Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Beasty wrote: »

It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

That's why I started the thread because I thought somebody else would have started it and thought my take on it would be tamer than some.
I also shared information about what it's like to work in hospitality industry and basically what the owners expect the staff to do.

Beasty wrote: »

It's not a thread I would intend posting in. It is a thread we may well see some problems with. However we do not dictate to mods what they can or cannot post. they are as free to start a thread as anyone else. In this particular case I think there's a fair chance someone else would have started a thread on this topic anyway

I wouldnt ever suggest you can dictate what mods can and cannot post but lets face it, this is just an indirect invitation for traveller bashing. I stand by my original point. Mods shouldnt be encouraging discriminatory behaviour.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I wouldnt ever suggest you can dictate what mods can and cannot post but lets face it, this is just an indirect invitation for traveller bashing. I stand by my original point. Mods shouldnt be encouraging discriminatory behaviour.

I read the thread only because it's mentioned here. I can't see any bashing & I think that the word "bashing" is used as an excuse too often.

For example we have had threads closed under the excuse of Garda bashing & justifiable debate has been closed down.

I don't know that it is being encouraged.

But more to the point, how do you avoid telling mods what not to post, while at the same time telling them what not to post.

I think the split between AH and current affairs is working very well and a vast improvement on the previous system. Well done those involved.

KyussB wrote: »

Here is - literally - the list of things that are considered Communist:

I'm not even joking - these are the things that have illicited branding of views, as Communist - by like, at least 4-5 posters. It's fucking bizarre.

And the list of things which often result in a user being labelled a racist or a fascist is equally as long, if not longer, and I can assure you that those who have these labels foisted upon them find them equally as infuriating as those who are unjustifiably called commies. Only recently in the Politics forum I was told that my not accepting that Donald Trump is a racist means I am a racist too. It's not one way traffic.

These lazy labels are being flung left and right (literally, as well as figuratively) all over Boards and for sure mostly they are lazy and nonsensical as rarely will a user have said anything which will have justified such a scurrilous claim. It is, of course, generally though just a last ditch attempt at discrediting a user as more often than not they're indulged in by those who have very little else to say in the way of a retort.

The way I look at it is this: as long as mods are being even handed, well then that is the most important thing. Where mods draw the line is not nearly as important (imo) as them subjecting all users to the same standard of posting. You suggest that you want mods to action someone that implies a user is a communist. Fine, but then mods will have to action all suggestions that a user is a fascist / racist too. You can't action one and not the other. If you do, then you will be subjected one side to rules which the other side is not and that just results in animosity.

Personally I think the more left leaning users should just learn to take it on the chin a bit more. The rest of us have had to grow accustomed to the regular character assassination attempts over the years. What makes you lot so special. If nothing else, actioning such claims would make moderaton a hell of a lot harder as mods would have to scroll back through multiple posts on a regular basis to see if a user has said anything to have warranted them being labelled a commie or a fascist.

Personally, I kinda like that users can claim I'm a racist or a fascist without it resulting in them being actioned, as making such unwarranted claims make them look irrational and so again I say what I said to the mod before: if users make ridiculous claims (as you're alleging such claims to be) then it shouldn't be too hard to make short work of them and show that what they've suggested is utterly preposterous and totally without grounds.

KyussB wrote: »

I mean, it's whataboutery again - the things which trigger red-baiting, are not comparable to things which trigger branding of other '-isms' (in the former, the level of farcical comparisons, to the point that it is not credible that the poster believes what they are saying, is notably different) - and the branding of other '-isms', isn't usually used to encourage mobbing/backslapping and obstruction of debate in the way that red-baiting is. Again, I don't want mod intervention - I'd report posts if I did - but I do want to know when something is considered as crossing over into trolling. Big difference between the occasional once-off throwing around of an '-ism' (who cares...) - and it becoming a consistent, near-endlessly-repeated response, in lieu of actual arguments, and combined with mobbing (starting to get a lot closer to trolling).

You are so hung up on your theme of 'isms' you have become completely blind to the fact that in the discussions to which you refer to - you have l laid out a centrally controlled collective labour political state system.

No one is calling you a 'communist' btw - from what I have seen in the threads to which you refer posters are saying that the political system you are advocating as an alleged solution to climate change is. Do you understand that?

If the political system closest to what you are proposing is in fact 'communism' - then that is not the fault of those who point those similarities out. That you do not like people highlighting this is the case is immaterial and irrelevant.

If you really want to show that your ideas are not a form of 'communism' (for want of a better word) - then set out your stall and show how the political / state system you are proposing is not a form of communism. So far you have completely failed to do so - as far as I can see.

How can you seriously continue to accuse posters of being mean to you and being trolls" when your grievance in reality lies in a failure to defend your argument in any shape or form? And that's the issue in a nutshell.

As for the repeated denial of any wish for mod action, then it has to be asked - then why the constant repetition of the same again and again and asking it to be labelled trolling and therefore actionable? Tbh the contant whinging is little more than ridiculous at this point.

batgoat wrote: »

I would say the forum has managed to end up becoming incredibly toxic in a pretty short space of time.

It has become the absolute sh!thole everybody knew it would become.


Far, far too much leniency given to posters whose intent to do nothing other than post in bad faith and spew shyte is obvious after just a few posts.

KyussB wrote: »

The fuck*...it even follows into this thread - zero argument, just a statement that I expressed views of a "centrally controlled collective labour political state system" that this poster themselves knows full well that I did not express - they know that not a single part of any of my posts referred to collective labour, nor central control. It's precisely the same as accusing a person of advocating e.g. eugenics, when they never said anything like that in their posts, and therefore they are racist/fascist.Not only that, but this statement made without any attempt at backing it up, then has the burden of proof flipped completely 180 - so that I'm supposed to prove a negative - that I didn't say that.That's not a valid "difference of opinion" - that is flat out making shit* up, that the poster 100% knows is untrue, with no evidence/backup, then saying the burden of proof is on the accused to disprove it - and that is what sets it apart from every other example of accusation of an '-ism' thrown around.Show me anything remotely comparable to that. Tell me how that is not tantamount to trolling...

It is you who have brought up this very issue here. I agree it's defintly not the place to attack others because your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

However let's have the full facts not just your opinion on it. It's not one poster saying the political system you are trying to promote is akin to communism. More importantly you have failed to show otherwise despite being asked to do so.

Specifically you have called for "direct government involvement and spending in the economy" - you have also called for the "massive mobilization of labour" by the government. How is any of that not a call for a centrally controlled / collective labour political state system? Link

And the scale of what you are proposing that governments wield political/economic power to mobilize workers at a 'massive' scale 

KyussB wrote:

This has to be done at a scale and in a timely enough manner, that the private sector has proven itself incapable of - which means it requires direct government action to achieve this

Posters pointing this out are not being mean and your accusations of trolling are simply puerile at best.

And the funniest thing of all is no one absolutely no one is calling you a "communist". If they have please detail where.

So yes there is no reason for the throwing such daft accusations here other than attempting to win an argument by proxy and labeling anyone who disagrees with you a troll.