Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Faugheen wrote: »

Not even a card for the poster saying he would blame himself if he was Ana Kriegel’s father.

Lads that is an absolute joke. Why are you being so lenient with some of these posters?

Guarantee I’ll get one for being so annoyed about it though. Priorities and all that.

That poster has trolled multiple threads and you play the ‘agree to disagree’ card to be nice to them.

CA is just the trolling part of the site. Once you accept that it becomes much more amusing.

Deleted User wrote: »

surely the statement is either demonstrably factually correct, or it isnt.

if it is, then its hardly possible to action it unless it was the basis for a very blatant "all gay men are paedophiles" statement (like beasty, i did not read that into it and i do think anyone who claims that it is that bald a statement are not on solid ground). any such statement would clearly be ridiculous and certainly offensive enough to warrant action.

if its either uncorroborated or can be disproven then the normal methods are in place to rebut, ignore or demand evidence on pain of action.

in either case, people claiming that its a simple statement claiming that it says "gay=paedophile" are demanding mod action based more on their own projection than what's been posted and i think its a big ask tbh.

It's possible snd plausible that you can accuse me of projection but much less so others. I think thats just trying to lump everyone who complained in together into some sort of stereotype and nothing really to do with the point at all. More of a playing the man snd not the ball argument with your own projections added in.