A&A Feedback

Turtwig

Obviously the mods will have to discuss this.

My current thinking is a one size fits all nutty beliefs thread for fruitcake material that doesn't quite fit the hazards thread. With spinoff threads being created on an as needed basis.

Having a left and right thread limits the potential scope imo. Although we could always have those and another thread for the material that doesn't quite fit snugly into either.

robindch

Turtwig wrote: »

My current thinking is a one size fits all nutty beliefs thread for fruitcake material that doesn't quite fit the hazards thread. With spinoff threads being created on an as needed basis.

The way I look at is it - hazards is for regular peeps clobbering themselves one way or another with religion. There's a lot of it about. Fruitcakes was originally for religiously-inspired silliness from the republican side in the 2012 US presidential election - the Democrats, for the most part, avoiding the temptation. There is a recent "Religion and the Law" which is for all those stories about religious people creating, and trying to create, laws to benefit themselves and their religious beliefs.

I'd certainly be interested to see if what jank refers to as "the left" can produce as much religiously-inspired silliness as any other group - I'm inclined to think "no way" and that the thread is likely to fill with textblocks by self-described right-wingers and conservatives complaining about people whom they describe as "left-wing".

I should add that I think the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" are worse than useless in describing people's political views, though people who self-describe as "right wing" appear to think otherwise. A far more useful distinction is between "liberal" (assert and work for distributed trust networks) and "authoritarian" (the opposite), but the forum mods would need a holiday if two more threads devoted to the slivering up the political firmament were to appear.

jank

robindch wrote: »

I'd certainly be interested to see if what jank refers to as "the left" can produce as much religiously-inspired silliness as any other group - I'm inclined to think "no way" and that the thread is likely to fill with textblocks by self-described right-wingers and conservatives complaining about people whom they describe as "left-wing".

Ah got it now. I think its quite funny, ironic, unsurprising but somewhat disappointing that you are putting down rules and standards about a thread that goes against your political grain while having no problem filling the GOP conservative fruit cake thread with all kinds of things, many of which have diddly squat to do with religion (UKIP immigration for example). Heck, what does A+A have to do with an actual theological discussion? Not much tbh hence why most of what is discussion in A&A is current affairs and sociological topics of the day.

You set the standard Robin, now you have to live by it.

keane2097

I think there's a fair bit of merit in a watchdog thread for the sort of stuff jank posted in the left-wing cookies thread so far.

There's definitely stuff being said/done in the name of secularism, feminism etc. that are questionable and would be interesting to discuss, even though I'd be fully pro- both notions nominally.

jank

The only person that wants to put some form of control here is you Robin. Other moderators have said this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90995447&postcount=574

Then starting creating threads criticising lefties fruitcakes. Honestly this is reading like some viewpoints should be protected from criticisms that's not how a and a works.

This is what I have done. Now you are starting to write terms and conditions, which goes against this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90979473&postcount=534

Where possible we let threads steer themselves. Only when the line is blatantly crossed do we step in. I think this approach is best to any discussion. No idea is sacred. Regardless how obviously stupid something is if you can't explain why then it's not stupid.

This has all been discussed before. I have no problem with the above.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Ah got it now.

Your reply suggests you haven't, since I've already said that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are not useful in describing how people approach these issues in reality. The terms "liberal" and "authoritarian" are useful descriptors and I think it would be useful to rename the threads to reflect that.

In this case, the "authoritarian fruitcakes" thread should include reports of authoritarian individuals behaving badly. The majority of these individuals are likely to self-describe as "right-wing", "conservative" and religious. Then, there'll be a separate "liberal fruitcakes" thread for reports of people who self-describe as "left-wing", "liberal" and possibly non-religious.

Does this distinction make sense?

jank

So, its guilt by association then. Immigration is not a religious topic but because the person who may want to curtail immigration in said country may be religious, then its ok to put that in the 'GOP fruitcake thread to discuss.
Therefore, we are back to the Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were atheists, therefore atheism is bad/evil. That is the logic you are using here.

If so I am good with that.

Turtwig

keane2097 wrote: »

There's definitely stuff being said/done in the name of secularism, feminism etc. that are questionable and would be interesting to discuss, even though I'd be fully pro- both notions nominally.

Indeed, and I do believe we can include this stuff in a thread somewhere. Personally my preference is to focus on all strands of nuttiness in all shapes and guises. Rather than try to split it down a left/right divide. To borrow the old cliché some things are so far right they're effective left and some things are so far left they're effectively right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

The think is, Permabear, an awful lot of atheists wouldn't see the Pope's critique of capitalism as particularly nutty. While an awful lot of theists would.

Which highlights the error of trying to associate atheism, or theism, with a particular social or political standpoint.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Conversely, Libertarian organizations take on a stance of 'hip progressive' critiques of social conservatism, in order to sell the idea of free-market-capitalism to people interested in those social issues.

You don't seem to believe Pope Francis is genuine in his promotion of those ideals, seem to think he is more interested in promoting Catholicism - same way a lot of people don't really believe much of the Libertarian movements promotion of change on social issues is genuine, thinking it's more about selling free-market-capitalism to naive people.

Some people are of the opinion that Pope Francis is genuine, some not - same way people have differing opinions about major parts of the Libertarian movement; so not much point going over it, since it's pretty much down to opinion.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not the forums fault, that a lot of nutty thinking happens to fall on the side of right-wing politics/economics; just because the forum has a tendency to ridicule nonsense/nuttery of all kinds, doesn't mean it has an 'anti-right-wing' agenda of some kind, just because a lot of such nuttery comes from 'the right'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shruikan2553

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Considering he is the leader of the Catholic church people probably find it hypocritical that all of a sudden he is talking about equality being good.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Agreed, but with a religious (or non/anti-religious?) influence?

Example:
"We’ve seen Dell leaving Limerick. I would have advocated that they should be taken into public ownership" - Ruth Coppinger

I'm not sure, however, that Coppinger's religious beliefs (or non-beliefs/anti-religiosity?) are forming or influencing her opinion here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, you're quite wrong in that.

I opened that thread because I find the way that the way in which Ayn Rand's supporters treat her and her output similar to the way in which deities and their supposed output are treated by their supports. And the thread was to criticize her views, not the woman herself, as you appear to think. And speaking as somebody with broadly "free-market capitalist" views myself, let me assure you it's got nothing to do with "capitalism and free markets".

robindch

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's not the forums fault, that a lot of nutty thinking happens to fall on the side of right-wing politics/economics; just because the forum has a tendency to ridicule nonsense/nuttery of all kinds, doesn't mean it has an 'anti-right-wing' agenda of some kind, just because a lot of such nuttery comes from 'the right'.

A corollary being the idea that "Reality has a liberal bias" - the word "liberal" in that sense being roughly synonymous with "left wing".

Posters having a go at other peoples' silliness has nothing to do with the political views of the other people. It just has to do with the silliness, though -- for example, as with religious people -- allegations of bias and persecution can be used to silence unwanted criticism and/or to demand respect for the people and their views.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

keane2097

This is no longer feedback. Again.

Turtwig

Oh jeez, please don't go rethreading ground that has been cover on this thread before.

Any topic here is welcome - within reason. It's also unreasonable to expect a site like boards.ie to have a balance in content between material criticisng left wing and right wing views. The core demographic of the Irish population is considerably left, even those who consider them right can be considered left in comparison to our distant neighbours across the pond.

PopePalpatine

To be honest, some of the posts in that "Half-Baked Republican/Right-Wing/Conservative etc. Fruitcakes" didn't have anything to do with religion lately. As someone who's working class, I love watching Rand, her ideological comrades and their ideologies getting taken down a peg (or many), but that thread was started in response to Michelle "Bach**** Crazy" Bachmann and her run to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Those posts which have nothing to do with religion should have gone in the "Atlas Shrugged" thread IMHO.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So, is your position that mods should have no opinions at all or only opinions that you approve of?

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ok, let's make this very simple. The majority of the rightwing views expressed on this site are not by atheists. A survey done of our core demographics found less than 10 users who identity with either the Social Right or Economic Right. Most posters, the overwhelming majority, identify with left socially and left economically.

Your insistence that a moderator is responsible for this is frankly a load of baloney.

The attitudes which you wish to see expressed on this forum are, for the interim at least, going to be a stark minority. Rand is like Bernal here. Nobody in Ireland has a clue what those names mean. I choose Bernal because that was I what opted to name my username after. A scientific figure, also an atheist, that was somewhat inspirational. However, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the people who are regulars on this forum had no clue of my previous username connotations. Probably most of them know nothing about Bernal.

Pokemon are far better recognised than Rand and Bernal.

I hope you can see that I empathise with your position about people here not appreciating Rand. It's great that you have such reverence for Rand. Nobody can ever dismiss your efforts for wanting others to see her as a impressive figure. The thing is she's not pokemon. Most people on this Island haven't a clue who she was and most people on this forum don't fall into the core demographics of ever having an interest in her or considering what she said. Those that do, given the core demographics, will likely already have a very strong negative opinion of her.

This has very little to do with who's moderator. It's simply down to the attitudes of the people on this Island as a whole. Irish people don't like Libertarianism. That isn't to say of course that there aren't libertarians who are Irish.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shruikan2553

With the way things are going we're going to have to give a lot of people their own thread to keep them happy. Can I get one about blackjack and strippers?