Can we talk about AH?

AndrewJRenko

Here's a good example of the fairly extreme penetration of far right crazies onto Boards. Have a look at the support expressed for Gemma's crazy crusades in this thread by a fairly significant number of posters;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057949296&page=13

There's nothing illegal in what they say, and indeed there's nothing hugely offensive at an individual level. I'm aware of the free speech argument, and it is an important one. I'm aware of the 'just scroll on by' argument too.

But the level of far right crazies appearing here is way beyond the typical representation in society large. Boards is clearly being targeted as a vehicle for spreading these views. It's only going to get worse, based the on the views appearing here.

end of the road

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Here's a good example of the fairly extreme penetration of far right crazies onto Boards. Have a look at the support expressed for Gemma's crazy crusades in this thread by a fairly significant number of posters;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057949296&page=13

There's nothing illegal in what they say, and indeed there's nothing hugely offensive at an individual level. I'm aware of the free speech argument, and it is an important one. I'm aware of the 'just scroll on by' argument too.

But the level of far right crazies appearing here is way beyond the typical representation in society large. Boards is clearly being targeted as a vehicle for spreading these views. It's only going to get worse, based the on the views appearing here.

to be fair any of the groupings here seem to be either way beyond or way under the typical representation in society. i don't think anything can be done about that and simply over-representing a view in society doesn't in itself automatically correlate to some sort of penetration of the site by whichever element is over-representing their view. the reality is that online forums will only attract so many people and an equal balance of all views and the exact representation of society or near it, aren't things that can organically be achieved.
like yourself i have no time for the far right but whether we like it or not those views are out there and such views will come to this site either to a greater or lesser extent depending on the era. users have left and some new users are coming along with those who may change their views, so if there is a shift in views, it seems to be quite an organic process from what i can see.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Here's a good example of the fairly extreme penetration of far right crazies onto Boards. Have a look at the support expressed for Gemma's crazy crusades in this thread by a fairly significant number of posters;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057949296&page=13

There's nothing illegal in what they say, and indeed there's nothing hugely offensive at an individual level. I'm aware of the free speech argument, and it is an important one. I'm aware of the 'just scroll on by' argument too.

But the level of far right crazies appearing here is way beyond the typical representation in society large. Boards is clearly being targeted as a vehicle for spreading these views. It's only going to get worse, based the on the views appearing here.

I popped in and saw one guy posting about chemtrails. Everybody else on the last two pages was pilling on Gemma.

No far right - there was one anti Zionist comment but that used to be a left wing position.

dudara

A gentle reminder that you have to have registered on Boards for a minimum of 3 months AND have a minimum postcount of 100 to post in Feedback. If you don’t meet this criteria, your posts will be removed.

dudara

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I popped in and saw one guy posting about chemtrails. Everybody else on the last two pages was pilling on Gemma.

No far right - there was one anti Zionist comment but that used to be a left wing position.

Look closer - four posters across one or two pages singing from Gemma's hymn sheet.

jeremyj1968, Den14, one world order, jackboy

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Look closer - four posters across one or two pages singing from Gemma's hymn sheet.

jeremyj1968, Den14, one world order, jackboy

Hardly, jackboy says he agrees with some of what she says re corruption. OWO has his own conspiracy theories many of which have been around for decades.

Just did a search and jeremyj1968 said he agreed with some of her points. I’m not seeing anything too worrying.

KERSPLAT!

osarusan wrote: »

That's interesting.

Boards is a business after all, and I'd imagine that the office has an interest in knowing whether the site in general or any particular forum is in a condition that will be either beneficial or detrimental to the site in terms of attracting new users, attracting advertising, attracting partners.

Does the office not have any position on the kind of topics discussed on the most popular forum on the site, and the quality of that discussion - beyond what is mentioned in the charter?

If the office staff pop their heads in AH every now then, are they generally happy about it, unhappy about it, or it just isn't a case of being happy or unhappy about it, they are just neutral on the whole thing?

When I modded AH I'm pretty sure any "direction" with regards to what should and shouldn't be discussed came from cmods or mods themselves, I don't ever remember even an admin stepping in never mind the office bar maybe legal matters. As a cmod it was the same.

dulpit

What's the difference between a mod and cmod?

dulpit

dulpit wrote: »

What's the difference between a mod and cmod?

Cmod stands for category mod. Eg. Sports. Mods then do the forums like soccer or golf.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Here's a good example of the fairly extreme penetration of far right crazies onto Boards. Have a look at the support expressed for Gemma's crazy crusades in this thread by a fairly significant number of posters;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057949296&page=13

I clicked on the link you provided to illustrate the "extreme penetration of far-right crazies onto Boards," but I can't make much sense of the discussion.

What are you talking about, specifically?

AndrewJRenko

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

I clicked on the link you provided to illustrate the "extreme penetration of far-right crazies onto Boards," but I can't make much sense of the discussion.

What are you talking about, specifically?

I'm talking specifically about the four posters expressing support for Gemma's crazy campaign of conspiracy theorists. She's 'warning' us all about our communist government (Fine Gael).

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm talking specifically about the four posters expressing support for Gemma's crazy campaign of conspiracy theorists. She's 'warning' us all about our communist government (Fine Gael).

I'm not familiar with Ms O'Doherty's opinions on Fine Gael -- but I'd note that a grand total of four posters endorsing her views doesn't amount to an "extreme penetration of far-right crazies."

AndrewJRenko

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

I'm not familiar with Ms O'Doherty's opinions on Fine Gael -- but I'd note that a grand total of four posters endorsing her views doesn't amount to an "extreme penetration of far-right crazies."

See if you can find four people among your family, friends and work mates who support her.

Baggly

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote:

I'm not familiar with Ms O'Doherty's opinions on Fine Gael -- but I'd note that a grand total of four posters endorsing her views doesn't amount to an "extreme penetration of far-right crazies."

How many does it have to be in your opinion?

end of the road

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

See if you can find four people among your family, friends and work mates who support her.

ah come on. the population of the country is over 4000000, there will be a few at least who may agree with her. 4 people out of that number posting on the site surely cannot be classed as a penetration of far right types. if it was a large amount such as a tenth or a 5th of the users then you would have a point but 4 posters?

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

See if you can find four people among your family, friends and work mates who support her.

You’d be lucky to get four people who support Vox’s libertarian views in any family and I certainly don’t, but I wouldn’t ban him from a discussion site.

I won’t quite Voltaire as he didn’t say what he was supposed to say and I’m not a free a speech absolutist but free speech means nothing unless minority views are acceptable.

Baggly

end of the road wrote:

ah come on. the population of the country is over 4000000, there will be a few at least who may agree with her. 4 people out of that number posting on the site surely cannot be classed as a penetration of far right types. if it was a large amount such as a tenth or a 5th of the users then you would have a point but 4 posters?

Your methodology is off. You have extrapolated out to include 4 million people as your sample size. A better one would be the population of the thread. 4 out of the number of people posting on that thread is a) more significant as it shows the people supportive of those that knew about the discussion and b)doesn't include children or those who wouldn't have an opinion on the matter.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Pter wrote: »

Your methodology is off. You have extrapolated out to include 4 million people as your sample size. A better one would be the population of the thread. 4 out of the number of people posting on that thread is a) more significant as it shows the people supportive of those that knew about the discussion and b)doesn't include children or those who wouldn't have an opinion on the matter.

So what? Free speech must conform to majority opinion?

AndrewJRenko

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’d be lucky to get four people who support Vox’s libertarian views in any family and I certainly don’t, but I wouldn’t ban him from a discussion site.

I won’t quite Voltaire as he didn’t say what he was supposed to say and I’m not a free a speech absolutist but free speech means nothing unless minority views are acceptable.

I agree with you in principle about the minority views. Indeed, more often than not, I'm way over on the minority side of the view myself.


But I do detect a trend of these things, even like this thread today. The OP got a very strong response, but that they even felt that it would be worth their while posting this nonsense says something about the current status on boards.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057956999

Baggly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

So what? Free speech must conform to majority opinion?

If you actually want to know 'so what' then I suggest you don't immediately try to put words in my mouth in your next sentence.

At what stage was I talking about free speech? You are talking about that...I'm not. I'm following what is also being discussed about the relevance of 4 posters thanking a right wing sentiment in AH.

A position was presented that 4 from 4 million isn't significant. I'm saying the position is flawed and the 4 represents a higher proportion of the discussion than that.

If you want to talk to me about that then no bother, but I don't really want to get into your free speech thing tbh.

end of the road

Pter wrote: »

Your methodology is off. You have extrapolated out to include 4 million people as your sample size. A better one would be the population of the thread. 4 out of the number of people posting on that thread is a) more significant as it shows the people supportive of those that knew about the discussion and b)doesn't include children or those who wouldn't have an opinion on the matter.

okay, lets go with your methodology. it's still only 4 posters who agree with her. i'm just not seeing how that is a penetration of far right types on the site or how it's an issue or some threat the site needs to be worried about?

Baggly

end of the road wrote:

whatever metodology one uses it's still only 4 posters who agree with her. i'm just not seeing how that is a penetration of far right types on the site or how it's an issue or some threat the site needs to be worried about?

Look I'm debating you on the principle at this stage but if there are only 6 people in the discussion and 4 of them thank a post made by the 5th, then yeah, it's probably pretty decent 'penetration'.

My example is exaggerated for effect, but then so was suggesting 4 from 4 million.

Baggly

end of the road wrote:

okay, lets go with your methodology. it's still only 4 posters who agree with her. i'm just not seeing how that is a penetration of far right types on the site or how it's an issue or some threat the site needs to be worried about?

Well to go back to the original comment, it was suggested it's an example of it. And I can make a couple of leaps of faith and maybe guess why that is....but tbh I can't clarify the posters meaning..I'm not him/her..and also tbh I haven't tried to. I'm clarifying why the arguments bring put against what the poster said are flawed.

The correct methodology is four / active forum users at that time, since presumably, any far-right posters active would have been drawn to the thread.

Annasopra

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I agree with you in principle about the minority views. Indeed, more often than not, I'm way over on the minority side of the view myself.


But I do detect a trend of these things, even like this thread today. The OP got a very strong response, but that they even felt that it would be worth their while posting this nonsense says something about the current status on boards.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057956999

Yep.

A pure racist dog whistle where the discussion should have been closed and op banned.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

When the socialist dictator Hugo Chavez died in 2013, the RIP thread in AH had posters calling him a "decent man" (41 thanks), saying that he was "loved by masses of poor" (38 thanks), saying that "we could have used a leader of his ilk here" (23 thanks), and calling him "a great man and a leader of the revolution" (13 thanks).

Today, as a direct consequence of Chavez's destruction of his country's economy, Venezuelans are eating dead rats raw in a desperate effort to survive. Millions of people are on the verge of starvation.

The problem is that casual endorsement of far-left totalitarianism goes barely noticed on Boards, where figures like Chavez, Castro, and Che are regarded as laudable folk heroes, while 4 posters thanking some cranky sentiment by a barely notable journalist has people pressing the panic button about some kind of "extreme penetration" by the far-right.

Seriously.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yep.

A pure racist dog whistle where the discussion should have been closed and op banned.

the handling of that thread is how things used to go and it worked quite well on this site for years. op starts dum thread. community debunks it. thread dies by itself. and we all lived happily ever after.
alternatively, there is a recycle bin forum on here i believe and perhapse such threads could be moved there?

Beasty

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

When the socialist dictator Hugo Chavez died in 2013, the RIP thread in AH had posters calling him a "decent man" (41 thanks), saying that he was "loved by masses of poor" (38 thanks), saying that "we could have used a leader of his ilk here" (23 thanks), and calling him "a great man and a leader of the revolution" (13 thanks).

Today, as a direct consequence of Chavez's destruction of his country's economy, Venezuelans are eating dead rats raw in a desperate effort to survive. Millions of people are on the verge of starvation.

The problem is that casual endorsement of far-left totalitarianism goes barely noticed on Boards, where figures like Chavez, Castro, and Che are regarded as laudable folk heroes, while 4 posters thanking some cranky sentiment by a barely notable journalist has people pressing the panic button about some kind of "extreme penetration" by the far-right.

Seriously.

You are using 6 years of hindsight to question what was going through people's minds those 6 years ago

Seriously

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Beasty wrote: »

You are using 6 years of hindsight to question what was going through people's minds those 6 years ago

The economic, social, and democratic self-destruction of Venezuela didn't begin six years ago. It began not long after Chávez came to power in the late 90s -- although starry-eyed Western socialists refused to acknowledge the growing authoritarianism in the country, accompanied by the systematic demolition of democratic institutions, bad economic policy, and reliance on magic-money-tree economics.

Posters on Boards sang the praises of Chávez for years. Now they want to pretend that 1.7 million percent inflation and a population reduced to eating rats have nothing to do with Chávez -- when they have everything to do with Chávez.

Boom_Bap

Can we not just permaban this Chavez user from AH?