Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Boards' traveller problem

12357

Comments



  • Overheal wrote: »
    That should be progress to celebrate then.

    I used to used the word “retarded” a lot back in the day too. Then there was a push by someone similar to Dulpit, asking the bigger question in feedback: “why are we okay with this” and in short order the phrase pretty much evaporated from the site lexicon with more conscientiousness about who that term hurt.

    Trying to invalidate progress now because of lack of progress before hardly seems like anything less than base deflection.

    If only that were true.

    Boards explicit policy is to enable wholesale denigration of people with intellectual disabilities.
    https://touch.boards.ie/search/?q=Retarded+&sort=newest




  • Let's play a game of "who said it"

    "Sick of them there every summer ...just keep moving around ...put bollards up to stop them last summer behind the Service station at kill"

    Any guesses?

    Close the thread




  • banie01 wrote: »
    Well, if nothing else...
    What a fúcking mic drop moment that post has been!

    It appears that the discourse on the 'sexism' thread from this poster has overflowed here.

    At a lower level, this thread is just being used to grandstand against "ists" and "isms" to support the 'sexism' thread by proxy.

    At a medium level, it is being used to stifle reasonable debate and shout down other posters with opposing opinions.

    At a higher level, it is being used as a weapon to pressure Mods/Admins.

    There's no other explanation.




  • It appears that the discourse on the 'sexism' thread from this poster has overflowed here.

    At a lower level, this thread is just being used to grandstand against "ists" and "isms" to support the 'sexism' thread by proxy.

    At a medium level, it is being used to stifle reasonable debate and shout down other posters with opposing opinions.

    At a higher level, it is being used as a weapon to pressure Mods/Admins.

    There's no other explanation.

    I agree with you wholeheartedly.
    The 2 threads have been co-opted in an effort to browbeat mods and admins.
    Ironically and quite poetically by someone who by their own proposed "standards" should be banned from posting here in the 1st place.

    If the high horse had a name, it would be virtue signal and the jockey has not just fallen off...
    But face planted into a shíte pile.

    Hypocrisy of a huge scale IMO and a total time sink for Admin, staff and mods.


  • Advertisement


  • It appears that the discourse on the 'sexism' thread from this poster has overflowed here.

    At a lower level, this thread is just being used to grandstand against "ists" and "isms" to support the 'sexism' thread by proxy.

    At a medium level, it is being used to stifle reasonable debate and shout down other posters with opposing opinions.

    At a higher level, it is being used as a weapon to pressure Mods/Admins.

    There's no other explanation.

    If your logic keeps getting exposed for being not fit for purpose and you never "win" the discussions you're involved in there's a simple answer; Make those pesky opposing opinions go away by changing the rules of the site.

    Seriously, this a fvcking discussion forum. Discuss or set up a blog as a safe space. This site is well moderated, and that's coming from someone who's had occasion to disagree with moderator decisions that have gone against me in the past. You can't have an open forum that only caters to certain views. Time to put the big boy (or girl, or whatever you identify as) pants on and engage like an adult.




  • anewme wrote: »
    With all respect, what you and others are attempting to do here is a personal attack and vendetta and is 100 percent against the charter.

    The feedback thread is in respect of the past couple of months as it’s mentioned clearly in the first page.so not sure what your angle.

    Through one of those posts, I’ve engaged personally with the travelling community and work with them regularly.

    But that’s not really any of your business.

    I’ve seen some fantastic and not so fantastic travellers. What I have done is see how the negative stereotyping as alluded in in the opening post only succeeds in alienating the people who will help me.

    So while I acknowledge that people still have negative experiences with travellers, there are many others to help.

    So quit the personal attacks. It only reflects on you.

    I got off my ass and worked to change a cause I personally believe in.

    What did you do?

    You have used posts against us, often by quoting excerpts to twist the meaning, so it's ironic you hide behind the charter now.




  • You have used posts against us, often by quoting excerpts to twist the meaning, so it's ironic you hide behind the charter now.

    "Do as I say, not as I do".

    They're attempting to weild a sword that cuts both ways.

    You'd swear this site was morphing into stormfront the way some people going on.




  • nullzero wrote: »
    "Do as I say, not as I do".

    They're attempting to weild a sword that cuts both ways.

    You'd swear this site was morphing into stormfront the way some people going on.

    Yes, it's ok for one poster to make negative comments that reinforce a stereotype, but others are bigots and racists if they do the same.




  • anewme wrote: »
    With all respect, what you and others are attempting to do here is a personal attack and vendetta and is 100 percent against the charter.

    I have no vendetta and it is not a personal attack. I am using your own words to highlight your inconsistency and your hypocrisy.
    anewme wrote: »
    The feedback thread is in respect of the past couple of months as it’s mentioned clearly in the first page.so not sure what your angle.

    My angle is, I am highlighting your hypocrisy.
    anewme wrote: »
    Through one of those posts, I’ve engaged personally with the travelling community and work with them regularly.

    Irrelevent.
    anewme wrote: »
    But that’s not really any of your business.

    Not my business at all.
    anewme wrote: »
    I’ve seen some fantastic and not so fantastic travellers. What I have done is see how the negative stereotyping as alluded in in the opening post only succeeds in alienating the people who will help me.

    You have been part of the problem, as evident in your posts.
    anewme wrote: »
    So quit the personal attacks. It only reflects on you.

    It's not a personal attack, they are your words. If you are uncomfortable with that, maybe you should not have used them.
    anewme wrote: »
    I got off my ass and worked to change a cause I personally believe in.

    Irrelevant.
    anewme wrote: »
    What did you do?

    Irrelevant.


  • Advertisement


  • realistically the majority of those posts are very low level stuff, could be perhapse phrased better but seems to mostly be able to express an opinion on specific individuals rather then a group as a whole.
    the last 1 i would disagree with as it was obvious what casey was at and that would be a problematic post.
    either way it doesn't invalidate her points about generalisations against travelers as a whole and the fact that is an issue and is causing more issues.

    Low level stuff? Seriously?

    And all from a poster up in arms about an "off the back of a lorry" comment.




  • anewme wrote: »
    Stick up a photo of your house and see how you like it when people label you a thief then.

    I wasn't involved in criminality, so I can't imagine why people would call me a thief.

    If and when I decide to sell this house, you can fill your boots.




  • I wasn't involved in criminality, so I can't imagine why people would call me a thief.

    If and when I decide to sell this house, you can fill your boots.

    But neither was the person who’s house was put up?




  • realistically the majority of those posts are very low level stuff, could be perhapse phrased better but seems to mostly be able to express an opinion on specific individuals rather then a group as a whole.
    the last 1 i would disagree with as it was obvious what casey was at and that would be a problematic post.
    either way it doesn't invalidate her points about generalisations against travelers as a whole and the fact that is an issue and is causing more issues.

    Well, that was 5 minutes of searching, there's more there too which are not individual. Low level or not, the sentiment against travellers is there. Invalidating her points was not my intention, displaying that she has more in common with those she is giving out about, was. Indeed, she is pressurising Mods/Admins to change things that she has helped create.

    Go figure.

    And on that note, I will depart the thread voluntarily before being thread banned, carded or kicked off....which will surely follow anyway, which would be ridiculous.

    Adieu, bon chance, slan.




  • Low level stuff? Seriously?

    And all from a poster up in arms about an "off the back of a lorry" comment.


    yes ultimately low level stuff.


    i do get where she is coming in terms of the house thread that the insinuations about the particular house owner being discussed is quite possibly unfair, now whether it's enough to be a moderator issue or concern for the site i don't know but i understand what she is getting at.

    abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.





  • anewme wrote: »
    But neither was the person who’s house was put up?

    Wrong.




  • I, personally, think it’s fair to say that there is a vocal majority of boards users who are anti-traveller. This really came to the fore in the poll for voting in the last presidential election, where Peter Casey ran on an anti-traveller “ticket” and the users here had him as the clear winner.

    I’m not sure there’s much the mods can do when a large number of posters, most from “down the country”, have this traveller hate.

    One “suggestion”, I would have, is to punish the more blatant transgression in AH and, maybe, allow the more casual anti-traveller posts. It’s not great but maybe leave the serious hate for the “Current Affairs” forum. It wouldn’t be out of place in there.

    He/him/his

    “When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

    #bekind





  • Wrong.

    No its not wrong.




  • I, personally, think it’s fair to say that there is a vocal majority of boards users who are anti-traveller. This really came to the fore in the poll for voting in the last presidential election, where Peter Casey ran on an anti-traveller “ticket” and the users here had him as the clear winner.

    I’m not sure there’s much the mods can do when a large number of posters, most from “down the country”, have this traveller hate.

    One “suggestion”, I would have, is to punish the more blatant transgression in AH and, maybe, allow the more casual anti-traveller posts. It’s not great but maybe leave the serious hate for the “Current Affairs” forum. It wouldn’t be out of place in there.

    The charters on most boards forums already cover this. Overt xenophobia has never been tolerated. Makes you wonder what this thread is hoping to achieve beyond creating a situation where only one view point is tolerated. Like I said before, people can start blogs if that's what they want.




  • anewme wrote: »
    No its not wrong.

    Yeah, I'm done.


  • Advertisement


  • nullzero wrote: »
    The charters on most boards forums already cover this. Overt xenophobia has never been tolerated. Makes you wonder what this thread is hoping to achieve beyond creating a situation where only one view point is tolerated. Like I said before, people can start blogs if that's what they want.

    Yeah but, come on, the anti-traveller stuff is fairly ubiquitous and seems to just get a “bye”. Maybe there could be greater “sanctions” than just a post deletion when it’s spotted but it would be nice to see it confined to the “Current Affairs” forum, where it wouldn’t be out of place.

    I’m not from the country, myself, so I wouldn’t have had too many, direct, “dealings” with travellers but, I have to say, I find the whole generalising thing a bit reductive.

    The closet Dublin “version” would be like saying everyone from Ballymun is a drug dealer or thinking everyone from Limerick carries a knife.

    Yes, there are a lot of “issues” with travellers and these tend to stem from one section of society being forced into the margins and any “push back”, or transgression, is jumped on.

    He/him/his

    “When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”.

    #bekind






  • Edit: Actually, your post is not the same in the least. I describe a majority, while you describe a minority. I think anyone would find them polar opposites.

    Is your thinking the same as "Blacks can't be racist to Whites?" I don't subscribe to that.




  • Overheal wrote: »
    Those posts are years old. Individual viewpoints never evolve? It would seem 'retarded' to think that... [case and point]. Took some effort to go digging up dirt on a user, rather than address the substance of what they are saying in the here and now. Is that how we should have talks here?
    Dated February last year to 2018, hardly historic now.




  • Dated February last year to 2018, hardly historic now.

    And what was your account name prior to 2018? Where's the searchable record of everything you've said since 2009?

    I mean seriously how far back is on or off limits. This is a terrible hole to go down, attacking posters rather than sticking to the central argument. It's almost as if you are trying to argue that cultural attitudes haven't moved the needle at all in 3 years.




  • Blaaz_ wrote: »
    On what planet is this low level stuff.....seems pretty clear and unambigious to me??

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108467630&postcount=6819


    Alot of folks (including myself)were caught hook,line and sinker here

    i did address that post in my point.

    abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.





  • Overheal wrote: »
    Is your thinking the same as "Blacks can't be racist to Whites?" I don't subscribe to that.

    Wow, what an outlandishly idiotic comment and you even got a 'thank' for it. Astounding.




  • I think the problem is that I can safely say every person who lives out in the countryside has had some sort of run in with a member of said community. Be it big or small.

    I myself was hit by a van as I was confronting a group trying to rob my sister's house. Have the knee pain to prove it ever since.

    And no I don't have a history of anti traveller sentiment on boards.




  • I'm not anti traveller in that I judge individuals as I get them.
    But there are many aspects of traveller culture which I frankly find abhorrent and there does not seem to be any effort from leaders in the traveling community to tackle to these cultural norms.
    Taking kids out of school early is one example, marrying far too young. Abuse of animals especially horses to name a few.




  • Overheal wrote: »
    Those posts are years old. Individual viewpoints never evolve? It would seem 'retarded' to think that... [case and point]. Took some effort to go digging up dirt on a user, rather than address the substance of what they are saying in the here and now. Is that how we should have talks here? A 2018 account going after a 2009 account pretending they never said anything indefensible in their adult life, with the benefit of an extra decade of anonymity.

    Let's not, please.

    Age has no relevance....it was "ok" for that poster to have those views in the past...but it's not "ok" for anyone else to have those views now? Is that your argument?

    Not sure why you keep stating "retard", are you looking for some reaction or a bite from someone?

    It took less than 5 minutes, it's very simple. It takes me far longer to try to understand any of your posts here, not because I'm a "retard" but because they are barely relevant.

    It's also not "dirt", it's their own words. They are a legitimate reflection of their (supposed) past views of the travelling community. They are very relevant to the discussion.

    I'm also "not going after" the poster, merely highlighting the blatant hypocrisy, nothing more and nothing less.

    You also have some nerve to query "is that how we talk here".

    I am originally a 2007 account and I'm sure I have said stuff that may be indefensible. However, if I had changed my views, I would not demand the whole site subscribe to my views and pressure Mods/Admins to gatekeep.

    You may need to lay off the coffee or something.


  • Advertisement


  • "It's ok, I think differently now and you should too" is hardly a convincing argument.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement