AH thread closure on deporting Jihadists

Lovely Bloke

LoLth wrote: »

The've also been male. They've also been less than 80 years old and I believe all of them had hair.

Yeah, sure.

I've not seen Atheist males under 80 with hair carrying out atrocities in Europe over the summer though.

But nice attempt at the "their religion had nothing to do with it" editorial diktat.

seamus

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

editorial diktat.

There you go.

All of this nonsense summed up in one hyperbolic phrase.

If you don't conform to the "Islam is the source of everything evil" groupthink then you must be part of the liberal anti-free-speech brigade trying to shut down discussion.

LoLth apparently isn't allowed to disagree with you without being accused of suppressing the discussion.

It's not just boards, all across the internet not toeing the "Islam is evil, mmkay" line is instantly attacked as being part of some grand conspiracy to cover up some huge Muslim plot to destroy the world.

It is possible to have a reasonable discussion on these matters without being an outright racist or fascist. But there seems to be a severe shortage of reason across the world this year.

Lovely Bloke

I don't hate muslims, I just hate religion. I hate all religions. I think they are evil attempts to control human beings. I think religion is the source of most bad things in the world. Not just Islam, on that you are mistaken.

And yes, when the Community Manager states that right-wing thinking is dangerous, that is an editorial diktat. Now we have an admin and an ex-admin with user specialpowers doing their utmost to adhere to that.

Good job.

Still though, show me an atheist carrying out an atrocity in the name of atheism.

Oh wait.

seamus

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I don't hate muslims, I just hate religion. I hate all religions. I think they are evil attempts to control human beings. I think religion is the source of most bad things in the world. Not just Islam, on that you are mistaken.

No way, you and I agreeing on something.

But you're an intelligent guy, you know that religion is the vehicle, not the driver. If all religions disappeared tomorrow, you would still have psychos and lunatics killing others under some banner or another; be that the country they come from or the football team they support, or whether they hang the toilet paper over or under.
Because things are far more complex than "your religion said so". Religion just happens to contain many messages of hate, so they're convenient places for hateful people to hide and not appear to be psychopaths.

And yes, when the Community Manager states that right-wing thinking is dangerous, that is an editorial diktat. Now we have an admin and an ex-admin with user specialpowers doing their utmost to adhere to that.

Adhere to what? Since when is a discussion a diktat? Surely the admin would just delete your posts if they wanted to control what you post?

LoLth

edit: removed because I got distracted and took too long posting. conversation moved on.

Baldy, as Seamus said, if I was adhering to some policy to enforce some diktat or silence a poster then I would have just removed their post not engaged with them in discussion. Your response though, attributing ulterior motives without evidence and accusing someone who disagrees with you of being complicit just goes to prove that my point was more accurate than I thought it was in the first place. (fwiw I somewhat agree on your view of religion but I know a lot of religious people that are genuinely good and are reasonable and welcoming, despite any differences so I dont denounce religious people as wrong despite my own opinion of the more extreme contents of their religious texts)

my point was that some people see the one item they disagree with and act as if nothing else matters. To properly engage in discussion posters should engage in the topic being discussed and not just go off on one on what they think *should* be discussed. AH has been compared to a chat in a pub , how would you react if every time you mentioned drink of any kind someone in that conversation started shouting at everyone that all drinkers are alcoholics and that its all the fault of Alcopops ? Same ****e, different initial topic over and over. It would get monotonous and boring and eventually people would just not bother starting any conversations.

hatrickpatrick

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The problem is when the forum is over saturated with threads on Islam at the moment.

This is my fundamental disagreement - can you link to all the threads from the front page - or even, to be generous, from the first two pages of AH which contain discussions related to Islam?

Here are all the ones I can find:

The explosion in Germany (which was only made today, long after I had made my argument here)

The shooting in Munich (which is now known to have not been an Islamist attack to begin with)

A different attack in Germany (a thread which has now been locked)

That's three threads. Hardly "saturated". One of the three threads has been locked, so that leaves two others, one of which was literally only made this morning, and the second of which concerns a non-Islamist attack so the debate is now over why that conclusion was jumped to.

The thread I cited in my OP was the only thread related to Islam on the front page of AH at the time it was locked. So any suggestion that it was locked because it was one of too many related threads is demonstrably absurd.

EDIT: For clarity, Boards by default shows 20 threads per page, not counting stickies. So that's three threads out of forty.

Elliott S

Boom_Bap wrote: »

AH has become the defacto place for news and viral stuff, that's grand.

I know, but none of the threads I quoted in my first post here fit into the very first line of the charter:

What is After Hours?
After hours is the place to come on boards where general discussion can be light-hearted. The aim here is to have a bit of a laugh, a bit of a chat and not to piss anybody off while doing so.

They are news, but they are not lighthearted. It's just inconsistent. Actually, a lot of threads on AH are anything but lighthearted. The forum seems to fail about what its charter says it's supposed to be.

So when it's said that a thread is moved because it's not light-hearted enough and so doesn't fit the ethos, it seems selective usually.

Shouldn't there be more clarity?

LoLth

It would need clarification by the AH mods but I always took that line to mean that topics are discussed in a "pub conversation" manner - ie: that the rules surrounding the manner in which the discussion is conducted are lighthearted - threads can go slightly more off topic, more leeway given (within reason), joking is not interpreted as trolling by the users and topics are not expected to be discussed technically or seriously.

I used to think it meant all AH topics were to be funny or a laugh but as it became less "random funny things" and more "current affairs" I needed to re-adjust my opinion.

as for clarity, possibly. I'll bring it to the mods attention (assuming they dont see it here).

darced

This post has been deleted.

LoLth

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wasnt as active at the time but I do recall several threads being merged into the running Same sex marriage megathread because of the number of threads being created to discuss the same topic.

dont know if threads were deleted or if all were merged.

Tombi!

JT26 wrote: »

If the mod wants to they can send the thread over to Politics Cafe.I'll open it and you can have your discussion there.

That's great. I've contacted the OP of the thread and asked if they'll accept it being moved to the PC in order to have their discussion.

hatrickpatrick

Tombi! wrote: »

That's great. I've contacted the OP of the thread and asked if they'll accept it being moved to the PC in order to have their discussion.

That's certainly satisfy my own qualms. Remember my objection wasn't specifically to the thread not being allowed on AH, it was with the manner of its closing and the closing modpost, which implied that the subject wasn't welcome at all, and erroneously implied that the OP was persistently starting threads related to Islam when in fact he or she had not started another thread even related to an Islamic country for two full weeks, the previous thread having asked whether forcing regime change in Iraq was really a bad thing - tangentially related to Islam at best. Totally disingenuous to suggest that the OP was part of some broad anti-Islam coalition on Boards, or as I've demonstrated, that AH was at that time full of Islam threads (there were three out of the first forty threads that indirectly related to Islam, and none which directly related to it).

osmiumartist

seamus wrote: »

There you go.

All of this nonsense summed up in one hyperbolic phrase.

If you don't conform to the "Islam is the source of everything evil" groupthink then you must be part of the liberal anti-free-speech brigade trying to shut down discussion.

A bit hilarious you pull the piss out of his "hyperbolic" post and then flat out lie about what he said in the very next line.

DeadHand

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Agree with Taltos. Comparing Islam to terrorism is like comparing Catholism to the IRA.

We've had Muslims/Islam in Ireland for as long as I can remember, and I haven't heard of one terrorist attack by any of them. Having worked with Muslims in work, can honestly say they are some of the most decent people you can meet.

That isn't because we're a wonderfully tolerant country or we're blessed with a uniquely clement Muslim community.

It's simply because the Muslim population hasn't reached critical mass yet. Once it gets to the 5-10% mark (as it will through birth rate and immigration) expect the kind of chaos we are seeing in France and Germany.

What Europe faces now is infinitely greater in scale, existential threat, intensity and probable longevity to anything the IRA "achieved". The IRA had a limited, political goal and, ultimately, could be reasoned with. Islamists will not stop until European culture has been erased and the nations of Europe subjugated to Islam.

The IRA were a republican group- not religious zealots. They did not fight under the banner of Catholicism. Their actions betrayed republican ideals- the actions of the Islamic State, on the other hand, have strong doctrinal justification in Islam.

DeadHand

Taltos wrote: »

In terms of Islam being protected. I am again going to call BS on that. Islam is no more protected than Christianity

Horsesh*t.

http://http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=98138756

oscarBravo

Fair warning: anyone thinking about turning this into an anti-Islam rant (and I'm looking very specifically at you, DeadHand) - think twice.

Penny Tration

I think JT accepting it being moved to PC is good.

It's a political or humanitarian topic that was up for discussion, so possibly not suited to AH, but IMO that was no reason to lock it instead of moving it to an appropriate forum.


There are idiots on both sides of the Islam debate (those who hate all Muslims and those who believe all Muslims do no wrong), and they're the ones who shout loudest, so of course mods are going to be sick of it. I am and I'm not even a mod :pac:


Looking at each thread on its own merit and moving to appropriate fora, rather than assuming something is anti-Islam and locking it is, IMO, the best way to deal with it.

The Hill Billy

Feedback charter wrote:

Users under a ban from a forum
Users currently serving a ban from a forum with a duration over 1 month are not allowed to post on feedback threads concerning that forum.

@DeadHand - As you are permanently banned from both AH & PC - you may no longer participate in this thread.

Thanks,

tHB

Tombi!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057625685
I've moved it to the café and the mods there will open it as stated.

padd b1975

darced wrote: »

I cant remember to be honest but were threads closed when AH was saturated with Gay marriage,Gay adoption,Gay pride, Gay cakes etc. or did I miss that?

Very little done when the Catholic Church bashing threads were in full swing either.

Fr_Dougal

padd b1975 wrote: »

Very little done when the Catholic Church bashing threads were in full swing either.

That would be an ecumenical matter.

K-9

padd b1975 wrote: »

Very little done when the Catholic Church bashing threads were in full swing either.

The amount of them was definitely an issue during my time modding AH, and we either moved or closed a fair few religion threads at the time because it was felt it had reached over saturation point.

So yep, religious threads were an issue a few years ago when Catholic bashing was far more of an issue than Islamaphobia.

The Hill Billy

Let's not go spinning off-topic from Jihadism to Catholicism.
That can be an outbreak of emotional contagion for another day.

Closed.

tHB