[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.

[.anon.]

Originally Posted by blanch152

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.

[James Brown]

Originally Posted by blanch152

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.

[ExMachina1000]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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?

[.anon.]

Originally Posted by 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?

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".

Originally Posted by Gervais08

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.

[ExMachina1000]

Originally Posted by .anon.

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.

[Sir Oxman]

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

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...eper-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."

[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.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[snoopsheep]

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?

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by snoopsheep

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.

[snoopsheep]

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

[Beasty]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Beasty]

Originally Posted by Gervais08

<snip>

You need to be on the site 3 months before you can post in Feedback