Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
07-09-2019, 21:40   #391
Joeytheparrot
Moderator
 
Joeytheparrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 22,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
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.

Last edited by Joeytheparrot; 07-09-2019 at 22:42.
Joeytheparrot is offline  
Advertisement
07-09-2019, 22:13   #392
Faugheen
Registered User
 
Faugheen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,585
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.
Faugheen is offline  
(2) thanks from:
07-09-2019, 22:42   #393
pjohnson
Registered User
 
pjohnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 10,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faugheen View Post
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.
pjohnson is offline  
Thanks from:
08-09-2019, 00:34   #394
snoopsheep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
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


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.
snoopsheep is offline  
Thanks from:
08-09-2019, 07:55   #395
Joeytheparrot
Moderator
 
Joeytheparrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 22,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopsheep View Post
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.

Last edited by Joeytheparrot; 08-09-2019 at 08:33.
Joeytheparrot is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
08-09-2019, 09:30   #396
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 2,923
Firstly, as already pointed out it is demonstrably untrue. The second thing is, making such claims always drags the thread down into a pretty nasty wormhole when you argue with such posters. It attracts similarly nasty posters and creates a load of work for mods as people too and fro.
batgoat is offline  
(2) thanks from:
08-09-2019, 09:32   #397
snoopsheep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeytheparrot View Post
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.
joey the very first line is that its either a factual statement or not. the rest of the post is my pointing out that it could still be actionable in some circumstances but that in this case that does depend on the reader taking a certain line, which leaves the mod with a question mark.

i have genuinely no idea where you get from that position to me breaking site rules in that post, but tbh i think it does actually demonstrate a tendency for you/others to go straight from "i disagree with this" to "i will find a way to action this" on issues you have strong personal views on, which you might think is irrelevant but is actually the core point.

there is absolutely nothing anyone could fairly object to in my post above other than just disagreeing with it. im taken aback that anyone would consider it playing anything but the ball, but hey that's message boards.
snoopsheep is offline  
Thanks from:
08-09-2019, 09:58   #398
Joeytheparrot
Moderator
 
Joeytheparrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 22,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by batgoat View Post
Firstly, as already pointed out it is demonstrably untrue. The second thing is, making such claims always drags the thread down into a pretty nasty wormhole when you argue with such posters. It attracts similarly nasty posters and creates a load of work for mods as people too and fro.
It's also treating the post in good faith as if it's serious, plausible, genuine, respectful and unmotivated by particular biases.
Joeytheparrot is offline  
10-09-2019, 23:14   #399
Faugheen
Registered User
 
Faugheen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,585
Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.
Faugheen is offline  
Advertisement
10-09-2019, 23:54   #400
snoopsheep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faugheen View Post
Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.
the verdict says nothing about the complainant but it clears the defendants outright.

do you hold the position that people should be "allowed" to say what they believe about one but not the other?

seems a strange position to take, let alone plead for mod enforcement on.
snoopsheep is offline  
11-09-2019, 00:04   #401
Faugheen
Registered User
 
Faugheen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopsheep View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faugheen View Post
Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.
the verdict says nothing about the complainant but it clears the defendants outright.

do you hold the position that people should be "allowed" to say what they believe about one but not the other?

seems a strange position to take, let alone plead for mod enforcement on.
No surprise that you are the first to reply to this and completely missing the point.

People are blatantly lying and doubling down on those lies when it’s pointed out to them that the verdict says nothing about the complainant. The verdict does not mean that she is lying. That is a fact.

For anyone to say otherwise is a complete and utter liar - and it’s a dangerous lie to spout as well.

I haven’t seen anyone in the thread say the verdict is wrong and claim the pair are rapists. If that is the case, then it only enhances my point about blatantly lying and doing so dangerously. Why are you taking an issue with this?

Do you believe that posters should be allowed to lie about the complainant in this case and should be allowed to incorrectly say the verdict means she is lying?

My point is about people lying about the complainant but you use it to make it about the two lads. Seriously...
Faugheen is offline  
Thanks from:
11-09-2019, 00:28   #402
snoopsheep
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,017
likewise, it's no surprise that you are missing the point im making.

you want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you dislike.

you dont want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you like.

this thread is full of exactly this type of request- "posters are posting things i disagree with, something must be done!"

and these requests are coming from the same handful of posters.

its very interesting to watch, more interesting than the actual topics themselves most of the time tbh.
snoopsheep is offline  
11-09-2019, 00:43   #403
Faugheen
Registered User
 
Faugheen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopsheep View Post
likewise, it's no surprise that you are missing the point im making.

you want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you dislike.

you dont want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you like.

this thread is full of exactly this type of request- "posters are posting things i disagree with, something must be done!"

and these requests are coming from the same handful of posters.

its very interesting to watch, more interesting than the actual topics themselves most of the time tbh.
They’re not interpreting unknown events. They are saying that the jury’s verdict proves the complainant lied.

That is factually incorrect. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. It’s about people who are posting complete and utter lies which are dangerous and defamatory.

What part of that are you failing to grasp?
Faugheen is offline  
11-09-2019, 01:39   #404
end of the road
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 23,082
the claim is being sufficiently debunked by the userbase.
i don't think any more needs to be done.
end of the road is online now  
05-10-2019, 20:15   #405
Berties_Horse
Registered User
 
Berties_Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,038
It's unfortunate that the Maria Bailey thread has been locked, as it's still very much a relevant issue in the public eye. As evidenced by a near constant presence in the media cycle. A handful of posters dismayed by the prevailing narrative went out of their way to induce such an action, and ultimately succeeded. On that basis, I believe the decision should be overturned & minority deliberately stoking tensions meet the appropriate punishment.
Berties_Horse is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet