Are immigration threads allowed?

Hagar

If you are going to make a jokey comment make sure it's obvious by including a smiley. Bear in mind that a smiley won't protect you if the remark is obviously snide or offensive.

As an un-involved bystander I must say your remarks did not look as if they were intended to be funny. I think the mods concerned were lenient in just closing the thread that they had gone to the trouble of re-opening for you. If you made those remarks on my forum your feet would not have touched the ground. Ban City - population you.

Macmorris

Hagar wrote:

If you are going to make a jokey comment make sure it's obvious by including a smiley. Bear in mind that a smiley won't protect you if the remark is obviously snide or offensive.

As an un-involved bystander I must say your remarks did not look as if they were intended to be funny. I think the mods concerned were lenient in just closing the thread that they had gone to the trouble of re-opening for you. If you made those remarks on my forum your feet would not have touched the ground. Ban City - population you.

Maybe you're right. Now that I think back I was fairly annoyed at the time so maybe the remark was intended to be less than friendly.

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

*shrug* nothing to stop you discussing immigration on the site, if anything there is normally 1-2 running threads on the site somewhere at any given time.

I really didn't want to continue on with this but there's more support for my reason number 3
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055034507

CiaranC

Another one bites the dust.

Time Magazine

And thus Tristrame's original assertion that your motives and general behaviour were unbecoming of the Politics forum show more than a little truth.

I must say, well spotted Tristrame. Sorry to hear about your mother.

Hobbes

and to expand on infronts question.

The problem debating the immigration related issues is this.

1. It's been debated to death numerous times already. At least one of them is even in the threads of fame on the biki.

Granted that isn't a reason not to debate it again, however it is generally the usual suspects that regurgitate the typical BS that had already been debunked some months ago in a similar thread.

2. It tends to be a polar subject, even if the people debating aren't. For example despite what you may read of my posts I am somewhat middle ground on the subject, but pisses me off when people use FUD or "my mates friend said" to try and get a point across.

3. Most of the thread starters on the subject are rarely looking for a debate. They are looking for a platform. You could point them to statistics, actual figures of the subject and it wouldn't change their perception of what they believe.

4. It attracts stormfront tourists. These are in general easy to spot because they will refuse to back anything up with facts and trying to pull them up on it they will attempt to derail the thread by saying others are name calling or picking a offtopic subject to prove their point. Occasionally they will post in SF forums for people to help them on the thread. Hasn't happened in a while though, I believe even SF were getting sick of this kind of malarky.

5. It attracts the urban legand muppets. Thankfully they get banned in Humanities/Politics but still occasionally hang out in AH to post about how foriegners get everything you can think of.

5. Single irksome in such threads is that you get people who don't distingush between an immigrant, a refugee, an asylum seeker. They are three completly different kinds of foriegners and more often then not the thread gets derailed to lump them all together.

Hobbes

Macmorris wrote:

I really didn't want to continue on with this but there's more support for my reason number 3
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055034507

I am not sure what your reason number three is unless it was to let fukin loons post total sh!te on the politics forum.

BuffyBot

Macmorris wrote:

Maybe you're right. Now that I think back I was fairly annoyed at the time so maybe the remark was intended to be less than friendly.

Hindsight is great sight, isn't it.

Moral of the story: when someone has just done you a favour of this nature, be quiet and get on with it instead of trying to be the king of (misguided) comedy.

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

I am not sure what your reason number three is unless it was to let fukin loons post total sh!te on the politics forum.

How long would someone last on one of the forums that you moderate if they referred to you as 'fukin loon'?

If you read the start of the thread you'll see that I gave three reasons why I believe the immigration thread might have been closed

There are three possible reasons I can think of why the thread was closed:

1. It was closed because it contained langugage that was hurtful or offensive to other people and so under boards.ie guidelines it deserved to be closed out of respect for those people.
2. It was written by a 'psuedo-racist' and any thread written by a pseudo-racist will be automatically closed on boards.ie
3. It took a negative view of immigration and only threads that present a positive view of immigration are allowed on the politics forum.

CiaranC

Your thread was closed because you are anti-immigration. I dont know why they wont just admit it and write it into the rules for everyone to see.

Hobbes

So MacMorris should we call you Lord Abbath?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/little-help-please-351361.html?p=3744972&highlight=boards.ie#post3744972

Sangre

Hagar wrote:

If you are going to make a jokey comment make sure it's obvious by including a smiley.

Durrrr, he fell over! LOLOLOL!!!!:) :0 (! !111evelevnone!!*

Obviously subtlety is a banable offence now? I see we're following the American school of comedy on boards.

Anyway I read Mac's comments as an obvious joke. Sarcastic but a joke none the less. I think some ego's are too fragile for this internet business (I hear its serious!)




















*joke!

Hobbes

Incidently I don't know how you got reason 3 from the post you linked to as calling all romanians Knackers/gangsters is not debating a subject.

sceptre

Macmorris wrote:

I really didn't want to continue on with this but there's more support for my reason number 3
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055034507

I'll getting around to reading your reason number three in a few days when I get back but I may have implied that the thread you've just linked to (not the one started by you) was an idiot thread so I hope your reason number three is that one of the mods (ie me) isn't much of a fan of idiot threads. If it isn't then it doesn't tend to give support for your reason number three.

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

Incidently I don't know how you got reason 3 from the post you linked to as calling all romanians Knackers/gangsters is not debating a subject.

Alright, so maybe there were valid reasons why that particular thread should have been closed. I just think it's interesting that whenever you see a thread written by anti-immigrationist the moderators will always find a reason to close it.

And I don't think he did call all romanians knackers. I just think he implied that there are knackers in Romania just as there are knackers in Ireland and that some of the knackers might be more likely to immigrate here along with some members of the Bulgarian mafia.

Karl Hungus

Hobbes wrote:

So MacMorris should we call you Lord Abbath?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/little-help-please-351361.html?p=3744972&highlight=boards.ie#post3744972

Roffle! BUSTED!

Hobbes

Macmorris wrote:

I just think it's interesting that whenever you see a thread written by anti-immigrationist the moderators will always find a reason to close it.

Sorry but that is complete Bullsh!t. In fact if you even looked up the owner of that thread you linked to you would see Gary other gem of a thread called "imigrants driving tourists away" is still alive and well. Numerous other similar ones.

And I don't think he did call all romanians knackers.

"cant wait to be swamped by all these roma knackers", "expect to see thousands of roma begars and robbers on the streets of every city and town in ireland within weeks".

Sorry but that is ranting and drivel and to imply it was somehow an allowed thread is laughable. This isn't Stormfront.

Tha Gopher

amp wrote:

dUR TEKKIN RRRRR JORBBbbes!!!!

You know its funny that whenever anyone makes a post concerning the job market someone makes this quote in order to paint the poster as some halfwit redneck.

Its funny, the episode of South Park I seen concerned people being sacked for cheaper labour, and the lesson appeared to be that governments had responsibility to both protect their own peoples jobs and to help poorer regions become self sufficient and therefore cut the need for migration. Presumably "dey took our jobbbs" was used in something entirely different that all the PC heads saw it on......


Boards has certain "unwritten rules". Its fairly new mind, I only noticed the swing in maybe the past 18 months. I find the opinions of a small handful of posters on boards laughable and out of touch concerning issues such as drugs, religion etc etc but i dont think they should be banned for it.

amp

Took R Jorbws!!!!

Rb

amp wrote:

Took R Jorbws!!!!

They turk yer jarb!!!!

BuffyBot

I only noticed the swing in maybe the past 18 months. I find the opinions of a small handful of posters on boards laughable and out of touch concerning issues such as drugs, religion etc etc but i dont think they should be banned for it.

Yeah, only you noticed the terrible. terrible oppresive changes. I think DeV is still waiting for answers to his questions on that other thread...

brianthebard

Macmorris wrote:

Alright, so maybe there were valid reasons why that particular thread should have been closed. I just think it's interesting that whenever you see a thread written by anti-immigrationist the moderators will always find a reason to close it.

Well perhaps you are approaching it the wrong way. Instead of anti-immigration the thread could be about sensible approaches to immigration or questioning whether or not the government is tackling the issue in the right way. Because the question of whether Ireland and Britain can accept a large influx of immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria is a real one, starting from an anti-immigration viewpoint is intolerant and suggests racism straight away.

Hagar

It's just gone midnight here and my back garden is full of Rumanians and Bulgarians already. We're doomed.

brianthebard

Aren't Ireland, Uk/England and Italy the only countries with unrestricted immirgration at present? Lolz at hagar and Frances' intolerance of immirgration. Might be wrong about the third country, but I'm pretty sure its not France....

InFront

Originally posted by Hobbes:

and to expand on infronts question.

The problem debating the immigration related issues is this...

Fair enough, I can understand it's an emotive issue that's been done to death already and attracts all sorts of bigots. But so are other importants issues: 1916 and Irish Independence, Islam (on its own or in violent company), Soccer... I really think that in immigration's case, there is some other dimension to the debate and that's the fear of logic in the dissenting voice. Macmorris's first few posts, were if nothing else, employing logic. He wasn't necessarily correct in most things, but he was going about it the right way.

Personally, having some limited experience of it with a friend, and based on an economic data that supports the ability of the Irish economy to hold the lot of the migrant worker, I certainly wouldn't be in favour of tightening up the immigration process. But for goodness sake, surely the best way of proving Ireland's ability to support immigration - and indeed the necessity to support immigration - must be to argue it in a thread, and not by blocking debate on the issue. As (I think it was) The Corinthian said, the best way of disproving people in this way, is to puncture their claims in rational debate.

Of course, this has been debated before, but this debate was the most current, and as you said that's no reason not to debate. As for coming to the immigration debate with an agenda, which is apparently not allowed, I would suggest that we all come to the debates that we engage in with our own personal agenda, be they dissenting, or orthodox, or affirming. As much as I tend to dislike the anti-immigrationists, I feel that a dissenting opinion, once it can be backed up, is no less calid than the affirmative one (that I myself would hold).

Anyway, I realize this thread is beyond salvage now, and for the sake of not antagonising I certainly won't be starting a debate on it. And Tristame sorry also to hear about your personal problem. This is at the end of the day, just an internet talkshop. Oh happy new Year

InFront

brianthebard wrote:

Aren't Ireland, Uk/England and Italy the only countries with unrestricted immirgration at present?

We certainly don't have 'unlimited immigration' by the way. /OT

brianthebard

InFront wrote:

We certainly don't have 'unlimited immigration' by the way. /OT

Within the EU, and ito of the new member states. (you pedant:p )

Macmorris

InFront wrote:

But for goodness sake, surely the best way of proving Ireland's ability to support immigration - and indeed the necessity to support immigration - must be to argue it in a thread, and not by blocking debate on the issue.

I agree with what you're saying but if you read the immigration thread, I wasn't actually trying to argue that immigration would be bad for Ireland. Although I do believe it will be bad for Ireland, as I admitted at the start, I was really making two main points in that particular thread:

a) People who support immigration should be prepared to answer some very basic questions on the issue, such as how many more immigrants they would like to see coming here.

b) Because immigration is ignored by political parties in this country (unlike other European countries where these issues are discussed openly) and because I believe it will have such huge long-term consequences, I think the Irish people should be given a chance in a national referendum to offer their opinion on whether or not they believe the current level of immigration is too high.

As much as I tend to dislike the anti-immigrationists, I feel that a dissenting opinion, once it can be backed up, is no less calid than the affirmative one (that I myself would hold).

I disagree that I hold a dissenting opinion on immigration, dissenting opinion on boards.ie maybe, but not dissenting in terms of the population in general.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2006/0123/3166143057HM1MAINPOLL.html

Just 23 per cent believe more foreign workers should be allowed come here, 41 per cent think there are now enough here and no more should be admitted, and 29 per cent believe there are too many foreign workers here and that steps should be taken to reduce their number. Some 7 per cent gave no opinion.

Hobbes

This is the feedback forum, not for you to continue your discussion on your closed thread.

Rock Climber

Macmorris is now banned from politics by the way for being a troll.

Kudos to him however for attempting to sugar coat his posts and for his mistaken belief that the mods of that board werent aware of his connections with previously banned posters.
We were.

He has of course lifted the veil of his trolling,dumped the sugar coating and exposed himself for his true trolling nature.

The politics board is out of bounds for trollers for good reason.

Thank you Hobbes for exposing Lord Abbath,though we already knew about this.


I'd also advise Lord abbath of stormfront to stop turning the feedback forum into an outlet for his political angst.