What level of racism is tolerated on Boards.ie?

Terry

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I suggest that linking to youtube copyrighted material is illegal.

I suggest that as youtube is hosted in America, they are not bound by Irish laws.
If copyrighted material is hosted on youtube, then it is up to youtube to take it down.

If I'm the troll here why did you feel the pressing need to post an irrelevant clip in post 133? Thats trolling, and you sir are the troll here

The clip was indeed relevant.
It show a satirical look at French people from a British point of view ("Why do you think I have this outrageous accent?").
The fact that you stated that it was 'one of your favourites' goes to show that only certain aspects of racism offend you. This is pretty much the same way most people feel.

And as for my "crusade to clean up internet forums" (Internet has a capital I btw ...) I suggest that its more noble than your crusade to correct all spelling mistakes on Internet forums. Maybe if we worked together we'd have all these nasty forums cleaned up lickety split!

Wow. That really got to you, didn't it?
You see, I was just being sarcastic in response to this:

Terry wrote:

Gandalf23 wrote:

Its easy to be complacent about stuff like this until it comes to your own door.

Altho to be honest I'm not surprised that someone from Confey would be so stupid and ignorant! Your all dirty illeterate knackers over there

I might have taken that seriously if your spelling had been a bit better.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Are you really trying to say the Monthy Python material you linked to is NOT copyrighted???

No. I'm saying that it is not owned by Viacom or any of its subsidiaries, so it has nothing to do with the court case you linked to.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

The level of ignorance here is stunning.

It is most definately illegal to link to copyrighted material on youtube or anywhere else. Have you ever heard of TV Links? Have a look here and here

The quote from the Irish SMod in the article is very interesting. He was arrested and held for 5 hours. FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) laws can charge him with "involvement in organised crime" for linking to copyrighted material on youtube.

I now call on mods to ban Terry for doing illegal (not to mention immoral) things on boards.ie!! I'm not going to go as far as to have him arrested ... yet!

Yes, because boards.ie is on a par with tvlinks. This entire site is devoted to linking to copyrighted material.

Gandalf23

Boston wrote: »

Actually, lets get serious for a second. You're accusing terry of doing something illegal without any proof that he has linked to something which is in breach of copyright. Yes he linked to copyrighted material, but for all you know the owners of the copyright haven't issue with a segment of their movie being on youTube. As such it is you who is slandering Terry's good name. I suggest for your next brilliant move you threaten legal action.

Your laughable you really are! But thanks for admitting I'm brilliant and that Terry has indeed linked to copyrighted material!! By your own definition he has done something illegal.

Can you answer my questions now please? I'll refersh your memory ... are you calling me a moron? Are you implying I'm acting like a moron?

Gandalf23

Terry wrote: »

I suggest that as youtube is hosted in America, they are not bound by Irish laws.
If copyrighted material is hosted on youtube, then it is up to youtube to take it down.

Strongly disagree. Lets get a mod opinion on this. Or better yet lets check it out with FACT directly.

Terry wrote: »

The clip was indeed relevant.
It show a satirical look at French people from a British point of view ("Why do you think I have this outrageous accent?").
The fact that you stated that it was 'one of your favourites' goes to show that only certain aspects of racism offend you. This is pretty much the same way most people feel.

There was nothing racist about that clip in any way. I'd love if you could show me the "racism" (in line with any of my posts/definitions in this thread) in the clip ... if your able that is

Terry wrote: »

Wow. That really got to you, didn't it?

I think most people can see I'm really getting to you! The thread was over and you felt the need to post to some (illegal and copyrighted) material in a pathetic attempt to get a final dig in. You should be very proud of how its backfired ...

Terry

I've just seen this post.
Shut the site down.

Of course, we should also take down the three major social networking sites, most internet forums and all search engines too.

Boston

Yes Terry, how are you enjoying the egg on your face now (said in a stereotypical German accent)

Calina

You know, when I read threads like this, I feel that the world is ultimately doomed.

There's a difference - fine I'll grant - between racism and crass ignorance. Society is going to get seriously screwed if more people don't learn it. The reference that the OP was complaining about to me seemed to be more along the lines of crass ignorance than racism.

The question which is starting to go threw my head more and more as I read discussions along these lines is where does political correctness end and thought control start.

Gandalf23, what worries me above all else is the seeming impression which I am getting that suggests you consider that only you are qualified to judge what constitutes racism and that anyone who disagrees with you must, by definition, be incorrect. In many respects, you are entitled to hold an opinion, but that entitlement does not extend to compelling other people to agree with you.

A considerable number of people have voiced dissent from your view. From what I can see, your response is not to engage with them in any meaningful manner, but to put them down in various respects. I don't expect you to change your mind per se, but I do expect that most people - you included- recognise that people are entitled to have different views and opinions to you on other subjects. Unfortunately, you don't appear to accept dissent.

I'm also extremely concerned that debates on the subject of anything involving Irish and non-Irish people, be they white, European, black, Nigerian, MiddleEastern descend almost constantly into irrational accusations of racism and counter-accusations of being blind to reality.

There is one thing which - in my experience - is true. One thing. And that is "The World is not as simple as people want it to be and no matter how much they convince themselves that it is, it will never be".

In other words, reality is a lot more nuanced than you think it could be and political correctness and thought control does nothing to deal with that reality.

I'd be stunned if, in fact, there was one person in the world who didn't have discriminatory views about a grouping of any description based on some generalisation be it Christians, Muslims, the French, the Germans, the Yanks, the Spanish, computer programmers, street cleaners, bank managers, lawyers, children, woman, you name it. The question is what are we going to do about it?

Boards. is not - in my opinion - inherently racist. It is a platform for discussion. It cannot be racist in the way that a sheet of paper cannot be racist. Only people can be racist. I'm of the opinion that banning discussion on racism - which almost by definitions means that some participants will voice racist opinion - is not constructive. You could perhaps ban those participants but the net effect of that is not to dilute their racist views, but to reinforce them.

Is that really what you want to do?

Boston

Good post Calina. Its posts like that people take in.

Gandalf23

Terry wrote: »

I've just seen this post.
Shut the site down.

Of course, we should also take down the three major social networking sites, most internet forums and all search engines too.

A post from 2006 ... nice spot!

I'm happy to wait on the official word from Boards.ie and from FACT on the legality or otherwise of your act. Should be very very interesting ...

And didnt your mommy ever tell you ... just because everyone else is doing it doesnt make it right

Gandalf23

Boston wrote: »

Yes Terry, how are you enjoying the egg on your face now (said in a stereotypical German accent)

You have refused to answer most of the questions I have asked about racism (post 92, 98, 102, etc) ... you have no answer. This I assume is because you dont have a clue.

I now ask you again ... and be man enough to answer this time ... are you caling me a moron or are you implying I'm acting like a moron?

Why dont you grow a pair and stand behind what your insinuating.

Terry

Gandalf23 wrote: »

A post from 2006 ... nice spot!

I'm happy to wait on the official word from Boards.ie and from FACT on the legality or otherwise of your act. Should be very very interesting ...

And didnt your mommy ever tell you ... just because everyone else is doing it doesnt make it right

Are you saying that you have reported me to FACT for posting a link to copyrighted material?

Boston

I'm a lady you sexist!

Gandalf23

Great post ... an oasis in the sea of idiocy that this thread has decended into.

Calina wrote: »

The question which is starting to go threw my head more and more as I read discussions along these lines is where does political correctness end and thought control start.

Gandalf23, what worries me above all else is the seeming impression which I am getting that suggests you consider that only you are qualified to judge what constitutes racism and that anyone who disagrees with you must, by definition, be incorrect. In many respects, you are entitled to hold an opinion, but that entitlement does not extend to compelling other people to agree with you.

A considerable number of people have voiced dissent from your view. From what I can see, your response is not to engage with them in any meaningful manner, but to put them down in various respects. I don't expect you to change your mind per se, but I do expect that most people - you included- recognise that people are entitled to have different views and opinions to you on other subjects. Unfortunately, you don't appear to accept dissent.

Granted, I have strongly held views on this. I was attempting to make a logical, coherent argument, but this is more and more difficult when there is such a volume of opposition from very experienced and able posters/mods. There was also a significant level of personal attack and sniping aimed at me. I didnot fire the first shot in any of these exchanges, but I did defend myself. This makes the discussion more polarised and personal. I'm not going to suffer fools gladly and I'm not going to ignore personal attacks ... just as I would not expect anyone else to.

I was happy enough that I'd made my argument. I was happy to accept the answers given. And I still am tbh. Hell, I even made some suggestions!

I still believe that the TOS of Boards.ie could be improved by specifically including the word "racism", (and even "sexism", and "homaphobia" as suggested by Boston) ... I'm not sure why there is such opposition to this? I have never stated that Boards.ie runs badly ... my motive was to improve boards.ie!

I'm holding a very strong opinion thats true, but I'm not trying to ram it down peoples throats. I'm making suggestions on the frrdback forum, and the way I've been treated here says volumes about how this forum is administered.

Calina wrote: »

I'm also extremely concerned that debates on the subject of anything involving Irish and non-Irish people, be they white, European, black, Nigerian, MiddleEastern descend almost constantly into irrational accusations of racism and counter-accusations of being blind to reality.

There is one thing which - in my experience - is true. One thing. And that is "The World is not as simple as people want it to be and no matter how much they convince themselves that it is, it will never be".

In other words, reality is a lot more nuanced than you think it could be and political correctness and thought control does nothing to deal with that reality.

I'd be stunned if, in fact, there was one person in the world who didn't have discriminatory views about a grouping of any description based on some generalisation be it Christians, Muslims, the French, the Germans, the Yanks, the Spanish, computer programmers, street cleaners, bank managers, lawyers, children, woman, you name it. The question is what are we going to do about it?

Boards. is not - in my opinion - inherently racist. It is a platform for discussion. It cannot be racist in the way that a sheet of paper cannot be racist. Only people can be racist. I'm of the opinion that banning discussion on racism - which almost by definitions means that some participants will voice racist opinion - is not constructive. You could perhaps ban those participants but the net effect of that is not to dilute their racist views, but to reinforce them.

Is that really what you want to do?

I also believe that boards.ie is not inherently racist ... I never said it was. I said a certain level of racism and racist comment is allowed here and imho that is true.

I was genuinely agrieved by the comments made about the French that make my original complaint. Im still of the opinion that they are racist and should not have been allowed in any moderated forum.

As someone else said "this really is not an easy issue. As I see it there are two conflicting ideals: 1.) Freedom of speech, 2.) Common decency. On the freedom of speech side, you get the argument that even when people disagree with you and say horrible things, it is still good for society as a whole. The free exchange of ideas is what has lead to vast scientific discovery and intellectual discourse. In a sense, though people may disagree with you, the mere fact that they speak up is good for society, regardless of what they are saying.

Additionally, arguments have been made that racist speech in and of itself is good for society. The majority of racist comments are illinformed. People will make comments that any moderately educated person can deem to be false (e.g., the color of one's skin being the determining factor of one's intelligence). This can actually serve to reduce racism. If those people who are "on the fence," so to speak, i.e., those that are border-line racists, may actually see that the arguments in favor of racism are fundamentally flawed.

There is of course the historical aspect of this. If we deny racism exists by suppressing it and having it occur in back alleys rather than in public squares, people may not even realize it exists because they do not see it in their daily lives. In this regard, some argue that groups like the KKK provide a benefit against racism because seeing them in their white hoods allows everyone to see that the problem has not been solved and that we have a long way to go, as Malcolm X said, "If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress." So allowing racist speech allows everyone in the world to see that racists exist and to, hopefully, realize that something needs to be done about it.

On the other side of the argument is common decency. It has been said that racist speech is what incites people to racist actions. The goal of racist speeches are to "light the fire in the belly of the followers." Basically, stating that a particular ethnic group is "bad" for society does not actually solve that "problem," it merely makes other racists aware of it. The real way to solve the problem is to eliminate this group of people (Hitler did not say that the Jews are the source of Germany's problems and therefore should be left alone, he said they should be exterminated). Therefore, the speeches are often filled with raucous and inflamatory comments that serve to anger the listeners. The intention is that they will not simply listen, they will take action. This explains why in the 1800s (and even later), a Black man would be convicted of raping a woman and therefore the townspeople would go and lynch all Black men that they could find; their anger over the crimes of one man (which may have even been ficticious) were redirected at the masses. This is the same way racial speakers work today. They will point out a man of a particular ethnic group who killed someone or raped someone, or some other violent crime. The generalization will be made that this indicates that all members of this group are violent criminals and therefore something must be done to stop them. The methods usually employed involve violence.

Therefore, the presence of racist speech can lead to violent action against innocent people which should never be tolerated. The argument is that it is better to restrict someone's freedom of speech in order to protect someone else's right to life (the famous example being from the U.S. in 1919 when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected because it endangers the lives of others).

Personally, I tend to agree with the latter argument. By allowing people to talk about racist action, it is likely that they might take racist action. In my mind, if I facilitate such communication and, as a result, someone does get hurt, I would feel responsible. Therefore, to me, it is better to restrict the freedom of speech in order to ensure that others can keep their lives."

And this is my belief. If this thread has changed anything or made people more aware of this debate then its been worthwhile. If not then at least we got to see some Monthy Python ...

DeVore

Gandalf, you are beginning to appear foolish now imho.

You dont understand how the internet works at the technical level also you show a poor understanding of copyright law. I'm not saying that to belittle you, I'm saying that so that you will perhaps educate yourself about those topics before arguing on the basis of your (mis)understanding of them.

The Copywright one is very simple really. Read this: http://www.cai.ie/faq/index.htm
Particularly this piece:

"Insubstantial copying

In order to infringe the author's copyright, a "substantial" part of the work must have been copied. Insubstantial copying is therefore permitted. Because it is impossible to say with certainty what is meant by "substantial" in any given situation, users are often reluctant to rely on this exemption. Equally however, authors litigate at some risk. "

So even if we were serving the video clip from Monty Python we would be covered by this "insubstantial copying". As it turns out, we have nothing to do with that clip anyway.

Tech explanation:
Boards.ie does not serve video which is embedded. What happens (technically) is that your browser is handed a "recipe" for the page you are looking at. Most of that recipe says things like "go and ask Boards.ie for this image, put it here. Go to Boards.ie and ask for this text, put it there".
In this case, the recipe also says "go to Youtube and ask it for this video and play it in this box". That the box is surrounded by Boards images and text is not a concern. Your browser is playing it directly from youtube. Not a single byte of that video has passed through Boards.ie servers.

Ironically, if it WAS in violation of copyright, the only people who would be culpable would be Youtube and you, for requesting it.



This thread is very quickly drawing to a close. ETA: 48 hours.

DeV.

Stark

Boston wrote: »

I'm a lady you sexist!

There's no need to lie. This isn't SapphicIreland

Gandalf23

Boston wrote: »

I'm a lady you sexist!

Have a look at the exchanges between myself and Calina for an example of a grown up conversation.

Boston

I'd like to draw your attention to this.

Gandalf23

@ DeVore

I'm happy to let FACT and the legal guys make a judgement on this one. And I'm amazed you seem to be justifying the embedding/hosting/linking of copyrighted material on boards.ie tbh.

AckwelFoley

if you made a comment saying all Nigerians were on welfare and slacking i would call you a fool. I know at least 2 that are not...

There is a higher % of Nigerians taking the mickey out of our system, but there are some very decent hardworking people among them.

Talliesin

Gandalf23 wrote: »

(the famous example being from the U.S. in 1919 when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected because it endangers the lives of others).

Wow. You're (mis)quoting Wendell Holmes' argument that people shouldn't be allowed to resist conscription to a deeply racist war fought in a deeply racist way with the primary prize at stake being which bunch of white people got to own the homes (and practically the lives) of which bunch of coloured people.

This is meant to argue against racism?

Do you have a portrait in your attic getting smarter or something?

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I'm happy to let FACT and the legal guys make a judgement on this one.

You mentioned many copyrighted works. Since links are references, not copies, you are equally guilty.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

And I'm amazed you seem to be justifying the embedding/hosting/linking of copyrighted material on boards.ie tbh.

Oh. Careful with claiming boards is hosting copyrighted material in the same paragraph where you use the phrase "legal guys" - untrue + accusation of illegality = libel.

DeVore

Your bringing up of the KKK is interesting, because they happen to be a complete and total contradiction of your point.

The KKK was most grievously damaged not by being shunned, or ostracised but by being mocked. cf: Freakonomics by Stephen Levitt
The man behind the story was Stetson Kennedy: http://www.stetsonkennedy.com/
and used "Frown Power", an area you might like to read about, I think you'd be interested in it.

So, the answer to your over arching question appears to be that we should allow them to say what they think (they are going to think it anyway) and then DISAGREE with them, firmly but politely. An online "frown" if you will.

DeV.

Boston

Talliesin wrote: »

Do you have a portrait in your attic getting smarter or something?

Terry

Gandalf23 wrote: »

@ DeVore

I'm happy to let FACT and the legal guys make a judgement on this one. And I'm amazed you seem to be justifying the embedding/hosting/linking of copyrighted material on boards.ie tbh.

I'll ask you once again, have you reported me to FACT for linking to youtube?

DeVore

So, no answer to my points.

You are the weakest troll. Goodbye.

DeV.

Calina

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Great post ... an oasis in the sea of idiocy that this thread has decended into.

Thanks.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Granted, I have strongly held views on this. I was attempting to make a logical, coherent argument, but this is more and more difficult when there is such a volume of opposition from very experienced and able posters/mods.

Here, however, I have issues. Regardless of what is fired against you, if your argument holds water, it should be possible to make a logical and coherent argument...Blaming others' input for difficulty here is - in my opinion - a cop out.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

There was also a significant level of personal attack and sniping aimed at me. I didnot fire the first shot in any of these exchanges, but I did defend myself. This makes the discussion more polarised and personal. I'm not going to suffer fools gladly and I'm not going to ignore personal attacks ... just as I would not expect anyone else to.

If it detracts from the subject under discussion I would question the wisdom of it. I'm a moderator. I have gotten quite a lot of personal abuse. I also recognise that this is a message board and the vast majority of people who fling that abuse at me might a) never meet me b) if they did they wouldn't do it. I modify my responses accordingly.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I was happy enough that I'd made my argument. I was happy to accept the answers given. And I still am tbh. Hell, I even made some suggestions!

From reading the thread, I am not sure that your definition of accepting the answers given is the same as mine; however, that's not really important in the wider scheme of things.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I still believe that the TOS of Boards.ie could be improved by specifically including the word "racism", (and even "sexism", and "homaphobia" as suggested by Boston) ... I'm not sure why there is such opposition to this? I have never stated that Boards.ie runs badly ... my motive was to improve boards.ie!

Are you basing that on the assumption that naturally you are right and others are wrong? As it happens, that's a decision which remains with the Admins, one of whom was good enough to engage with you earlier in the thread.

From a personal point of view, I would argue that the TOS of Boards.ie would not be enhanced by specifically including racism/sexism/homophobia and any other potentially offensive actions if only because doing so is prone to see people try to push the limits of the - for want of a better word - rules of the place. A lot of it boils down to what constitute - to some extent - respect and good manners. Choosing specific transgressions only causes arguments of "well, discriminating against red haired computer programmers isn't banned under the TOS", for example. However - ultimately, as I said, that's a call for the Admins.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I'm holding a very strong opinion thats true, but I'm not trying to ram it down peoples throats. I'm making suggestions on the frrdback forum, and the way I've been treated here says volumes about how this forum is administered.

It cuts both ways. Some of your posts demanding answers and demanding that people be man enough to answer your demands are not, in my book, posts from someone that I would generally want to engage with.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I also believe that boards.ie is not inherently racist ... I never said it was. I said a certain level of racism and racist comment is allowed here and imho that is true.

I was genuinely agrieved by the comments made about the French that make my original complaint. Im still of the opinion that they are racist and should not have been allowed in any moderated forum.

I understand that this is your opinion. However, while I think the comments made were ignorant, I would not consider them racist. I find that the term racism is bandied about far too willingly and the net effect of that is to dilute it. Usually when that happens, real incidents of racism are more likely to be tolerated.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

...Personally, I tend to agree with the latter argument. By allowing people to talk about racist action, it is likely that they might take racist action. In my mind, if I facilitate such communication and, as a result, someone does get hurt, I would feel responsible. Therefore, to me, it is better to restrict the freedom of speech in order to ensure that others can keep their lives."

I strongly disagree. Freedom of speech is something for which people have lost their lives. There are ways and means of dealing with the abuse of the freedom but restricting it is not the answer. It is worryingly close to thought policing and from my earlier piece you should have drawn the conclusion that I don't think that's a feature of a healthy society.

Neither is killing someone for the colour of their skin - but then...it's a long jump from a comment about the French on an internet board to that...and to suggest it isn't is to trivialise the latter.

Gandalf23

Talliesin wrote: »

Wow. You're (mis)quoting Wendell Holmes' argument that people shouldn't be allowed to resist conscription to a deeply racist war fought in a deeply racist way with the primary prize at stake being which bunch of white people got to own the homes (and practically the lives) of which bunch of coloured people.

More ignorance to cloud the waters. My quote is correct.

I'm still interested to see what FACT and the others who enforce copyright law in this country will think of Boards.ie seeming to condone copyright material on its site. Is Boards.ie still in the top 30 of all sites visited in Ireland ? FACT will definately be interested methinks ...

I'm not going to argue the toss with DeVore on the technical aspects of this ... more clouding of the waters ... but imho the current law is shown by the TV-Links case (including the technical stuff that some people think makes this site immune ... it does not).

Talliesin

Terry wrote: »

I'll ask you once again, have you reported me to FACT for linking to youtube?

I'd love to see that:

"Someone on the Internet linked to something, and I'm telling you about it because I think linking is copying, but I can't tell you where, because I think linking is copying".

Talliesin

Gandalf23 wrote: »

More ignorance to cloud the waters. My quote is correct.

I object to your racist support for the Western Imperialism of WWI.

Racist scum like you make me sick.

aidan_walsh

I'm still interested to see what FACT and the others who enforce copyright law in this country will think of Boards.ie

Aren't FACT British, and therefore nothing to do with Irish law? Do we even have an Irish equivalent?

the current law is shown by the TV-Links case

A British website, and nothing to do with Irish law...

Gandalf23

Talliesin wrote: »

I object to your racist support for the Western Imperialism of WWI.

Racist scum like you make me sick.

Nice ...

Terry

Talliesin wrote: »

I'd love to see that:

"Someone on the Internet linked to something, and I'm telling you about it because I think linking is copying, but I can't tell you where, because I think linking is copying".

LMAO.

Gandalf23, have you reported me to FACT for linking to copyrighted material on youtube?