Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

KyussB · 11-01-2021 12:48AM

Actually, my prior post is wrong about political ads - the new laws are only about establishing identity of advertisers. Nonetheless, the rise of badly applied and heavily biased fact checking, has become prevalent throughout major social media platforms.

Claims that a topic of discussion is dangerous, usually involve extreme and selective exaggeration of what counts as 'dangerous'.

Mainstream discussion of a war with Iraq Iran and installing a puppet government? Not considered dangerous enough to censor by any media/social-media outlet.
Minority/fringe discussion of a coup, by people who can raid a poorly secured building for a few hours, but will never have the manpower/firepower or organization needed to take/hold the hundreds/thousands of key locations needed to pull off a coup? Dangerous, apparently...

Mainstream = never censored. Minority/fringe = dangerous. That's basically the definition of enforcing the Overton Window.

People need to be able to grapple with extremely offensive topics, and advocates of those topics, without calling for limitations and censorship of those topics/people.
The real problem with such discussions is usually brigading/astroturfing, and bad faith discussion where it becomes increasingly clear that the person knows that what they are presenting is false - you target that separately, and that is always going to be a struggle.

Censoring and deplatforming doesn't weed out terrible ideas, it weeds out minority ideas good and bad that are offensive to mainstream views - and it bolsters/keeps the terrible ideas that are already mainstream.

11-01-2021 01:06AM

I dunno you do find that some people also take obscurities and post at obstructive length about them

That's worth intercepting for the greater good of prioritising debate time and attention in many contexts

11-01-2021 01:14AM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It just depends on whether Boards.ie care about rampant trolls and dodgy threads being a good look or not. The twitter thread sharing thing might be a sign of things to come.

11-01-2021 01:24AM

Plenty of left wing extreme view posters actioned regularly.

Its almost as if behaviour was moderated and beliefs weren't

And it's almost as if a rump of posters of a certain bent found that problematic but were avoiding saying so

11-01-2021 02:17AM

Hardly worth engaging with tbh

And this is relevant i guess. Mods will pick up the stuff that's beyond the line, as it should be

Yeah, the line should be debated, and moved, as contexts change.

Yeah, the line mightnt suit your personal argument at any one time

But knowing where the line is, knowing something is well within it but you disagree with it, but still popping up in this thread like the keystone cops through a revolving door, its just pointless stuff

Be different if people were even arguing the case for a change in where the lines are, or reporting the stuff they objected to.

But they just keep coming in here and tapping their feet at the mods as if the mere fact of their disliking something were all the evidence and work required

Mickeroo · 11-01-2021 08:58AM

coinop, don't post in this thread again.

Annasopra · 11-01-2021 12:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Because if anyone had any urge to participate in that thread, it would become pretty apparent that it's an example of a thread that's become a cesspit. Most people don't want to go anywhere near participating in it for that reason.

I agree. We can see that now with all the ranting and raving about left wing people being resentful, self loathing, having no purpose in life, making no contribution to society, being miserable, being mentally ill and destroying peoples lives.

Seriously.

Yet still in this thread people pretend that "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly"

11-01-2021 12:06PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I agree. We can see that now with all the ranting and raving about left wing people being resentful, self loathing, having no purpose in life, making no contribution to society, being miserable, being mentally ill and destroying peoples lives.

Seriously.

Yet still in this thread people pretend that "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly"

You seem to think that an unpleasant post or posts in a thread means that that last paragraph is untrue.

You're completely wrong of course, or at the very least youve simply not bothered to make the case.

But nobody can force you to post anywhere i guess.

Annasopra · 11-01-2021 12:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to think that an unpleasant post or posts in a thread means that that last paragraph is untrue.

You're completely wrong of course, or at the very least youve simply not bothered to make the case.

But nobody can force you to post anywhere i guess.

It does. Most rational thinking people wouldnt walk into a thread like that thinking that there could in any way be robust, frank and open discussion

11-01-2021 12:18PM

I dont think its good practice to set your own POV up as "most people" tbh

We have a determined but small group in here multiple times about a very busy forum that contains posts you don't agree with and therefore wont participate in.

The available evidence isn't at all that that viewpoint is a majority nor anything like a majority.

Its not like

i. Mods dont take out the reported stuff that's in breach
ii. Unpleasant posts are limited to one political grouping

So given the above it's hard again to paint this as anything more than "people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me"

Or, if you like, "people should be allowed to disagree with me but only in the manner i approve of"

11-01-2021 12:45PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Seriously.

Yet still in this thread people pretend that "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly"

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It does. Most rational thinking people wouldnt walk into a thread like that thinking that there could in any way be robust, frank and open discussion

You keep repeating this line despite the fact you don’t engage in open or frank discussion yourself. I don’t know why you keep doing it. You’ve been asked by multiple posters why you post in a hit and run style and you never respond to this. If you dont want to respond that’s fine, although it’s very strange, but you keep parroting about robust, frank and open discussion. Do you not see how your own actions are at odds with your complaining about?

osarusan · 11-01-2021 01:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So given the above it's hard again to paint this as anything more than "people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me"

Or, if you like, "people should be allowed to disagree with me but only in the manner i approve of"

You made a similar point a few days ago, and I replied to the post then:

osarusan wrote: »

But it isn't anything to do with 'disagreement', not on my part at least.

An example from the Nkencho thread is the claim, oft repeated, that he had 30+ convictions. Posters were repeatedly asked to provide some kind of source, evidence, anything to back this up, but offered sweet f**k all.

And that kind of stuff is rife in CA, from all sides. Claim what you like: X said this, Y did that, Z never did that. Ignore requests for evidence, let some posters latch onto it and others bitch about it, job done.

That's not an issue of disagreement, it's just trying to esablish basic facts.

I don't see how wanting somebody to provide evidence for a claim they make is anything to do with disagreement. I think it's absolutely reasonable to ask somebody to back up a claim before we get down to discussing it.

I've said this before, but I cannot comprehend what good a 'there is no need to back up any claim' policy does in terms of frank, open, robust debate. It just encourages those who want to talk crap.

11-01-2021 01:29PM

You did, i responded, and i think id fairly admit that a specific claim like that needs challenging and backing up (because i agree with that!)

I thought mods acted on that one?

As for me making the point again, yeah i did, in response to a totally different thing but which is (as far as i can see) much more representative of the complaints in this thread of the last couple hundred pages.

osarusan · 11-01-2021 01:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You did, i responded, and i think id fairly admit that a specific claim like that needs challenging and backing up (because i agree with that!)

I thought mods acted on that one?

As for me making the point again, yeah i did, in response to a totally different thing but which is (as far as i can see) much more representative of the complaints in this thread of the last couple hundred pages.

You didn't respond though, I don't think, or not quoting me at least.

But never mind that, as by and large we seem to agree on the point I'm making, which is that if posters are making claims like that (not just the claim I used as an example - specific claims about anything tbh) I think it's reasonable for them to have to back those claims up.

11-01-2021 01:46PM

Sorry if i didnt (or if i didnt address your main point).

Yeah, I agree with that.

But I think I put down a post after yours asking a few 'what ifs' about what reasonable posters can or should do if unreasonable posters aren't following those ideals.

Mods grab what is reported and what they can, to the line that the mods agree with.

For the blurry parts beyond that, i do think you have to engage and demonstrate the paucity of argument, shine a light, stay patient, do the work.

And thats the antithesis of slagging the whole forum, staying away and writing the whole place off as a cesspit or demanding it be shut down.

Kivaro · 11-01-2021 01:46PM

end of the road wrote: »

well of course it does, but so what? they are a tiny but very vocal minority who the majority think are crack pots.
how about taking some responsibility and debunking their drivel?
current affairs is not going to be a forum that only caters to our views, you need to understand and accept this.

This is it in a nutshell.
As a young lad I remember a time when any Sinn Fein representative, MP, or spokesperson who appeared on television or radio, had their audio cut off by the broadcaster. So all you would see is someone talking, but with no audio as they were muted. This bizarre and ludicrous situation went on for a while.

There are only a few posters, maybe 3 or 4, who want the Current Affairs forum completely shut down (muted). Maybe they lack the faculty to properly engage in discussion so try to censor it, but as EOTR says above, maybe they should focus on debunking instead as a mature response.

Annasopra · 11-01-2021 02:38PM

Kivaro wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell.
As a young lad I remember a time when any Sinn Fein representative, MP, or spokesperson who appeared on television or radio, had their audio cut off by the broadcaster. So all you would see is someone talking, but with no audio as they were muted. This bizarre and ludicrous situation went on for a while.

There are only a few posters, maybe 3 or 4, who want the Current Affairs forum completely shut down (muted). Maybe they lack the faculty to properly engage in discussion so try to censor it, but as EOTR says above, maybe they should focus on debunking instead as a mature response.

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

11-01-2021 03:27PM

It's not possible to have a meaningful debate when posters comment something then disappear without addressing their points or flat out ignores any challenges to their logic.

At least if someone says something immature/unethical/controversial and sticks around to defend what they said, there's a conversation to be had.

nullzero · 11-01-2021 03:40PM

If certain threads are "cesspits" why engage at all?

Popping in, making statements that are in turn challenged, which you then do not respond to is a useless exercise.

At least validate your opinions with supporting evidence.

The truth is that there are threads on this site where people tend to congregate in groups, who agree with each other, and it isn't ideal. However if there is validity to any counter argument to be had that goes against the grain of popular opinion on those threads it is still worth making the argument, even in the face of people who have things wrong thanking each others posts and hurling abuse at you.

Ultimately it comes down to two things, 1 being the time you have to engage meaningfully. And 2 the veracity of your argument.

It's all very fine saying that the "alt right" is responsible for x y and z both on boards and in the real world, but it is up to the individual stating these things as fact to back them up. The same goes for making a statement about all left wing people, these type of arguments are ludicrous.

If you don't wish to engage meaningfully and back up your opinions, why engage? Why discuss anything if all you want is an echo chamber (yeah I know)?

blanch152 · 11-01-2021 03:53PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

To be fair, I see very similar comments made about right-wing people, in fact, what is said about them is often far worse.

Discodog · 11-01-2021 04:52PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

You forgot "scum". Everyone is either scum or a scumbag. Then there's the use of capitals.

Discodog · 11-01-2021 04:59PM

Kivaro wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell.
As a young lad I remember a time when any Sinn Fein representative, MP, or spokesperson who appeared on television or radio, had their audio cut off by the broadcaster. So all you would see is someone talking, but with no audio as they were muted. This bizarre and ludicrous situation went on for a while.

There are only a few posters, maybe 3 or 4, who want the Current Affairs forum completely shut down (muted). Maybe they lack the faculty to properly engage in discussion so try to censor it, but as EOTR says above, maybe they should focus on debunking instead as a mature response.

I haven't seen anyone ask for it's closure. But why is it the only place where one can discuss current affairs ? I am sure that there are plenty on Boards that would welcome a normally moderated forum for such discussion. Good luck with debunking that Ireland has too many immigrants or people on welfare are scroungers or even that a "scumbag" with a knife deserves to be shot dead.

Some topics can't have an alternative view because the mob will shout it down & so you end up with the "echo chamber" that everyone says they don't want.

nullzero · 11-01-2021 05:19PM

Discodog wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone ask for it's closure. But why is it the only place where one can discuss current affairs ? I am sure that there are plenty on Boards that would welcome a normally moderated forum for such discussion. Good luck with debunking that Ireland has too many immigrants or people on welfare are scroungers or even that a "scumbag" with a knife deserves to be shot dead.

Some topics can't have an alternative view because the mob will shout it down & so you end up with the "echo chamber" that everyone says they don't want.

This is a normally moderated forum.

The problem with what you're referencing (The George Nkencho thread namely) is that every time somebody comes into the thread spouting rhetoric about the alt right in Ireland and how George Nkencho was killed because of his skin colour, those engaging in that line of discussion are able to provide no evidence to support their claims.

It is also notable that anyone engaging in any sort of racist rhetoric has been dealt with accordingly.

That case in particular is divisive for some people because the narrative of racially motivated killing by police hasn't stood up to scrutiny. This wasn't Ireland's George Floyd moment, much to the chagrin of some.

11-01-2021 05:30PM

nullzero wrote: »

This is a normally moderated forum.

The problem with what you're referencing (The George Nkencho thread namely) is that every time somebody comes into the thread spouting rhetoric about the alt right in Ireland and how George Nkencho was killed because of his skin colour, those engaging in that line of discussion are unable to provide no evidence to support their claims.

It is also notable that anyone engaging in any sort of racist rhetoric has been dealt with accordingly.

That case in particular is divisive for some people because the narrative of racially motivated killing by police hasn't stood up to scrutiny. This wasn't Ireland's George Floyd moment, much to the chagrin of some.

What was occurring in the thread last night was far from normal tbh. It was a couple of people ranting about being ratted out because somebody had screenshotted the discussion and posted it on Twitter. Then implications seemed to made about a specific user being responsible for it ending up on Twitter. It was rather nasty to say the least.

And in terms of racist rhetoric being dealt with, I can think of a fair few posters that have gonna down pretty racist rabbit holes on CA and continue to do so. On and off warnings but narrowly avoiding being outright banned.

Annasopra · 11-01-2021 05:35PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What was occurring in the thread last night was far from normal tbh. It was a couple of people ranting about being ratted out because somebody had screenshotted the discussion and posted it on Twitter. Then implications seemed to made about a specific user being responsible for it ending up on Twitter. It was rather nasty to say the least.

And in terms of racist rhetoric being dealt with, I can think of a fair few posters that have gonna down pretty racist rabbit holes on CA and continue to do so. On and off warnings but narrowly avoiding being outright banned.

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

Discodog · 11-01-2021 05:40PM

nullzero wrote: »

This is a normally moderated forum.

The problem with what you're referencing (The George Nkencho thread namely) is that every time somebody comes into the thread spouting rhetoric about the alt right in Ireland and how George Nkencho was killed because of his skin colour, those engaging in that line of discussion are able to provide no evidence to support their claims.

It is also notable that anyone engaging in any sort of racist rhetoric has been dealt with accordingly.

That case in particular is divisive for some people because the narrative of racially motivated killing by police hasn't stood up to scrutiny. This wasn't Ireland's George Floyd moment, much to the chagrin of some.

Try using the language of CA in other Boards fora. CA is given very light touch moderation as per it's Charter & that's fine if it's what Boards want. But there should be room on Boards for people, that want to discuss the issues, without terms like "scum" etc.

11-01-2021 05:41PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

You've no interest in providing any feedback at all on this thread.

11-01-2021 05:42PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

Surely this needs examples shown

Im not doubting yous

but complaining about x and not providing an example seems to be crux of issue

Gatling · 11-01-2021 06:04PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What was occurring in the thread last night was far from normal tbh. It was a couple of people ranting about being ratted out

Snitches get stiches ....

I believe people were laughing at the idea ,

Imagine that

CtevenSrowder · 11-01-2021 06:15PM

Discodog wrote: »

Try using the language of CA in other Boards fora. CA is given very light touch moderation as per it's Charter & that's fine if it's what Boards want. But there should be room on Boards for people, that want to discuss the issues, without terms like "scum" etc.

Then go to the politics forum.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments