Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A discussion on the rules.

1…2627293132…54

Comments

  • #1402
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sand wrote: »
    There is no such thing as Jewish communism
    Why are you telling me this?
    Sand wrote: »
    That said, is it against the charter to be be "unconsciously" anti-Semitic? If so, its been given pretty light punishment so far.
    Have you actually seen me be anti-semitic? Unconsciously or otherwise? If so, specifically when? And could you please report the post.


  • #1403
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,792 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why are you telling me this?

    Because you said this:
    I was referring to ethnicity not religion. I was making a statement of fact. He was a Jewish Communist. Just like Chairman Mao was a Chinese Communist.

    Would you ban someone for describing Mao as a Chinese Communist?

    There is a school of Chinese communism. Called Maoism, coincidentally. There is no equivalent school of Jewish communism, and certainly no such school that would have influenced a 1930s Stalinist.

    Communists, pretty much by definition, tend not to embrace either religious or ethnic identities, so describing Mao as a chinese communist or Kaganovich as as a jewish communist makes about as much sense as describing Michael Collins as a County Cork nationalist, or Richard Dawkins as a British atheist.

    If you wanted to describe Mao's views fairly accurately, you wouldn't describe him as a Chinese communist - you'd describe him as a Maoist. If you wanted to describe Kaganov's views accurately you wouldn't describe him as a Jewish communists, you'd describe him as a Stalinist.
    Have you actually seen me be anti-semitic? Unconsciously or otherwise? If so, specifically when? And could you please report the post.

    Man, you need to learn to stop picking fights.


  • #1404
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »


    Have you actually seen me be anti-semitic? Unconsciously or otherwise? If so, specifically when? And could you please report the post.

    That's a road you'd be best off bypassing entirely.


  • #1405
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sand wrote: »
    Because you said this:



    There is a school of Chinese communism. Called Maoism, coincidentally. There is no equivalent school of Jewish communism, and certainly no such school that would have influenced a 1930s Stalinist.
    To be frank I didn't ask you for a history lesson I asked you why you were lecturing me on "jewish Communism". I have never said anything at all about the existence of Jewish Communism.

    Communists, pretty much by definition, tend not to embrace either religious or ethnic identities, so describing Mao as a chinese communist or Kaganovich as as a jewish communist makes about as much sense as describing Michael Collins as a County Cork nationalist, or Richard Dawkins as a British atheist.
    Sand wrote: »
    If you wanted to describe Mao's views fairly accurately, you wouldn't describe him as a Chinese communist - you'd describe him as a Maoist. If you wanted to describe Kaganov's views accurately you wouldn't describe him as a Jewish communists, you'd describe him as a Stalinist.
    I don't want to describe Mao's views beyond using using it as an example to illustrate how ludicrous it is to be offended by two truthful and uncontested terms being used at the same time to describe a person.

    Mao = Communist + Chinese = Chinese-Communist = Accurate and factual.
    Sand wrote: »
    Man, you need to learn to stop picking fights.
    So that is a no then?


  • #1406
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Oh, and ...
    Atheist writer Richard Dawkins sparks outrage by suggesting child sex abuse scandals are overhyped

    The outspoken author, who penned the best-selling 'The God Delusion,' said the 'mild pedophilia' he endured at boarding school in his youth 'never did him any harm.'

    BY Lee Moran
    NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
    Published: Wednesday, September 11, 2013, 12:11 PM
    Updated: Wednesday, September 11, 2013, 12:31 PM


    Levenson/Getty Images British atheist writer Richard Dawkins has said he was forced to defend himself against late-night visits at boarding school in the 1950s from boys who were much larger and stronger than he was. The sexual experiences he endured caused no lasting damage, he said.
    British atheist writer Richard Dawkins has sparked outrage by suggesting scandals about decades-old child sex abuse are being overhyped.

    etc...


  • #1407
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    To be frank I didn't ask you for a history lesson I asked you why you were lecturing me on "jewish Communism". I have never said anything at all about the existence of Jewish Communism.

    Communists, pretty much by definition, tend not to embrace either religious or ethnic identities, so describing Mao as a chinese communist or Kaganovich as as a jewish communist makes about as much sense as describing Michael Collins as a County Cork nationalist, or Richard Dawkins as a British atheist.

    Then why did you think describing a man as a "Jewish communist" was appropriate?


  • #1408
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Nodin wrote: »
    That's a road you'd be best off bypassing entirely.
    Vague insinuations. Nice work.


  • #1409
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Nodin wrote: »
    Then why did you think describing a man as a "Jewish communist" was appropriate?
    What does that even mean? It is somehow inappropriate for a man to be both Jewish and a Communist?


  • #1410
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,792 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Nodin wrote: »
    Then why did you think describing a man as a "Jewish communist" was appropriate?

    He messed up the quote function I think.

    Though you're right, if there's no such thing as Jewish communism, then there is no such thing as a Jewish communist. There can be communists, who are Jewish, in the same way that I am Catholic.

    And yet I've never heard of anyone described as a Catholic Communist.

    To the google machine Brown Bomber!

    P.S. I'm not really Catholic in any actual beliefs or adherence. I barely even pass muster as Christian. The same could probably be said about Kagonov, but yet, he can still be described as a Jewish communist?


  • Advertisement
  • #1411
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Brown Bomber, you posted about the context of the thread earlier today. After all todays posts, do you now see why calling a Communist Jewish in relation to Stalins collectivisation policy and the famine was inappropriate or can you not see why it would cause offense?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1412
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Vague insinuations. Nice work.


    If people search your posts for the word "Jew", they'll see a lot more than insinuations.


  • #1413
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What does that even mean? It is somehow inappropriate for a man to be both Jewish and a Communist?


    You were the one defending the statement. You know what context it was used in.


  • #1414
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sand wrote: »
    He messed up the quote function I think.

    Though you're right, if there's no such thing as Jewish communism, then there is no such thing as a Jewish communist. There can be communists, who are Jewish, in the same way that I am Catholic.

    And yet I've never heard of anyone described as a Catholic Communist.

    To the google machine Brown Bomber!
    That would be because they are contradictory belief systems. Being Jewish doesn't require a belief in God.


  • #1415
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Oh, and ...



    etc...

    I think you are in the wrong thread or something!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1416
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    K-9 wrote: »
    Brown Bomber, you posted about the context of the thread earlier today. After all todays posts, do you now see why calling a Communist Jewish in relation to Stalins collectivisation policy and the famine was inappropriate or can you not see why it would cause offense?
    I don't want to say too much because Conas has a dispute resolution thread but here is the thing: I came into this originally ignorant of the bigger picture. This has been explained to me through Nodin's links and your responses, which were very reasonable and I want to thank you for being civil, reasonable and helpful.

    I've have already said that I now appreciate and understand where you are coming from. What I didn't appreciate was the false allegations, twisting of what I said and having to defend myself for requesting information on the rules in a thread titled "a discussion on the rules".

    In answer to your question, yes, I do now see the bigger picture. It is never innapropriate to speak the truth, but the context is probably different to what I first understood.


  • Advertisement
  • #1417
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    K-9 wrote: »
    I think you are in the wrong thread or something!
    well no, Sand suggested it would be absurd to see Dawkins described as a "British Atheist". That article does exactly that and not a single compaint within the hundreds of comments.


  • #1418
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    well no, Sand suggested it would be absurd to see Dawkins described as a "British Atheist". That article does exactly that and not a single compaint within the hundreds of comments.


    He's described as a "British atheist" in a US paper.


  • #1419
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,792 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    well no, Sand suggested it would be absurd to see Dawkins described as a "British Atheist". That article does exactly that and not a single compaint within the hundreds of comments.

    I implied it wouldnt make anymore sense to describe Dawkins as a British atheist as to describe Michael Collins as a county Cork nationalist. Dawkins is an atheist. Barring the old joke about Irish atheists, there is no national or ethnic schools of atheism. And barring the jokes about Peoples Republic of Cork, there is no such thing as a Cork Nationalist.

    Kaganov was a Stalinist, an almost slavish follower of Stalin's cult of personality. There is no indication whatsoever that he was Jewish in any real sense of the word. If you describe him as a Jewish Communist, then you must also describe Stalin as a Georgian Orthodox Communist, Lenin as a Russian Orthodox Communist and Trotsky as a Ukrainian Orthodox Communist.

    If you routinely do follow and apply those designations when describing historical peoples political allegiances, then you might have a point. But I'd guess you only use "Jewish-..." as an important adjective for political views.


  • #1420
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    This is less a discussion on the rules but more of an example why the rules need to exist by this point.


  • #1421
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sand wrote: »
    I implied it wouldnt make anymore sense to describe Dawkins as a British atheist ....
    But it DOES "make sense" to describe Dawkins as a British atheist. What you don't understand is that it simply means British (and) Atheist. It makes sense to describe him as a British Atheist Scientist author and any other number of objectively accurate statements on his identity. They don't have to supplement each other. We all have multiple identities.

    Where it is wrong is to unequivocally and without reason to declare that one negative identity is due to to other
    Sand wrote: »
    Kaganov was a Stalinist, an almost slavish follower of Stalin's cult of personality. There is no indication whatsoever that he was Jewish in any real sense of the word.
    Yes there is. He was 100% ethnically Jewish and is fully Jewish according to every Jewish definition.
    Sand wrote: »
    If you routinely do follow and apply those designations when describing historical peoples political allegiances, then you might have a point. But I'd guess you only use "Jewish-..." as an important adjective for political views.
    Why guess? I have spoken critically and at length about Muslims, Christians, atheists and Jews.


  • Advertisement
  • #1422
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    The adjectives people choose to use as part of the description of a person are chosen to highlight specific characteristics - they're not simply "anything that happens to be true of the person". Dawkins is described as a "British atheist" in a US publication in order to highlight the fact that he's not American to the American audience of the New York Times. There are a wide variety of other adjectives that could be used to describe Dawkins, and the journalist (or more likely editor) has chosen "British" on the assumption that his audience is not necessarily familiar with Dawkins, and might otherwise assume he's American. For his audience, it's a relevant adjective, or at least felt to be one.

    Choosing to highlight "Jewish" in a description of Kagonov is similarly not just the result of a random trawl through all possible true facts about Kagonov (and Conas in any case goes well beyond that). The mere fact that it's true provides absolutely no explanation for its use in the context, since it's only one of a large number of other possible true facts, and I'm afraid the idea that it has been randomly selected frankly beggars belief. So the adjective is either superfluous because not relevant - or relevant. Which is it, in your view?

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #1423
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The adjectives people choose to use as part of the description of a person are chosen to highlight specific characteristics - they're not simply "anything that happens to be true of the person". Dawkins is described as a "British atheist" in a US publication in order to highlight the fact that he's not American to the American audience of the New York Times. There are a wide variety of other adjectives that could be used to describe Dawkins, and the journalist (or more likely editor) has chosen "British" on the assumption that his audience is not necessarily familiar with Dawkins, and might otherwise assume he's American. For his audience, it's a relevant adjective, or at least felt to be one.

    Choosing to highlight "Jewish" in a description of Kagonov is similarly not just the result of a random trawl through all possible true facts about Kagonov (and Conas in any case goes well beyond that). The mere fact that it's true provides absolutely no explanation for its use in the context, since it's only one of a large number of other possible true facts, and I'm afraid the idea that it has been randomly selected frankly beggars belief. So the adjective is either superfluous because not relevant - or relevant. Which is it, in your view?

    regards,
    Scofflaw
    Relevant to what? You are asking more than one question.

    The facts are:
    1. Kaganovich was convicted of famine-genocide by a Ukranian court for his part played in the Holdomor in which millions of Ukrainians died.
    2. Kaganovich was a Soviet leader.
    3. Kaganovich was Jewish

    My opinions on the various independent questions surrounding the relevance of his ethnicity are:

    Relevance to current events in Israel/Palestine (The discussion topic):     None.
    Relevance to historic events during the Ukrainian famines: None.
    Relevance to Conas' point: In summary - Jews aren't the sole victims of oppression and aggression in history. In fact, they have, at time been the oppressor and aggressor themselves. A pertinent example being the Jewish Soviet leader in the Ukraine, Lazar Zaganovich: Some relevance.

    In my view the real question is not whether using the example of Zaganovich was relevant to illustrate his point - it was - but whether the point itself was relevant.

    Arguably it was. It's not at all relevant to the actual topic. However, it wasn't just plucked out of the ether. It was, as I've said, a post which branched-out naturally through the course of conversation; something which happens on every single thread on boards.

    It was a response to another who talked of the sadness of the victims of the Holocaust who once in a position of strength carry out atrocities on another defenseless people they consider as inferior.

    Another thing to consider in all of this is that people are genuinely upset by this senseless mass-murder by the Jewish state of non-Jews. As people are writing they are observing Israelis butchering children, the disabled, women and the elderly.


  • #1424
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    I've posted in relation to this in AH, but RE the rules in Politics in relation to the Dublin Regulation, is it against the current rule to state that unless some one has travel documentation or is one of the exceptional cases like Snowden etc that unless one has travel documentation one is extremely likely to have breached the Dublin Convention.
    e.g As far as I can see it is only possible to reach Ireland without breaching the Dublin Regulation by passing through a Hub airport in a country thats signatory to the Dublin Regulation and not leaving the post-security part of the airport, therefore the likelyhood of not having travel documentation for legitimate reasons is very low?

    Would such a post violate the rules?


  • #1425
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I've posted in relation to this in AH, but RE the rules in Politics in relation to the Dublin Regulation, is it against the current rule to state that unless some one has travel documentation or is one of the exceptional cases like Snowden etc that unless one has travel documentation one is extremely likely to have breached the Dublin Convention.
    e.g As far as I can see it is only possible to reach Ireland without breaching the Dublin Regulation by passing through a Hub airport in a country thats signatory to the Dublin Regulation and not leaving the post-security part of the airport, therefore the likelyhood of not having travel documentation for legitimate reasons is very low?

    Would such a post violate the rules?
    I don't think it would be necessarily fair to blame the asylum seeker in all circumstances, however, I think there is broad international criticism of many aspects of the Dublin Regulation, including the potential need to attempt to 'skip' registration in an outlier country in order to keep families together and failure of outlier countries to register people in order to 'balance' their level or asylum seekers.

    It is legally presumed that if asylum seekers are unable to produce documentation or are not registered on the system that they are not registered as per the Dublin Regulation.


  • #1426
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    If a poster or a thread is given direction by a moderator to stay on topic and refrain from discussing certain subjects, why then is it OK to discuss other subject matter that does not pertain to the topic on had.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92083102&postcount=61

    The mod here has given a direction to keep the discussion within the limits of asylum seekers and to refrain from bringing Muslim migration into it, yet the mod has no problem bringing an incident by a Catholic Priest 100 years ago into the discussion. Isn't this a clear play of double standard?


  • #1427
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The reference to the Muslim cleric has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. The reference to the incident involving the priest was to do with an Irish reaction to a minority coming here seeking refuge.


  • #1428
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    The reference to the Muslim cleric has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. The reference to the incident involving the priest was to do with an Irish reaction to a minority coming here seeking refuge.

    You wrong as the mod in question stated that it was allowed under the condition that the topic stayed on point i.e. not Muslims but asylum seekers.
    The fact that the Muslim Cleric had certain views about integration and assimilation was in the vein of the thread not the fact that he was a Muslim Cleric.


  • #1429
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    You wrong as the mod in question stated that it was allowed under the condition that the topic stayed on point i.e. not Muslims but asylum seekers.
    The fact that the Muslim Cleric had certain views about integration and assimilation was in the vein of the thread not the fact that he was a Muslim Cleric.


    He wasn't an asylum seeker.


  • #1430
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    jank wrote: »
    If a poster or a thread is given direction by a moderator to stay on topic and refrain from discussing certain subjects, why then is it OK to discuss other subject matter that does not pertain to the topic on had.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92083102&postcount=61

    The mod here has given a direction to keep the discussion within the limits of asylum seekers and to refrain from bringing Muslim migration into it, yet the mod has no problem bringing an incident by a Catholic Priest 100 years ago into the discussion. Isn't this a clear play of double standard?

    My post was outlining the history of asylum seekers in Ireland. Apologies for mentioning the priest, I'd also like to apologise to any people from Limerick for referencing the Jewish pogrom there! ;)

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1431
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Can I just clarify regarding the Irish Water thread: there is a lot of Freeman on the Land stuff coming up more and more frequently. It's absolute bollocks and their main argument tends to be the fallacious onus probandi argument. In terms of the OP Mod warning, I just wanted to clarify whether calling out these arguments as Freeman nonsense breaches the warning, vis-à-vis the ban on calling things conspiracy theories.


  • Advertisement
  • #1432
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Apologies, never thought of that! I'm on the phone atm so can't go into detail but that would be fine because well, freeman stuff is often based on CT stuff. The warning was more general for civility purposes, I'll take a look tonight.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1433
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    K-9 wrote: »
    Apologies, never thought of that! I'm on the phone atm so can't go into detail but that would be fine because well, freeman stuff is often based on CT stuff. The warning was more general for civility purposes, I'll take a look tonight.
    Mainly, I went through a long thing about Irish Water which was filled with Freeman concepts regarding contract, etc.; I basically provided quotes from the Act and just called some parts "Freeman nonsense" (etc.) but then I realised it might breach the Mod Warning, so I thought I'd check.

    I'm happier to edit my post to comply with the warning than receive an infraction for breaking the rules. My 2c is that referring to certain arguments as "Freeman nonsense" in the thread should not be prohibited.


  • #1434
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Mainly, I went through a long thing about Irish Water which was filled with Freeman concepts regarding contract, etc.; I basically provided quotes from the Act and just called some parts "Freeman nonsense" (etc.) but then I realised it might breach the Mod Warning, so I thought I'd check.

    I'm happier to edit my post to comply with the warning than receive an infraction for breaking the rules. My 2c is that referring to certain arguments as "Freeman nonsense" in the thread should not be prohibited.

    As far as I recall, we came to a general decision on Freeman stuff quite a while ago, and it's not problematic to call it for what it is.

    However, if that descends into tit for tat "no it isn't, yes it is" stuff, then obviously that can be an issue. If you're sure that someone is offering Freeman-based 'advice', report it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1435
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As far as I recall, we came to a general decision on Freeman stuff quite a while ago, and it's not problematic to call it for what it is.

    However, if that descends into tit for tat "no it isn't, yes it is" stuff, then obviously that can be an issue. If you're sure that someone is offering Freeman-based 'advice', report it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    It's not so much that anyone if offering advice per se, it's that it seems a lot of people genuinely believe what they have seen elsewhere is true and are posting about it in the thread.


  • #1436
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It's not so much that anyone if offering advice per se, it's that it seems a lot of people genuinely believe what they have seen elsewhere is true and are posting about it in the thread.

    I agree, there are a number of posters reporting nonsensical stuff as fact.


  • #1437
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    This sequence of posts shows how posters even when their question is answered, ignore the answer come back with similar rubbish.


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92414051&postcount=1528

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92414072&postcount=1530

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92414230&postcount=1539


    Then there is stuff like this:


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92423792&postcount=1582

    Or this:


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92432803&postcount=1651

    Or this:


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92449603&postcount=1679


    A discussion on the merits of different forms of taxation, the progressivity, the environmental reasons for the tax, a compartive analysis of set-up costs, all would have been useful contributions to the thread but this is what the forum gets.


  • #1438
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,792 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Godge wrote: »
    This sequence of posts shows how posters even when their question is answered, ignore the answer come back with similar rubbish.

    Welcome to the internet, tbh.

    Nobody enters a discussion forum like this to be educated or to have a debate. They enter to have their own opinions reaffirmed by having them repeated back to them in a slightly different accent, or to reaffirm them by defending them against all criticism, rationally or otherwise. If either fails, then ignore and repeat in the new thread. Never concede defeat. Never change your mind. Never surrender.


  • #1439
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Sand wrote: »
    Welcome to the internet, tbh.

    Nobody enters a discussion forum like this to be educated or to have a debate. They enter to have their own opinions reaffirmed by having them repeated back to them in a slightly different accent, or to reaffirm them by defending them against all criticism, rationally or otherwise. If either fails, then ignore and repeat in the new thread. Never concede defeat. Never change your mind. Never surrender.

    Speak for yourself! ;)

    I was away all day, I'll have a look at the water charges stuff. If somebody goes to the bother of providing detailed answers and it gets ignored, it'll be dealt with.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1440
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Sand wrote: »
    Welcome to the internet, tbh.

    Nobody enters a discussion forum like this to be educated or to have a debate. They enter to have their own opinions reaffirmed by having them repeated back to them in a slightly different accent, or to reaffirm them by defending them against all criticism, rationally or otherwise. If either fails, then ignore and repeat in the new thread. Never concede defeat. Never change your mind. Never surrender.

    Well I think that's the issue, there seems to be an influx of people who are putting out a viewpoint as fact, ignoring evidence and then refusing to accept other points without people proving negatives.


  • Advertisement
  • #1441
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,792 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    I don't think there has ever been a golden age of civil, evidence based debate and almost co-operative investigation of the issues of the day. There's always been screaming, emotive, adversarial frozen trench warfare. And its always been tolerated to one degree or another. People put out their views as facts, demand that others must disprove their views or accept them them as true, and then completely ignore evidence offered because they can.


  • #1442
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    This thread takes the biscuit.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057303233


    "It seems that a certain group on here gang together and continually brand anyone who disagrees with them as skangers, scumbags, lowlife's and generally class them as an 'underclass', implying they're republican terrorist supporters etc etc. The use of condescending and flaming language (I was even accused of being racist earlier today) seems to be another trait of this group in society."

    Basically it accuses anyone who supports Irish Water as being in breach of the Politics Charter by continually branding others as scumbags etc.

    Not only is it using words in breach of the charter but it is a whole thread set up to have a go at other posters. Amazingly, the post was edited by a Mod and remained unchanged!!

    It even had the following: "N.B, This is not another thread about water charges, there's enough of them at this stage I think."


  • #1443
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    It was moved from AH, normally the rules don't get applied retroactively. Also, the only sensible interpretation of those rules isn't that the words are banned but that using them as insults is (which is their normal usage, but exceptions will exist). Otherwise a verbatim quote from a newspaper article or whatever that had the word scumbag in it would merit sanction, which nobody wants I imagine.


  • #1444
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    nesf wrote: »
    It was moved from AH, normally the rules don't get applied retroactively. Also, the only sensible interpretation of those rules isn't that the words are banned but that using them as insults is (which is their normal usage, but exceptions will exist). Otherwise a verbatim quote from a newspaper article or whatever that had the word scumbag in it would merit sanction, which nobody wants I imagine.

    I was given an infraction for simply using the word before. In fact I'm sure I argued that exact point in this thread to no avail; will mine be reversed?


  • #1445
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    That was moved from AH to the cafe, the charter for the cafe isn't as strict.

    Thread on the cafe in the site wide feedback forum:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057293963

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #1446
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    nesf wrote: »
    It was moved from AH, normally the rules don't get applied retroactively. Also, the only sensible interpretation of those rules isn't that the words are banned but that using them as insults is (which is their normal usage, but exceptions will exist). Otherwise a verbatim quote from a newspaper article or whatever that had the word scumbag in it would merit sanction, which nobody wants I imagine.

    So if you call a group of people scumbags you are infracted.

    But if you state that a group of people call others scumbags you can get away with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1447
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I was given an infraction for simply using the word before. In fact I'm sure I argued that exact point in this thread to no avail; will mine be reversed?

    I've zero say in things these days, I'm arguing what I think is the most sensible interpretation.
    Godge wrote: »
    So if you call a group of people scumbags you are infracted.

    But if you state that a group of people call others scumbags you can get away with it.

    Of course not.


  • #1448
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    nesf wrote: »
    I've zero say in things these days, I'm arguing what I think is the most sensible interpretation.



    Of course not.
    Sorry, I was on the touch site and thought for some reason you were someone else :)


  • #1449
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Is "Blueshirts" allowed as a term of abuse?


  • #1450
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Godge wrote: »
    So if you call a group of people scumbags you are infracted.

    But if you state that a group of people call others scumbags you can get away with it.

    As a verbatim quote, yes. If you tried some variant of the line "these people are the kind of people some people call scumbags", then no.
    Is "Blueshirts" allowed as a term of abuse?

    Tempting, certainly, since it's basically identical in effect to "beards", "teabaggers", "ecoloonies" etc.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1451
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As a verbatim quote, yes. If you tried some variant of the line "these people are the kind of people some people call scumbags", then no.



    Tempting, certainly, since it's basically identical in effect to "beards", "teabaggers", "ecoloonies" etc.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    And what about "Sinn Fein/IRA"?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement