Can we talk about AH?

WinnyThePoo

batgoat wrote: »

And it's not exactly a great sign when a person is implying incredibly racist things but not outright expressing them. It's pretty manipulative to imply they're coming from the center ground. If they get outed for that ****, its their own problem.

That particular poster was using dehumanising language consistently. There's a term for this called the hostile imagination. Build the 'other' as non human.
Another poster is fond of using the term 'men of military age' when describing immigrants on boats. Again this is dehumanisation. The immigrants are not people who bread air and drink water all day like us. They are now described as sleeper agents/soldiers.

Dehumanising people always leads darkness. It's important to point out the that language when seen. It's done on purpose.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

batgoat wrote: »

And it's not exactly a great sign when a person is implying incredibly racist things but not outright expressing them.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

There's a term for this called the hostile imagination.

You two want the mods to ban people for implying things, even if they don't express them? You want mods poring over posts in AH as if they were Leaving Cert poetry, trying to fathom whether they reveal a "hostile imagination"?

Seriously -- these people are modding an internet discussion forum with a longstanding reputation for being colorful and irreverent. They are not the thought police, and they don't exist to enforce your personal morality.

batgoat

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

You two want the mods to ban people for implying things, even if they don't express them? You want mods poring over posts in AH as if they were Leaving Cert poetry, trying to fathom whether they reveal a "hostile imagination"?

Seriously -- these people are modding an internet discussion forum with a longstanding reputation for being colorful and irreverent. They are not the thought police, and they don't exist to enforce your personal morality.

Once again, I already illustrated that white supremacist content has been linked to and they favour an apartheid state. I'm happy to call out bull**** and it's deserved.

WinnyThePoo

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

And it's not exactly a great sign when a person is implying incredibly racist things but not outright expressing them.

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

There's a term for this called the hostile imagination.

You two want the mods to ban people for implying things, even if they don't express them? You want mods poring over posts as if they were Leaving Cert poetry, trying to fathom whether they reveal a "hostile imagination"?

Seriously -- these people are modding AH, an internet discussion forum with a reputation for being colorful and irreverent. They are not the thought police, and they don't exist to enforce your personal morality.

Unfortunately, I don't think your opinion holds much weight here. You willfully ignored descriptions and links to a particular thread (Gemma o Doherty).

You also are no authority on the intelligence of mods.

As for the thought police nonsense. When someone posts dehumanising rhetoric. That s exactly what it is.

An example of the thought police would be a member of this forum going out of their way to let's say get the an abortion experiences thread shut down.

dulpit

Lawson Tinkling Fishhook wrote: »

You two want the mods to ban people for implying things, even if they don't express them? You want mods poring over posts in AH as if they were Leaving Cert poetry, trying to fathom whether they reveal a "hostile imagination"?

Seriously -- these people are modding an internet discussion forum with a longstanding reputation for being colorful and irreverent . They are not the thought police, and they don't exist to enforce your personal morality.

I've highlighted a bit of your post. The problem is that unless they moderate out those sort of posts, the reputation will diminish further. I'd go so far as to say its been a longtime since I'd describe AH in those terms.

Boom_Bap

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What is the difference?

Say for example, I was a racist. Should I be banned although never posting anything inflammatory? Banned off the back that I have a certain leaning but don't post about it?


Or

If I blatantly posted about it, pushed my agenda, ignored any discussion on it, never wavered in my determination to push hate.

batgoat

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Say for example, I was a racist. Should I be banned although never posting anything inflammatory? Banned off the back that I have a certain leaning but don't post about it?


Or

If I blatantly posted about it, pushed my agenda, ignored any discussion on it, never wavered in my determination to push hate.

The difference is numerous posters are regularly expressing pretty inflammatory views and are pretty proud of it.

OldMrBrennan83

Where does it stop though? Granted, openly racist stuff isn't on but is everything to be policed and hounded by people who don't agree with it just because they don't?

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

The difference is numerous posters are regularly expressing pretty inflammatory views and are pretty proud of it.

Most of those posters are just expressing their concerns off mass immigration into Ireland. When they see what has happened in other European countries, their concerns seem pretty legitimate to me. But to you, they are white supremacist super duper alt right Neo Nazis.

This is a discussion forum not an echo chamber.

WinnyThePoo

Keeping racists so as not to create an echo chamber? Is this comedy?.


When I mean racist. I'm talking about posters that post racist and dehumanising remarks.

Ultimate Seduction

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Keeping racists so as not to create an echo chamber? Is this comedy?.


When I mean racist. I'm talking about posters that post racist and dehumanising remarks.

Anyone who uses dehumanizing racist remarks gets banned as soon as a mod sees it. What more do you expect?

Sweetemotion

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Keeping racists so as not to create an echo chamber? Is this comedy?.


When I mean racist. I'm talking about posters that post racist and dehumanising remarks.

Head on over to the politics forum and you'll see lots of dehumaning remarks said against Trump supporters. I've never seen you complain about the posters there.

WinnyThePoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Keeping racists so as not to create an echo chamber? Is this comedy?.


When I mean racist. I'm talking about posters that post racist and dehumanising remarks.

Head on over to the politics forum and you'll see lots of dehumaning remarks said against Trump supporters. I've never seen you complain about the posters there.

Feel free to create a thread outlining your issues with the politics forum.

I see you've somehow nominated me as some sort of figurehead. Please there absolutely no need for that nonsense.

WinnyThePoo

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Keeping racists so as not to create an echo chamber? Is this comedy?.


When I mean racist. I'm talking about posters that post racist and dehumanising remarks.

Anyone who uses dehumanizing racist remarks gets banned as soon as a mod sees it. What more do you expect?

That's not happening. Read the last few pages of this thread.

batgoat

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Most of those posters are just expressing their concerns off mass immigration into Ireland. When they see what has happened in other European countries, their concerns seem pretty legitimate to me. But to you, they are white supremacist super duper alt right Neo Nazis.

This is a discussion forum not an echo chamber.

If one feels the need to link to "Identitarians" or "ethnonationalists" to prove a point, then that's a problem.

Franz Von Peppercorn

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Feel free to create a thread outlining your issues with the politics forum.

I see you've somehow nominated me as some sort of figurehead. Please there absolutely no need for that nonsense.

I actually think we should have a good look at politics, particularly the Trump related threads. Certainly politics needs a massive clean out.

Politics is weird as hell.

In the Trump thread, calling Republicans a terrorist organisation and saying all Trump supporters are racist is A-OK.

In a Brexit thread, if I make a small joke, I get a formal warning.

"Who are the DUP's friends?"
My response: "North Korea because apparently they have unicorns."

Tf. How does that require a warning saying it I make one more quip, I'm getting banned. That mod cannot hide his bias at all. He's the worst this site has had since I joined in 2005.

WinnyThePoo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Feel free to create a thread outlining your issues with the politics forum.

I see you've somehow nominated me as some sort of figurehead. Please there absolutely no need for that nonsense.

I actually think we should have a good look at politics, particularly the Trump related threads. Certainly politics needs a massive clean out.

Not really. At least people have to back up their statements there.

Chips Lovell

Deleted User wrote: »

Politics is weird as hell.

In the Trump thread, calling Republicans a terrorist organisation and saying all Trump supporters are racist is A-OK.

I found the posts you were referring to this morning. Nobody reported them. The mods were not even aware of them, let alone said they were "A-OK".

In future, the best approach is to report posts. Its only by chance I saw your post here since I was subscribed to the thread because I'd posted in it a while back.

dudara

Deleted User wrote: »

How does that require a warning saying it I make one more quip, I'm getting banned. That mod cannot hide his bias at all. He's the worst this site has had since I joined in 2005.

I warned you recently about bringing your personal grievances into this thread. Do not do it again.

dudara

StinkyMunkey

I've frequented AH on and off for years, for me there has always been a lot of similar repetitive threads about certain subjects. I simply avoid them, it takes no effort to avoid them.

AH is certainly being affected by the PC snow flake generation, those people who go out of their way to be offended on behalf of others or simply get offended by everything.

I've seen a lot of whinging and moaning on this thread about AH not being modded properly, that in itself is the same regurgitated nonsense I've seen in AH for years - it's the usual suspects or type of person giving out about their view being suppressed or wanting to suppress others.

There is one rule in AH I think stands out above all others for me - don't be a dick.

Every now and then you will see a diamond in the rough, that one thread in AH that sucks you in. This is how it's always been for me, I don't remember it any differently.

AH will always be that forum that is harder to mod than most, there in lies it's charm, the forum where you are never quiet sure what's gonna happen next.

AH is a bit like leaving the lunatics in charge of the asylum, it's just fine the way it is.

Dravokivich

If you "need" to move threads somewhere that require additional access, just close them out. A whole bunch of threads were just moved to politics cafe, and whether or not they get opened, they've just been killed anyway.

Odhinn

Dravokivich wrote: »

If you "need" to move threads somewhere that require additional access, just close them out. A whole bunch of threads were just moved to politics cafe, and whether or not they get opened, they've just been killed anyway.

A waste of time moving them to a forum thats essentially a graveyard. Given the reduced numbers of posters in general, surely it would be better to just let them be.

<snip>


Admin note

If anyone has a problem with a post or poster please report them through the normal channels. Do not raise you suspicions over re-regs here. Only Admins/Office staff can opine on re-regs, so there is absolutely no point in blaming mods if you feel a re-reg has not been dealt with

dulpit

dulpit wrote: »

The issue seems to be that the rules that are laid out in the charter aren't necessarily being adhered to by moderation, which I appreciate is a hard thing to do anyway. But if the charter was being followed then the forum would be a different place - the question then becomes whether or not the traffic would remain or would it move elsewhere?

For me it comes down to 2 choices:
1) Update the charter to reflect the wishes of the very vocal posters now, and allow the current feminist-bashing, traveller-bashing, dole-bashing, etc continue - but then rename it from AH perhaps?
2) Follow the charter. Ban the trolls. Ban the obvious re-regs. Ban the threads that are specifically about 1 person (e.g. Louise O'Neill thread, Margaret Cash thread).
Either are valid options to take. I wouldn't agree with option 1, but equally a lot won't agree with option 2 either. This halfway house is crummy though, I think something should be done.

This.

TomasMacR

<snip>

Admin note

Please note you must be registered on the site for a minimum 3 months and have a minimum postcount of 100 to post in Feedback

Beasty

Repeating something I've just set out above

Moderators (and users) can only alert us to their suspicion over re-regs. Only Office staff or Admins can act on re-regs. Only they have the tools to check. Equally we will not ban without evidence. You may think someone is a re-reg, but you cannot prove anything about an anonymous poster on this site. Only a very limited number of us are allowed to access information which is considered personal including e-mail addresses and IPs. This has also been covered in discussions surrounding the GDPR rules

kneemos

Dravokivich wrote: »

If you "need" to move threads somewhere that require additional access, just close them out. A whole bunch of threads were just moved to politics cafe, and whether or not they get opened, they've just been killed anyway.

The Guberments Modular Housing and Oliver Callan for Taoiseach threads got moved to the PC,they aren't even political.

Going out of your way to piss off the few punters you have left.

AndrewJRenko

Beasty wrote: »

Repeating something I've just set out above

Moderators (and users) can only alert us to their suspicion over re-regs. Only Office staff or Admins can act on re-regs. Only they have the tools to check.

That conflicts with my fairly recent experiences with moderation.

Beasty

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That conflicts with my fairly recent experiences with moderation.

Is this AH moderation you are referring to?