Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Gervais08 wrote: »

Can I assume that rules will be fairly applied and if a word is felt to be offensive and a poster gleefully denies polite requests to stop - they will be warned ?

And will you be happy for that to apply to both sides of the debate?

Gervais08 wrote: »

You actually just answered my question - I vehemently object to the word “cis” as it demeans women in the sense one posters uses it, they have been asked to stop and refuse.

I think it's time to accept that nobody is going to fall for this debating trick of claiming an inoffensive word is offensive and just move on.

Gatling wrote: »

Repeatedly calling people terfs as well ,

Guarantee called the person a slur and there would be bans handed out,let's all be afraid of the twitter dwellers or is it Mumsnet or both

Setting aside that the term "terf" was coined by a self described "trans exclusionary radical feminist", I find your objections just a little hollow when there's multiple instances of "grooming" accusations by transphobes and no action taken against them so spare us the crocodile tears.

I'll say again that if you said that, for example, about gay men, it'd be rightly carded. But it seems that trans people are fair game for that sort of abuse under the guise of "discussion" and "opinions". Lots of opinions on the site would have you banned, I don't see why trans people should be treated as a special case.

Well I must hold my hands up, I must've misheard someone. It was coined by a radical feminist, to distinguish those that're 'trans exclusionary'.

However, as to my other claim: "grooming", "groomed", "groomed", "grooming", "grooming"

Now as far as I can see, there's been no mod action about any of that. And now they've been given another thread to continue that kind of vile abuse against trans people. Face facts: abuse of trans people and anyone who isn't sufficiently critical of them is absolutely fine on CA/IMHO. It's nothing short of astounding, in the most shameful way, that this is having to be discussed at all. What other minority group would you be allowed, on Boards, to make such accusations about? Why is it that threads are made to single out trans people for that kind of vituperation?

I don't want the mods to hide behind the cowardly excuses of "discussion" or "opinions" because that **** wouldn't fly with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. so why should this be any different? You already accept that some "discussion" and some "opinions" shouldn't be allowed because they're abusive towards those groups. That's a line you've decided to draw and most people would say it's a reasonable one. All I'm saying is that it should be applied fairly and equally.

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated.

That's from the charter. Now I don't know about any of you (the mods, not the users here who definitely do think it's okay) but I'd say accusing a minority group of "grooming" children is pretty damn hateful, especially given the absolute and utter lack of evidence for it. There's being "forceful" and then there's being downright abusive and hateful. If you can't see how that crosses the line then frankly you shouldn't bother having it in the charter because it's nothing more than a sop.

And that's not to get into the rest of the crap that flew around on that thread and will no doubt continue into the new one. You can either have a thread where abuse of trans people is allowed or a charter that forbids it, not both.

excludedbin wrote: »

Well I must hold my hands up, I must've misheard someone. It was coined by a radical feminist, to distinguish those that're 'trans exclusionary'.

However, as to my other claim: "grooming", "groomed", "groomed", "grooming", "grooming"

Now as far as I can see, there's been no mod action about any of that. And now they've been given another thread to continue that kind of vile abuse against trans people. Face facts: abuse of trans people and anyone who isn't sufficiently critical of them is absolutely fine on CA/IMHO. It's nothing short of astounding, in the most shameful way, that this is having to be discussed at all. What other minority group would you be allowed, on Boards, to make such accusations about? Why is it that threads are made to single out trans people for that kind of vituperation?

I don't want the mods to hide behind the cowardly excuses of "discussion" or "opinions" because that **** wouldn't fly with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. so why should this be any different? You already accept that some "discussion" and some "opinions" shouldn't be allowed because they're abusive towards those groups. That's a line you've decided to draw and most people would say it's a reasonable one. All I'm saying is that it should be applied fairly and equally.



That's from the charter. Now I don't know about any of you (the mods, not the users here who definitely do think it's okay) but I'd say accusing a minority group of "grooming" children is pretty damn hateful, especially given the absolute and utter lack of evidence for it. There's being "forceful" and then there's being downright abusive and hateful. If you can't see how that crosses the line then frankly you shouldn't bother having it in the charter because it's nothing more than a sop.

And that's not to get into the rest of the crap that flew around on that thread and will no doubt continue into the new one. You can either have a thread where abuse of trans people is allowed or a charter that forbids it, not both.

Its also says an awful lot that pretty much no openly out trans people post on this site anymore.

Actually can mods be stripped of their title ,
Is there rules or a code of conduct all mods must follow,

This is it wrote: »

Mods have been stripped of their title though I can only think of two, and they caused a lot of hassle. Nothing serious but creating a lot of work for mods of other forums. Lots of cards, etc. I'm not going to name them before anyone asks.

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

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.

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.

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.

.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.

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

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.