A question on immigration.

SimpleSam06

r3nu4l wrote:

Why don't we return the favour and all sign up with Stormfront using account names like "Abdullah", "Ahmed" and "Mohammed" and start threads such as "Are immigrants really that bad?" or "The riches of my new life in Ireland" and "Recently moved from Romania - how to claim benefits?"

That should get them going

I'll start one called "Wheres the best place to pick up white women" or maybe "if a white woman is drunk when we get married is it still going to land me a visa"

DublinWriter

r3nu4l wrote:

Why don't we return the favour and all sign up with Stormfront using account names like "Abdullah", "Ahmed" and "Mohammed" and start threads such as "Are immigrants really that bad?"

Or maybe start threads such as how the British Empire raped the natural resources of it's slave countries for hundreds of years and now whinges like a scalded bitch because someone called 'Patel' has set up a corner shop in their local town/villiage.

Karma not only works at an individual level but at a cultural and national level too. You rape them? They'll rape you. You fucked India for 247 years? Guess what...that's right, it's bending over time.

As for Irish people supporting Combat 18? Shame on you. Learn your national history. Uncle Toms and "house ****" the lot of you. Say it loud...I'm black and I'm proud!

Victor

neolxp wrote:

Yes Oscar Bravo please tell me how ive been banned before, Many Many Times, because this is news to me!

Its the same old rule isnt it, make it up and if you have power who can argue it!

neolxp wrote:

But you always ban immigration Threads.

You claim to be new, but use phrases like "Its the same old rule isnt it" and "But you always".

BuffyBot

<velma> Jinkies! A clue! </velma>

DeVore

Stormfront premoderates your first 50 posts to ensure you are "on message".



DeV.

dathi1

Stormfront premoderates your first 50 posts to ensure you are "on message".

funny...feels similar here.

oscarBravo

dathi1 wrote:

funny...feels similar here.

It's nothing like that here.

netwhizkid

oscarBravo wrote:

It's nothing like that here.

I agree it's far worse*.......:eek:

*soz, just couldn't resist

Macmorris2

DeVore wrote:

Stormfront premoderates your first 50 posts to ensure you are "on message".

That may be true, but then the Stormfronters are honest about their political bias. They openly advertise themselves as a 'white nationalist community'. The difference with boards.ie is that boards seems to present itself as a discussion forum open to people of all different opinions.

oscarBravo wrote:

It's nothing like that here.

Careful, don't you know you need to put a smiley face after every joke or sarcastic comment you make. I know of people getting banned for that kind of thing.

oscarBravo

Macmorris2 wrote:

That may be true, but then the Stormfronters are honest about their political bias. They openly advertise themselves as a 'white nationalist community'. The difference with boards.ie is that boards seems to present itself as a discussion forum open to people of all different opinions.

I can't speak for all of boards.ie (I'll let the admins do that, if they want), but Politics is a forum open to people of all different opinions.

What it's not, is a forum open to people who want to rant or soapbox without any interest in engaging in a serious discussion. If a fraction of the effort that's sunk into whinging here on Feedback was put into serious thought on Politics, it might make for an interesting debate.

Problem is, there's a small number of people who are not interested in a discussion. They want to throw around hearsay, conjecture and anecdote, and attempt to shout down those who disagree with them - although those who disagree are, as a rule, the people who actually bother to research the facts and present them coherently.

Case in point: it has been repeatedly alleged, directly and through innuendo, that no anti-immigration position is tolerated on boards.ie in general or on Politics in particular. I'm stating for the record, here and now, that I've never banned anyone from Politics because I disagreed with their views, and that anyone I've ever banned has earned their ban through a breach of the rules. I've banned people I disagree with, people I agree with, moderators of other boards, and at least one personal friend. All for one reason: they broke the rules.

Now, if anyone can point to a situation where I banned someone for any other reason than because they broke the rules, I'd like them to do so right now. If you can't, do us all a favour and STFU.

Macmorris2 wrote:

Careful, don't you know you need to put a smiley face after every joke or sarcastic comment you make. I know of people getting banned for that kind of thing.

Witty. Ha ha. Let me guess: you're not Macmorris, and you've never heard of him. But he lives with you and uses your PC.

Understand something: if you attempt to post on Politics, you will be banned, and I'll request that you be site-banned. Not because of your opinions on anything, but because those are the rules.

CiaranC

Well done you for trying to be impartial. Unfortunately as you arent the sole moderator on boards or politics, so that doesnt count for much.

There was a thread last week which was locked, it was so blatantly obvious that it was locked because of the OPs views it was funny.

Time Magazine

Link?

Look at the current anti-immigration thread. Now yer man was banned because he was a re-incarnation (afaik) but that got along well. There were some dissenting views.

The harsh reality is that immigration is good for the economy. You cannot argue otherwise. Thus if you have (fairly reasonable) fears about immigration it must be about the societal impact. Unfortunately when you have people arguing about the societal impact of immigrants, you attract racist f*ckwits who should not be tolerated. If somebody wants to argue, in a non-xenophobic way, about the possible cultural clashes etc, I imagine that's fine.

They just haven't done it yet.

Macmorris2

oscarBravo wrote:

I can't speak for all of boards.ie (I'll let the admins do that, if they want), but Politics is a forum open to people of all different opinions.

It's easy to say that but the behaviour of the moderators over the last few weeks suggest otherwise. I think what people have a problem with is the way you seem to always look for an excuse to close immigration threads, even in cases where a banning would be more appropriate.

For example, there was a thread that that Macmorris character had started that was closed not because of anything wrong with the thread put because of a personal comment that he made. But where a banning would have dealt with the problem, instead they closed the thread, suggesting that it wasn't the personal behaviour of one of the posters that they had a problem with, it was the views that he was expressing.

What it's not, is a forum open to people who want to rant or soapbox without any interest in engaging in a serious discussion. If a fraction of the effort that's sunk into whinging here on Feedback was put into serious thought on Politics, it might make for an interesting debate.

What difference does it make if someone is on a rant or 'soapbox'? I can't see how they're doing any harm to anyone. Just because they're on a soapbox doesn't mean that the arguments they put forward are any less valid.

And who decides who is on a 'soapbox' and who isn't. Is anyone who holds strong views on a subject automatically soapboxing? I'm sure if someone from Amnesty International was to start a thread on something like human rights abuses in Singapore it's unlikely they would be banned for ranting or soapboxing.

Problem is, there's a small number of people who are not interested in a discussion. They want to throw around hearsay, conjecture and anecdote, and attempt to shout down those who disagree with them - although those who disagree are, as a rule, the people who actually bother to research the facts and present them coherently.

And the way the way to deal with those people is to show them how to conduct a proper discussion, by using the facts to show them why they're wrong. Banning someone because they don't argue properly sounds a bit desperate to me. And again, who decides if someone isn't interested in a discussion?

Witty. Ha ha. Let me guess: you're not Macmorris, and you've never heard of him. But he lives with you and uses your PC.

Macmorris, me? Impossible.

It's a bit like that time in the Simpsons when Homer was banned from Moes and they beat up some poor bastard who happened to look like him. You wouldn't want that kind of mistake to happen here now would you?

Understand something: if you attempt to post on Politics, you will be banned, and I'll request that you be site-banned. Not because of your opinions on anything, but because those are the rules.

Please don't do that.

The reason I was banned the last time was because I made a light-hearted joke when Tristrame reopened a thread I started. I realise that I shouldn't have said anything but I thought at the time that it would be taken in the sense it was intended. I had no idea that his mother was sick and if I had I would have never said what I did.

I apologised to him and was hoping to leave at that, not wanting to add to the stress he was under at the time. I'll be more considerate in future.

Ibid wrote:

The harsh reality is that immigration is good for the economy.

You're wrong but I can't really respond because unlike you I would be banned for straying off-topic.

I see that you're the moderator of the economics forum. I tell you what. Why don't you start a thread in that forum explaining in details to us who are ignorant about economics just why immigration is good for the economy. If you would let me take part in that discussion, I'd be happy to prove you wrong.

Faith

Macmorris2 wrote:

For example, there was a thread that that Macmorris character had started that was closed not because of anything wrong with the thread put because of a personal comment that he made.

Gosh, there was me thinking that you might be Macmorris back again (I can't for the life of me think what made me think that...), but that part in bold has clearly convinced me that you're an entirely different person! Phew!

billy the squid

Macmorris2 wrote:

That may be true, but then the Stormfronters are honest about their political bias. They openly advertise themselves as a 'white nationalist community'. The difference with boards.ie is that boards seems to present itself as a discussion forum open to people of all different opinions.




Careful, don't you know you need to put a smiley face after every joke or sarcastic comment you make. I know of people getting banned for that kind of thing.

Horse ****

Stormfront claims to be a bastian of free speech yet it puts all of its new members on Pre-moderation, The fact that you, a previously banned user were able to have two posts published already shows that speech here is free-er here than it is on stormfront.

Stormfront members honest? horse **** again. The last time I had deelings with stormfront users I found them to be liars and **** stirrers, most noteably user called sherrifstuckey, who posted lies about me and my site. When stormfront admins were contacted, they ignored my requests for dialogue.

If you ask me, both Don Black and Jamie Kelso are spineless and gutless, when confronted with a problem they hide behind their pre-moderation and copy-and-pasted spin on their site.

Free speech and honest my arse.

PS, I'm still waiting for a mail from Kelso or black. limerickblogger@gmail.com

[edit] corrected speeling error

Macmorris2

Faith wrote:

Gosh, there was me thinking that you might be Macmorris back again (I can't for the life of me think what made me think that...), but that part in bold has clearly convinced me that you're an entirely different person! Phew!

That fact that you once even once thought I was Macmorris horrifies me. Macmorris was a real low-life. I would hate to think that people could confuse me with that scumbag.

billy the squid wrote:

Stormfront claims to be a bastian of free speech yet it puts all of its new members on Pre-moderation, The fact that you, a previously banned user were able to have two posts published already shows that speech here is free-er here than it is on stormfront.

Let's see if I can make it to 10 posts.

Stormfront members honest? horse **** again. The last time I had deelings with stormfront users I found them to be liars and **** stirrers, most noteably user called sherrifstuckey, who posted lies about me and my site. When stormfront admins were contacted, they ignored my requests for dialog.

Maybe you're right about that. I don't really know enough about the site or what goes on behind the scenes. I've already expressed the view that I think the moderators on that site are far too tolerant of extremist racist views.

sceptre

Macmorris2 wrote:

Let's see if I can make it to 10 posts.

Apparently not.

Time Magazine

Macmorris2 wrote:

I see that you're the moderator of the economics forum. I tell you what. Why don't you start a thread in that forum explaining in details to us who are ignorant about economics just why immigration is good for the economy. If you would let me take part in that discussion, I'd be happy to prove you wrong.

You know, I probably would have done that. But you're site-banned. And that site-ban (in case you haven't noticed) extends to any re-incarnations you may have. So it's not going to happen. You shouldn't have been a f*ckwit.

Come into the Economics forum and I'll ban you on-sight.

DeVore

If you cant see how large numbers of cheap migrant workers keeps inflation down then I doubt anyone in the Economics forum will be able to speak slowly and loudly enough to explain it to you.

They arent exploiting our hospitality, we're exploiting their desperation.


DeV.

amp

DeVore wrote:

If you cant see how large numbers of cheap migrant workers keeps inflation down then I doubt anyone in the Economics forum will be able to speak slowly and loudly enough to explain it to you.

They arent exploiting our hospitality, we're exploiting their desperation.


DeV.

That's all well and good but at the end of the day, if you look at the big picture without prior prejudice these people are turkin r jeebs:eek:

amp

billy the squid wrote:

Horse ****

Stormfront claims to be a bastian of free speech yet it puts all of its new members on Pre-moderation, The fact that you, a previously banned user were able to have two posts published already shows that speech here is free-er here than it is on stormfront.

Stormfront members honest? horse **** again. The last time I had deelings with stormfront users I found them to be liars and **** stirrers, most noteably user called sherrifstuckey, who posted lies about me and my site. When stormfront admins were contacted, they ignored my requests for dialogue.

If you ask me, both Don Black and Jamie Kelso are spineless and gutless, when confronted with a problem they hide behind their pre-moderation and copy-and-pasted spin on their site.

Free speech and honest my arse.

PS, I'm still waiting for a mail from Kelso or black. limerickblogger@gmail.com

[edit] corrected speeling error

They keep banning me for being too right wing. Yeah so my answer to everything is "kill 'em all", but honestly, if advocating ethnic cleansing is bad, then man did not frolic with the dinosaur 4000 years ago. Now if you'll excuse me; I've got a meeting with the klan later and they'll hang me if I'm late again.

ALLAH ACKBAR!

humanji

I have to say, I love you guys! I was having a really bad day and just reading this had me in stitches (particularly enjoyed Gandalfs "Candygram for Mongo" comment ).

Seriously, Stormfront should be allowed to make there anti-immigration threads, so they can be locked and they can come and complain in Feedback. These threads are just class!

DublinWriter

Nine pages of a thread and no one has yet invoked the words "Yore Ma".

Times they are a changin'.

brianthebard

amp wrote:

They keep banning me for being too right wing. Yeah so my answer to everything is "kill 'em all", but honestly, if advocating ethnic cleansing is bad, then man did not frolic with the dinosaur 4000 years ago. Now if you'll excuse me; I've got a meeting with the klan later and they'll hang me if I'm late again.

ALLAH ACKBAR!

amp....Best post in ages! I had a look at stormfront after this who-ha brought it to my attention, honestly the scariest **** I've ever read...And I've been studying Hitler and facism for the last three months...

humanji

DublinWriter wrote:

Nine pages of a thread and no one has yet invoked the words "Yore Ma".

Times they are a changin'.

But it leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't it?

Tha Gopher

Regarding the talk of providing linkage to prove a claim on Politics/Humanities, tbh its quite open to abuse seeing as only a handful of Irish newspapers even have online editions. Certain claims certainly need verifying, however if the claim is clearly as factual as the sky being blue, demanding a link to prove whatever is just childish.

Also, there is a habit among certain users to post a link and then deliberately misrepresent what the article in the link actually says in the hope nobody will actually bother taking the time to read it. Should there be a zero tolerance ban policy for people who are clearly liars? re the personal abuse, if someone has lied, surely its then acceptable to call them a liar?

oscarBravo

Tha Gopher wrote:

Also, there is a habit among certain users to post a link and then deliberately misrepresent what the article in the link actually says in the hope nobody will actually bother taking the time to read it.

Strangely, I can't recall you ever reporting such a post.

Tha Gopher wrote:

Should there be a zero tolerance ban policy for people who are clearly liars? re the personal abuse, if someone has lied, surely its then acceptable to call them a liar?

If you can clearly demonstrate that someone has not only said something untrue, but that they knew it to be untrue at the time they said it, then it's acceptable to call them a liar.

As for zero tolerance: lying is not a bannable offence. It tends to get punished by being shown up for what it is.

Tha Gopher

oscarBravo wrote:

Strangely, I can't recall you ever reporting such a post. If you can clearly demonstrate that someone has not only said something untrue, but that they knew it to be untrue at the time they said it, then it's acceptable to call them a liar.

As for zero tolerance: lying is not a bannable offence. It tends to get punished by being shown up for what it is.

It was too funny, seeing as every post he made was the online equivalent of sh1tting yourself in work in terms of self-embarassment.

Even better was the "cease and desist" PM he sent asking me to stop highlighting it

oscarBravo

So, you found something entertaining, but you want us to introduce a zero-tolerance ban policy for it, even though you didn't feel it was a serious enough problem to justify reporting it?

Tha Gopher

Though its funny on occasion, if it persists and just degenerates into a "you`re a spa" "no, you`re a spa" level it becomes pretty tiring tbh. Even if the poster is making an arse of themselves.