Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

excludedbin

Well people aren't called "it", you call objects "it". Don't try to act smart, you knew what you were doing. And now, just as you planned, you've come here to whinge because having to follow the same rules as everyone else is somehow beneath you.

Eric Cartman

excludedbin wrote: »

Well people aren't called "it", you call objects "it". Don't try to act smart, you knew what you were doing. And now, just as you planned, you've come here to whinge because having to follow the same rules as everyone else is somehow beneath you.

I genuinely didn't want it to be a problem, I'm not trying to get anything from this, regardless of you believing me or not, I innocently saw 'it' as a safe pronoun, I realise that is incorrect and supposedly 'dehumanising' I apologise and accept that. Now I'm genuinely looking to educate myself on what I can use without causing offence but not capitulating to this maddening modern trend thats been foist upon us.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok, but I know 'he' is card-able, what isn't dehumanising or card-able.

Would you call your child, sister, brother, mother, father "it"?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Have been infracted and given a warning for calling a man who transitioned to become a woman 'it' ,

I personally think the whole pronouns thing is a nightmare but just to get some feedback here from mods etc.. about going forward. What word/pronoun can I use for men who have 'become' women that is not 'she', I'm not trying to kick up but I don't think 'she' is correct, 'he' would have me infracted, and apparently 'it' is also an intractable offence..

Well, I mean, that’s pretty blatantly dehumanising. I’ve been very vocal on this topic but come on.

Eric Cartman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I mean, that’s pretty blatantly dehumanising. I’ve been very vocal on this topic but come on.

which I now accept and apologise for, but what could I have used instead, here to learn.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Eric Cartman wrote: »

which I now accept and apologise for, but what could I have used instead, here to learn.

I don’t think anyone has figured out anything past ‘he’ and ‘she’.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

which I now accept and apologise for, but what could I have used instead, here to learn.

They/them, but you totally chose "it" go rile people.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

They/them, but you totally chose "it" go rile people.

thank you.

can a mod confirm that 'they' is alright ?

I know you don't believe me but I didn't, that thread already had people rilled up enough.

Quantum Erasure

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What word/pronoun can I use for men who have 'become' women that is not 'she',..

'they', works in all kind of situations...

excludedbin wrote: »

You've gotta love the irony that they honestly can't see anything wrong with dehumanising people they dislike....

Eric Cartman

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

'they', works in all kind of situations...

That was all I wanted, just took 2 pages of being berated for making a mistake to get to there..

Beasty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

can a mod confirm that 'they' is alright ?

I can confirm this. It is something we discussed previously at Admin level and concluded this was an appropriate pronoun where posters do not feel they can use a person's own preferred pronoun

Birneybau

Another thread post-bombed out of existence because apparently people have free reign to disingenuously question attacks on teenagers by scum.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058116528

excludedbin

It really does boggle the mind and it absolutely puts to bed the notion that racist ****-stirrers like that aren't treated more leniently. How many of their threads are closed like that? Not to mention their constant, unbearable remarks about how apparently there's a big off-site left wing group trying to get threads closed when... they're the ones actually getting threads closed.

Sorry but all the cribbing and crying about posts being reported rings a little hollow now that we can see, plain as day, what's really going on. Any thread that brings up racial violence (as long as it's not black-on-white, of course) is immediately subjected to a barrage of "but how do we KNOW it's racist" comments. Look at the terror incident in Paris threads, all the allusions to Muslims and not a bloody peep from the mods there. God forbid the poor little darlings might have one of their many threads closed!

Closing the thread is nothing more than giving them exactly what they want: stop anyone acknowledging that racism and racist attacks (that aren't black-on-white) exist. As always, the trolls are given free rein while everyone else is punished.

Outlaw Pete

excludedbin wrote: »

Sorry but all the cribbing and crying about posts being reported rings a little hollow now that we can see, plain as day, what's really going on. Any thread that brings up racial violence (as long as it's not black-on-white, of course) is immediately subjected to a barrage of "but how do we KNOW it's racist" comments. Look at the terror incident in Paris threads, all the allusions to Muslims and not a bloody peep from the mods there. God forbid the poor little darlings might have one of their many threads closed!

First of all: I don't believe if something was genuinely racist and likely to be highly offensive to a reader of that race where they to happen upon the thread, that mods would just leave it go unactioned. Not the current crop anyway as mostly they tend to over moderate that stuff if anything.

Secondly: what exactly do you want mods to do? This is what I never get with those who want opinions moderated all the damn time. All it would do/does is create an echo chamber. You should be glad someone is posting moronic views as that is your chance to craft a post in response and make them look even more moronic than they already do, and if what you say is true, that their views are far removed from the truth, then that should be very easy for you to do.

Aren't bigoted views better off being exposed as such rather than silencing them anyway? I sure think so. There's dopes on soapboxes down on Henry St all the time spouting rubbish. Let them at it I say. They sound foolish. Well, same goes for Boards I feel and as long as someone is not saying something which is inciting violence or deliberately meant to hurt and offend, as opposed to having a genuine view which they can in someway justify having, then leave them at it too.

Deebles McBeebles

Birneybau wrote: »

Another thread post-bombed out of existence because apparently people have free reign to disingenuously question attacks on teenagers by scum.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058116528

Reason given for closure was because the thread is a train wreck, that can't be right. CA would have like 4 threads if that was the case.

Birneybau

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Reason given for closure was because the thread is a train wreck, that can't be right. CA would have like 4 threads if that was the case.

It was jumped on by the usuals, asking if we're sure what happened, maybe it was vigilantism, as if they'd ask the same if it was a white kid attacked by black adults. But hey, they got the thread shut. :rolleyes:

Gatling

Birneybau wrote: »

It was jumped on by the usuals, asking if we're sure what happened, maybe it was vigilantism,

It's how it was reported , actually it's gone awfully quiet now .

Contentious thread started by a low count poster funny how people fall for it every time

Birneybau

Gatling wrote: »

It's how it was reported , actually it's gone awfully quiet now .

Contentious thread started by a low count poster funny how people fall for it every time

Gone quiet, because posters like you and your 'So What really happened?" got it closed.

Deebles McBeebles

Gatling wrote: »

Contentious thread started by a low count poster funny how people fall for it every time

That perfectly describes the recent abortion thread as well as the multiculturalism thread. Both still open and "thriving".

Perhaps the mods/admins could clarify why this particular thread was closed?

Discodog

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Reason given for closure was because the thread is a train wreck, that can't be right. CA would have like 4 threads if that was the case.

If so then sanction the people who wreck the train. Don't close the line.

excludedbin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all: I don't believe if something was genuinely racist and likely to be highly offensive to a reader of that race where they to happen upon the thread, that mods would just leave it go unactioned. Not the current crop anyway as mostly they tend to over moderate that stuff if anything.

I have never and probably will never understand how this meme about Boards being over-moderated got started. The state of CA/IMHO is proof positive that, as far as that forum goes at least, it's the opposite if anything. The kind of stuff people get away with floating there is flabbergasting.

Unfortunately, in a lot of cases it's not just one thing, it's a body of dog-whistles (yes, yes, I know the usuals will start screeching at me), snide remarks, and outright references to conspiracy theories that taken as a whole paint a very clear picture.

Secondly: what exactly do you want mods to do?

Oh I don't know, maybe enforce the rules consistently? Maybe stop punishing the people that're trolled for responding and start punishing those instigating it. Stop giving these people exactly what they want: to shut down discussions that go against their beliefs.

This is what I never get with those who want opinions moderated all the damn time.

Opinions aren't bloody sacred cows and they aren't all equal. If your opinion is that the Earth is flat then it's wrong and if your opinion is that certain ethnic or racial groups are inferior then you should be moderated.

All it would do/does is create an echo chamber. You should be glad someone is posting moronic views as that is your chance to craft a post in response and make them look even more moronic than they already do, and if what you say is true, that their views are far removed from the truth, then that should be very easy for you to do.

It already is an echo chamber and has been demonstrated here and elsewhere on the internet and indeed in real life, it doesn't matter how insane it is, they'll still believe it. Ask for evidence you're ignored, point out the contradictions you're ignored and/or mocked, bring up anything that doesn't agree with the alt-right's prevailing attitudes and it's back to 'liberal lefty SJWs'.

You're not arguing with people holding reasonable positions that they got to using logic, they're for the most part conspiracy theories or at the least share the same hallmarks. Allowing them to air those views does nothing else but sucker in more people vulnerable to such lies. It's not 1997 any more and the internet that Boards presently exists on is a very different place.

Aren't bigoted views better off being exposed as such rather than silencing them anyway?

No. It's precisely because of social media giving such people a platform that they've begun to spread so virulently. What was it like before that? They were relatively isolated wierdos, now they're weirdos with a platform that has access to billions.

Let me repeat: you cannot reach these people with facts or reason. The very foundation their beliefs are built upon preclude them ever believing anything that contradicts them.

There's dopes on soapboxes down on Henry St all the time spouting rubbish. Let them at it I say. They sound foolish. Well, same goes for Boards I feel and as long as someone is not saying something which is inciting violence or deliberately meant to hurt and offend, as opposed to having a genuine view which they can in someway justify having, then leave them at it too.

And again, those dopes can't reach billions of people. If that was all these people were, it wouldn't be a problem. But they're not and it is a problem. Especially since now, apparently, all it takes is enough of them ****ting up a thread to have it locked.

Gatling

Birneybau wrote: »

'So What really happened?"

I asked the question ,

But when you get a fight in a public park apparently involving a group of vigilantes and a gang of teens it's not as simple as it was made out .

Have you tried twitter seems to be the place of terminally offended

Deebles McBeebles

Gatling wrote: »

But when you get a fight in a public park apparently involving a group of vigilantes and a gang of teens it's not as simple as it was made out.

An attack in a public park is what has been reported, not a fight. One person on the thread speculated it could be vigilantes (for some reason) and there were 2 kids, hardly a gang. Very emotive choice of words though.

Outlaw Pete

excludedbin wrote: »

I have never and probably will never understand how this meme about Boards being over-moderated got started. The state of CA/IMHO is proof positive that, as far as that forum goes at least, it's the opposite if anything. The kind of stuff people get away with floating there is flabbergasting.

I speak from experience. I've had mods cite my opinions in PMs when trying to justify banning me from threads. Threads that I didn't even have infractions on. I can link to mods telling people to not post things which turned out to be accurate but they would not listen at the time. In Politics users were asked to refrain from saying the Obama administration spied on people associated with the Trump campaign. In AH users were told to stop suggesting abortions under 12 weeks might not all be pill form. Etc etc. So yes, Boards has often been over zealously moderated.

Unfortunately, in a lot of cases it's not just one thing, it's a body of dog-whistles (yes, yes, I know the usuals will start screeching at me), snide remarks, and outright references to conspiracy theories that taken as a whole paint a very clear picture.

Oh please. The dreaded dog whistling. I hate that bloody nonsense term as it's just collective inferring that something was said for nefarious purposes and wanting mods to agree that what you inferred was correct.

Oh I don't know, maybe enforce the rules consistently? Maybe stop punishing the people that're trolled for responding and start punishing those instigating it. Stop giving these people exactly what they want: to shut down discussions that go against their beliefs.

Well, that would depend on how you respond to the "trolling" now wouldn't it. Personal abuse is personal abuse and it's the one area mods don't take action enough on. They should do more and so you won't get sympathy from me on that one. Outright ad homienms should never be tolerated even by those who feel that they are morally justified in it as they have been "trolled" as all it does is result in the "troll" retaliating (understandably) with an ad homienm of their own and then the thread turns to crap, which of course I believe if is often the goal of those that want it closed, as I believe was the case with the Antifa thread.

Opinions aren't bloody sacred cows and they aren't all equal. If your opinion is that the Earth is flat then it's wrong and if your opinion is that certain ethnic or racial groups are inferior then you should be moderated.

Those two views are not nearly the equivalent that you present them as but I agree that some views shouldn't be tolerated or are best kept to the conspiracy theory forum. However, I have been banned from threads by mods that have labelled my view on a subject a "conspiracy theory" (an example: that the mainstream media deliberately lie about things Trump has done and said so that he is seen how they want him to be seen ) and so that kind of crap needs to stop as it just cultivates an echo chamber atmosphere.

It already is an echo chamber and has been demonstrated here and elsewhere on the internet and indeed in real life, it doesn't matter how insane it is, they'll still believe it. Ask for evidence you're ignored, point out the contradictions you're ignored and/or mocked, bring up anything that doesn't agree with the alt-right's prevailing attitudes and it's back to 'liberal lefty SJWs'.

You have blinkers on. The same nonsense happens the other way. Trust me. I deal with it daily. I am called a right wing, delusional, zealot, who would defend my "leader" no matter what he did and in general terms those that express similar views to me are labelled right wing, knuckle dragging, neanderthal, mouth breathers, and so lets not pretend butter wouldn't melt in the mouths of the so called progressives.

You're not arguing with people holding reasonable positions that they got to using logic, they're for the most part conspiracy theories or at the least share the same hallmarks. Allowing them to air those views does nothing else but sucker in more people vulnerable to such lies. It's not 1997 any more and the internet that Boards presently exists on is a very different place.

Same answer as above really. You seem to only be able to see that it's those who disagree with you that are not using logic but that's far from the bloody case. The whole nonsense surrounding George Floyd's death being motivated by racism and that Trump told people to inject bleach, or called Neo Nazis "fine people" (as examples) are about as far removed from reality as it gets given there is not a shred of evidence to back either assertion up but I don't want users banned for making these claims. Quite like pointing them in the direction of reality in fact and you should too when someone "says the Earth is flat".

No. It's precisely because of social media giving such people a platform that they've begun to spread so virulently. What was it like before that? They were relatively isolated wierdos, now they're weirdos with a platform that has access to billions.

I couldn't agree more. We just disagree which side of the political aisle it is that those weirdos reside on.

Let me repeat: you cannot reach these people with facts or reason. The very foundation their beliefs are built upon preclude them ever believing anything that contradicts them.

Again, couldn't agree more. We just disagree which side of the political aisle it is that those people reside on.

And again, those dopes can't reach billions of people. If that was all these people were, it wouldn't be a problem. But they're not and it is a problem. Especially since now, apparently, all it takes is enough of them ****ting up a thread to have it locked.

Again, couldn't agree more. We just disagree which side of the political aisle .. yada yada yada.

Your problem is that you want people silenced for wrongthink and this is something common with liberals in the last decade or so. It's largely what gave birth to Antifa and them thinking that just because they thought Jordan Peterson was a Nazi, they could destroy buildings and assault people, and look what tolerating that did. It led us to 2020 where the same people upped the ante and rioted across America maiming and destroying just because they felt justified to do so, but just because you feel right, and morally superior, doesn't mean you are.

Gatling

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

it could be vigilantes (for some reason) and there were 2 kids, hardly a gang.

There was more than 2 teenagers 6 /7 I heard on a radio program earlier.

It hardly matters now

Deebles McBeebles

Gatling wrote: »

There was more than 2 teenagers 6 /7 I heard on a radio program earlier.

It hardly matters now

The facts will come out in time. Whats reported is that 2 kids were involved, 14 and 15.

As suggested on the thread, it would matter a whole lot more to some if the skin colours were reversed. The usual "deport them" and "this isn't the Ireland I knew" crew would be in like a shot.

Birneybau

Gatling wrote: »

I asked the question ,

But when you get a fight in a public park apparently involving a group of vigilantes and a gang of teens it's not as simple as it was made out .

Have you tried twitter seems to be the place of terminally offended

I'm not offended in the slightest. I can just see what you and your ilk do.

Gatling

Birneybau wrote: »

I can just see what you and your ilk do.

I asked a simple question nothing more .

Hotblack Desiato

Ah yes, "just asking questions" when you were implying two beaten-up young teens were criminals. Really not subtle at all...

Gatling

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah yes, "just asking questions" when you were implying two beaten-up young teens were criminals

Lol

No I didn't

Someone else brought up vigilantes not me i did say it vigilantes involved we weren't getting the full story .