Thread in AH about Nigerians....

K-9

No issue with thread staying open, but this:

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Can we cut out the accusations of racism please,

Seriously?

You allow this to keep going and *not* expect some moron to say something overtly racist, and expect us to keep shtum about it if it happens!?

I've no issue if nothing's been said already, but I don't think it's feasible to ask people not to call out/report racist posts when it happens.

Dades

You can still report posts you believe to be racist, no?

biko

Everything about Nigerians doesn't have to be racist. Just report the posts you think break some rule and let the AH mods do their thing.

humbert

Threads like that are so often destroyed by people arguing over what does and doesn't qualify as racism and that is not what the discussion is about.

Sulla Felix

Report the post, same as you're not supposed to call out trolls only report them.
Admittedly I enjoy a flame war as much as the next bridge dweller bit I have to day ah is the better for nipping them in the bud.

K-9

SeaSlacker wrote: »

No issue with thread staying open, but this:



Seriously?

You allow this to keep going and *not* expect some moron to say something overtly racist, and expect us to keep shtum about it if it happens!?

No, posters should challenge stuff they see as overtly racist, they don't have to call posters racist though.

I've no issue if nothing's been said already, but I don't think it's feasible to ask people not to call out/report racist posts when it happens.

Well we've had reported posts about that thread since my warning, plus posters asking question/rebutting points, so I don't think that's an issue.

We currently have an AH feedback thread stickied in the forum, it might be better raising the point there. It definitely is something worth raising there, exactly the type of stuff that needs to be discussed.

southsiderosie

K-9 wrote: »

No, posters should challenge stuff they see as overtly racist, they don't have to call posters racist though.



Well we've had reported posts about that thread since my warning, plus posters asking question/rebutting points, so I don't think that's an issue.

We currently have an AH feedback thread stickied in the forum, it might be better raising the point there. It definitely is something worth raising there, exactly the type of stuff that needs to be discussed.

K-9, what is the point of rebutting these kinds of posts? Really? It is not like anyone with an axe to grind against foreigners is going to pay attention anyway. I can't even count the number of threads I have seen started on this website whose only purpose was to incite a Simpsons-esque pitchfork brigade to rant and rave about immigrants. It does no good to try and have a debate around facts, because facts don't matter to these people.

What is even more disheartening is when you have situations like the current Nigerian remittance thread with obvious re-reg posters, people playing the man not the ball continually, and a whole lot of nonsense bollix passing as commentary, and the mods don't seem to care.

Racism as sanctioned - or perhaps more accurately, xenophobia - seems to be defined as someone who flat-out says something to the effect of "kill them all". This is an impossibly high threshold. What is more insidious is the constant low-level stuff, which is usually introduced via an 'innocent' question about why [Group X] does [bad thing] Y.

I understand that the 'someone is wrong on the internet' impulse is what drives a lot of site traffic, and it is certainly responsible for a fair amount of my posting. And I also understand the moderator impulse to let people hang themselves. But the low-level xenophobia on this website is beyond tiresome at this point. If people want to post anti-immigrant screeds, then they have an obligation to actually engage with posters who challenge their views rather than resorting to belittling them or sticking their fingers in their ears. If they aren't willing to engage in discussion on a discussion board, then I don't see why they have the privilege of posting here.

Nodin

Indeed. Earlier I reported a post where somebody was throwing in news articles, no links attached, with no obvious connection to the OP, and refusing to explain themselves - in effect soapboxing. I fail to see the justification for allowing that to go on.

Sacksian

It is a difficult thing to moderate though - challenging racist or sexist language isn't the same thing as definitively identifying someone a "racist" or a "sexist".

I posted this elsewhere yesterday, in relation to anti-semitism, but it holds here:

There are very few universal beliefs about gender or race.

It would inhibit a lot of discussions if no one can directly challenge ideas or theories which are considered racist or sexist on-thread - and instead are instructed to report them rather than respond to them.

Otherwise, every belief about race or gender falls into two categories: either forbidden (and the poster is banned/post is moderated) or allowed (but no one can challenge it because it disrupts the thread).

I think if someone is making an argument based on (what I consider) a false assumption regarding race, religion or gender (e.g. the belief that Jews have dual loyalty / greater allegiance to Israel than the country of their citizenship, etc) or using inflammatory language, that you should be able to challenge that on-thread.

K-9

southsiderosie wrote: »

K-9, what is the point of rebutting these kinds of posts? Really? It is not like anyone with an axe to grind against foreigners is going to pay attention anyway. I can't even count the number of threads I have seen started on this website whose only purpose was to incite a Simpsons-esque pitchfork brigade to rant and rave about immigrants. It does no good to try and have a debate around facts, because facts don't matter to these people.

Oh I'd mostly agree with you on that, the other side of that is if somebody raises a reasonable concern about immigration you'll get a certain section of posters who'll rant and rave about racists/racism very quickly. The problem is both sides will not put their pitch forks down, and to blame one side is missing the overall problem on immigration threads.

People often don't listen on many topics, Republicanism, environmentalism, you name it, threads on immigration are no different, though they probably are more troublesome as regards vile comments/trolling. One thing that wont change minds is yelling at them.

What is even more disheartening is when you have situations like the current Nigerian remittance thread with obvious re-reg posters, people playing the man not the ball continually, and a whole lot of nonsense bollix passing as commentary, and the mods don't seem to care.

You know the score with suspected re-reg's, report them and we'll take a look. It's a common thing on these threads, but people shouldn't automatically assume it either. As for not caring, there was 2 on thread warnings and a good few cards handed out.

Racism as sanctioned - or perhaps more accurately, xenophobia - seems to be defined as someone who flat-out says something to the effect of "kill them all". This is an impossibly high threshold. What is more insidious is the constant low-level stuff, which is usually introduced via an 'innocent' question about why [Group X] does [bad thing] Y.

Lazy generalisations are well, lazy, doesn't stop people from doing it. If people want to take some statistic and make some massive generalisation based on it, I think it is better to let posters argue logically with it, banning it isn't going to make it go away. Outright racist comments do get treated harshly.

I understand that the 'someone is wrong on the internet' impulse is what drives a lot of site traffic, and it is certainly responsible for a fair amount of my posting. And I also understand the moderator impulse to let people hang themselves. But the low-level xenophobia on this website is beyond tiresome at this point. If people want to post anti-immigrant screeds, then they have an obligation to actually engage with posters who challenge their views rather than resorting to belittling them or sticking their fingers in their ears. If they aren't willing to engage in discussion on a discussion board, then I don't see why they have the privilege of posting here.

There are a good few posters willing to debate the issue like grown ups. There's a group of posters on both sides that don't really help though. I'd agree soap boxing in general is a problem in AH, but that's something that probably is better brought up on the AH feedback thread.

gallag

What amazes me is how some people want to kill the debate, not one single person has said they believe the world bank numbers are 100% correct and that all nigerians are scammers just that it should be investigated and we should have a healthy debate about it, whats wrong with that?

Montroseee

gallag wrote: »

What amazes me is how some people want to kill the debate, not one single person has said they believe the world bank numbers are 100% correct and that all nigerians are scammers just that it should be investigated and we should have a healthy debate about it, whats wrong with that?

I'm the creator of that thread and all I wanted was to discuss the issue. The amount of posters with clear agendas trying to derail the thread is unreal. Enough has been said about the false racism accusations and I thank the Mods for dealing with it correctly. I hope to see this issue (If there is one) discussed and dealt with where it really matters.

RoundyMooney

I wouldn't tag all Nigerians as scammers, and I've yet to have anything resembling a positive experience with any of them-and I've dealt with very many.

I would take the World Bank figures as authoritive though, not solely because they have remained consistent over the last couple of years. I haven't read the thread, but I'd be quite surprised if someone hasn't said that on there up to now. Disappointed too, if that is the case, that people are so nervous (of the backlash from others, or being labelled with that retarded tuk ur jawbs sh1te) of making a reasonable comment about the figures quoted by an international institution, and what those figures are telling us.

Pawwed Rig

Montroseee wrote: »

I hope to see this issue (If there is one) discussed and dealt with where it really matters.

In fairness posting in after hours was probably not the best idea if you wanted a serious discussion on this topic. It has turned out pretty much as I woul have expected it to tbh

southsiderosie

gallag wrote: »

What amazes me is how some people want to kill the debate, not one single person has said they believe the world bank numbers are 100% correct and that all nigerians are scammers just that it should be investigated and we should have a healthy debate about it, whats wrong with that?

That is not true - there are posters on that thread who are claiming not only that the World Bank figures are right, but belittling anyone who dares to question their veracity.

Also, how is insulting other posters and constantly refusing to engage with posters who question their posts 'healthy debate'? That thread was a hot mess because those who had an anti-immigration axe to grind, and then found out there was no 'there' there, insisted on screaming the same thing over and over again, and belittling anyone who questioned their statements or their motives.

I think Scofflaw put it best:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - the figures are just estimates, which are obviously meaningless in terms of knowing whether anything out of the ordinary is happening. Some people want it "investigated" (that is, they want it confirmed) because it happens to accord with their particular concerns.

Either way, it's entertaining to watch people acclaiming one set of official figures (World Bank) while dismissing another set (CSO) - the basis is very visibly agreement with prejudice. No doubt when someone at the official level in Ireland points out the shaky basis of the figures, that will be described as a 'cover-up'. You all know what you know, and no facts disagreeing with you will change that.

amused,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In fairness posting in after hours was probably not the best idea if you wanted a serious discussion on this topic. It has turned out pretty much as I woul have expected it to tbh

That thread would not have survived long outside of AH.

southsiderosie

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I wouldn't tag all Nigerians as scammers, and I've yet to have anything resembling a positive experience with any of them-and I've dealt with very many.

I would take the World Bank figures as authoritive though, not solely because they have remained consistent over the last couple of years. I haven't read the thread, but I'd be quite surprised if someone hasn't said that on there up to now. Disappointed too, if that is the case, that people are so nervous (of the backlash from others, or being labelled with that retarded tuk ur jawbs sh1te) of making a reasonable comment about the figures quoted by an international institution, and what those figures are telling us.

I'm not saying this to be snarky, but perhaps you should read the thread in question.

Montroseee

southsiderosie wrote: »

That thread would not have survived long outside of AH.

So you are unhappy with the moderators are you?

Nodin

gallag wrote: »

What amazes me is how some people want to kill the debate, not one single person has said they believe the world bank numbers are 100% correct and that all nigerians are scammers ...............

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84709326&postcount=354

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84706350&postcount=277

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84702715&postcount=208

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84698353&postcount=151

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84697981&postcount=142

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84694746&postcount=119

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84693341&postcount=84
...plus the implication the vast majority are here because of abusing the system....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84710253&postcount=373

...and what irks me, which is the refusal to back up claims...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84708420&postcount=331


None of it helped by various previous comments in other threads by some commenting in this one.

Montroseee

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84709326&postcount=354

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84706350&postcount=277

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84702715&postcount=208

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84698353&postcount=151

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84697981&postcount=142

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84694746&postcount=119

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84693341&postcount=84
...plus the implication the vast majority are here because of abusing the system....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84710253&postcount=373

...and what irks me, which is the refusal to back up claims...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84708420&postcount=331


None of it helped by various previous comments in other threads by some commenting in this one.

You should report posts. Some of those are obvious trolls, there will always be a few in controversial threads.

RoundyMooney

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm not saying this to be snarky, but perhaps you should read the thread in question.

I was responding to the post above mine in particular. That poster seemed to allude that no one had posted what I'd call a reasonable reply. On a second reading, I realise gallag wasn't saying that at all-he was in fact saying that people were making such comments, and that no one by his reckoning was tarring everyone with the one brush. My apologies to him for misreading his input.

Nodin

Montroseee wrote: »

You should report posts. Some of those are obvious trolls, there will always be a few in controversial threads.

I'm merely clarifying the floated notion that this was some polite discussion at The Urban Debaters club that had been gatecrashed by those wanting to "kill the debate".

Rabies

SeaSlacker wrote: »

No issue with thread staying open, but this:



Seriously?

You allow this to keep going and *not* expect some moron to say something overtly racist, and expect us to keep shtum about it if it happens!?

I've no issue if nothing's been said already, but I don't think it's feasible to ask people not to call out/report racist posts when it happens.

Would it be racist if the scammers were white Nigerians?

southsiderosie

K-9 wrote: »

Lazy generalisations are well, lazy, doesn't stop people from doing it. If people want to take some statistic and make some massive generalisation based on it, I think it is better to let posters argue logically with it, banning it isn't going to make it go away. Outright racist comments do get treated harshly.

The problem is, dealing with 'outright' racism isn't the issue. Clearly someone who says that blacks are monkeys or something of the sort are going to get infracted. The more insidious problem, however, is that there is a low-level steady drumbeat of threads that are set up with the sole intent of hammering certain groups, whether travelers or Nigerians.

P. Breathnach

southsiderosie wrote: »

The problem is, dealing with 'outright' racism isn't the issue. Clearly someone who says that blacks are monkeys or something of the sort are going to get infracted. The more insidious problem, however, is that there is a low-level steady drumbeat of threads that are set up with the sole intent of hammering certain groups, whether travelers or Nigerians.

Indeed.

I know that the use of the phrase "thinly-veiled" is frowned on in AH, but I have followed the thread and I see thinly-veiled racism in it.

There isn't even the thinnest of veils to mask some generalised anti-Nigerian comments.

Cody Pomeray

Is it really up to the mods to regulate 'thinly veiled' anything?

I suspect thinly veiled trolling, thinly veiled personal attacks, and thinly veiled stupidity in every thread I read. Sometimes even in my own posts. I don't see what such a clamp down is going to achieve except a widespread deletion of posts/ wholesale bannings/ site-wide closed threads.

This is the internet. Where did people ever get the idea it was to be run like the boy scouts?

mathepac

K-9 wrote: »

No, posters should challenge stuff they see as overtly racist ...

Poor advice IMHO, this is precisely the sort of challenge that could start WW III in a thread or at best lead to accusations of back-seat modding.

K-9 wrote: »

... they don't have to call posters racist though. ...

They most certainly should not even consider this as an option as they will be in breach of the abuse, name-calling, ad hominem attack part of the charter(s).

Dades wrote: »

You can still report posts you believe to be racist, no?

This is much more sensible and less likely to be contentious.

P. Breathnach

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Is it really up to the mods to regulate 'thinly veiled' anything?...

Yes.

K-9

mathepac wrote: »

They most certainly should not even consider this as an option as they will be in breach of the abuse, name-calling, ad hominem attack part of the charter(s).

Maybe you should read what you quoted and your reply again. Posters don't have to call posters racist, how is that name-calling, breach of abuse or an ad hominem?

Cody Pomeray

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes.

That might be your opinion of how things should work, but judging by the regulation of most forums I've seen, there is no attempt to police "thinly veiled" offensive material in any other respect of personal identity. Right now in AH, I could point you to "thinly veiled" attacks on homosexuals, Muslims, and the mentally ill. None of which I personally, and I assume most posters, have any interest in reporting... contemptible as these opinions are.

Indeed, objectionable as racism is, I'm not sure why such a high threshold should suddenly apply to racism alone. In real life, some people have weird and wonderful opinions. Others have strange and terrible opinions. It's just something we have to get on with tbh.

RoundyMooney

(Speaking generally)


Mods are tasked with keeping the peace, ensuring legality and otherwise keeping the site between the ditches-not shutting down a discussion, however controversial, because (some) people happen to disagree with it.

Those calling for mods to take editorial control of any discussion or forum should be careful what they wish for. It could be argued that modding is difficult enough already without introducing additional complications.