Echo chambers of hate in After Hours.

gandalf

Boggles wrote: »

It is amazing what can you get you labelled a liberal these days.

FFS when I was a mod here back in the day I was labelled a fascist!!!

Stheno

Yourself isit wrote: »

And nobody does the latter..

They do

Zaph

For those who appear to be having problems with their eyesight:

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Personal digs at our moderators will not be tolerated, especially when they are not mods of the forum under discussion.

tHB

The next person who ignores this instruction will be taking some time off from Feedback.

jackofalltrades

pilly wrote: »

Therefore proving the theory of the OP that it turns into an echo chamber of hate no?

People who don't like it and challenge it should fcuk off. Where does the discussion come into it if it's only one side?

I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying.
If you want to stay and discuss the topic then that's fine.
I've no problem at all with posters challenging other posters contributions.
My issue is with posters distrupting threads with the goal of getting them shutdown.

SterlingArcher

gandalf wrote: »

The days of decent people calling out the ignorant who label the many for the sins of the few will never go away.

What is this?

It would seem you are implying anyone that questions religion or European policy on immigration is not decent?because that is all that happened. So were is the relevance. Is asking questions and openly discussing differing opinions ignorant now?

the op( the reason for this very thread) states echo chambers of hate exist. alls I noticed were discussions. Maybe I'm not delicate enough. And if there was anything even remotely hateful mods were only chomping at the bit on them threads.So for the op to suggest a whole echo chamer of hate exists is for me deluded.

And even if a very very small few did genuinely express actual hate. Does that not mean the many get labelled for the sins of the few?? Like you said.

The only ignorance I see is hypocrisy.

gandalf

Jesus SterlingArcher you can't read very well can you. I have already said earlier in the thread I have no issue with discussion on Religion or about Immigration once it is intelligent and not just throwing labels around like the post I was responding to and not just generalising a whole population because of the actions of the few. As for the OP they probably are being a bit delicate.

Will I Am Not

There are no echo chambers of hate. There are very few people that want to ban all Muslims.

Canis Lupus

SterlingArcher wrote: »

What is this?

It would seem you are implying anyone that questions religion or European policy on immigration is not decent?because that is all that happened. So were is the relevance. Is asking questions and openly discussing differing opinions ignorant now?

the op( the reason for this very thread) states echo chambers of hate exist. alls I noticed were discussions. Maybe I'm not delicate enough. And if there was anything even remotely hateful mods were only chomping at the bit on them threads.So for the op to suggest a whole echo chamer of hate exists is for me deluded.

And even if a very very small few did genuinely express actual hate. Does that not mean the many get labelled for the sins of the few?? Like you said.

The only ignorance I see is hypocrisy.

Hey, when you called muslims muzzrats was that supposed to be a friendly discussion? Just checking like.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103151215&postcount=87

andekwarhola

From what I can see, the only group for which an open season is allowed is what is accepted to be the 'working class', whether it be endless tirades about scumbags, parenting, fashions and unemployment, even from a user base with a pretty leftist/liberal, middle class make up.

This is also the class that actually deals with the front line economic and social implications of stuff like immigration while other classes just theorize about it.

And people wonder why that sector of society then periodically perform arbitrary flips against liberal and leftist preconceptions and vote in their droves for right wing candidates.

tomwaterford

andekwarhola wrote: »

From what I can see, the only group for which an open season is allowed is what is accepted to be the 'working class', whether it be endless tirades about scumbags, parenting fashions and unemployment, even from a user base with a pretty leftist/liberal, middle class make up.

And people wonder when why that sector of society periodically performs arbitrary flips against liberal and leftist preconceptions and vote in their droves for right wing candidates.

Whos voting for sinn fein then??

TerrorFirmer

Everyone's entitled to an opinion however wrong or mis-informed others feel it is. That's the core of good discussion, different opinions and viewpoints. Boards may not offer unlimited freedom of speech obviously, but the OP strikes me as a wish to neuter opinions that would be considered politically incorrect.

I mean, there are always obvious red lines - blanket statements like all X are terrorists, all Y are leechers, et al are not really constructive in any way, shape or form and often assertions like those are not backed up any sort of argument whatsoever either so ultimately add nothing to any debate other than ignorance.

But those sort of posts are actually not as common as being made out - I feel the OP was actually referring to what I consider genuine debate and discussion. We shouldn't be pursuing a policy of seeking to label different opinions that doesn't adhere to political correctness as hate speech. After Hours has never struck me as an 'echo chamber of hate' which is radically OTT in my opinion.

If someone has an opinion you find unacceptable, call them out on it. Engage them in debate. Ask them to explain how they arrived at that conclusion, ask for supporting evidence, suggest why they're wrong - do whatever, but argue your own case rather than seek to shut their's down. There will always be people that agree and disagree with you on everything, be it your taste or movies, your favourite take away or your opinions on immigration in Europe.

I mean, I just saw someone banned on AH because in a thread about Transgender people because the poster said he believes it's a mental illness - banned for Transphobia.

I don't agree with that. By all means, challenge him, tell him it's an ignorant and offensive opinion, if you feel that way - and ask him why he feels that way - but don't banish him for having an opinion (he wasn't trolling I believe, that is just his actual opinion). I think that's utterly wrong.

ancapailldorcha

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I mean, I just saw someone banned on AH because in a thread about Transgender people because the poster said he believes it's a mental illness - banned for Transphobia.

I don't agree with that. By all means, challenge him, tell him it's an ignorant and offensive opinion, if you feel that way - and ask him why he feels that way - but don't banish him for having an opinion (he wasn't trolling I believe, that is just his actual opinion). I think that's utterly wrong.

I don't see why transgender people shouldn't be as welcome to post on Boards as anyone else. I didn't moderate that post but I think the ban was spot on. Your alternative would result in a scenario where you have the same brigade popping up again and again to soapbox about how transgender people are mentally ill.

The_Valeyard

So banning for apparent Transphobia is okay, even though I think he was voicing his belief, not hate speech or such sorts. But say what you want about Catholics suffering mental illness and get your thanks and that's fine.


Transgender = mental illness = banned

Catholics = mental illness = a few thanks.

There's abit of sorting here to be done as to what's allowed and what's not???

ancapailldorcha

Stop with the victim complex ffs. I never said that claiming Catholics were mentally ill was fair and you know it.

pjohnson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see why transgender people shouldn't be as welcome to post on Boards as anyone else. I didn't moderate that post but I think the ban was spot on. Your alternative would result in a scenario where you have the same brigade popping up again and again to soapbox about how transgender people are mentally ill.

But is this not a discussion forum? For Discussion? I didnt know that such a topic was forbidden in AH.

I mean lets use muslims exampls: Not all muslims are terrorists, a few maybe. Generally its is accepted that banning all Muslims is daft.

Not all of AH is "transphobic" , a few maybe. Banning all discussion from AH? Suprising.

The_Valeyard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Stop with the victim complex ffs. I never said that claiming Catholics were mentally ill was fair and you know it.

I had posted my post before yours and not in relation to yours!!!!!!!! Just you got there first.


How dare you accuse me of victim complex for raising a valid point.

ancapailldorcha

pjohnson wrote: »

But is this not a discussion forum? For Discussion? I didnt know that such a topic was forbidden in AH.

Em... I never said it was.... Why the strawman?

Yourself isit

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see why transgender people shouldn't be as welcome to post on Boards as anyone else. I didn't moderate that post but I think the ban was spot on. Your alternative would result in a scenario where you have the same brigade popping up again and again to soapbox about how transgender people are mentally ill.

It was defined as a mental illness in the DSM a mere 4 years ago.

It's not in fact outside the boundaries of normal discussion to query this change.

Your last paragraph indicates your bias. People disagreeing with you are "soapboxing", belong to a "brigade", and are always "popping up".

ancapailldorcha

The_Valeyard wrote: »

How dare you accuse me of victim complex for raising a valid point.

Except that it isn't. It is not acceptable to say Catholics are mentally ill.

The_Valeyard

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that it isn't. It is not acceptable to say Catholics are mentally ill.

Look at threads in regards to Catholics then.

ancapailldorcha

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Look at threads in regards to Catholics then.

I've no real interest in them. You can report the posts if you think they're unacceptable.

Calhoun

The_Valeyard wrote: »

So banning for apparent Transphobia is okay, even though I think he was voicing his belief, not hate speech or such sorts. But say what you want about Catholics suffering mental illness and get your thanks and that's fine.


Transgender = mental illness = banned

Catholics = mental illness = a few thanks.

There's abit of sorting here to be done as to what's allowed and what's not???

Its the way it is, the site is definitely liberal leaning and its ok to have a pop at things not in favor but touch one of the sacred subjects and you get a ban.

Not surprising considering some of the political motivations of the powers that be.

It is a private company however and they can mod it how they feel, i think its up to the users themselves to see what the place is for themselves. Be under no illusion though all things are not equal.

Jobs OXO

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've no real interest in them. You can report the posts if you think they're unacceptable.

Unlikely action will be taken. You see that's the difference and what's killing the site

pjohnson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Em... I never said it was.... Why the strawman?

I thought this thread was about moderation in AH. A thread about a trans teddy bear was shut down because of one "transphobic" view. Seems excessively overdone.


Like what other topics are forbidden in AH and whats the forbidden criteria.

andekwarhola

tomwaterford wrote: »

Whos voting for sinn fein then??

Was a general point, not specific to Ireland (yet).

Although you appear to be immediately trying to trip me up from 'one side', I'm just making a point about the acceptability of certain viewpoints, not cheerleading a particular political position.

Manny89

gandalf wrote: »

I don't believe that critical discussion should be shut down but generalising and tainting a whole population because of the actions of a small minority is a fallacious position and one that should be confronted. Their are merits in discussing how to deal with the extremists and immigration but not when it spills over into generalisation, xenophobia and in some cases outright racism.

Small minority? Of what? Extremists? Define an extremist.

To an observant Muslim, the Koran is the beginning and end of all things, the only book one ever needs for any situation, and if something isn't in it, it's not with knowing. These facts (and the West's obtuse refusal to recognize it) is one of the things that makes Islam so dangerous. Islam is both a religion, a political system, a legal system, and a social/moral code

Dublin Pintman

If a transexual comes along and posts 'yes I am mentally ill', should they be banned? And if so, why?

gandalf

Manny89 wrote: »

Small minority? Of what? Extremists? Define an extremist.

To an observant Muslim, the Koran is the beginning and end of all things, the only book one ever needs for any situation, and if something isn't in it, it's not with knowing. These facts (and the West's obtuse refusal to recognize it) is one of the things that makes Islam so dangerous. Islam is both a religion, a political system, a legal system, and a social/moral code

Do you actually know any Muslims? Have you spent any time with them, talked to them? Christianity could be categorised in exactly the same why you have delineated Islam above, especially in this country only a few decades ago :rolleyes:

Of course it's dangerous to follow a religious text that was written well over millennium ago at face value. They were written for different times. Generalising like you have above is exactly what I am talking about.

As far as I am concerned Religion should not be mixed at all with Politics and Education no matter what the hue of that religion.

Manny89

Yes, Catholicism did hold back and damage Irish society. It's perfectly fine to say this. Why is not perfectly fine to say that importing large amounts of people from the developing world who hold extreme religious beliefs is a bad thing?

You're the one falsely generalising. You claim that only a few are extremists. This is false. The majority of them hold extreme beliefs.

I'm not interested in your friend down the pub who is a Muslim. I'm interested in studies and polls that show that only a small minority hold extremist views. As someone who was calling for factual discussion without incorrect generalisations, I'm sure you'll produce some to back up your claims.

Calhoun

gandalf wrote: »

Do you actually know any Muslims? Have you spent any time with them, talked to them? Christianity could be categorised in exactly the same why you have delineated Islam above, especially in this country only a few decades ago :rolleyes:

Of course it's dangerous to follow a religious text that was written well over millennium ago at face value. They were written for different times. Generalising like you have above is exactly what I am talking about.

As far as I am concerned Religion should not be mixed at all with Politics and Education no matter what the hue of that religion.

While i agree with most of what you have said i think that argument stands in a perfect world. While we shouldnt bring Religion into politics and education for now they have inserted themselves into it and we must discuss them to an extent.

We also in my opinion must be willing to discuss extremism no matter Religion or beliefs. We shouldnt be afraid to challenge ideals in the way that we have, either we fear the risk of reprisal or we fear the risk of offending a "minority".