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 all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

1…5556586061…79

Comments

  • #1712
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,157 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Beasty wrote: »
    That highlights how everyone's definition of "racism", "racist" etc can be slightly different. In my view it has to be the intent rather than the terminology

    Clearly the "N" word is now one that pretty much everyone considers racist. Calling someone "Indian" though? Someone of Indian descent?

    We regularly get reports because people consider words to be racist without ever considering context.


    Of course, the context and intent are key, but unlike abusive terms in general, you have to be very careful with racist and homophobic terminology because of the wider societal context. In this particular case, we have a poster who regularly and repeatedly abuses Leo Varadkar and the Fine Gael party in general. He then uses a term "the indian" to describe him. The excused context is set out in the following post:
    Invidious wrote: »
    In deciding whether something is racist, mods need to look at the poster's intent. Here is the context for what he wrote:



    The quote marks here indicate that this is a reference to a now-deleted tweet by former senior Ulster Unionist Lord Kilclooney, which referred to Varadkar as "the Indian."

    If the poster is indicating that some in the Loyalist population know Varadkar as "the Indian," per Kilclooney, that makes his post free of racist intent, in my view.

    So we have a claim that it is in reference to a tweet by a unionist Lord Kilcooney. There are some interesting points to note about this reference.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42103510

    (1) The tweet was made in November 2017, three years ago
    (2) The tweet was withdrawn by the tweeter
    (3) It was widely condemned as racist pretty much across the board - "Sinn Féin's Alex Maskey and Alliance Party deputy leader Stephen Farry both described the tweet as racist."
    (4) Interestingly Anne Cadwaller put it well when she said "Kilclooney clearly intended here to belittle and insult which is, frankly, repulsive." A motive that is very similar to the poster's motive.
    (5) The excuse proffered by Kilcooney was that "he was unsure of how to spell Mr Varadkar's name and had used the word Indian as "shorthand"." That does not apply in the current case.

    Given the above, and the particular posting history of the poster, I find it astonishing that the excuse for the use of the racist term is acceptable on boards.


  • #1713
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,157 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Not the CA forum but I cant have been the only one who was astonished to see the Late Late Toy Show thread on the Television forum descend into racism at the weekend. I only read a few pages of it but it seems the racists were up in arms that there was a 9 year old black girl on the tv, even children are a target for them now. Unbelievable. i think its time Boards takes a look at this problem across the site.

    I didn't see that but I am not surprised as the low-level tolerance of racist terms tends to be toxic in nature and leads to further propogation and acceptance.


  • #1714
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So we have a claim that it is in reference to a tweet by a unionist Lord Kilcooney.

    That's my assumption, yes.

    As for whether it's an appropriate label, Varadkar was born in Dublin, has a white Irish mother, and has lived in Ireland all his life. Calling him "the Indian" is analogous to calling Barack Obama "the Kenyan," so those who condemned the Tweet for racism and xenophobia did have a point.

    But if a poster observes that some Loyalists know Varadkar as "the Indian" (in quotes) then he's essentially noting racism on the part of Loyalists rather than being racist himself. That's a key distinction here.


  • #1715
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Invidious wrote: »
    That's my assumption, yes.

    As for whether it's an appropriate label, Varadkar was born in Dublin, has a white Irish mother, and has lived in Ireland all his life. Calling him "the Indian" is analogous to calling Barack Obama "the Kenyan," so those who condemned the Tweet for racism and xenophobia did have a point.

    But if a poster observes that some Loyalists know Varadkar as "the Indian" (in quotes) then he's essentially noting racism on the part of Loyalists rather than being racist himself. That's a key distinction here.

    Pretty much nail on the head with that post, I didn't see the posts last night when they were made,but it's not like some of lads claiming to be offended, didn't know fine well what the post was referring to as it's been covered on this site numerous times, and I'm sure if I delved deep enough into the advanced search function, there's a good chance I'd find a few of the offended discussing it in the past.

    I've stated many times before, all the faux "racist, xenophobic and sectarian" accusations just threaten to drown the genuine ones out, especially the tactical* ones.


    *Tactical as in the lads using the racist etc accusations know they're being disingenuous.


  • #1716
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,157 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Invidious wrote: »
    That's my assumption, yes.

    As for whether it's an appropriate label, Varadkar was born in Dublin, has a white Irish mother, and has lived in Ireland all his life. Calling him "the Indian" is analogous to calling Barack Obama "the Kenyan," so those who condemned the Tweet for racism and xenophobia did have a point.

    But if a poster observes that some Loyalists know Varadkar as "the Indian" (in quotes) then he's essentially noting racism on the part of Loyalists rather than being racist himself. That's a key distinction here.

    It is a very thin ice distinction. As pointed out earlier in this thread, you need to look at the context, not just of the post, but also the poster and their previous history.

    If it was someone who had a generally favourable view of Leo Varadkar and was using the reference to criticise loyalists who know Varadkar as "the Indian", and was praising Varadkar in the post, you would be correct.

    However, if the poster, as in this case, is a known Varadkar critic, who has previously used abusive language to describe Varadkar, you are essentially seeing dog whistle racism. Think of a right-wing American white male drawing attention to someone else's use of the n-word.

    If it was normal abuse of a politician, you could let it go, but letting go racist sloganeering like this while yellow-carding a poster who drew attention to it is sending a very bad message and is a very bad look for boards.

    I will leave it there, not going to waste more time on this.


  • Advertisement
  • #1717
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,764 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Not the CA forum, but it was, certainly, a number of CA forum “regulars” that were “at it” in that thread.

    Didn’t seem to be any moderation of the thread at all. Something which, again, I would have no problem within CA, itself. But once that “nonsense” is brought outside of the forum it should be punished and punished harshly.

    I dont think there was any moderation of it until maybe Sunday so basically a load of disgraceful racism attacking kids because was left there unmoderated for a day or two.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1718
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I understand you completely. A crackdown on racism and racist terms needs to be visible and clearly understood to all posters. Like you say, sometimes those who point it out get sanctioned. Here is an example from the last day or so:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115485844&postcount=73

    In this post, a poster refers to Leo Varadkar as 'the indian'. A clear racist term, and the particular poster has previous when it comes to abuse of politicians. However, while the post was reported, there is no clear visible sanction for the use of the racist term.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115485913&postcount=77

    Later in the thread another poster engages in some backseat moderation commenting about the racist reference "He'll get away with it too. Most of us would be banned" and correctly receives a visible yellow card for the backseat moderation.

    The problem is the visuals on this. Even if the poster who made the original racist comment is banned, there is no visible evidence of this, and the message being sent by boards.ie is that the site tolerates racist references to politicians while people who raise the issue of the tolerance of racist terms get yellow-carded.

    It is definitely not a good look for boards. It is not enough to claim to address racism, by actions racism must not be tolerated. A zero tolerance approach must be adopted. I am sure that the poster will claim that they were quoting a public figure's use of the term in defence, but can we all use the n-word because some politician used it once? No, is the answer and that should be the answer here too.

    This entire comment is dishonest.
    You constantly accuse me of having form in various circumstances and when asked for back up or quotes to support your claims you disappear. You did it only yesterday, "Once again you deny the legitimacy of democracy". When asked for back up/quotes etc. none were forthcoming.

    On 'the Indian', you are either forgetful or lying. For we have covered this before in the exact same context yet here you seem to have forgotten or are lying and decided to lay it on thick based on your unsubstantiated claims. It's highly dishonest.

    You knew full well the context and that I was quoting.

    Your entire comment here is a fabrication designed to try have me sanctioned by the moderators using faux outrage. 'faux' because it's made up. It's hard to tell were you actually stand when you are using racism to try score points on a discussion forum in such a manner.


  • #1719
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Not the CA forum, but it was, certainly, a number of CA forum “regulars” that were “at it” in that thread.

    Didn’t seem to be any moderation of the thread at all. Something which, again, I would have no problem within CA, itself. But once that “nonsense” is brought outside of the forum it should be punished and punished harshly.

    To be fair to the Television mods, I don't think it urgently needed to be moderated. The very small number of posters in question (yes, all CA regulars, who've grown accustomed to having free rein to make racist posts without any sanction whatsoever) were immediately called out by other members, and were left in no doubt that their racism wasn't welcome on the Toy Show thread. It was a good example of Boards at its very best.

    Current Affairs, on the other hand, is a good example of Boards at its very worst. The CA mods would have carded anyone who accused those posters of racism.


  • #1720
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It is a very thin ice distinction. As pointed out earlier in this thread, you need to look at the context, not just of the post, but also the poster and their previous history.

    So a mod would need to look not only at the post itself but the context, the poster's extensive history, and the poster's previous language used in relation to Varadkar in order to reach a decision around alleged racism that at best would still be highly subjective — all while knowing that any card or ban would most likely be appealed and overturned on the basis that the post referenced other people's racism rather than being racist in itself?

    I think this is too much to expect of any mod.


  • #1721
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Invidious wrote: »
    So a mod would need to look not only at the post itself but the context, the poster's extensive history, and the poster's previous language used in relation to Varadkar in order to reach a decision around alleged racism that at best would still be highly subjective — all while knowing that any card or ban would most likely be appealed and overturned on the basis that the post referenced other people's racism rather than being racist in itself?

    I think this is too much to expect of any mod.

    I used the quote before, (last February) in the same context speaking on the view of Varadkar. Blanch knows this, he quoted it. This comment was regarding the Unionist/loyalist view of the south. I gave an example in quotes. I elaborated further in a follow up post. You are being led down the garden path here it's a case of dishonest point scoring.


  • Advertisement
  • #1722
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,157 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Invidious wrote: »
    So a mod would need to look not only at the post itself but the context, the poster's extensive history, and the poster's previous language used in relation to Varadkar in order to reach a decision around alleged racism that at best would still be highly subjective — all while knowing that any card or ban would most likely be appealed and overturned on the basis that the post referenced other people's racism rather than being racist in itself?

    I think this is too much to expect of any mod.

    I would operate on the opposite basis. The usage of racist language is presumed banned and cardable unless a credible explanation is provided.

    The excuse of quoting someone else using it is not acceptable either. In the particular case, the excuse proffered by the poster is not credible given the context that he takes any opportunity to repeat any criticism of Varadkar, that is perfectly acceptable when he is repeating normal political criticism, but when he is repeating unacceptable racist language, it is not.

    There is nothing dishonest about my opinion on this, the reference to Varadkar as "the Indian" is offensive and racist, particularly so when criticising him, hence the original tweeter deleted the tweet.


  • #1723
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There is nothing dishonest about my opinion on this, the reference to Varadkar as "the Indian" is offensive and racist, particularly so when criticising him, hence the original tweeter deleted the tweet.

    Beyond disingenuous, tbh. It's quite obvious to anyone who read the original post (including you, I suspect) that the poster was referring to how loyalists would refer to Varadkar as 'the Indian'. At worst, it could be construed as unfair to loyalists because they aren't all racists like John Taylor.


  • #1724
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I would operate on the opposite basis. The usage of racist language is presumed banned and cardable unless a credible explanation is provided.

    The excuse of quoting someone else using it is not acceptable either. In the particular case, the excuse proffered by the poster is not credible given the context that he takes any opportunity to repeat any criticism of Varadkar, that is perfectly acceptable when he is repeating normal political criticism, but when he is repeating unacceptable racist language, it is not.

    There is nothing dishonest about my opinion on this, the reference to Varadkar as "the Indian" is offensive and racist, particularly so when criticising him, hence the original tweeter deleted the tweet.

    You have shown yourself to be dishonest here. You knew the context. You knew it was in relation to a view held of Varadkar. You posted here pretending you didn't. You posted here accusing me of using a racist term to attack Varadkar when you knew it wasn't. Completely dishonest considering you knew the context all along but pretended not to. You also alleged I've form in various areas with no supporting evidence. This entire crusade is based on a lie. In short you got found out.


  • #1725
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,157 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    .anon. wrote: »
    Beyond disingenuous, tbh. It's quite obvious to anyone who read the original post (including you, I suspect) that the poster was referring to how loyalists would refer to Varadkar as 'the Indian'. At worst, it could be construed as unfair to loyalists because they aren't all racists like John Taylor.

    I said the poster had form in the use of such language, and he has even produced a previous example of his usage. What value is there to repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that a Loyalist called Varadkar "the Indian" other than low-level dog-whistling racism in respect of Varadkar or sectarian depiction of Loyalism as racist? None.

    Quite simply, if you are against racism, you don't give any oxygen to racist terms and you do not use or repeat them.

    I said earlier I was going to leave it there, and I am leaving it there because I won't give any more oxygen to the disingenuous usage of such terms by posters.


  • #1726
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    I judge folk on their racist/xenophobic/sectarian/homophobic tendencies on the context of their posts, and their Posting history.

    As already said - the folk jumping on that as "racist" despite knowing full well the background/context are being extremely disingenuous, and shown up for the levels they will be prepared to stoop to.


  • #1727
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    blanch152 wrote: »
    What value is there to repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that a Loyalist called Varadkar "the Indian" other than low-level dog-whistling racism in respect of Varadkar or sectarian depiction of Loyalism as racist? None.

    Regardless of whether there's any value in drawing attention to John Taylor's racism, doing so isn't racist. It's also not sectarian to depict loyalists as racist. It might not be entirely fair, but there have traditionally been very strong links between northern loyalism and far-right British politics.


  • #1728
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I said the poster had form in the use of such language, and he has even produced a previous example of his usage. What value is there to repeatedly drawing attention to the fact that a Loyalist called Varadkar "the Indian" other than low-level dog-whistling racism in respect of Varadkar or sectarian depiction of Loyalism as racist? None.

    Quite simply, if you are against racism, you don't give any oxygen to racist terms and you do not use or repeat them.

    I said earlier I was going to leave it there, and I am leaving it there because I won't give any more oxygen to the disingenuous usage of such terms by posters.

    I used it in a discussion with you last February regarding what a unionist referred to him as. I used it yesterday in a discussion on how some unionists/loyalists have a view of the south. I take it you retract all your postings on Gerry Adam's tweet or your Holohan thread if any reference to a slur is to be taken as using a slur?
    You missed the part where you came on here pretending to not know the context when you knew well.
    We really need some policing on dishonest posters making claims they cannot support to try score points using such serious subjects as racism.


  • #1729
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    McMurphy wrote: »
    I judge folk on their racist/xenophobic/sectarian/homophobic tendencies on the context of their posts, and their Posting history.

    As already said - the folk jumping on that as "racist" despite knowing full well the background/context are being extremely disingenuous, and shown up for the levels they will be prepared to stoop to.

    As a comparison. For some posters it is fair game to insult, slate and make fun of politicians they dont like ie a Trump or a Boris but on the other hand if other posters write similar about a Biden or a Jacinta Arden etc suddenly it's not permitted or is called out as trolling etc.

    Almost like some people would prefer two sets of rules ie I dont like it so it's not allowed.

    That's neither realistic nor real life


  • #1730
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    Where's all this racism? I'm not sure why people don't quote all of this racism if there's so much of it? The Varadkar comment is the only thing I've seen that has actually been quoted. While the poster was clearly trying to provoke, how in the world is calling a man of Indian heritage Indian racism? Are facts now racist?

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • #1731
    .anon.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,094 ✭✭✭.anon.


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    Where's all this racism? I'm not sure why people don't quote all of this racism if there's so much of it? The Varadkar comment is the only thing I've seen that has actually been quoted. While the poster was clearly trying to provoke, how in the world is calling a man of Indian heritage Indian racism? Are facts now racist?

    Here's one for you. No sign of any facts either, just false speculation based on racial prejudice. Now, before you go all "Islam isn't a race" on me, look closely and you'll see that the poster refers not just to a Muslim, but very specifically to a "recently arrived Muslim refugee".
    Gervais08 wrote: »
    It’ll be a terror attack.
    It’ll be a recently arrived Muslim refugee
    People will make excuses

    We know the pattern by now.

    I should add that I received a yellow card for pointing this example of racism out on the thread. Which is indicative of just how little the Current Affairs mods and admins care about dealing with the forum's racism problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #1732
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    .anon. wrote: »
    Here's one for you. No sign of any facts either, just false speculation based on racial prejudice. Now, before you go all "Islam isn't a race" on me, look closely and you'll see that the poster refers not just to a Muslim, but very specifically to a "recently arrived Muslim refugee".



    I should add that I received a yellow card for pointing this example of racism out on the thread. Which is indicative of just how little the Current Affairs mods and admins care about dealing with the forum's racism problem.


    There have been literally hundreds of jihadist attacks in Europe in recent years. As recently as last week in Switzerland. And many have been traced back to recently arrived migrants/refugees. These are statistics and easily verifiable.

    The poster may have jumped the gun but it's not some rant or wild statement from left field.

    If news organisations report on the attack and attackers or if local police give information on the attack or attackers are these racist statements or are they facts?

    The poster was wrong on this occasion but recent memory would show that such claims are usually right.

    Again verifiable.


  • #1733
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    I think this is appropriate, maybe a bit of this going on?

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-anti-racism-movement-is-sowing-deeper-divisions

    "To be truly committed to racial equality, theorists argue, one must be ‘anti-racist’. Of course, no civilised person would be in favour of racism, so ‘anti-racism’ sounds a wonderful idea. However, it does not mean, as one might presume, ‘to be opposed to racism’. Rather, it is a core tenet of critical race theory which presupposes that racism permeates all human interaction. In other words, failure to observe racism does not mean that it is absent, but rather that one has not successfully detected it. As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay put it in their book Cynical Theories, the question is not ‘Did racism take place?’ but ‘How did racism manifest in that situation?’ Those trained in critical race theory are apparently uniquely qualified to make such determinations; the rest of us have to take them on faith."


  • #1734
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    How come there's a blatant rereg troll that's after having 3/4 accounts banned allowed to remain on the forum, continuing on with the exact same posting style and nonsense that got them banned to begin with?

    They're not even trying to be subtle about it either, acting the complete and utter WUM in the exact same forums as they previously were.


    Seems trolling is now ok on the site.


  • #1735
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    McMurphy wrote: »
    How come there's a blatant rereg troll that's after having 3/4 accounts banned allowed to remain on the forum, continuing on with the exact same posting style and nonsense that got them banned to begin with?

    They're not even trying to be subtle about it either, acting the complete and utter WUM in the exact same forums as they previously were.


    Seems trolling is now ok on the site.

    And I got yellowed for calling him out.

    What's going on now with the site?

    If your man's not a blatant rereg of those banned accounts, then I'm a duckbilled platypus.

    The mods and admin have their priorities wrong.


  • #1736
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Funny, the three or four accounts i see trolling the politics/current affairs sphere havent changed their names at all recently.

    We must have different definitions of the word, perhaps

    Maybe the mods do too?


  • #1737
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Funny, the three or four accounts i see trolling the politics/current affairs sphere havent changed their names at all recently.

    We must have different definitions of the word, perhaps

    Maybe the mods do too?

    How to determine if an account is a rereg of a banned troll account.

    Has the user been banned in the past for being a troll?

    No > Not a rereg of a banned troll account.

    Yes > a rereg of a banned troll account.


  • #1738
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Oh i thought it was quite clear what i meant, thank you.


  • #1739
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,196 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    McMurphy wrote: »
    How come there's a blatant rereg troll that's after having 3/4 accounts banned allowed to remain on the forum, continuing on with the exact same posting style and nonsense that got them banned to begin with?

    They're not even trying to be subtle about it either, acting the complete and utter WUM in the exact same forums as they previously were.


    Seems trolling is now ok on the site.

    I have absolutely no idea who you are referring to

    Please report and we will have a look.

    However you stating someone us a re-reg troll is not sufficient "evidence" to allow us to act. In fact it's no evidence whatsoever. We need more than that


  • #1740
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,196 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    <snip>
    You need to be on the site 3 months before you can post in Feedback


  • Advertisement
  • #1741
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Beasty wrote: »
    I have absolutely no idea who you are referring to

    Please report and we will have a look.

    However you stating someone us a re-reg troll is not sufficient "evidence" to allow us to act. In fact it's no evidence whatsoever. We need more than that

    Maybe have a word with one of the mods so, because when I queried the yellow I was told "they're aware and it's been reported to admin and being investigated"

    As admin, you're presumably part of the crowd that's investigating it, and I'm not the only poster that's noted the rereg either.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement