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

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Options
1…1011131516…79

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    batgoat wrote: »
    Seems to be a fair few of those trolls that are covering loads of threads.

    Some of the same accounts for sure. Sometimes different but using the same language. Disruptive misleading contrarian but not contributing


  • Options
    #363
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    In the last week or so, there's now a group who seem to target people over their job status. Sometimes based on their postings but regardless incredibly nasty. And it's basically the same group engaging in racism etc. It's like the quality of posting is acceptably dropping off a cliff.


  • Options
    #364
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    batgoat wrote: »
    In the last week or so, there's now a group who seem to target people over their job status. Sometimes based on their postings but regardless incredibly nasty. And it's basically the same group engaging in racism etc. It's like the quality of posting is acceptably dropping off a cliff.

    It’s remarkable. There’s a guy pretending to be a gay guy attacking everyone in that admittedly hostile thread. He’s clearly a troll. Fighting against a homophobic troll in fairness among others.
    There’s another guy pretending be a staunch gaeilgeoir in the Irish language death knell thread using exactly the same inane attack everyone nonsense the first guy is.
    See it all over the forums. Same MO same no/low post count re reg, post in the same topics usually GAA to start then move into the controversial ones with their pungent opinions.
    Pointless blocking as you’d be all day an people keep replying to them and feeding it. And around it bloody goes.


  • Options
    #365
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    Disruptive misleading contrarian but not contributing



    jesus i hate to be so bold, but have you ever seen anyone you agree with post in a manner that you would describe as disruptive or not contributing?

    have you ever posted like this yourself?

    have you done so in the past few days?

    i mean, id say you have. and for clarity when i myself see a post or poster ripe for a zing i usually cant help myself. but im not in here every ten minutes crying for policy intervention (tbh i reckon the mods are too quick to action me for my quality zing game :) )



    the usual rejoinder to these complaints is that the designation "troll" seems to have more to do with the position you take than the actual manner of posting or behaviour, and tbh it would seem to apply here also


  • Options
    #366
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    jesus i hate to be so bold, but have you ever seen anyone you agree with post in a manner that you would describe as disruptive or not contributing?

    have you ever posted like this yourself?

    have you done so in the past few days?

    i mean, id say you have. and for clarity when i myself see a post or poster ripe for a zing i usually cant help myself. but im not in here every ten minutes crying for policy intervention (tbh i reckon the mods are too quick to action me for my quality zing game :) )



    the usual rejoinder to these complaints is that the designation "troll" seems to have more to do with the position you take than the actual manner of posting or behaviour, and tbh it would seem to apply here also

    Well of course in the normal rough and tumble of spirited debate. There’s people being openly and consistently homophobic in that thread, being fed by one or two people that even a cursory glance at their posts shows it to be antagonistic and just out for trouble. Both are suspect if you look at their posts.
    They were two worthy conversations too and both fell off a cliff quite quickly as people left and the antagonists took hold.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fair enough we're not miles apart on it i dont think


  • Options
    #368
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    The stuff actually being tolerated seems to be stuff that would have been viewed as unacceptable in after hours.... The 'How are ye dealing with the compulsory homosexuality in Ireland?' descended into absolutely homophobia and has been like that for the last week. This was poster earlier this afternoon.
    It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of clerical sexual abusers were Homosexual men and the majority of victims were boys.
    If thats uncomfortable for you then so be it.

    I'm inclined to say the issues with the forum aren't going to improve at this stage.


  • Options
    #369
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    batgoat wrote: »
    The stuff actually being tolerated seems to be stuff that would have been viewed as unacceptable in after hours.... The 'How are ye dealing with the compulsory homosexuality in Ireland?' descended into absolutely homophobia and has been like that for the last week. This was poster earlier this afternoon.


    I'm inclined to say the issues with the forum aren't going to improve at this stage.

    Can you point out to me what is factually incorrect in the above statements?


  • Options
    #370
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Beasty wrote: »
    Can you point out to me what is factually incorrect in the above statements?

    Abusers of children target those who are most available to them. In the case of child sexual abuse in the church, boys were the most available hence more boys being abused. This is what the actual research shows btw. So claiming that the majority abusers in the Catholic church were 'homosexual' is nonsense. Also you see nothing incendiary about posting crap like that? Diving in to link paedophilia with homosexuality?

    For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

    Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).

    ...
    Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

    https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html


  • Options
    #371
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    batgoat wrote: »
    Abusers of children target those who are most available to them. In the case of child sexual abuse in the church, boys were the most available hence more boys being abused. This is what the actual research shows btw. So claiming that the majority abusers in the Catholic church were 'homosexual' is nonsense.

    So why don't you post that in the thread rather than assume everyone interprets the comment the same way as you, and indeed trying to then make a big play of it over here

    When I saw the post I saw nothing wrong with it, but a simple correction in-thread was all that was needed


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Beasty wrote: »
    So why don't you post that in the thread rather than assume everyone interprets the comment the same way as you, and indeed trying to then make a big play of it over here

    When I saw the post I saw nothing wrong with it, but a simple correction in-thread was all that was needed

    To be fair it's been pretty well established that there isn't generally a link between the sexual abuse of minors and the sexuality of the abuser so it is easy to assume that when someone does try to link the two that they are trying to associate homosexuality with paedophilia.


  • Options
    #373
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Beasty wrote: »
    So why don't you post that in the thread rather than assume everyone interprets the comment the same way as you, and indeed trying to then make a big play of it over here

    When I saw the post I saw nothing wrong with it, but a simple correction in-thread was all that was needed

    Because the poster is clearly trying to push a particular implication(later said "But its totally unacceptable and completely out of bounds to point out when Homosexual Males are statistically overrepresented within certain contexts.") and to engage in it will do absolutely nothing. But it's great to know the general quality of post that's acceptable. Thanks for clearing that up.


  • Options
    #374
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Ward J. Littell wrote: »
    To be fair it's been pretty well established that there isn't generally a link between the sexual abuse of minors and the sexuality of the abuser so it is easy to assume that when someone does try to link the two that they are trying to associate homosexuality with paedophilia.

    I did not and do not interpret the post that way

    As I said though a simple note explaining that from the complainant would avoid escalating it in this way


  • Options
    #375
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,808 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Beasty wrote: »
    I did not and do not interpret the post that way

    I'm actually shocked at that. To me there are obvious attempts to more or less say all gay men are child abusers and linking homosexuality to paedophilia. I don't get how it could be interpreted differently. Why mention the sexual orientation of child abusers if you are not trying to demonstrate a link?

    In relation to that thread I think the moderation on it was terrible. I would have thought suggesting Ireland is "pussified" to be unacceptable homophobia/mysogyny but I didn't see any moderators calling it out.

    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



  • Options
    #376
    Mr E
    Registered Users Posts: 55,451 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    In relation to that thread I think the moderation on it was terrible. I would have thought suggesting Ireland is "pussified" to be unacceptable homophobia/mysogyny but I didn't see any moderators calling it out.

    That was 4 days ago. I just checked the reported posts forum for 'pussified'. Nothing there...

    We rely on users to report posts they deem offensive. We can't read every post in every thread.

    FWIW, plenty of posters have been carded and banned in that thread. I count 7 cards in the last 5 days. Mods will react to reported posts, if they are actionable.


  • Options
    #377
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    No real interest in the subject matter but I have just read that thread to see what all the fuss was about and I really don't get what the issue is.
    Ward J. Littell wrote: »
    To be fair it's been pretty well established that there isn't generally a link between the sexual abuse of minors and the sexuality of the abuser so it is easy to assume that when someone does try to link the two that they are trying to associate homosexuality with paedophilia.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I'm actually shocked at that. To me there are obvious attempts to more or less say all gay men are child abusers and linking homosexuality to paedophilia. I don't get how it could be interpreted differently. Why mention the sexual orientation of child abusers if you are not trying to demonstrate a link?

    Seems to me the argument both of you are making is that a user is wrong and you want them actioned for it. I'm probably sounding like a broken record at this stage but you should be delighted that they are saying what they are as it gives you chance to make a show of them by posting up the relevant research leaving it in no doubt that their opinion has no basis in fact.
    In relation to that thread I think the moderation on it was terrible. I would have thought suggesting Ireland is "pussified" to be unacceptable homophobia/mysogyny but I didn't see any moderators calling it out.

    Again it would seem you want a user moderated for having a view you believe is wrong. Are you not a little bit more thick skinned than that? Seems to me some users had no trouble responding to it anyway.

    For years there were threads in Feedback criticising Boards for a level of over-moderation that had stifled the place to the point that it was hemorrhaging users. I know you were never one of the mods/users who believed that over-moderation was an issue. Either way, it would appear to me that there is somewhat of a desire to moderate CA in a manner which is a little less zealous and frankly I think it's a good thing.

    Don't get me wrong, there are lots of stuff I'd sure love moderators to action on the regular. I could list a dozen things which annoy me that users often post which I believe to be factual inaccurate, ad hominem in nature or just downright baiting, but that's the nature of debate which is not being over-moderated and so I need to just follow my own advice there I guess and not expect mods to come and pamper me.

    As long as the line in the sand is the same one all users are being subjected to, with regards to the rules, and moderation is largely consistent, as opposed to only applying to one side of a discussion, then no user should really have a problem. Again that is something which I feel was a major factor before but it would seem that an effort is being made to address that too.

    tl;dr

    If someone is wrong, or appears to have an agenda, roll up your sleeves and post a reply which leaves that in no doubt. That will frustrate such users far more than being moderated actually will. As then they can't pretend that they were right and moderators stopped them from proving it.


  • Options
    #378
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,808 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I always thought the 'child molester = gay' thing was cardable. Apparently not.

    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



  • Options
    #379
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Beasty wrote: »
    I did not and do not interpret the post that way

    As I said though a simple note explaining that from the complainant would avoid escalating it in this way


    Beasty can I ask, what way do you interpret the post?

    From my understanding and in the context in which it was posted, I’m failing to come up with any alternative explanation other than an attempt to claim a link between child abuse and the sexual orientation of the perpetrators. The obligation is on the poster making the claims to provide evidence for their claims, and seeing as there was no evidence provided in their post, I dismissed their claims as complete nonsense rather than entertain them.

    Their claim didn’t make me uncomfortable, because I know it to be complete nonsense. I would suggest their attempt to bait posters into entertaining their nonsense constitutes being a dick though and IMO should have been a cardable offence for it’s implied association in what I would see as a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of other posters - the implication being of course that if anyone was uncomfortable with that posters claims it wasn’t their problem. I would suggest that their claims are their problem, because all posters here are responsible for the content of their posts, and they shouldn’t be permitted to suggest responsibility for their claims or the consequences of their claims, are anyone else’s problem.


  • Options
    #380
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I always thought the 'child molester = gay' thing was cardable. Apparently not.

    Okay, so that's what you feel the user was essentially saying but you can't (imo) expect mods to card and ban users because they have expressed wrongheaded views (no matter how abhorrent or idiotic they are).

    That user believes that because the vast majority of abusers in the church were men, and victims boys, that therefore those men must have all been gay - clearly a foolish thing to think, much less say.... but why does users replying to them, and showing precisely how (and why) what they said was foolish not suffice... is my point. What do you want them carded for?

    There's been a few replies to the post since they posted, most of which made the user look to be not the brightest and so doesn't that help dispel bigotry and ignorance far more than cards would? Don't you see that when you muzzle a user they can hide behind that. Whereas refuting their view and leaving it in no doubt that what they said was preposterous, means they don't have that option any longer.

    Just don't get the obsession some have with wanting users carded and/or banned and I actually think it's an issue we are dealing with in society at large given that there have been campaigns to not allow certain guests appear on TLLS, for example. Some seem to want all dissenting voices removed from society. Only one opinion allowed.

    No issue with the following mod intervention by the way, although I do think had more users done what they should have done it most likely wouldn't have been needed.
    If you wish to continue posting in this thread, provide actual proof to back up that statement. Otherwise, don't post in this thread again.

    If a user continues to make a line of argument despite it being shown to be totally and utterly false, then that's of course a different issue, and becomes more about them having a desire to derai/troll than actually, and genuinely, having an opinion which the majority of people do not agree with, which happens quite a bit too.


  • Options
    #381
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Okay, so that's what you feel the user was essentially saying but you can't (imo) expect mods to card and ban users because they have expressed wrongheaded views (no matter how abhorrent or idiotic they are).

    That user believes that because the vast majority of abusers in the church were men, and victims boys, that therefore those men must have all been gay - clearly a foolish thing to think, much less say.... but why does users replying to them, and showing precisely how (and why) what they said was foolish not suffice... is my point. What do you want them carded for?

    ...

    If a user continues to make a line of argument despite it being shown to be totally and utterly false, then that's of course a different issue, and becomes more about them having a desire to derai/troll than actually, and genuinely, having an opinion which the majority of people do not agree with, which happens quite a bit too.


    It wasn’t just the expression of a wrong-headed view though Pete. I didn’t even care that it was just ill-informed nonsense. It was the way in which the view was expressed though, as “undeniable fact”? It’s clearly neither of those things as it is easily deniable if I cared to, and it is certainly not a fact. To claim that if their claims made anyone else uncomfortable it wasn’t their problem, I was of a mind to suggest would they ever go and shìte, but I couldn’t say that because it would likely be carded as uncivil.

    I’m not suggesting any double standards be applied here or anything else, I’d say the same of any posters attitude to other posters regardless of their opinions. That’s why I asked Beasty how did he interpret the post when he didn’t appear to see what other posters are seeing. Beasty didn’t mention in his post how he actually interpreted the post.

    I think it was a deliberate attempt to troll other posters, regardless of whether or not the user themselves believe what they posted (I’m sure they do, it’s just not relevant whether they believe it or not). The point is the way they expressed their opinion and the context in which they expressed their opinions.

    I don’t think they were attempting to argue anything in good faith, and I’m one of the most charitable posters in terms of trying to interpret a posters post through the lens of arguments made in good faith and with no malicious intent. I’m just not seeing anything other than a bad faith claim made with malicious intent in that post tbh.

    That’s why I’m curious to know how Beasty is interpreting the post and are they interpreting the post in their capacity as a normal poster in the forum, or as an Administrator of the site, because to me allowing a post like that to stand sets a terrible precedent for the way posters are or aren’t to be encouraged to engage with other posters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,551 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Let's not kid ourselves that the user in question posted in good faith and actually gives a sh!t whether what they claimed was true or not, and that this was some kind of 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' moment.


  • Options
    #383
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,808 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    What do you want them carded for?

    For breaking points 1,2 and 3 of the forum charter.

    1 Dont be a dick - The poster is clearly being a dick here. He is deliberately coming in with trollish posting to inflame harsh responses against himself
    2 The premise of his argument clearly linking gay men with paedophilia is based in hate and false mistruths. By repeating such slurs he is posting posts that are hateful, abusive, false and inaccurate
    3 A post like this is uncivil, deliberately tried to spread hate speech and to troll in order to receive inflammatory responses.

    In my view an on thread warning was very lenient. Lets not pretend this was a discussion where he actually wanted to debate the issue in a civil manner.

    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



  • Options
    #384
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,972 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Okay, so that's what you feel the user was essentially saying but you can't (imo) expect mods to card and ban users because they have expressed wrongheaded views (no matter how abhorrent or idiotic they are). ..........


    So every time somebody says gay men are all paedophiles or imply same we have to humour them as if it was the first time it was trotted out?


    Do we have to do the same when somebody espouses antiquated racist views? Sexism? Society has moved on, why should we tolerate this crap.


  • Options
    #385
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Also, it wasn't until I reported his followup post that there was any form of actioning. It's pretty easy to spot when a poster wants to have a genuine discussion, that one was pretty obviously a homophobic nonsense. But I guess that is what that thread descended into in general. Minimal moderation and hateful rhetoric is tolerated across the board.


  • Options
    #386
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    So along with ‘jokes’ about children being harmed and traveller bashing, we can add gay-bashing to the list of acceptable mindsets.

    Great work.


  • Options
    #387
    This is it
    Registered Users Posts: 5,185 ✭✭✭This is it


    Faugheen wrote: »
    So along with ‘jokes’ about children being harmed and traveller bashing, we can add gay-bashing to the list of acceptable mindsets.

    Great work.

    I would say that generally it's not acceptable and it's disingenuous to say otherwise, though I'm not sure what the difference is here. To me it's clearly a case of a poster linking homosexuality with pedophilia. I'm not sure how Beasty, or anyone else, could interpret it any other way.

    I do also agree with Pete in some ways. The best way to silence posters like that is to prove them wrong, however proving them wrong and mod actions shouldn't be mutually exclusive, both would be appropriate in my opinion.


  • Options
    #388
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,527 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Just out of curiosity, could this thread actually be moved to the “Current Affairs” forum?

    Or even a “complaints” thread could be stickied in there so that the forum denizens could have their little vent and tattle on each other.

    The tide is turning…



  • Options
    #389
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    The current affairs forum is like the radio forum in that it can be fun to visit occasionally and even post the odd time. But you thank your lucky stars that your life ended up differently to those of the obsessive 20 hours a day posters.


  • Options
    #390
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Just to initially repeat the wording in question
    It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of clerical sexual abusers were Homosexual men and the majority of victims were boys.
    If thats uncomfortable for you then so be it.

    Now it's not an area I would claim any particular knowledge/understanding of, and I fully accept how I interpret the wording may be very different from someone else's interpretation. I also accept that what I am going to say may be factually incorrect, but I do think it's a reasonable way that it could be interpreted by the "uninitiated"

    My reading was the poster was saying that (male) clerical abusers who typically abused boys would typically be homosexual. He was certainly not saying homosexual=paedophile.

    Again I accept these interpretations may not be factually correct, but in my view it is a reasonable conclusion for the "uninitiated" to draw. Hence looking at it that way I did not think any action was required. Equally as I have already mentioned twice, it would have been very easy for someone to post a clarification if they felt the wording was either ambiguous or inaccurate

    So I apologiise if I have got this completely wrong, but if I can get this so wrong I'm not going to punish someone else for getting it equally wrong


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,808 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Beasty wrote: »
    Just to initially repeat the wording in question



    Now it's not an area I would claim any particular knowledge/understanding of, and I fully accept how I interpret the wording may be very different from someone else's interpretation. I also accept that what I am going to say may be factually incorrect, but I do think it's a reasonable way that it could be interpreted by the "uninitiated"

    My reading was the poster was saying that (male) clerical abusers who typically abused boys would typically be homosexual. He was certainly not saying homosexual=paedophile.

    Again I accept these interpretations may not be factually correct, but in my view it is a reasonable conclusion for the "uninitiated" to draw. Hence looking at it that way I did not think any action was required. Equally as I have already mentioned twice, it would have been very easy for someone to post a clarification if they felt the wording was either ambiguous or inaccurate

    So I apologiise if I have got this completely wrong, but if I can get this so wrong I'm not going to punish someone else for getting it equally wrong


    I think you have got it wrong. The way in which the poster said that what he is saying may be uncomfortable does suggest a homophobic undertone and that the poster is aware of this too.

    From what I can see a good few other posters interpreted it that way too. My own view on this was that the poster was saying "gay=child abuser" and to link homosexuality and paedophilia together. It may have been subtle and perhaps indirect but I do think that was the clear implication of what was being said. I also think that "gay=child abuser" type posts are quite seriously hateful, false, bigoted and homophobic and break points 1,2 and 3 of the forum charter and in that context would deserve a minimum yellow card.

    Personally I was the victim/target of homophobic bullying for approximately 12 years. This has had numerous negatibe consequences on my life including contempating suicide at 13. I am quite sensitive to homophobia as a result because for me it is personal. I dont believe thats necessarily a bad thing though I know many here feel I am oversensitive.

    Having said all that I think though having reflected on your post though Beasty I would like to say A) Thank you for apologising. I accept your apology. B) I take your point that from your perspective and viewpoint it could be viewed differently. I don't view it that way but I can see how you might. C) on the other hand some posters that are not necessarily LGBT (and wouldnt have as an acute/sensitive perspective as me) clearly took the same interpretation as me so this isnt just me being oversensitive at all.

    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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement