AH Inconsistency.

kneemos

There's a thread in AH titled "Scumbag Dies of Overdose"it contains the usual dancing on graves,hang them by the testicles kind of responses.

There was another thread about a kid that died in a car crash recently and people were banned for the merest hint of the hang em flog em type of response.

What is the difference between the two and what are the guidelines on such subjects so that nobody gets accidently banned?

The Hill Billy

The difference between the two is that the first thread has been around for some time & the mods have had a chance to review & take action where necessary.

The most recent thread was started early on the Sunday morning during the Christmas holidays, & well, mods have lives too you know. Give them a bloody chance!

As for a guideline to not being banned - don't be a dick.

Darkglasses

I agree that it's a nasty thread, but give the mods some time in fairness. It was only started a short time ago.

kneemos

So the thread was closed.Unless at least 75% of the contributers were banned I'm not seeing anything approaching a consistent policy.

Micky Dolenz

kneemos wrote: »

There's a thread in AH titled "Scumbag Dies of Overdose"it contains the usual dancing on graves,hang them by the testicles kind of responses.

There was another thread about a kid that died in a car crash recently and people were banned for the merest hint of the hang em flog em type of response.

What is the difference between the two and what are the guidelines on such subjects so that nobody gets accidently banned?

I've a genuine question for you. Is starting a thread in feedback a default position for you? You didn't even bother reporting the thread. Why not?

kneemos

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I've a genuine question for you. Is starting a thread in feedback a default position for you? You didn't even bother reporting the thread. Why not?

I've seen so many of these threads I assumed they were acceptable,plus I've never seen them closed in the past.In short it never occurred to me.

Penny Tration

kneemos wrote: »

I've seen so many of these threads I assumed they were acceptable,plus I've never seen them closed in the past.In short it never occurred to me.

Surely it did occur to you to report it, since you've made a feedback thread expressing your opinion on it?

kneemos

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

Surely it did occur to you to report it, since you've made a feedback thread expressing your opinion on it?

No.

Penny Tration

kneemos wrote: »

No.

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to report anything you see as crossing the line, rather than start a feedback thread? Mods will presumably be checking the reported post forum more than Feedback.

If it's actioned, you were right. If it's not actioned, no harm done.

kneemos

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to report anything you see as crossing the line, rather than start a feedback thread? Mods will presumably be checking the reported post forum more than Feedback.

If it's actioned, you were right. If it's not actioned, no harm done.

It's been explained.Why are you continuing with it?

Annasopra

kneemos wrote: »

It's been explained.Why are you continuing with it?

Or maybe you could address the points?

kneemos

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or maybe you could address the points?

What points?

AndonHandon

On AH and thread locking, often threads are locked for 'racism or thinly-veiled racism' but what I don't understand is how threads involving criticism of immigrants generally (no emphasis on a particular race) and criticism of certain religions get closed for reasons of racism? Reading various sources on the internet has not lead to an answer as to how the term racism can be used in these contexts.

Saipanne

AndonHandon wrote: »

On AH and thread locking, often threads are locked for 'racism or thinly-veiled racism' but what I don't understand is how threads involving criticism of immigrants generally (no emphasis on a particular race) and criticism of certain religions get closed for reasons of racism? Reading various sources on the internet has not lead to an answer as to how the term racism can be used in these contexts.

I've noticed how "I hate Islam" has somehow become racist now.

Penn

Because people use such threads to apply negative sweeping generalisations to entire groups of people based on the actions of a few or a small minority.

K-9

AndonHandon wrote: »

On AH and thread locking, often threads are locked for 'racism or thinly-veiled racism' but what I don't understand is how threads involving criticism of immigrants generally (no emphasis on a particular race) and criticism of certain religions get closed for reasons of racism? Reading various sources on the internet has not lead to an answer as to how the term racism can be used in these contexts.

I notice plenty of criticism allowed, over the top massive generalisations not so much.

humanji

Saipanne wrote: »

I've noticed how "I hate Islam" has somehow become racist now.

No it hasn't. "I hate Muslims" has though. There's a very important difference between the two.

You need to not just see the words being typed, but the reason for them being typed to understand some users motivations. There are those who don't want a discussion, they just want to vocalise their hatred of specific groups. And unless that group is U2, it's usually not allowed.

Saipanne

humanji wrote: »

No it hasn't. "I hate Muslims" has though. There's a very important difference between the two.

You need to not just see the words being typed, but the reason for them being typed to understand some users motivations. There are those who don't want a discussion, they just want to vocalise their hatred of specific groups. And unless that group is U2, it's usually not allowed.

Yes, it has. I recently took part in a discussion where I threw that statement out there, just to see what happened. The result was sadly predictable.

humanji

Where? And was it specifically called racist?

Saipanne

humanji wrote: »

Where? And was it specifically called racist?

AH, I think. Yes, I believe it was. In fact, I was derided for attempting to distinguish between Islam and Muslims.

humanji

Can you link to it at all? I'll take your word for it, but you shouldn't have been. It all depends on the whole context of the discussion as to how posts can be interpreted.

Saipanne

humanji wrote: »

Can you link to it at all? I'll take your word for it, but you shouldn't have been. It all depends on the whole context of the discussion as to how posts can be interpreted.

I might dig around later, but it's not the first time I've seen this on boards, or indeed anywhere. The lines between Islam and Muslim are being blurred, and this has been a deliberate effort by Muslim lobby groups for a decade now, for obvious reasons.

humanji

Don't worry about links, as we've all better things to be doing than rummaging around old posts. It's bound to happen from time to time. Conversely to what you said there though, it's also been a tactic for some far-right people to say they're talking about the religion but are actually talking about only Muslims from the middle-east only. And that's something we've had a lot of over the last few months. Many people of all sorts of opinions have been hiding behind technicalities of language.

Saipanne

humanji wrote: »

Don't worry about links, as we've all better things to be doing than rummaging around old posts. It's bound to happen from time to time. Conversely to what you said there though, it's also been a tactic for some far-right people to say they're talking about the religion but are actually talking about only Muslims from the middle-east only. And that's something we've had a lot of over the last few months. Many people of all sorts of opinions have been hiding behind technicalities of language.

I can imagine, but I just have a problem with religion and what is really preaches when you scratch the surface, not with its followers.

Dav

You know there are *lots* of religions that do no such thing, right? At the risk of putting words in your mouth, maybe you're talking about twisted weird old men who corrupt impressionable and gullible people with religion into violent action. Those are 2 very, very different things and I think the world would be a much better place if people could make that vitally important distinction.

Saipanne

Dav wrote: »

You know there are *lots* of religions that do no such thing, right? At the risk of putting words in your mouth, maybe you're talking about twisted weird old men who corrupt impressionable and gullible people with religion into violent action. Those are 2 very, very different things and I think the world would be a much better place if people could make that vitally important distinction.

Don't do what?

I'm not talking about people at all. Is it not possible to discuss/criticise religion as an idea? Is that not allowed?

But to address your point, I read this online today:

"You could easily spot any religion of peace. It's most extreme members would be extremely peaceful"

Dav

You said "I just have a problem with religion and what is really preaches when you scratch the surface" which is what I was referring to. I phrased it poorly, sorry about that. The point I was trying to make is that there are very few religions I'm aware of that actively preach anything beyond "be excellent to each other" or some variant thereof. I absolutely believe that all religion is up for critique and discussion and anyone who insists that it isn't needs to think about their relationship with their faith/belief/church if they can't answer reasonable questions.

Might I suggest such a discussion might be better suited to our more general Spirituality Forum?

Saipanne

Dav wrote: »

You said "I just have a problem with religion and what is really preaches when you scratch the surface" which is what I was referring to. I phrased it poorly, sorry about that. The point I was trying to make is that there are very few religions I'm aware of that actively preach anything beyond "be excellent to each other" or some variant thereof. I absolutely believe that all religion is up for critique and discussion and anyone who insists that it isn't needs to think about their relationship with their faith/belief/church if they can't answer reasonable questions.

Might I suggest such a discussion might be better suited to our more general Spirituality Forum?

Yeah, we're off topic here. But my scratching point was that on the surface, it seems all nice but when you dig a bit you see the sinister side of it. Most moderates just ignore those bits, but that's where extremism comes from. In fact, I think extremists are the ones following the book correctly, which os why I have a problem with religion.

Anyway, I'll leave it there.

AndonHandon

Penn wrote: »

Because people use such threads to apply negative sweeping generalisations to entire groups of people based on the actions of a few or a small minority.

But that is surely not a reason to lock a thread? Saying "all Americans are fat and lazy" or "the majority of Muslims are ignorant" aren't racist but ignorant generalisations which can be quite simply dealt with by way of reason and sense rather than thread closures.

Slot Machine

It is my experience that people who make such generalisations have no interest in being corrected and will, in fact, quite angrily tell you why you're wrong. And as humanji points out above, often enough it's just a way of flying under the radar - these people have gotten wise to being picked up on so they make less obvious remarks.

Once you see it enough times from the same set of posters it becomes obvious that they're just having a rant. It's why I've tapered off using AH recently - too much hate, just as often directed against anyone who speaks out against it.

Annasopra

Slot Machine wrote: »

It's why I've tapered off using AH recently - too much hate, just as often directed against anyone who speaks out against it.

I agree. AH does seem to attract a lot of hate lately