668
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Invidious wrote: »
    That's my assumption, yes.

    As for whether it's an appropriate label, Varadkar was born in Dublin, has a white Irish mother, and has lived in Ireland all his life. Calling him "the Indian" is analogous to calling Barack Obama "the Kenyan," so those who condemned the Tweet for racism and xenophobia did have a point.

    But if a poster observes that some Loyalists know Varadkar as "the Indian" (in quotes) then he's essentially noting racism on the part of Loyalists rather than being racist himself. That's a key distinction here.

    Pretty much nail on the head with that post, I didn't see the posts last night when they were made,but it's not like some of lads claiming to be offended, didn't know fine well what the post was referring to as it's been covered on this site numerous times, and I'm sure if I delved deep enough into the advanced search function, there's a good chance I'd find a few of the offended discussing it in the past.

    I've stated many times before, all the faux "racist, xenophobic and sectarian" accusations just threaten to drown the genuine ones out, especially the tactical* ones.


    *Tactical as in the lads using the racist etc accusations know they're being disingenuous.


  • #1669
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Invidious wrote: »
    That's my assumption, yes.

    As for whether it's an appropriate label, Varadkar was born in Dublin, has a white Irish mother, and has lived in Ireland all his life. Calling him "the Indian" is analogous to calling Barack Obama "the Kenyan," so those who condemned the Tweet for racism and xenophobia did have a point.

    But if a poster observes that some Loyalists know Varadkar as "the Indian" (in quotes) then he's essentially noting racism on the part of Loyalists rather than being racist himself. That's a key distinction here.

    It is a very thin ice distinction. As pointed out earlier in this thread, you need to look at the context, not just of the post, but also the poster and their previous history.

    If it was someone who had a generally favourable view of Leo Varadkar and was using the reference to criticise loyalists who know Varadkar as "the Indian", and was praising Varadkar in the post, you would be correct.

    However, if the poster, as in this case, is a known Varadkar critic, who has previously used abusive language to describe Varadkar, you are essentially seeing dog whistle racism. Think of a right-wing American white male drawing attention to someone else's use of the n-word.

    If it was normal abuse of a politician, you could let it go, but letting go racist sloganeering like this while yellow-carding a poster who drew attention to it is sending a very bad message and is a very bad look for boards.

    I will leave it there, not going to waste more time on this.


  • #1670
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Not the CA forum, but it was, certainly, a number of CA forum “regulars” that were “at it” in that thread.

    Didn’t seem to be any moderation of the thread at all. Something which, again, I would have no problem within CA, itself. But once that “nonsense” is brought outside of the forum it should be punished and punished harshly.

    I dont think there was any moderation of it until maybe Sunday so basically a load of disgraceful racism attacking kids because was left there unmoderated for a day or two.

    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



  • #1671
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I understand you completely. A crackdown on racism and racist terms needs to be visible and clearly understood to all posters. Like you say, sometimes those who point it out get sanctioned. Here is an example from the last day or so:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115485844&postcount=73

    In this post, a poster refers to Leo Varadkar as 'the indian'. A clear racist term, and the particular poster has previous when it comes to abuse of politicians. However, while the post was reported, there is no clear visible sanction for the use of the racist term.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115485913&postcount=77

    Later in the thread another poster engages in some backseat moderation commenting about the racist reference "He'll get away with it too. Most of us would be banned" and correctly receives a visible yellow card for the backseat moderation.

    The problem is the visuals on this. Even if the poster who made the original racist comment is banned, there is no visible evidence of this, and the message being sent by boards.ie is that the site tolerates racist references to politicians while people who raise the issue of the tolerance of racist terms get yellow-carded.

    It is definitely not a good look for boards. It is not enough to claim to address racism, by actions racism must not be tolerated. A zero tolerance approach must be adopted. I am sure that the poster will claim that they were quoting a public figure's use of the term in defence, but can we all use the n-word because some politician used it once? No, is the answer and that should be the answer here too.

    This entire comment is dishonest.
    You constantly accuse me of having form in various circumstances and when asked for back up or quotes to support your claims you disappear. You did it only yesterday, "Once again you deny the legitimacy of democracy". When asked for back up/quotes etc. none were forthcoming.

    On 'the Indian', you are either forgetful or lying. For we have covered this before in the exact same context yet here you seem to have forgotten or are lying and decided to lay it on thick based on your unsubstantiated claims. It's highly dishonest.

    You knew full well the context and that I was quoting.

    Your entire comment here is a fabrication designed to try have me sanctioned by the moderators using faux outrage. 'faux' because it's made up. It's hard to tell were you actually stand when you are using racism to try score points on a discussion forum in such a manner.


  • Advertisement
  • #1672
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Not the CA forum, but it was, certainly, a number of CA forum “regulars” that were “at it” in that thread.

    Didn’t seem to be any moderation of the thread at all. Something which, again, I would have no problem within CA, itself. But once that “nonsense” is brought outside of the forum it should be punished and punished harshly.

    To be fair to the Television mods, I don't think it urgently needed to be moderated. The very small number of posters in question (yes, all CA regulars, who've grown accustomed to having free rein to make racist posts without any sanction whatsoever) were immediately called out by other members, and were left in no doubt that their racism wasn't welcome on the Toy Show thread. It was a good example of Boards at its very best.

    Current Affairs, on the other hand, is a good example of Boards at its very worst. The CA mods would have carded anyone who accused those posters of racism.


  • #1673
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It is a very thin ice distinction. As pointed out earlier in this thread, you need to look at the context, not just of the post, but also the poster and their previous history.

    So a mod would need to look not only at the post itself but the context, the poster's extensive history, and the poster's previous language used in relation to Varadkar in order to reach a decision around alleged racism that at best would still be highly subjective — all while knowing that any card or ban would most likely be appealed and overturned on the basis that the post referenced other people's racism rather than being racist in itself?

    I think this is too much to expect of any mod.


  • #1674
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Invidious wrote: »
    So a mod would need to look not only at the post itself but the context, the poster's extensive history, and the poster's previous language used in relation to Varadkar in order to reach a decision around alleged racism that at best would still be highly subjective — all while knowing that any card or ban would most likely be appealed and overturned on the basis that the post referenced other people's racism rather than being racist in itself?

    I think this is too much to expect of any mod.

    I used the quote before, (last February) in the same context speaking on the view of Varadkar. Blanch knows this, he quoted it. This comment was regarding the Unionist/loyalist view of the south. I gave an example in quotes. I elaborated further in a follow up post. You are being led down the garden path here it's a case of dishonest point scoring.


  • #1675
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Invidious wrote: »
    So a mod would need to look not only at the post itself but the context, the poster's extensive history, and the poster's previous language used in relation to Varadkar in order to reach a decision around alleged racism that at best would still be highly subjective — all while knowing that any card or ban would most likely be appealed and overturned on the basis that the post referenced other people's racism rather than being racist in itself?

    I think this is too much to expect of any mod.

    I would operate on the opposite basis. The usage of racist language is presumed banned and cardable unless a credible explanation is provided.

    The excuse of quoting someone else using it is not acceptable either. In the particular case, the excuse proffered by the poster is not credible given the context that he takes any opportunity to repeat any criticism of Varadkar, that is perfectly acceptable when he is repeating normal political criticism, but when he is repeating unacceptable racist language, it is not.

    There is nothing dishonest about my opinion on this, the reference to Varadkar as "the Indian" is offensive and racist, particularly so when criticising him, hence the original tweeter deleted the tweet.


  • #1676
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There is nothing dishonest about my opinion on this, the reference to Varadkar as "the Indian" is offensive and racist, particularly so when criticising him, hence the original tweeter deleted the tweet.

    Beyond disingenuous, tbh. It's quite obvious to anyone who read the original post (including you, I suspect) that the poster was referring to how loyalists would refer to Varadkar as 'the Indian'. At worst, it could be construed as unfair to loyalists because they aren't all racists like John Taylor.


  • #1677
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I would operate on the opposite basis. The usage of racist language is presumed banned and cardable unless a credible explanation is provided.

    The excuse of quoting someone else using it is not acceptable either. In the particular case, the excuse proffered by the poster is not credible given the context that he takes any opportunity to repeat any criticism of Varadkar, that is perfectly acceptable when he is repeating normal political criticism, but when he is repeating unacceptable racist language, it is not.

    There is nothing dishonest about my opinion on this, the reference to Varadkar as "the Indian" is offensive and racist, particularly so when criticising him, hence the original tweeter deleted the tweet.

    You have shown yourself to be dishonest here. You knew the context. You knew it was in relation to a view held of Varadkar. You posted here pretending you didn't. You posted here accusing me of using a racist term to attack Varadkar when you knew it wasn't. Completely dishonest considering you knew the context all along but pretended not to. You also alleged I've form in various areas with no supporting evidence. This entire crusade is based on a lie. In short you got found out.


  • #1678
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    .anon. wrote: »
    Beyond disingenuous, tbh. It's quite obvious to anyone who read the original post (including you, I suspect) that the poster was referring to how loyalists would refer to Varadkar as 'the Indian'. At worst, it could be construed as unfair to loyalists because they aren't all racists like John Taylor.

    I said the poster had form in the use of such language, and he has even produced a previous example of his usage. What value is there to repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that a Loyalist called Varadkar "the Indian" other than low-level dog-whistling racism in respect of Varadkar or sectarian depiction of Loyalism as racist? None.

    Quite simply, if you are against racism, you don't give any oxygen to racist terms and you do not use or repeat them.

    I said earlier I was going to leave it there, and I am leaving it there because I won't give any more oxygen to the disingenuous usage of such terms by posters.


  • #1679
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    I judge folk on their racist/xenophobic/sectarian/homophobic tendencies on the context of their posts, and their Posting history.

    As already said - the folk jumping on that as "racist" despite knowing full well the background/context are being extremely disingenuous, and shown up for the levels they will be prepared to stoop to.


  • #1680
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    blanch152 wrote: »
    What value is there to repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that a Loyalist called Varadkar "the Indian" other than low-level dog-whistling racism in respect of Varadkar or sectarian depiction of Loyalism as racist? None.

    Regardless of whether there's any value in drawing attention to John Taylor's racism, doing so isn't racist. It's also not sectarian to depict loyalists as racist. It might not be entirely fair, but there have traditionally been very strong links between northern loyalism and far-right British politics.


  • Advertisement
  • #1681
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I said the poster had form in the use of such language, and he has even produced a previous example of his usage. What value is there to repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that a Loyalist called Varadkar "the Indian" other than low-level dog-whistling racism in respect of Varadkar or sectarian depiction of Loyalism as racist? None.

    Quite simply, if you are against racism, you don't give any oxygen to racist terms and you do not use or repeat them.

    I said earlier I was going to leave it there, and I am leaving it there because I won't give any more oxygen to the disingenuous usage of such terms by posters.

    I used it in a discussion with you last February regarding what a unionist referred to him as. I used it yesterday in a discussion on how some unionists/loyalists have a view of the south. I take it you retract all your postings on Gerry Adam's tweet or your Holohan thread if any reference to a slur is to be taken as using a slur?
    You missed the part where you came on here pretending to not know the context when you knew well.
    We really need some policing on dishonest posters making claims they cannot support to try score points using such serious subjects as racism.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement