Can we talk about AH?

Zorya

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, this is a feedback thread about AH. It would be a short thread if the response to any criticism was “If you don’t like AH, don’t visit it”. What’s the point in having those occasional feedback threads on various sub-forums on the site if that’s the apparent solution?

Yeah, I guess. Perhaps I was a bit sharp. But if something annoyed me as much and caused me to feel such contempt as conveyed in the post, I'd just let it go. What's the point in going there if it's so horrible?

I don't know why people just don't scroll past the stuff that is deliberately annoying. There are always going to be people who register just to post some BS, always going to be people who get stuck in on some silly point, always going to be people who say rotten things - there is no way to control others to the extent that we can avoid annoyance. People are always going to have profoundly different opinions than we find acceptable. If that is unbearable or infuriating to some then perhaps it's not good for them to go there.

Gimme A Pound

I think both jmayo and osarusan make good points.

At the heart of what bothers people seems to be dismissal and downplaying and throwing out labels (whether it's "racist" or "snowflake") often with very little cause, and not actually taking on board what people say (even if that's just to debate back) simply because of disagreeing with them.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Why say that they're white? What relevance does that have? On English language forums the majority will be white.

The term white as used for Irish people is meaningless Americanised gibberish in any case. Interesting who thanked that post though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He said a bit more than that, in fairness:

All the lazy stereotypes...

Funny enough in that thread I pointed out that the most racist part of Ireland, if travellers are a race, is the leafy suburbs of Dublin. This caused one lad to accuse me of being a Russian spy in any number of increasingly deranged posts.

Gimme A Pound

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The term white as used for Irish people is meaningless Americanised gibberish in any case.

It's a weird self loathing thing that is completely unnecessary.

So what if the most angry people on this forum (most of its members are male) are men and white - would it be better if they were white women or black men?

Gimme A Pound

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

All the lazy stereotypes...

What's "lazy" about them?

This is what I don't like about AH (or any similar forum) - making statements that just are not true because of one's political leanings, whether it's from the left or right.

Some points of view are considered right-wing or left-wing but they're not any "wing" when they're just statements of fact.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

It's a weird self loathing thing that is completely unnecessary.

So what if the most angry people on this forum (most of its members are male) are men and white - would it be better if they were white women or black men?

It’s not that. We have literally nothing in common with white Americans except skin colour. They have their history, and we have ours. Both are totally different.

Gimme A Pound

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s not that. We have literally nothing in common with white Americans except skin colour. They have their history, and we have ours. Both are totally different.

And even then, it irks me when I see "Wah wah white people" on American based discussions. Making sweeping statements based on race is not reasonable, no matter what the history of the race in question.

AndrewJRenko

Zorya wrote: »

Maybe AH is not the place for you then?

If I don't like something I usually leave it alone. I think that's what regular people do in real life.

Zorya

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Quote War! Yeah, baby!!!

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

:cool:

Your turn.

AndrewJRenko

Zorya wrote: »

Quote War! Yeah, baby!!!

:cool:

Your turn.

I didn't say anything about separating or destroying. You seem to be countering an argument that hasn't actually been made..

Zorya

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't say anything about separating or destroying. You seem to be countering an argument that hasn't actually been made..

You're quote actually sums up one of the dangerous attitudes of modern times - it presumes that you/your side are/is good and the ''other'' is evil. Mr S's quote tells what is closer to the truth - evil and good coexist in everyone. I am a bit evil. I know this. I accept it. Sometimes my evil bursts out and other times I keep it on a leash, hopefully most of the time. To presume in the context of an ephemeral digital discussion forum that you are inevitably the ''good'' side, intervening to stop evil, is ...well...not good.

But on the broader subject of suppression of speech etc that is at the heart of the AH feedback here I saw some interesting graphs this morning. I know they're American but ...shucks. It's a kind of left/right divide thing that I think seems to hold true in other places, including in Europe. And certainly seems to be representative of opinion here, even. Some people want suppression, others don't and it is highly age related, which is weird. The oldies seem to be able to bear up listening to other people's BS pretty well.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9neRzWoAEM8Xu.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9nbRlXcAApZfU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9nT_UXcAIIBka.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9nQnsXQAAeGhq.png

Franz Von Peppercorn

Zorya wrote: »

You're quote actually sums up one of the dangerous attitudes of modern times - it presumes that you/your side are/is good and the ''other'' is evil. Mr S's quote tells what is closer to the truth - evil and good coexist in everyone. I am a bit evil. I know this. I accept it. Sometimes my evil bursts out and other times I keep it on a leash, hopefully most of the time. To presume in the context of an ephemeral digital discussion forum that you are inevitably the ''good'' side, intervening to stop evil, is ...well...not good.

But on the broader subject of suppression of speech etc that is at the heart of the AH feedback here I saw some interesting graphs this morning. I know they're American but ...shucks. It's a kind of left/right divide thing that I think seems to hold true in other places, including in Europe. And certainly seems to be representative of opinion here, even. Some people want suppression, others don't and it is highly age related, which is weird. The oldies seem to be able to bear up listening to other people's BS pretty well.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9neRzWoAEM8Xu.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9nbRlXcAApZfU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9nT_UXcAIIBka.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz9nQnsXQAAeGhq.png

That’s the end of free speech right there. You’d think it would be the cornerstone of democracy.

Zorya

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s the end of free speech right there. You’d think it would be the cornerstone of democracy.

Haha yeah the worrying slide through the age groups towards the edge of the precipice..

Franz Von Peppercorn

Zorya wrote: »

Haha yeah the worrying slide through the age groups towards the edge of the precipice..

Even the older religious support more free speech than the younger religious. 20 times as much at the extremes. (The question is about “your religion”). As goes America, so goes the world.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Even the older religious support more free speech than the younger religious. 20 times as much at the extremes. (The question is about “your religion”). As goes America, so goes the world.

The older generations grew up witnessing vigorous debate in a public sphere, where exposure to contradictory views was inescapable. But that public sphere has, over the last couple of decades, largely been replaced by self-selecting social media bubbles. Algorithms on sites like Facebook ensure that people now see the stories their like-minded peers are seeing, not stories that might contradict their opinions. If a dissenting view does appear, it can be blocked or unfollowed at a touch of a button. In education, high school teachers and college professors are pressured into assigning books that affirm, rather than challenge, their students' beliefs and sensitivities.

In Ireland, young people grow up witnessing RTE, the rest of the media, and the political and academic establishments toeing a specific party line on issues such as immigration, abortion, social welfare, Travellers, and so on. Then, when they come to AH and find that there exist posters who aren't drinking the Montrose Kool-Aid, the reaction is often one of horror -- how can these opinions be allowed to exist? -- followed by calls for censorship.

Notably, too, posters who have happily and vigorously participated in threads campaigning for the legalization of gay marriage or abortion are the first to appear in Feedback whinging when the same forum is used to question policy on immigration or Travellers.

It's not that they don't want to see political threads -- they only want to see political threads that support their views.

KyussB

The reason people want to censor views they don't agree with and view as 'dangerous', is because those espousing many of those views will be engaging in bad faith, using propaganda tactics and dishonest methods of argument to try and create an echo chamber of their own views, impervious to reasoned argument.

If Boards adopted a policy of carefully identifying bad faith argument - where it becomes increasingly obvious the poster is engaging in forms of argument that are dishonest, and (after a lot of tactful/careful nudging from mods to knock it out, making pains to avoid being ban-happy) then excises those posters from the forum, or better, simply limits their frequency of posting - that is probably the best form of moderation that you can apply to political discussion, as it directly targets propagandists.

This is not a very common form of moderation, and it's not an easy one to implement, as naturally a lot of moderators/people will suspect bad faith from those who hold views different from their own - but I've seen it deployed effectively on smaller political blogs, to try and excise the worst propagandists - and it's very effective.

Boards.ie: Niamh

I've removed a few off-topic posts there. Can we get back to the discussion specifically about After Hours?

Beasty

KyussB wrote: »

The reason people want to censor views they don't agree with and view as 'dangerous', is because those espousing many of those views will be engaging in bad faith, using propaganda tactics and dishonest methods of argument to try and create an echo chamber of their own views, impervious to reasoned argument.

If Boards adopted a policy of carefully identifying bad faith argument - where it becomes increasingly obvious the poster is engaging in forms of argument that are dishonest, and (after a lot of tactful/careful nudging from mods to knock it out, making pains to avoid being ban-happy) then excises those posters from the forum, or better, simply limits their frequency of posting - that is probably the best form of moderation that you can apply to political discussion, as it directly targets propagandists.

This is not a very common form of moderation, and it's not an easy one to implement, as naturally a lot of moderators/people will suspect bad faith from those who hold views different from their own - but I've seen it deployed effectively on smaller political blogs, to try and excise the worst propagandists - and it's very effective.

But AH was never designed for "political discussion". The mods were not identified for their abilities to deal with that type of discussion, which is why there have been attempts to move some of it to the 2 Politics forums

Unfortunately though posters are looking for the largest audience, which they know will be AH, so the mods end up giving up on trying to deal with "heavy" political topics - certainly not proactively. They depend on reports, and even then there will be varying interpretations that can be applied to posts/posters and indeed their intentions. When the mods do intervene they will often face accusations of over moderation. I know it's a classic "can't win" situation, but it seems to me that many of the userbase want AH to reflect their own agenda/views, and be dismissive of those of other users. Should it therefore be "all things to all men" - that's pretty much the way it currently is, but also the reason we end up with feedback like this.

dulpit

Beasty wrote: »

Unfortunately though posters are looking for the largest audience, which they know will be AH...

This is key, and a shame.

KyussB

Beasty wrote: »

But AH was never designed for "political discussion". The mods were not identified for their abilities to deal with that type of discussion, which is why there have been attempts to move some of it to the 2 Politics forums

Unfortunately though posters are looking for the largest audience, which they know will be AH, so the mods end up giving up on trying to deal with "heavy" political topics - certainly not proactively. They depend on reports, and even then there will be varying interpretations that can be applied to posts/posters and indeed their intentions. When the mods do intervene they will often face accusations of over moderation. I know it's a classic "can't win" situation, but it seems to me that many of the userbase want AH to reflect their own agenda/views, and be dismissive of those of other users. Should it therefore be "all things to all men" - that's pretty much the way it currently is, but also the reason we end up with feedback like this.

It doesn't just apply to political discussion - you can apply it to bigotry in general, bigotry against travelers, sexism, immigrants etc. etc. - it means you don't have to censor those types of bile off of the forum, you instead clamp down on the ability to get away with bad-faith argument/debate.

You maintain the full spectrum of free discussion, about any/all numbers of abhorrent topics - but you gradually excise the worst/most-objectionable proponents of those views, if they insist on taking this piss, by engaging in barely-concealed bad faith argument constantly.

This would heavily target pretty much all of the groups/views people have a problem with - while still allowing worthwhile discussion of those issues - and would heavily limit political propaganda (e.g. the Israel shills, the most noticeable propagandists, would get themselves banned near-instantly for bad faith argument).

AndrewJRenko

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

In Ireland, young people grow up witnessing RTE, the rest of the media, and the political and academic establishments toeing a specific party line on issues such as immigration, abortion, social welfare, Travellers, and so on. Then, when they come to AH and find that there exist posters who aren't drinking the Montrose Kool-Aid, the reaction is often one of horror -- how can these opinions be allowed to exist? -- followed by calls for censorship.

In the context of this discussion, this is utter nonsense, and couldn't be further from the truth.

Zorya wrote: »

You're quote actually sums up one of the dangerous attitudes of modern times - it presumes that you/your side are/is good and the ''other'' is evil. Mr S's quote tells what is closer to the truth - evil and good coexist in everyone. I am a bit evil. I know this. I accept it. Sometimes my evil bursts out and other times I keep it on a leash, hopefully most of the time. To presume in the context of an ephemeral digital discussion forum that you are inevitably the ''good'' side, intervening to stop evil, is ...well...not good.

This could hardly be further from the truth. It's not about 'sides'. It's not about me being good. It's not about right and wrong.


I'm aware of the importance of free speech, and as a general principle, I support it.


I'm also aware that Boards is becoming the platform of choice for Irish racists. It is the home for gammon. Like the mythical frog in the saucepan, it's easy to not notice the temperature rising. It's now normal to talk about knackers and scumbags as part of a supposedly normal conversation.



Maybe it's a reflection of the growing age demographic of Boards posters. If it keeps going unchecked, it will be 'Oi Boards, I hear you're a racist now, how do I get into that sort of thing?'.



I'm not sure that's going to be an attractive proposition for advertisers, or for new members.

Zorya

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm also aware that Boards is becoming the platform of choice for Irish racists. It is the home for gammon. Like the mythical frog in the saucepan, it's easy to not notice the temperature rising. .

Gammon is a pejorative and racist insult used by"left" wing people towards white middle aged conservative men. It has been recognised widely as hate speech. Maybe the advertisers don't mind certain kinds of hate speech. I don't know. Am not au fait with advertising matters.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

The older generations grew up witnessing vigorous debate in a public sphere, where exposure to contradictory views was inescapable. But that public sphere has, over the last couple of decades, largely been replaced by self-selecting social media bubbles. Algorithms on sites like Facebook ensure that people now see the stories their like-minded peers are seeing, not stories that might contradict their opinions. If a dissenting view does appear, it can be blocked or unfollowed at a touch of a button. In education, high school teachers and college professors are pressured into assigning books that affirm, rather than challenge, their students' beliefs and sensitivities.

In Ireland, young people grow up witnessing RTE, the rest of the media, and the political and academic establishments toeing a specific party line on issues such as immigration, abortion, social welfare, Travellers, and so on. Then, when they come to AH and find that there exist posters who aren't drinking the Montrose Kool-Aid, the reaction is often one of horror -- how can these opinions be allowed to exist? -- followed by calls for censorship.

Notably, too, posters who have happily and vigorously participated in threads campaigning for the legalization of gay marriage or abortion are the first to appear in Feedback whinging when the same forum is used to question policy on immigration or Travellers.

It's not that they don't want to see political threads -- they only want to see political threads that support their views.

How much of an overlap have you noticed here? How many posters supported marriage equality or legalisation of abortion in threads and have “whinged” (is everyone who participates in Feedback threads a whinger, out of interest?) in Feedback about questioning of policy relating to immigrant or Travellers. Ballpark figure.

Gimme A Pound

Gammon is as stupid and bandwagonish a term as sjw or snowflake (when the latter is just used about a person merely disagreeing).

AndrewJRenko

Zorya wrote: »

Gammon is a pejorative and racist insult used by"left" wing people towards white middle aged conservative men. It has been recognised widely as hate speech. Maybe the advertisers don't mind certain kinds of hate speech. I don't know. Am not au fait with advertising matters.

Free speech, innit....




If you can't beat em....

KyussB

In fairness, the concept of 'hate speech' is exactly the problem - it's the modern form of unbridled censorship, aimed at anything/everything people may get offended by.

People support the concept of hate speech for things they find offensive and disagree with - then are suddenly surprised when it gets used to censor them over perfectly reasonable things - e.g. censor criticism of Israel as anti-semitic etc., as is happening to try and shut down the BDS boycott movement.

Don't be so fucking easily offended. Grow thicker skins. Debate the issue at hand instead of whinging about the words people use, tenuously trying to paint them as a form of 'ism.
People like that are dangerous to us all, as they don't even realizing how they're contributing to the erosion of free speech for everyone (not just the people they disagree with...).

AndrewJRenko

KyussB wrote: »

In fairness, the concept of 'hate speech' is exactly the problem - it's the modern form of unbridled censorship, aimed at anything/everything people may get offended by.

People support the concept of hate speech for things they find offensive and disagree with - then are suddenly surprised when it gets used to censor them over perfectly reasonable things - e.g. censor criticism of Israel as anti-semitic etc., as is happening to try and shut down the BDS boycott movement.

Don't be so fucking easily offended. Grow thicker skins. Debate the issue at hand instead of whinging about the words people use, tenuously trying to paint them as a form of 'ism.
People like that are dangerous to us all, as they don't even realizing how they're contributing to the erosion of free speech for everyone (not just the people they disagree with...).

So, just for example, am I right to think you'd like Boards to be a place with no filters at all, so we can talk about N-I-G-G-E-R-S and P-A-K-I-S and K-I-K-E-S and F-A-G-G-O-T-S and R-E-T-A-R-D-S just as part as normal conversation? We should be able to use derogatory words for minority groups as part of normal conversation here, right?

KyussB

That's a false dichotomy - I'm not going to defend or rebut a position I never argued.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Arely Dazzling Sidecar wrote: »

Gammon is as stupid and bandwagonish a term as sjw or snowflake (when the latter is just used about a person merely disagreeing).

I see graham Linehan is often described as Gammon. I’d play the race card there were I him and pretend it was an anti Irish insult.