Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Smee_Again · 19-12-2020 02:32PM

I posted this on election thread but it might be worth raising here.

At what point should the discussion of election fraud be confined to the Conspiracy Theories forum?

We’re weeks out from the election and there’s been dozens of court cases and no fraud of any significance has been found, surely there comes a time when this topic should be confined to where it belongs, the conspiracy theories forum.

Beasty · 19-12-2020 03:51PM

Smee_Again wrote: »

I posted this on election thread but it might be worth raising here.

At what point should the discussion of election fraud be confined to the Conspiracy Theories forum?

We’re weeks out from the election and there’s been dozens of court cases and no fraud of any significance has been found, surely there comes a time when this topic should be confined to where it belongs, the conspiracy theories forum.

I'm not sure that's the case when it remains probably the main talking point of the election. In fact giving posters the opportunity to highlight the absurdity of claims being made by the incumbent seems entirely reasonable in the current climate

Yes that may allow those who support Trump to continue pushing conspiracy theories, but when every major news outlet caveats Trump's claims as being without evidence but states them nonetheless I think it reasonable for us to follow their lead

Overheal · 19-12-2020 04:40PM

The conspiracies are still a strictly political matter at least for a few more weeks when the congress puts it to bed on January 6. Until then as ridiculous as the process is, the point is these folks are trying to force a Political conclusion to the election: trying to convince Congress to use its plenary power to throw out the election and let the states elect Trump directly in a 12A contingent election in the House of Representatives.

They have categorically no chance of success which is detailed in the thread, but, they will convince anyone who will listen they do, which is rightfully a current affair in itself.

Smee_Again · 19-12-2020 06:49PM

Beasty wrote: »

I'm not sure that's the case when it remains probably the main talking point of the election. In fact giving posters the opportunity to highlight the absurdity of claims being made by the incumbent seems entirely reasonable in the current climate

Yes that may allow those who support Trump to continue pushing conspiracy theories, but when every major news outlet caveats Trump's claims as being without evidence but states them nonetheless I think it reasonable for us to follow their lead

It may be a talking point of the election but point 2 of the forum charter bans the posting of material that is known to be or should be known to be false.

So I would argue that it’s fine to say Trump claims there was wide spread fraud but it is against the charter to say there was wide spread fraud.

TheRepentent · 19-12-2020 07:19PM

Smee_Again wrote: »

It may be a talking point of the election but point 2 of the forum charter bans the posting of material that is known to be or should be known to be false.

The Trumpists done this repeatedly...post easily debunked crap but hope people would get fatigued reading/watching easily debunked crap.

They were regularily caught copy/pasting/plagarising stuff and passing it of as their own highly thought rebuttals.

ExMachina1000 · 19-12-2020 08:50PM

TheRepentent wrote: »

The Trumpists done this repeatedly...post easily debunked crap but hope people would get fatigued reading/watching easily debunked crap.

They were regularily caught copy/pasting/plagarising stuff and passing it of as their own highly thought rebuttals.

The Trumpists?

Can you not make a point without resorting to labelling an entire group who might have to different opinion than your own?

"The Trumpists" is meant as some sort of derogatory term and looking for a reaction.
You are intentionally trying to create an us vs them scenario where your opinions are right and anyone who disagrees is a "Trumpist" and should have their opinion removed to the conspiracy theory forum.

Cop on

Overheal · 19-12-2020 10:21PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The Trumpists?

Can you not make a point without resorting to labelling an entire group who might have to different opinion than your own?

"The Trumpists" is meant as some sort of derogatory term and looking for a reaction.
You are intentionally trying to create an us vs them scenario where your opinions are right and anyone who disagrees is a "Trumpist" and should have their opinion removed to the conspiracy theory forum.

Cop on

Trumpist is typographical shorthand for Trump Supporter.

I figured the people who were supposedly happy to see the death of political correctness wouldn’t get so bent up about such a relatively innocuous term.

ExMachina1000 · 19-12-2020 10:37PM

Overheal wrote: »

Trumpist is typographical shorthand for Trump Supporter.

I figured the people who were supposedly happy to see the death of political correctness wouldn’t get so bent up about such a relatively innocuous term.

Yet when same or similar is posted in reply it leads to mod action.

Check out any thread with "Trump " in the title. They have become almost echo chambers. Almost all opposing opinion posters have been banned. It's now the same half dozen or so posters with the same view posting the same comments over and over. The odd one will ask "where have all the Trump supporters gone" or " its quiet in here now " . They have all been banned for among other things replying in kind to the type of post I replied to above.

The Biden v Trump thread is gone that dull that currently posters including yourself are talking about the posts of "kid chameleon " from early November. Is it starting to get boring yet? Having nobody left to argue with.

19-12-2020 10:43PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yet when same or similar is posted in reply it leads to mod action.

Check out any thread with "Trump " in the title. They have become almost echo chambers. Almost all opposing opinion posters have been banned. It's now the same half dozen or so posters with the same view posting the same comments over and over. The odd one will ask "where have all the Trump supporters gone" or " its quiet in here now " . They have all been banned for among other things replying in kind to the type of post I replied to above.

Seems a lot trump supporters who posted in them normally did so in bad faith. Having multiple accounts etc, apparently worried about covid for example but have nothing to say about the Florida gov manipulating the states covid stats and hiring a conspiracy theory posting uber driver as the states covid data scientist when asked.

ExMachina1000 · 19-12-2020 10:44PM

Right on cue. Here they come.

Hungry for argument ie you are wrong. "We" are right.

Report , ban ,repeat

19-12-2020 10:48PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Right on cue. Here they come.

Hungry for argument ie you are wrong. "We" are right.

Report , ban ,repeat

Anything inaccurate or bullsh1t you can always report.

19-12-2020 10:53PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yet when same or similar is posted in reply it leads to mod action.

Check out any thread with "Trump " in the title. They have become almost echo chambers. Almost all opposing opinion posters have been banned. It's now the same half dozen or so posters with the same view posting the same comments over and over. The odd one will ask "where have all the Trump supporters gone" or " its quiet in here now " . They have all been banned for among other things replying in kind to the type of post I replied to above.

The Biden v Trump thread is gone that dull that currently posters including yourself are talking about the posts of "kid chameleon " from early November. Is it starting to get boring yet? Having nobody left to argue with.

For me, (Clive), it's more about the posting style than the opinion. The election threads are littered with certain posters just dropping links to youtube or twitter followed with a "Hmm, this look interesting" or "Next few days should be fun" without providing any input or reason as to why they believe the stuff they've just dropped has any pertinent bearing on the election. It gets boring after a certain point. I'd rather no-one replied to the threads so we could see the absurd stuff just get posted again and again and view it for what it is. But, I can also see why folks are going to want to counter that absurdity.

19-12-2020 11:05PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Right on cue. Here they come.

Hungry for argument ie you are wrong. "We" are right.

Report , ban ,repeat

Tbf...if yous are going to make a point,surely you can expect to have to defend it??

Like i dont really see whats left to talk about american election,so prefer to stay well out of it

But you cant complain when someone has a differing view to yous (though i suggest just reply to 1 post,which is representive of a bunch of posts,)

Overheal · 20-12-2020 01:30AM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Right on cue. Here they come.

Hungry for argument ie you are wrong. "We" are right.

Report , ban ,repeat

I’m confused, I thought you hated echo chambers. Wouldn’t then your preference be that someone challenges your point of view? As soon as someone does you shout “oh here they come” and roll over begging to be victimized by “bans” etc.

markodaly · 20-12-2020 02:03AM

Can we get someone to remind people to keep to the topic of the thread?
Too often we see people jump in with stuff that has nothing to do with the thread at hand

This is particularly an issue when it comes to threads dealing with Irish politics.
We have a number of running mega threads, dealing with the government, FG, and SF...etc.

Too often posters jump say in the SF thread and bang on about the government or the Greens or FG or whatever, totally unrelated... in a way to detract from the actual thread or topic that is being discussed at that point in time.

It happens in other threads too to be fair, not as often but it does happen.

So, can we have rule where one must discuss the topic at hand, that is:
The government if its the thread about the government
SF if its a thread about SF
The Greens if its a thread about the Greens
FG if its a thread about FG.
etc..

This shouldn't be hard tbh.

Quantum Erasure · 20-12-2020 03:54AM

Sometimes a counterpoint is relevent to the discussion though, and not just whataboutery,

20-12-2020 08:18AM

markodaly wrote: »

Can we get someone to remind people to keep to the topic of the thread?
Too often we see people jump in with stuff that has nothing to do with the thread at hand

This is particularly an issue when it comes to threads dealing with Irish politics.
We have a number of running mega threads, dealing with the government, FG, and SF...etc.

Too often posters jump say in the SF thread and bang on about the government or the Greens or FG or whatever, totally unrelated... in a way to detract from the actual thread or topic that is being discussed at that point in time.

It happens in other threads too to be fair, not as often but it does happen.

So, can we have rule where one must discuss the topic at hand, that is:
The government if its the thread about the government
SF if its a thread about SF
The Greens if its a thread about the Greens
FG if its a thread about FG.
etc..

This shouldn't be hard tbh.

Would this not just result in endless soapboxing and any discussion/countering shut down then as irrelevant.....making entire threads like a crowdsourced blog post?

Beasty · 20-12-2020 10:30AM

We allow some latitude in terms of allowing threads to cover similar ground. If it's blatant we will intervene (particularly where we see multiple reports). For example at one stage we had thread after thread discussing specific SF issues, often started by the same poster, so we told them to stop and just use the one thread

However when we have threads covering a 3 party government there is bound to be crossover with the specific party threads. Indeed there will be times when we have a dedicated thread on a narrow topic, but it may well be that some of the points being raised are relevant to other threads

markodaly · 20-12-2020 12:21PM

Beasty wrote: »

We allow some latitude in terms of allowing threads to cover similar ground. If it's blatant we will intervene (particularly where we see multiple reports). For example at one stage we had thread after thread discussing specific SF issues, often started by the same poster, so we told them to stop and just use the one thread

Yes, of course, there will be some crossover of debate, but IMO there is too much 'whatabout...., whatabout...., whatabout...' going on.

When questioned on a certain political point or something current, instead of debating that issue, posters often just respond with a 'whatabout'

However when we have threads covering a 3 party government there is bound to be crossover with the specific party threads. Indeed there will be times when we have a dedicated thread on a narrow topic, but it may well be that some of the points being raised are relevant to other threads

The government thread is not too bad to be honest, I am more talking about the threads detailing stuff to do with each political party.

TheRepentent · 20-12-2020 12:48PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The Trumpists?

Yes gullible idiots that support a racist turd of a human being.

ExMachina1000 · 20-12-2020 05:13PM

TheRepentent wrote: »

Yes gullible idiots that support a racist turd of a human being.

"This is exactly the point

Anyone referring to Biden as "creepy" can expect sanction - all you are doing is winding up Biden's supporters

And yes it works the other way. If someone refers to Trump as a "rapist" or "moron" they can expect action.

Hopefully that draws a line under this specific point"

Overheal · 20-12-2020 06:46PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

"This is exactly the point

Anyone referring to Biden as "creepy" can expect sanction - all you are doing is winding up Biden's supporters

And yes it works the other way. If someone refers to Trump as a "rapist" or "moron" they can expect action.

Hopefully that draws a line under this specific point"

You know I’ve never seen anyone sanctioned for calling people “Libs” either, even though for many Trumpists it carries negative connotations? Trying to dredge up outrage to make these terms seem as inflammatory as “Teabagger” etc. is a transparent exercise.

ExMachina1000 · 20-12-2020 06:47PM

Overheal wrote: »

You know I’ve never seen anyone sanctioned for calling people “Libs” either, even though for many Trumpists it carries negative connotations? Trying to dredge up outrage to make these terms seem as inflammatory as “Teabagger” etc. is a transparent exercise.

That was written by a mod

Overheal · 20-12-2020 07:04PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

That was written by a mod

I am aware. I am referring to your regurgitation of it and the effort you are putting on trying to equate Trumpist to some kind of degenerate slur.

ExMachina1000 · 20-12-2020 07:19PM

Overheal wrote: »

I am aware. I am referring to your regurgitation of it and the effort you are putting on trying to equate Trumpist to some kind of degenerate slur.

I had a long reply posted.
Iv edited it to actually I cant be arsed anymore. Have a good one

EmmetSpiceland · 20-12-2020 07:28PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I gave up on the Trumpist angle.

Someone was banned from the Biden v Trump thread for calling Biden sleepy. It was their second warning after first making a reference to him abusing children

Someone on this thread called trump a racist yet no action was taken.
He also threw in gullible idiots for good measure.
Over 70 million people voted for him.

This is not in line with the statement made by the mod. The statement that I copy pasted above

This is evidence of biased moderation. This is why those Trump threads have "no pro" Trump or "anti" Biden posters anymore.
People have been saying it for months. There is the proof.

You don't want debate. You only want your side to be heard and if someone opposes it they are banned while your "side' are given carte blanche to write whatever insults that come into your heads

Was that statement taken from a thread in CA? Wouldn’t really expect something like that, or a mod “warning” from another thread, having any sway over what’s said in here.

ExMachina1000 · 20-12-2020 07:28PM

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Was that statement taken from a thread in CA? Wouldn’t really expect something like that, or a mod “warning” from another thread, having any sway over what’s said in here.

See the edited version of my post above.

I'm out. Gluck

Beasty · 20-12-2020 08:34PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

"This is exactly the point

Anyone referring to Biden as "creepy" can expect sanction - all you are doing is winding up Biden's supporters

And yes it works the other way. If someone refers to Trump as a "rapist" or "moron" they can expect action.

Hopefully that draws a line under this specific point"

This has been done to death in this thread already

In terms of "Trumpist" it's no different to the likes of "Blairite" or "Thatcherite" - absolutely nothing offensive in the term, so can we now drop this and keep this thread to any genuinely new or not previously covered issues

ExMachina1000 · 20-12-2020 08:40PM

Beasty wrote: »

This has been done to death in this thread already

In terms of "Trumpist" it's no different to the likes of "Blairite" or "Thatcherite" - absolutely nothing offensive in the term, so can we now drop this and keep this thread to any genuinely new or not previously covered issues

It was more so the name calling and how its treated.
Ie someone called Biden sleepy = yellow card
Someone called trump racist = no action

But it's all good. It's just the way it is

20-12-2020 08:56PM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

It was more so the name calling and how its treated.
Ie someone called Biden sleepy = yellow card
Someone called trump racist = no action

But it's all good. It's just the way it is

Most likely because the first statement is inaccurate, the second accurate as you already know.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments