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.

Can we talk about AH?

1…34689…30

Comments

  • #152
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    I have little interest in discussing trivial things that annoy me, Michael Jackson's sexual interests, cuckolding, or where I am right now.

    My solution is to ignore those threads, and post instead in other threads.

    Why can't other people do the same instead of campaigning for legitimate threads to be shut down or endlessly whinging about "Oh no, another thread on X."


  • #153
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »
    I have little interest in discussing trivial things that annoy me, Michael Jackson's sexual interests, cuckolding, or where I am right now.

    My solution is to ignore those threads, and post instead in other threads.

    Why can't other people do the same instead of campaigning for legitimate threads to be shut down or endlessly whinging about "Oh no, another thread on X."

    There's a difference between Michael Jackson, what annoys people, where people happen to be, and cuckolding:eek:

    There's not much difference in the subject - dole. How many threads do we need on the same subject?

    If you don't see that, it's because (I guess) you most prob don't want to.


  • #154
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,545 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    B0jangles wrote: »


    It's kind of like if your local pub slowly got taken over by really loud people who just want to take about the muslim threat or the decline of masculinity, so all the people who aren't permanently in a rage about something, who just want a bit of a fun chat and some relaxed socializing start going to another pub, and then the pub becomes That Pub, the one that only the nutjobs go to. It's just bad business sense.


    I think this is quite a good analogy. Over time, it becomes a place you visit less and less as it's less fun/engaging/worthwhile each time you do visit.

    I know in my case, I opened up Ah on my laptop as usual one day, and the first thread I visited had the usual tired trope - a very obvious and later banned rereg waffling about gender and saying "can you imagine if it was the other way round, there would be uproar!!"

    I just said to myself "f**k that" and didn't go back at all that day. When I went back, it was just the same stuff. Dole scroungers, gender wars, muslims, travellers. The same old topics over and over again. All the same people saying the same things over and over again.

    Now, boards and AH doesn't owe me anything. I think there's nothing sadder than people bleating about being 'content creators' as if they are owed something.

    For me, AH was a place to waste some time and maybe have some fun. When it stopped being a good place for that, I stopped going there. There just wasn't any reason to keep going back.

    I'm sure people will feel differently about AH than I do, but I'm also sure there are others who see it the same way.


  • #155
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    There's a difference between Michael Jackson, what annoys people, where people happen to be, and cuckolding:eek:

    There's not much difference in the subject - dole. How many threads do we need on the same subject?

    If you don't see that, it's because (I guess) you most prob don't want to.

    Right now I don't see any threads about the dole on the front page of AH. On the second page, there are two dole threads that have been locked by mods.

    I don't know that this is a huge problem.

    In reality, many women object to threads criticizing women. Many social welfare recipients object to threads criticizing those on benefits. Many left-liberals object to threads criticizing immigrants or Travellers or Muslims. Many religious people object to threads criticizing the Catholic Church. And so on.

    But the proper response is to respect the fact that not all people think the same way you do. You have the choice to ignore the thread. Whinging to mods/admins that the thread is allowed to exist, or campaigning for it to be closed so that other people can't participate in a discussion that is not to your pleasing, is a de facto call for censorship.


  • #156
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Condemning people (individuals and groups) for their behaviour needs to be allowed - fear of doing so has led to how polarised things have become now.

    Condemning people because of who they are though - not cool. So those who bitch about women (not feminism or specific women, but women full stop) should be told go away to some woman hating corner of the internet. God knows there are plenty of them. And absolutely ditto for posts and threads having a go at men, but they practically don't happen on Boards.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »
    Right now I don't see any threads about the dole on the front page of AH.
    I wonder why.....
    On the second page, there are two dole threads that have been locked by mods.
    I wonder no more.
    I don't know that this is a huge problem.

    In reality, many women object to threads criticizing women. Many social welfare recipients object to threads criticizing those on benefits. Many left-liberals object to threads criticizing immigrants or Travellers or Muslims. Many religious people object to threads criticizing the Catholic Church. And so on.

    But the proper response is to respect the fact that not all people think the same way you do. You have the choice to ignore the thread. Whinging to mods/admins that the thread is allowed to exist, or campaigning for it to be closed so that other people can't participate in a discussion that is not to your pleasing, is a de facto call for censorship.

    Oh I am not asking for censorship, far from it, in fact I am able to say with quite a clear conscience that I've never even reported a post or thread that is about the dolers/social welfare, never mind whinge to a mod or admin.

    What I am saying however is, there's a clear and evident rise in the sheer number of similar minded threads, many of them dole related. (I even stated they should just shunt them off I to their own megathread and let them shadow box in there for days on end)

    There's just too many threads of the same vein clogging up the front pages these days, and (IMO) could be turning people away.


  • #158
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    This kind of inconsistency is so annoying:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109291602&postcount=212

    An "attack the post, not the poster" would have been sufficient. Then there are others getting away with far worse.


  • #159
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    I think AH should ban all threads that offend me personally and leave the others up there (sarcasm)

    Many people today, instead of destroying racist or sexist posts with logic and reason, instead want them banned when they don't "win" the argument. When you resort to censorship you lose automatically. If you can't convince people say that the Holocaust really happened, and instead censor anyone who talks about it, you are feeding into the conspiracy theory. And sometimes you will find facts that destroy your ideas thst make you change your mind - as has happened to me on several occasions - and that's a GOOD THING.

    Some of the more extreme feminists on boards and I don't see eye to eye, but the difference is I would NEVER ask them to be banned. In fairness none of them have asked that I be banned either. That's the way it should be.

    I for one value the open discussion. You get to see what people are really thinking as opposed to what the heavily censored media tells you.

    There are plenty of issues that are huge where there are genuine concerns that would be censored - e.g. The east Asian paedophile rings in the UK. Some would want all discussion of that censored and anyone bringing it up labelled a racist, even though it was a huge problem and the numbers are staggering. This is not the same as saying you hate all Muslims.

    Everyone sees the asshole rereg people for what they are. Maybe there should be a minimum post count for posting in AH.

    I grew up in a Catholic Ireland where lots of stuff was banned to protect the moral purity and I never want to go back there.

    I agree that AH is certainly not light hearted anymore. Problem is the censorship in the other boards (e.g. Politics) is pretty tight so it's hard to have a really open discussion. Maybe there should be a different board called Controversial Issues or something where pretty much anything goes? Where there is light touch censorship, and leave AH for light hearted topics. Not sure though as that would attract all the tinfoil hat Muslim haters.

    Out and out sexism or racism should be banned or personal attacks.against individual posters. Everything else should be fair game.


  • #160
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »
    This kind of inconsistency is so annoying:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109291602&postcount=212

    An "attack the post, not the poster" would have been sufficient. Then there are others getting away with far worse.


    Inconsistency compared to what?


  • #161
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    What I am saying however is, there's a clear and evident rise in the sheer number of similar minded threads, many of them dole related.

    Maybe they should all be merged?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    There aren't extreme feminists on After Hours professore. Criticism of misogyny is not even feminism, let alone extreme feminism.
    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    Inconsistency compared to what?
    That <snip> person not being banned.


  • #163
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »
    There aren't extreme feminists on After Hours professore. Criticism of misogyny is not even feminism, let alone extreme feminism.

    That sk8rboii person not being banned.


    Did they say the exact same thing and both have the same ban/card history?


  • #164
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 10,254 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    professore wrote: »
    Many people today, instead of destroying racist or sexist posts with logic and reason, instead want them banned when they don't "win" the argument.

    How can you win/lose an argument on sexism or racism though? It shouldn't be up for argument, and a ban for such carry on should be obvious and not at all contentious...


  • #165
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dulpit wrote: »
    How can you win/lose an argument on sexism or racism though? It shouldn't be up for argument, and a ban for such carry on should be obvious and not at all contentious...

    The arguments are usually about whether or not something was racist, not an actual debate about races.


  • #166
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 10,254 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The arguments are usually about whether or not something was racist, not an actual debate about races.

    It's usually pretty obvious, but people start saying things like "X isn't a race". Still obviously racist.


  • #167
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dulpit wrote: »
    It's usually pretty obvious, but people start saying things like "X isn't a race". Still obviously racist.

    Some people have a hair trigger for shouting racist. I don't know you but you could be one of them.


  • #168
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    People would have more manners if more bans were handed out.

    We should shut down the dispute resolution forum completely, segregate the mods completely so they can only deal with their own forums, remove the ability for threads to be moved, and just let at it. If an overzealous mod kills a forum, then so be it. That traffic will move to another forum. It's up to the mods to decide what topics go in their forum based on what they want, not based on what other forums are available.

    Also, Coventry should be brought back. Mods should be able to put any poster on a global ignore so that they can keep posting but nobody can see their posts in that forum.


  • #169
    keepalive213
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭keepalive213


    Boards needs to look for mods who are Traveller - Vegan - cyclists and on social welfare.
    Does such a person exist.


  • #170
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    There's a difference between Michael Jackson, what annoys people, where people happen to be, and cuckolding:eek:

    There's not much difference in the subject - dole. How many threads do we need on the same subject?

    If you don't see that, it's because (I guess) you most prob don't want to.

    The point he's making is, if people keep participating in the subject, it's going to keep coming up. Leave it be and let it die a dignified death.


  • #171
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »
    This kind of inconsistency is so annoying:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109291602&postcount=212

    An "attack the post, not the poster" would have been sufficient. Then there are others getting away with far worse.

    And you say that without any insight whatsoever into the users infraction history.

    How many times do you think we should say "Attack the post not the poster" to a single user?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    dulpit wrote: »
    It's usually pretty obvious, but people start saying things like "X isn't a race". Still obviously racist.

    Blatant disregard for facts is also a bigots tactic. X isn't a race is used on both sides when determining racism as it suits them.


  • #173
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »
    There aren't extreme feminists on After Hours professore. Criticism of misogyny is not even feminism, let alone extreme feminism.

    There are so many things wrong with these statements I don't know where to start. The first statement is a blanket statement which you can't possibly stand over, unless you can read the minds of everyone on Boards - or you believe no feminism is too extreme.

    The second sentence is a strawman - i.e. the only thing these shrinking violet feminists do is attack evil misogynists - i.e. anyone who disagrees with them in any way whatsoever.

    It's people with ideas like you have that make me think people saying horrible things is bad but having a censor like this is worse.


  • #174
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    professore wrote: »
    Maybe they should all be merged?

    You think?

    From the very next sentence of my post you quoted.
    (I even stated they should just shunt them off I to their own megathread and let them shadow box in there for days on end)


  • #175
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    You think?

    From the very next sentence of my post you quoted.

    I'm agreeing with you!


  • #176
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Nixonbot wrote: »
    And you say that without any insight whatsoever into the users infraction history.

    How many times do you think we should say "Attack the post not the poster" to a single user?
    Fair enough but people can go only by what is in front of them and it is definitely the case that people get banned for less than others. A person who is barely known got banned for using the word "pavee" ffs.
    professore wrote: »
    There are so many things wrong with these statements I don't know where to start.
    So many things as in... two? You did know where to start by the way - it's really not that astounding a statement.
    The first statement is a blanket statement which you can't possibly stand over, unless you can read the minds of everyone on Boards - or you believe no feminism is too extreme.
    The way you seem to think you can read the minds of all women as you demonstrate every time a thread having a go at women pops up? ;)

    Ok so, no extreme feminist posts. There was one purveyor of such posts - Midlandsmissus, who is deservedly banned. Otherwise, where is the extreme feminism? Oh I very much do think there is extreme feminism - I think feminism today has gone insane and I detest it. So if you want to depict me as one of those feminists, soz - you couldn't be more wrong. But where on Boards is this extreme feminism?
    The second sentence is a strawman - i.e. the only thing these shrinking violet feminists do is attack evil misogynists - i.e. anyone who disagrees with them in any way whatsoever.
    Nope. The above sentence is what's the strawman. What are you on about? "Anyone who disagrees with them in any way whatsoever"? Only you said that. I said nothing of the sort. It's not complicated - if someone says extremely negative things about women (and a handful do on After Hours) - I didn't say anything whatsoever about just disagreeing (really, very disingenuous way of arguing), objecting to this is not feminism, let alone extreme feminism. As mentioned: the thread about the French guy, the Amazon guy's divorce and the paternity testing one - no extreme feminism, just women objecting to hostility towards women (and not mere disagreement).
    It's people with ideas like you have that make me think people saying horrible things is bad but having a censor like this is worse.
    What are you rambling on about? Talk about deliberate misinterpretation. Where on my post that you quoted did I allude to censorship?

    If anything what you say could be applied to you - that you think people who just disagree with toxic anti women views are therefore feminist.

    And there isn't man hating on After Hours. There certainly is elsewhere in the internet but not on After Hours/Boards in general.


  • #177
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    professore wrote: »
    I'm agreeing with you!

    Sorry Prof, absolutely took that up the wrong way so. :o


  • #178
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,464 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The most obvious manifestation of the hard push to the extreme right was the Presidential election poll, where Casey ended up with more than 50% of the vote, more than double what he got in the real world. So in broad terms, boards.ie has twice as many extreme right posters as the national average. Boards.ie is a good 44% more racist than Tipperary - Casey's best performing constituency.

    It seems that the powers that be are happy for Boards to turn into gammon-central. Personally, I'm not sure it bodes well, given the ageing demographic. It's probably not a hugely attractive market for advertisers either.


    Not to single out one individual poster - but this right here is a microcosm of the attitudes that are poisoning AH.

    Posters with entrenched views/feelings to either the left or the right will complain and get outraged by the "other side" doing stuff that they are doing themselves.

    Case in point - complains about racism whilst using racist terms to describe those he complains about. Not trying to single out the specific poster - but it's behaviour that seems to be rife amongst far too many threads across AH.
    Both sides continually engaging in it, whilst turing a blind eye to anything from posters who agree with them. No wonder everything descends into trench warfare


  • #179
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »
    The way you seem to think you can read the minds of all women as you demonstrate every time a thread having a go at women pops up?

    This is extremely unfair. I don't have a go at all women. But this is very much off topic.


  • #180
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    professore wrote: »
    This is extremely unfair. I don't have a go at all women.
    Welcome to our world when we get accused of man hating just for criticising hostility towards women! ;)

    No seriously, I know you don't. What i do see from you though is a tendency to generalise about women negatively on threads started by others to have a go at women. You don't say horrifically nasty things but you do appear to be biased in the "women are worse for xyz" direction.

    Men and women are different but when it comes to bad behaviour, neither has the monopoly.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Not to single out one individual poster - but this right here is a microcosm of the attitudes that are poisoning AH.

    Posters with entrenched views/feelings to either the left or the right will complain and get outraged by the "other side" doing stuff that they are doing themselves.

    Case in point - complains about racism whilst using racist terms to describe those he complains about. Not trying to single out the specific poster - but it's behaviour that seems to be rife amongst far too many threads across AH.
    Both sides continually engaging in it, whilst turing a blind eye to anything from posters who agree with them. No wonder everything descends into trench warfare
    Exactly. The far right crowd can be nasty as hell but they'll usually get banned. The far left crowd can be every bit as nasty - sometimes worse because they seem to feel they have more of a licence to be.

    It's usually only those in the middle who get annoyed by assholery from both "sides".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement