Threads about 'emerging' abuses being closed in AH

My name is URL

This thread has just been closed by a mod for the following reason

Closing this for now. Like the other threads on matters similar to this Its turned into a church bashing thread. As already stated if you can't post without expressing your hatred of the RCC then don't post. This is not an incident that only happened within the Churches sphere of influence and its not something that was limited to Ireland.

That's fair enough, but surely it should be allowed to be discussed since this is Ireland, and since the ongoing revelations do involve church run institutions?

I haven't PM'd the mod that closed the thread because it's a more general complaint that I have rather than just one about that particular thread being closed.

I'm not saying that people should be allowed to use the threads to vent their spleens about the church, but to disallow any and all discussion because some are?... really?

Overheal

In theory. The mods get to say what is and isn't allowed in ah. Normally soccer discussion is always locked because hey we have a soccer forum. We have religion forums too. And those threads in ah can go faster than they can actually be read. I tried to catch up on. Saturday morning and 50+ posts showed up new while I did so. Most of it garbage.

But sure American violence threads get kept all the time despite violence and guns happening in many more places all of which are just as relevant to Ireland so it's whatever. At the same time those threads don't have the same depravoty as a religion thread

Cabaal

Its an interesting one,
Thread like this would have a short life in the Christianity forum even though it would in many respects be most suitable there, there likely wouldn't be as much interest of it in the politics forum.

There is an active thread in the Atheist forum but we've already had a thread in feedback claiming its a church bashing thread.....

yet if you read it you'll see its more outrage at the church back then and a number of posters are doing alot of research....even the petition with 20k signatures so far started off in the Atheist thread so its been pretty constructive!

Should the thread in After Hours be locked?

Well personally I think no because something like this needs to be kept in the public eye, its important. Perhaps should the thread have its own "mini-charter/mod warning rules" given After Hours is far busier then Atheist forum would be and it would make it easier for mods to manage it with some clear rules for the thread in question.

Dav

I'd suggest a thread about the subject belongs in the Humanities forum tbh. It wasn't the church that sanctioned this (they had nothing to do with it whatsoever), it was a group of organisations associated with the RC Church and most importantly the State that abdicated responsibility to these organisations to take care of its obligations to its most vulnerable citizens. It was also the actions of these pharma companies to seize an opportunity to get cheap test subjects. It seems to me that a lot of people are too blinded by prejudice to make these vitally important distinctions and I'd suggest that closing the discussion down as it was only turning into a misdirected church bashing thread again was absolutely the correct decision.

ArmaniJeanss

Dav wrote: »

I'd suggest a thread about the subject belongs in the Humanities forum tbh. It wasn't the church that sanctioned this (they had nothing to do with it whatsoever), it was a group of organisations associated with the RC Church and most importantly the State that abdicated responsibility to these organisations to take care of its obligations to its most vulnerable citizens.

Did they not by definition sanction it because the orders in question used the 'we carry the authority of the church' as they went about their business, and the church never appeared to object to this?
I don't see how you can suddenly separate the orders from the RCC.

Cabaal

Dav wrote: »

I'd suggest a thread about the subject belongs in the Humanities forum tbh. It wasn't the church that sanctioned this (they had nothing to do with it whatsoever), it was a group of organisations associated with the RC Church and most importantly the State that abdicated responsibility to these organisations to take care of its obligations to its most vulnerable citizens. It was also the actions of these pharma companies to seize an opportunity to get cheap test subjects. It seems to me that a lot of people are too blinded by prejudice to make these vitally important distinctions and I'd suggest that closing the discussion down as it was only turning into a misdirected church bashing thread again was absolutely the correct decision.

Its debatable, very much a different time and Archbishop McQuaid had alot of pull in government and involvement in policy. He was also heavily involved in many aspects of the home's including adaptions.

While your saying its separated you have to agree that Bishops and Priests were more then happy to visit these homes, between that and McQuaid there was most certainly RCC involvement in these orders/homes.

While technically speaking the "government" made policy's, it would be somewhat misleading to claim they (the church) had no involvement.

In addition, the very view of unmarried women having baby's being a very bad thing didn't come from the government. This view also shaped policy.

The AH thread was abit of a train wreck, I think I may have posted in it once but for the most part I avoided it because it was a wreck....can't have been easy for mods to look after because of this. Just a shame we can't have nice things.

Dav

I agree that the heads of the church in Ireland certainly had a hand in a lot of this, but I don't know if they were acting under Rome's orders. That our newly founded state handed over so much power to the Bishops without any sort of fight is the single biggest mistake and horror in our republic's past I think.

Had these things gone to a referendum though, the people would have voted in favour of it because this cultural stranglehold was very carefully crafted and maintained throughout the formation of the state - it's only in the last 30 years that we've seen the public's mood turn away from the rule of the bishops - lets not forget that most people in this country still identify themselves as Catholic (according to the last census).

However, here on Feedback isn't the place for this particular discussion I'm sure you'll all agree. Maybe it's less of a Humanities issue and more of a History & Heritage one?

humanji

Just to let you know, the AH mods are actually discussing the best way to go about this. We're going to set up a kind of mega-thread that will cover the news aspects and let people discuss it, but will have pretty much a zero tolerance for any of the nonsense that caused the other threads to be locked. We're just sorting out the details as fast as we can and will pop it up soon after.

Cabaal

humanji wrote: »

Just to let you know, the AH mods are actually discussing the best way to go about this. We're going to set up a kind of mega-thread that will cover the news aspects and let people discuss it, but will have pretty much a zero tolerance for any of the nonsense that caused the other threads to be locked. We're just sorting out the details as fast as we can and will pop it up soon after.

Sounds good to me and makes perfect sense, unfair to expect the thread to continue as it had due to the work load it likely created for mods.

Looking forward to hopefully seeing the revised megathread with rules open
\

Overheal

humanji wrote: »

Just to let you know, the AH mods are actually discussing the best way to go about this. We're going to set up a kind of mega-thread that will cover the news aspects and let people discuss it, but will have pretty much a zero tolerance for any of the nonsense that caused the other threads to be locked. We're just sorting out the details as fast as we can and will pop it up soon after.

to be fair i like the humanities suggestion. pair up with those mods maybe, and then how about a sticky that links the topic to humanities warning AH posters they'll be on Humanity charter rules and modding

mike65

Humanities was once fairly busy then died on its arse, AH seems to be a clearing house for all society matters these days.

Nodin

mike65 wrote: »

Humanities was once fairly busy then died on its arse, AH seems to be a clearing house for all society matters these days.

All of human life is there.

humanji

Overheal wrote: »

to be fair i like the humanities suggestion. pair up with those mods maybe, and then how about a sticky that links the topic to humanities warning AH posters they'll be on Humanity charter rules and modding

I've done as you suggested and in the mean time, the AH thread is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90763987

Muise...

Well, OP, you didn't exactly cover yourself in glory by picking up on precisely the same whataboutery and sniping in the first page of the new thread. I posted this, and it got wiped and I got an infraction (fair enough, because I posted a complaint on thread, against explicit instructions).

Post #3: it happened in other places too

Post #6: "you'd have to be an idiot" to think that #3 is excusing it.

Good luck mods!

(Also, since you're quaking in your boots that people might express anger about dead babies not being given a decent burial, and they might even direct this anger at the institution that did it, can we have a definition of the dreaded Catholic-bashing please?)

FWIW, I think a lot was achieved in the previous thread. In amongst the pettiness, some posters from very different viewpoints were listening to each other (even me and mrsbyrne found room to listen and learn) and direct experience was shared. We had some valuable data and interpretations. I can see why mods wanted to cut out the white noise, but perhaps a more hands-off approach would let the anger settle down more than starting a new thread and expecting different behaviours.

humanji

There's currently 13 posts and 7 others that had to be deleted, so a hands off approach isn't going to work. It certainly didn't work in the last few threads on the subject. The options are repeating what happened before or nipping trouble makers in the bud this time, so that those who actually want to have a discussion are free to.

My name is URL

Muise... wrote: »

Well, OP, you didn't exactly cover yourself in glory by picking up on precisely the same whataboutery and sniping

I explained exactly why I posted that and why it's pertinent to the discussion.

It's not whataboutery. I never tried to downplay or excuse what happened here by simply pointing out that it shared a lot of similarities with what happened elsewhere. Stop being so childish :rolleyes:

Muise...

My name is URL wrote: »

I explained exactly why I posted that and why it's pertinent to the discussion.

It's not whataboutery. I never tried to downplay or excuse what happened here by simply pointing out that it shared a lot of similarities with what happened elsewhere. Stop being so childish :rolleyes:

It's a thread dedicated to the events unfolding in Tuam. You start with a note that it happened elsewhere too (as reflected in the mod post at the top, and in everybody's knowledge) and tell people they would be idiots and are being childish for wanting to stick to the case of Tuam. Nice.

My name is URL

Muise... wrote: »

It's a thread dedicated to the events unfolding in Tuam. You start with a note that it happened elsewhere too (as reflected in the mod post at the top, and in everybody's knowledge) and tell people they would be idiots and are being childish for wanting to stick to the case of Tuam. Nice.

From the OP in the new thread

This thread is for the discussion arising from the Tuam babies finding and the other related stories

Are you done twisting things now? Maybe you'be be just as well off to stick me on ignore since you seem to take so many issues with my posts

humanji

Jaysus guys, this is pretty much exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

Muise...

humanji wrote: »

Jaysus guys, this is pretty much exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

Black Swan

Dav wrote: »

I'd suggest a thread about the subject belongs in the Humanities forum tbh. It wasn't the church that sanctioned this (they had nothing to do with it whatsoever), it was a group of organisations associated with the RC Church and most importantly the State that abdicated responsibility to these organisations to take care of its obligations to its most vulnerable citizens. It was also the actions of these pharma companies to seize an opportunity to get cheap test subjects. It seems to me that a lot of people are too blinded by prejudice to make these vitally important distinctions and I'd suggest that closing the discussion down as it was only turning into a misdirected church bashing thread again was absolutely the correct decision.

Overheal wrote: »

to be fair i like the humanities suggestion. pair up with those mods maybe, and then how about a sticky that links the topic to humanities warning AH posters they'll be on Humanity charter rules and modding

I'm the new Humanities mod. We would welcome a new OP to discuss this vital issue in Humanities (along with links to AH threads), but would hope that the posts would contain some meaningful discussions, and not develop into a bashing or slagging match. Any volunteers to open a new thread in Humanities?

Nodin

humanji wrote: »

Jaysus guys, this is pretty much exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

....what makes you think its avoidable?

diveout

humanji wrote: »

Jaysus guys, this is pretty much exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

I think the problem is that it is really hard not to get personal about this.

Many people, including myself would see what happened as a product of ultimately a fascism that took hold of Ireland, and when you encounter people who defend, deny, or justify the mass cruelties, you see them as part of the problem.

I don't really like the Humanities idea because it seems to be a debating forum [which by its very form is polarising], and less of a discussion forum. AH has more freedom in that way.

humanji

Nodin wrote: »

....what makes you think its avoidable?

You just have to not make everything personal. Simple as that.

Dan_Solo

your post had the unfortunate effect of showing that there is no correlation between age and intellectual maturity.

only an idiot would assume that anyone pointing out similarities between what happened here and what happened elsewhere was an attempt to 'excuse' anything

Just FYI everybody, examples of posts that are helpful to the conversation and keep the discussion flowing in a mature fashion.

Dan_Solo

Nodin wrote: »

....what makes you think its avoidable?

My whole problem here is that it's apparently not on to criticise the church, as that is considered personal abuse against church types, but it's OK to say "it is society's fault" and non-church types are not permitted to take any offense.
I am as much a member of society as anybody else is a member of their church. Either both are personal abuse or neither are.

humanji

So where's the first post from and why don't you read My name is URL's explanation of the second post?

humanji

Dan_Solo wrote: »

My whole problem here is that it's apparently not on to criticise the church, as that is considered personal abuse against church types, but it's OK to say "it is society's fault" and non-church types are not permitted to take any offense.
I am as much a member of society as anybody else is a member of their church. Either both are personal abuse or neither are.

And again, you're fine to criticise the church. You're not fine to say it's a bunch of cultists or to imply that they're all rapists and murderes.

Dan_Solo

humanji wrote: »

So where's the first post from and why don't you read My name is URL's explanation of the second post?

This first post is another unmoderated post that was reported multiple times in the original Tuam babies thread.
The second one is the same as "if you think what you think you are an idiot".
How can that NOT be personal abuse?

Do you really think that when people say "only an idiot would think..." they don't mean other poster(s) every single time?
What if I said "only and idiot would believe there's a god"? Should I care whether other people believe in god or not before I say it?

Dan_Solo

humanji wrote: »

And again, you're fine to criticise the church. You're not fine to say it's a bunch of cultists or to imply that they're all rapists and murderes.

Well then, is it OK to say that the society of which I am part, i.e. general society, is X, Y, Z? I am as offended by this as church types are by being called cultists.

Black Swan

mike65 wrote: »

Humanities was once fairly busy then died on its arse

diveout wrote: »

I don't really like the Humanities idea because it seems to be a debating forum [which by its very form is polarising], and less of a discussion forum.

Thanks for these comments. They prompted the opening of a new FEEDBACK thread stickied in Humanities. Please consider discussing what you feel would be important to the reshaping of the forum so that it may be a success.

diveout wrote: »

Many people, including myself would see what happened as a product of ultimately a fascism that took hold of Ireland, and when you encounter people who defend, deny, or justify the mass cruelties, you see them as part of the problem.

Black Swan wrote: »

I'm the new Humanities mod. We would welcome a new OP to discuss this vital issue in Humanities (along with links to AH threads), but would hope that the posts would contain some meaningful discussions, and not develop into a bashing or slagging match.

Any volunteers to open a new thread in Humanities?