Politics: Double standards

ISAW

I have not been banned and I am not complaining about any particular moderator
I have tried to discuss this in a feedback thread which was locked.

Some time ago I addressed the issue of Eamon Gilmore's wife making over 500k on inflated property by selling it to a school when she had earlier agreed to sell at below 100k. Due to lags in the rezoning of the land the price hiked. The inflated price was caused apparently by Fianna Fail policy which her husband's party were contradicting.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68787374&postcount=1

This was deemed nothing to do with the politician ( Gilmore) and deemed to be private business of his wife.

Okay so far.

Then in another thread Ivor Callelly's wife and son are mentioned.
I ask how is it that Gilmore's wife is off limits but Callelly's wife and family are not off limits and their different private business is brought in as part of IC's "business empire".

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056165831

This is deemed off limits.

I specifically started a thread about double standards of moderators and posters alike and how Gilmore is looked on in one way but a FF person in another way.

I am sure I can find similar of SF people so it isn't an FF issue just that Labour seem to be the "acceptable paradigm" on the high moral ground. for example posters are not told they cant post in support of the IRA. Gerry Adams and SF people are frequently abused for associations to the PIRA. Yet if one was to mention Gilmore's links with the Official IRA one wonders how far such a thread would go.

In spite of the discussion being about how Labour are treated one way and non Labour another way i am accused of "soapboxing" and of "being obtuse" and "hosting a personal crusade" and threatened with a ban if I raise the Gilmore/Callelly issue again.

I asked for clarification because I don't understand what is meant by "soapboxing". As far as I under stand it soapboxing is bringing in a pet issue as a side issue into a thread about something else.
Starting a thread about such an issue is not such a covert action! the issue being double standards in general.


The Gilmore Callelly Hanafin examples are only particular examples of the general problem as I view it. It isn't just a mods problem - it is posters also who add to it. We all may vote in a particular way but that is no reason to degrade other people who vote in a different way or to have different rules for people who appear to be from their group. Even a RIRA or a Loyalist paramilitary supporter should be dealt with under the same rules as everyone else.

I am told the moderator in question will not discuss the issue with me and believes I am not telling the truth. If I disagree with the moderators decision I am advised to come to dispute resolution.

But I have a problem with posters and moderators in general operating double standards and not with resolving a particular dispute with a particular mod.

I leave the issue go and a few days later a post appears on Mary Hanafin's mother making a compensation claim from the State.. again all the invective and abuse linking this to Fianna Fail corruption.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056170206
Again I ask how posters can say this about Callelly s family Hanafin's family but not Gilmore's family?

the thread is locked with the warning that I brought in an issue from another thread.
I point out I didn't bring up the Hanafin issue.

I am threatened with a ban from politics for this.
Why? I didn't argue with the moderator or question their decision. I just clarified that I did not bring up the issue of a politicians family.


As it happens
I didn't bring up the Gilmore issue
I didn't bring up the Callelly issue
I didn't bring up the Hanafin issue


I brought up the issue of Gilmore being treated in a wholly different light due to double standards


There was a feedback thread on the politics forum so I decide to go there . the thread is locked but I start another thread to discuss double standards. I specifically point out that Callelly or me or whoever are not the issue but the issue is how the family of a politician from one party can be considered off limits but if the are FF or SF their family is fair game.

A moderator arrives and quite wrongly claims that they had been open to discuss the issue with me.

I point out that moderator had already personally told me I was a liar and had also refused to discuss the issue with me. I also point out that the issue isn't about only a dispute with them but a discussion about bias in both moderation and posters in general on the subject of the families of politicians as symptomatic of a broader bais in favour of the acceptable paradigm.

The thread is locked and I was advised to bring up the issue here.

Here is the issue:

Why are representatives one political party not allowed to be criticised and have family members deemed off limits but the families of representatives of other political party's are fair game?

Why should I be banned for pointing that out to posters?

If I am not lying why should the belief that I am lying about it have any bearing on any moderator's decision?

Do you make decisions based on bias and beliefs or on facts?

Addendum: By means of clarification about what is unclear and to preempt antone saying that I just made this point after the fact here is a reference to a moderator telling me that I am bringing up another moderators decision in a thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70498930#post70498930

Now when I read it it could be taken to mean "with moderation" didn't mean "with another moderator's decision" but "without going full on attacking the posters opinion" i.e as someone might say "drinking alcohol is good in when taken in moderation".
But the point i would make is i was not posting about earlier moderators decisions. i was posting about a culture of moderators and non moderators alike who line up SF FF and others as whipoping boys and can't accrpt from the hiogh moral ground that the same argument can be applied to Labour e.g. associations to Official IRA, Union control, media control, marxist bolchivist structures. gerry Adams can be mentioned with the IRA but Eamon Gilmore Pat Rabitte or PO D Rossa can't! FF and SF TD's can be catagorised as all belonging to a culture of corruption or bank robbers and but people with a Workers Party background involved in gun running or forgery indeed of printing their own money can't!

It reminds me of leftists who supported free speech "except for Nazis," and bit by bit others who don't agree with them are tarred with the "nazi associations" brush

i hope Im getting my point across. this isn't about me or about a moderator or a group of moderatoes. It is about a pernicious mindset which may be endemic (indeed epidemic) and which works against the truth and free speech.

That said I'm not against rules but let us remember why we make them.

nesf

ISAW you were not banned because of the subject of your post but how you posted. You attempted to ram your opinion down the throats of everyone who disagreed with you and failed to engage and debate with others properly. This is soapboxing and is not allowed in the forum.

There is zero issue of double standards here since the two instances are completely different.

ISAW

nesf wrote: »

ISAW you were not banned because of the subject of your post

i was not banned at all as I have pointed out!

I have had run ins with moderators and non moderators for mu posting style in the past.
I have tried to moderate my own posts whether iot be asa simple as spelling or or to try to reduce one-on-one developments.

However i still thing the socratic dialogue is a didactic style which can and is usefull if niot the most efficient way.
In any case, to ban someone for how they post is tantamoiunt to saying "it isn't what your argue but your accent/skin coulour/religion/ sexual oirientation.

I mean if you are going to become a style nazi where does it stop?

I accept i hae an aggreessive style but which devoted some time to pedantic analysis and deconstruction and then attacks the argument but I don't attack the person. If I am going to be banned for an unwriotten rule about "aggressive style" will you progress to banning "boring posters" or posters that post to much.

By the way as I tend to take up a contrary position to those attacking the IRA SF FF Catholics or whoever is this weeks whipping boy, it is all the more likely that it tends to become ISAW posting replies to several people attacking me. I only recently learned how to multi quote but the result will either be lots of posts by me or huge multiquote posts by me. Am I to be banned for posting too much?

but how you posted. You attempted to ram your opinion down the throats of everyone who disagreed with you and failed to engage and debate with others properly. This is soapboxing and is not allowed in the forum.

I am not likely to be debating against people who agree with me so I don't see why I should be engaging in debate with them. I am not a bigot as you claim trying to ram an unchanged opiniuon down other people throat. I am quite prepared to accept other opinions but they have to be supported by evidence if someone is claiming they are correct. I am then prepared to compromise. They have to accept my evidence or tell me where it is wrong.


I view peoples' opinions in a certain light and try to ascertain the basis for them.

There is zero issue of double standards here since the two instances are completely different.

[/quote]



which two instances?

I referred to three

1. Eamon gilmore's wife making money from a totally legal land deal.

2. Ivor callelly's wife and son making money from their totally legal businessess

3. Mary Hanafins mother making money from a totally legal compensation claim


they are similar in the following respects:

A: The people involved acted in a totally legal manner.

B: the people involved were not politicians but were related to politicians


the difference was

C: Series of abuse hurled at 2 and 3 and treating their business as part of the politiican's
Series of excuses made for 1 and saying her business had nothing to do with the politician.

the other difference was C were FF politiicians family
D was a Labour politicians family.

Notice the picture yet?

But let us assume I am wrong.
Maybe I got it wrong then an ther is no bias and the politicians are different cases.

Scientifically if one has a theory one usually proposes a falsification test.

Okay then how abou this ?

I'll start discussions on the Official IRA links to Eamon Gilmore and other Labour people and we will see how that progresses.

These will include peripheral contacts and any links to family members. Would that be okay?

Any mention of FF people or FG people or GP or SF will be completely different since this issue is only about Labour Party and the Official IRA and Sinn Féin links. Oh you can throw in Marxist and similar links between current Labour people and Students' and other Unions etc.

I will be very careful about libel an defamation and will supply published sources for any non opinion points.

Should
I such a thread be completely acceptable and
II no legal implications arise with boards.ie from another source,
III no moderators deem this thread not a subject worthy of discussion and
IV no posters arrive in with attacks on FF,FG,GP,SF independents or anyone else

I accept my suggestion of double standards were probably paranioa and I'm big enough to change my mind and admit I am wrong.

I suspect I won't be shown in the wrong. shall we see?

And no "cheating" by telling other mods, discussing this with them or asking Labour party people not to post that thread. But they don't post it they have another problem which I won't go into at this point as I'm still analysing the possible outcomes.

nesf

Actually I think it's best if Dades handles this one. Since he's an outsider.

GuanYin

To clarify, ISAWs warning and the reason for locking the Hanafin thread are not related.

The Hanafin thread in question was locked because it really wasn't a politics-standard thread (reasoning in my closing post), much like the original thread by ISAW.

ISAW

GuanYin wrote: »

To clarify, ISAWs warning and the reason for locking the Hanafin thread are not related.

The Hanafin thread in question was locked because it really wasn't a politics-standard thread (reasoning in my closing post), much like the original thread by ISAW.

Fair enough. it was eventually locked. after the non related points were made.
But I will accept the excuse that delays may occur because mods can't be everywhere.

Why then is Callelly's wife ( also locked) to do with standards in politics but Gilmore's wife not to do with standards?

But as regards whether threads meet certain standards:

And it still fits with my test of posting a thread on the history of Eamon Gilmore marxism the IRA and wealth.

whether for example he rejects Marxism particularly the core principle of "to each according to their needs"

Are there connections with current Labour people and the IRA?

All these might relate to "standards in politics" just as SF/ IRA connections or people before profit or socialists connections to marxism and how owning lots of property would be against their principles. All these similar "standards" apply to SF or FF in other threads so why not in this thread? What is the difference? The difference it seems is that Gilmore is Labour and the others are not Labour. One "standard" for Labour and another for everyone else. Which is the basis for "double standards".

So if such a thread is acceptable and will be treated just as Ivor was treated? i.e. no bringing in any outside references or comparisons - this is just about Gilmore Official IRA the militant left and Labour?

Given what happened to Gilmore last night on TV and today's newspapers reports on the leaders' debate I expect a deluge of people saying I am orchestrating this and all sorts of accusations and conspiracy theories. That I am part of some larger group of people who planned this tactic of starting a thread on Gilmore after he does bad in a TV debate all as part of a strategy? i expect that is what you will see. Again I could be wrong. Let us see shall we?

Dades

nesf wrote: »

Actually I think it's best if Dades handles this one. Since he's an outsider.

Give me a bit of time to get into this.

In the interim, ISAW, if you want to sum up what you hope to clarify with this thread that would be great.

From what I understand, any warning you got has been accepted (talking about moderation etc.) Also, you've accepted that the Hanafin thread was eventually locked in the same way the Callelly thread was... so is the issue now just that the Gilmore thread wasn't locked?

Bear in mind, politics is not my forte.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

Give me a bit of time to get into this.

In the interim, ISAW, if you want to sum up what you hope to clarify with this thread that would be great.

From what I understand, any warning you got has been accepted (talking about moderation etc.) Also, you've accepted that the Hanafin thread was eventually locked in the same way the Callelly thread was... so is the issue now just that the Gilmore thread wasn't locked?

Bear in mind, politics is not my forte.

I haven't been banned from anywhere and I tried to start a discussion in feedback but I was told I had to bring it here.


it seems when I ( or someone else) compares Gilmore to Callelly or Hanafin or anyone else I am told he isn't a valid comparison or that the thread is nt about Gilmore and therefore his is off topic.

Im sufggesting there is a "whipping boy " culture developing where people are singled out by a "lynch mob" mentality.

I'm not saying this is planned by moderators but that some of them are affected by it and it involves everyone.

When such a thing happens it may well be that someone they lynch is guilty but the problem with lynchings is sooner or later someone is lynched who isn't properly tried
or their family or anything connected to them is also brought in. SF are derided for connections with the IRA, FF are derided for all being corrupt and anyone voting for them or supporting them is either corrupt or a fool.

People look for actions rather than solutions e.g. Labour want to bring in a new constitution ( apparently we have to discard all the court decisions based on the old constitution since 1937)

I witness the manifestation of this mindset in the way the church, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin etc. are thretned by high moral ground groups.

In the politics forum [my opinion] I would have thought Fine Gael people would be more likely to adopt this mind set [given church connections and "law and order party" ]this mindset but this seems to me to be [my opinion] a Labour element.

What I home to clarify is fair level standards.

If for example I start a thread on Eamon Gilmore Labour leaders and his and other current Labour leaders connections to the IRA and communism I believe you would see this mindset and the double standards in operation.

ISAW

GuanYin wrote: »

To clarify, ISAWs warning and the reason for locking the Hanafin thread are not related.

The Hanafin thread in question was locked because it really wasn't a politics-standard thread (reasoning in my closing post), much like the original thread by ISAW.

To clarify I was warned about discussing the moderation of a moderator in a thread
:

You were warned not to discuss moderation on the thread. Linking to a feedback thread is a nice way to circumvent that directive but it is still not allowed.

I didn't discuss the moderation of another moderator in a thread

I think i may have the source of this particular problem here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70498875&postcount=32

In which a moderator views my post as arguing with another moderator's decision.

My point about it being alright to post something isn't a criticism of a particular moderator it is a critique of a mindset which some moderators seem have bought into which is widespread and includes other posters and not just moderators. What I call a "whipping boy culture".

Let me try to give an example:

Suppose someone post's that A: women should not be allowed to vote and a moderator locks the thread and says sexism isn't allowed. then a thread is started on say B:gender quotas and eventually someone says men should be denied votes. I come along and say "but you locked a thread because of sexism against women. People are now attacking men. How come the same standards don't apply? Another moderator warns me because i am criticising a prior decision and the subject this time is men and not women.

Okay then I say, if men is are different issue I'll start a thread on C:whether men should be denied the vote. I do so and i point out that it seems to me people apply different standards to men then they do to women. that if we were to state women should be denied the vote we are "sexist" but denying men votes is a different issue. That the evidence for this is we refuse to allow discussion ( whether in popular culture in general complaint or by moderation in boards.ie ) on women being denied votes but the same people who complain about such discussions being allowed ( who are not necessarily moderators and are not restricted to boards.ie) also come to abuse men and the connections men have to power and they say what we need is men to be removed from power even if it means restricting or removing their voting power. comments like "it is a pity men have any power at all" ( an example of this specifically being mentioned in a thread A or B is given) are made. I suggest this is double standards.

I point out didn't bring up the earlier mods' decisions on A or B or begin the A or B discussions. My point was a general point of which A and B are a specific instance and I wanted people to know I didn't bring up A or B just so they are aware for a fact that it was not I that brought of that subject.

I am threatened with a ban because the suggestion points to an earlier moderator decision about women not being allowed to vote being off limits as a sexist discussion and that arguing about a moderators ruling is against the rules.

See my problem?

Does that throw any light on the issue?

Another thing springs to mind the quote/use distinction



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

Maybe there is an element of trying to work out if an earlier thread is being referred to as part of a wider problem or the arguments in it being rehearsed without anything new being added. Also , in this specific case is the problem of whether this "wider problem" is a politics thread issue or a feedback issue for boards. I am suggesting it is a societal problem ( therefore probably for discussion) bit it manifests in discussions about rules ( therefore a feedback/moderation issue).

In short it seems to be a case where discussions about how society functions fairly society became entangled with discussions about how boards functions fairly.

Dades

Okay,

Despite your well worded (and verbose) defense, I have to disagree with your contention that you weren't bringing up moderating decisions. (Despite my best efforts to agree with you).

It may not worded "I disagree with X's decision because..." but the implication is there that you have an issue with the moderation, whether with one mod - or in general, and expressing that doesn't belong in a politics thread.

A verbal warning should have been enough to take it to feedback - and keep it there. Unfortunately one mention too many earned you a yellow.

For what it's worth, you might well have a case in terms of inconsistency in the closure or non-closure of threads ('double standards' implies an agenda on the part of the mods, which frankly, I don't buy into) ... but that's not up for discussion here.

So having looked at LoLth's response on the original feedback thread, I think you should restate your case there, leaving aside the issue of a paltry yellow card and a ban warning (which I agree with) and focus on what you perceive to be going on in Politics in general terms.

I know why the feedback thread subject got shifted here, but honestly, leaving aside your yellow card, this is a feedback issue that needs to be open to all.

Asiaprod

Agree with above, marking this resolved.