Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Sir Oxman · 03-01-2021 4:34pm

Discodog wrote: »

That's the whole point. If you post, saying that he had criminal convictions & it turns out he didn't, you are on very shaky ground & the site that published your comments may be too. Pleading that things were moving fast & you have a right to free speech doesn't made one iota of difference.

It not about disagreeing. It's about an age old principle that, if you state something as a fact, you back it up with evidence.

You clearly support the Guards but ignore the fact that the comments I posted above are from the Guards. They are the one's voicing concerns.

Jujst a small point.
those comments in that report are not from AGS.
It's from 'a source close to AGS said'.

Discodog · 03-01-2021 4:42pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Jujst a small point.
those comments in that report are not from AGS.
It's from 'a source close to AGS said'.

I agree & as usual this will be the case whilst a GSOC hearing is pending. It would be seriously irresponsible to post those remarks unless you were certain of their authenticity.

Kraftwerk · 03-01-2021 5:13pm

Discodog wrote: »

I agree & as usual this will be the case whilst a GSOC hearing is pending. It would be seriously irresponsible to post those remarks unless you were certain of their authenticity.

Yet you posted them and said it was a fact that the Gardai made those comments.

Discodog · 03-01-2021 5:19pm

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Yet you posted them and said it was a fact that the Gardai made those comments.

I quoted a newspaper article as my source. If you think the comments aren't by the Gardai then take it up with the newspaper. Practically every comment made by the Gardai is via a source. I don't recall the Guards denying this.

Do you have a source that says they haven't made those comments because they would be in keeping with this statement from Drew Harris:

“It’s very clear from my interactions with European colleagues, and then also what I see myself, that there is a rise in right-wing extremism right across Europe, ” Mr Harris said after a public meeting of the Policing Authority in Dublin on Wednesday.

“The difficulty with it is that it’s spread through the web and spread through social media. And we just need to be very careful, in terms of some of the things that have happened to date here in Ireland. We now see it starting to arrive on our shores,” he said.

“We’re very acutely aware of it and we’re very acutely aware there’s a policing response, and indeed an intelligence response, that we need to have to thwart that particular threat.

“And it was something I just felt it was important to mention because it is a growing concern right across law enforcement and intelligence agencies across Europe. And we also have to be mindful of that.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/right-wing-extremism-arriving-on-our-shores-says-harris-1.4097343

Kraftwerk · 03-01-2021 5:25pm

Discodog wrote: »

I quoted a newspaper article as my source. If you think the comments aren't by the Gardai then take it up with the newspaper. Practically every comment made by the Gardai is via a source. I don't recall the Guards denying this.

"You clearly support the Guards but ignore the fact that the comments I posted above are from the Guards. "

"It would be seriously irresponsible to post those remarks unless you were certain of their authenticity."

How can you possibly be certain of their authenticity? You're assuming the paper is dependable who are assuming their source is dependable who is assuming the person they spoke to is in a position to speak for the entire Gardai.

And if I have to take it up with the newspaper and not you then why is it the mods and posters who should be held accountability when other unverified stuff is posted? Take it up with twitter.

Discodog · 03-01-2021 5:40pm

Kraftwerk wrote: »

"You clearly support the Guards but ignore the fact that the comments I posted above are from the Guards. "

"It would be seriously irresponsible to post those remarks unless you were certain of their authenticity."

How can you possibly be certain of their authenticity? You're assuming the paper is dependable who are assuming their source is dependable who is assuming the person they spoke to is in a position to speak for the entire Gardai.

And if I have to take it up with the newspaper and not you then why is it the mods and posters who should be held accountability when other unverified stuff is posted? Take it up with twitter.

Yes I do trust the comments in the newspaper because they are bound by strict libel laws. But as long as the comments are posted in a public source then they are ok to post here. It's up to you whether you believe the newspaper.

But an ounce of common sense would suggest that the Gardai wouldn't want false rumours being spread neither about the victim or the actions of the Gardai.

The Mods & Posters aren't accountable - they wouldn't face legal action. It's the publisher that takes responsibility.

Kraftwerk · 03-01-2021 5:52pm

Discodog wrote: »

Yes I do trust the comments in the newspaper because they are bound by strict libel laws. But as long as the comments are posted in a public source then they are ok to post here. It's up to you whether you believe the newspaper.

But an ounce of common sense would suggest that the Gardai wouldn't want false rumours being spread neither about the victim or the actions of the Gardai.

The Mods & Posters aren't accountable - they wouldn't face legal action. It's the publisher that takes responsibility.

Newspapers issue retractions all the time. Just because the indo claim someone they spoke to said it doesn't make it a certifiable fact just that they think their source is accurate.

You said it was a fact those comments came from the Gardai. That's a fact you cannot prove. And you're backing it up with "it's common sense anyway. Sounds true so more than likely is".

There's not much difference here with what others posted in that thread. They linked to twitter etc where certain information was put forward and retweeted by seemingly trustworthy accounts and they repeated it.

Neither they or you can be certain it's true. And both resulted in the statements being published on boards as facts without any official statement to verify them.

Discodog · 03-01-2021 6:32pm

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Newspapers issue retractions all the time. Just because the indo claim someone they spoke to said it doesn't make it a certifiable fact just that they think their source is accurate.

You said it was a fact those comments came from the Gardai. That's a fact you cannot prove. And you're backing it up with "it's common sense anyway. Sounds true so more than likely is".

There's not much difference here with what others posted in that thread. They linked to twitter etc where certain information was put forward and retweeted by seemingly trustworthy accounts and they repeated it.

Neither they or you can be certain it's true. And both resulted in the statements being published on boards as facts without any official statement to verify them.

If you are going to quote me then quote what I actually said rather than your interpretation of it. A published newspaper is nothing like Twitter - try suing someone on Twitter & you will soon find out.

It has long been Boards policy to accept a Newspaper, journal etc as a valid source. Not to verify that the claim is true but to indemnify Boards.

Gatling · 03-01-2021 6:39pm

Discodog wrote: »

It’s very clear from my interactions with European colleagues, and then also what I see myself, that there is a rise in right-wing extremism right across Europe,

But no mention of the unidentified gangs running amok across the country all we know they are based on LA and London street gangs .
The far right has been in Europe for decades primarily in eastern Europe but yes it's moving as populations have moved due to open borders policies of the EU and one of the reasons its growing is the alienation of parts of society due to uncontested migration from Africa and the middle East ,
But rather than listen to people's concerns they prefer to label anyone as far right and try to silence them ,

It's eventually going blow up spectacularly in peoples faces

Kraftwerk · 03-01-2021 6:48pm

Discodog wrote: »

It has long been Boards policy to accept a Newspaper, journal etc as a valid source. Not to verify that the claim is true but to indemnify Boards.

This is the point. You said that posters should not claim anything as fact without being able to prove it. You said it was a fact that the Gardai made those comments. You then said it would be irresponsible to post such a statement without being certain of its authenticity. And your proof and certainty are based on you trusting the indo and thinking its common sense that the Gardai would think as is reported in the article.

That indo article is not an official statement from the Gardai. It is not proof that the Gardai made those statements.

You're making the same assumptions as people repeating the conviction stuff. You've seen it from a source you trust, it sounds like it's probably right/suits your narrative and you put it on boards as a fact without any official statement to verify it as fact.

Had you or those other posters put stuff forward as "it's been reported on x, y, z" then a newspaper would be seen as a more trustworthy source for a discussion on the likelihood of something being true. But an article publishing statements from the Gardai based on a source is not proof of the fact that the Gardai made those statements. Only an official Garda statement is fact when it comes Garda statements.

Discodog · 03-01-2021 7:48pm

Kraftwerk wrote: »

This is the point. You said that posters should not claim anything as fact without being able to prove it. You said it was a fact that the Gardai made those comments. You then said it would be irresponsible to post such a statement without being certain of its authenticity. And your proof and certainty are based on you trusting the indo and thinking its common sense that the Gardai would think as is reported in the article.

That indo article is not an official statement from the Gardai. It is not proof that the Gardai made those statements.

You're making the same assumptions as people repeating the conviction stuff. You've seen it from a source you trust, it sounds like it's probably right/suits your narrative and you put it on boards as a fact without any official statement to verify it as fact.

Had you or those other posters put stuff forward as "it's been reported on x, y, z" then a newspaper would be seen as a more trustworthy source for a discussion on the likelihood of something being true. But an article publishing statements from the Gardai based on a source is not proof of the fact that the Gardai made those statements. Only an official Garda statement is fact when it comes Garda statements.

I will repeat there is a world of difference between a newspaper & twitter. I do not wish to derail this thread further with semantics. If that means you win then fine :rolleyes:

Sorry Beastie

Kraftwerk · 03-01-2021 7:49pm

Discodog wrote: »

I will repeat there is a world of difference between a newspaper & twitter. I do not wish to derail this thread further with semantics. If that means you win then fine :rolleyes:

Sorry Beastie

It's not semantics. You said it was a fact that the Gardai made those statements. Its not.

coinop · 03-01-2021 7:49pm

My source = good.
Your source = bad.

:rolleyes:

KyussB · 03-01-2021 8:32pm

Posting links or evidence to back something up is no defence against mod action. It should be, but it isn't.

It can lead to the bizarre situation where a thread can be full of lies, and the evidence/links disproving them receive censure.

KyussB · 03-01-2021 8:35pm

Discodog wrote: »

... But as long as the comments are posted in a public source then they are ok to post here.

Unfortunately, that is not true. It should be true, but it isn't. You can receive censure for that.

EmmetSpiceland · 03-01-2021 9:27pm

KyussB wrote: »

Unfortunately, that is not true. It should be true, but it isn't. You can receive censure for that.

Even from the paper of record, no less.

Annasopra · 03-01-2021 10:10pm

Invidious wrote: »

Fair play to the Admins for taking this stance. Tellingly, almost 7 out of 10 Irish people feel that society has become "too politically correct" in recent years (2019 Sign of the Times survey by Behavior & Attitudes). Some threads and posts on Boards might well be "questionable," as nudain puts it ... but so what? In an era of woke censorship and cancel culture, Ireland needs a forum where a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly — rather than being preemptively censored, per RTE and the Irish Times. Well done to Boards for reflecting a broader spectrum of opinion than the Dublin 4 liberal-left is prepared to allow.

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

03-01-2021 11:34pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

Do you honestly want it to be?

The lines people draw around what is unacceptable hate speech and what is frank and robust belief are always going to be contested.

Gatling · 04-01-2021 12:24am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

It could be only for a number of people trying to dictate what can and can't be discussed without their permission and list of words they don't like.

None of which are admins

04-01-2021 2:09am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

I dunno. Do you thing the LGBT forum is a place where people are allowed question views and multiple views are allowed to be debated robustly?

How many safe spaces do you want Joey?

Invidious · 04-01-2021 9:42am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Do you honestly think the CA forum is genuinely a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly".

Yes, I do. As opposed to the "anyone who disagrees with the politically correct stance will be banned" ambiance of certain other forums on Boards.

You're free to participate in discussions on CA ... as long as you can tolerate other posters disagreeing with you. That's the very definition of robust debate.

EmmetSpiceland · 04-01-2021 12:55pm

Gatling wrote: »

It could be only for a number of people trying to dictate what can and can't be discussed without their permission and list of words they don't like.

None of which are admins

I, personally, think the problem there is that you have a small number of users who think the usual “standards” from across the site apply to CA. Which they don’t and nor should they.

Maybe this needs to be addressed, more prominently, in the charter? To be honest, it would suit the place better to do away with cards, bans and thread bans for all but the more serious “attacks”.

This would, hopefully, lead to less contamination of normal forums, like AH. The longer threads like the ‘Wokeism of the Day’ or the ‘Onlyfans’ threads are left in AH, with posts calling for “leftists” to be thrown into a “ghetto” with, albeit implied, black people to be “cannibalised” really have no place in AH and they really do create quite a nasty, and hateful, atmosphere.

Threads, such as these, would thrive in “Current Affairs”. Especially one with a “lighter touch” moderation. The “regulars” could get it all out, could actually be, somewhat, therapeutic for them.

Omackeral · 04-01-2021 1:21pm

I count 8 times that they were used there in a redundant fashion.

Annasopra · 04-01-2021 6:02pm

Invidious wrote: »

Yes, I do. As opposed to the "anyone who disagrees with the politically correct stance will be banned" ambiance of certain other forums on Boards.

You're free to participate in discussions on CA ... as long as you can tolerate other posters disagreeing with you. That's the very definition of robust debate.

I do participate from time to time but get shouted down. It really isnt a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly". When the lies and fake news about George Nkencho were challenged there was absolutely no attempt to discuss theses issues robustly frankly or openly. And today all we can see there is Mysogynist Racist ranting about Hazel Chu.

osarusan · 04-01-2021 6:26pm

People spewing shyte in the knowledge they'll never have to back any of it up is in no way any form of frank or open or robust debate, and pretty much means that the debates that are taking place get drowned in that shyte.

Quantum Erasure · 04-01-2021 6:37pm

And today all we can see there is Mysogynist Racist ranting about Hazel Chu.

didn't see anything misogynist there, did learn that 'chinaman' is apparently racist though, I thought it was just a term that had fallen out of favour, like black, then coloured, then person of colour, and I think we're back at black again....

Annasopra · 04-01-2021 6:44pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

didn't see anything misogynist there, did learn that 'chinaman' is apparently racist though, I thought it was just a term that had fallen out of favour, like black, then coloured, then person of colour, and I think we're back at black again....

Comments about her weight are mysogynist

Quantum Erasure · 04-01-2021 6:52pm

Are comments about height misandrist?

EmmetSpiceland · 04-01-2021 6:57pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

didn't see anything misogynist there, did learn that 'chinaman' is apparently racist though, I thought it was just a term that had fallen out of favour, like black, then coloured, then person of colour, and I think we're back at black again....

If ‘The Big Lebowski’ taught us anything, it’s that Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.

Omackeral · 04-01-2021 7:00pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I do participate from time to time but get shouted down. It really isnt a place where "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly". When the lies and fake news about George Nkencho were challenged there was absolutely no attempt to discuss theses issues robustly frankly or openly.

No, you post with gaps in logic and truth and then fail to respond when addressed on these. It's hit and run stuff. You get called out on your own untruths, that I've seen, but doesn't mean you're being shouted down.

If you're going to call out the userbase for being dishonest and not open, you should get your own house in order first.