Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

Well a quick glance at the latest posts in the Nkencho thread and they're frankly mental. They're not discussing current affairs, it just seems to be people bitching about the thread being called out on Twitter.

For an idea, here's a quote from one of the latest posts "poor old **** is simply one of those pathetic lefty bitches filled with self loathing and unwarranted white guilt"....

That's not a comment on moderation, it'll a comment on the type of poster that the current affairs threads are attracting. Why the hell would anyone want to join that discussion?

Well, posts like that were dealt with pronto by the looks of it, so big up the mods!
The Twitter guy 'called out' the linkage and promotion of the Lord Mayors DCC Awards in regards to the shop worker attacked.
He was worried it might be a 'win' for the 'far right'
However, he appeared to call in a favour to " 'ave a word ".

I posted about Blanch not being in the DCC area so nominating someone outside that wouldn't probably work and a comment about both extreme, mad sides being amongst us and the mindsets of both.
And that was culled too.
I'm not here moaning about it, just pointing out that posts do get dealt with.

Omackeral

Deleted User wrote: »

Most people don't want to go anywhere near participating in it for that reason.

What's this possibly based on? Thread has 750,000 views and is one of the most active topics in the entire forum.

Gatling

Omackeral wrote: »

What's this possibly based on? Thread has 750,000 views and is one of the most active topics in the entire forum.

Guarantee its the same names wanting threads removed on a daily basis ,

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

No you can speak for you only not most as you claim ,it's easier to cry I'm offended close it down rather than engaging in form of discussion ,it's like a child in school constantly running to a teacher to tell tales .

To use your analogy, I'd say it's more like a child in a relatively well behaved classroom wondering why the class next door is full of children shouting and bickering the whole time.

Overheal

It's a bit like asking why is there widespread concern about what goes on at parler.com when most of those people don't bother to join parler.com - there is a public interest in doing so.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

Well a quick glance at the latest posts in the Nkencho thread and they're frankly mental. They're not discussing current affairs, it just seems to be people bitching about the thread being called out on Twitter.

For an idea, here's a quote from one of the latest posts "poor old **** is simply one of those pathetic lefty bitches filled with self loathing and unwarranted white guilt"....

That's not a comment on moderation, it'll a comment on the type of poster that the current affairs threads are attracting. Why the hell would anyone want to join that discussion?

Equally there was people revelling in the fact that protestors (terrorists, pick whichever) were shot during that whole capital hill drama. One poster labelling the lady shot as 'human waste', another suggesting they should 'pump' rounds into a few more of the people there. It goes both ways, yet is a minority of posters that dehumanise and say such vile things.

There is decent debate to be had, and as I said, ultimately, it's only those with a certain political slant that seem to think there is a huge far right waiting to emerge in Ireland (there isn't), and now that boards will be the driving force behind it (laughable).

CtevenSrowder

Overheal wrote: »

It's a bit like asking why is there widespread concern about what goes on at parler.com when most of those people don't bother to join parler.com - there is a public interest in doing so.

There isn't 'widespread' concern about what goes on on parlour.com. I'd guarantee that the overwhelming majority of people have never even heard of the site (I hadn't till I think 2 days ago).

Gatling

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There isn't 'widespread' concern about what goes on on parlour.com. I'd guarantee that the overwhelming majority of people have never even heard of the site (I hadn't till I think 2 days ago).

Most of it came around from the US 2A influencers who have been ranting and raving about free speech and various platforms demonising pro gun pro hate speech posts

ToddDameron

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Equally there was people revelling in the fact that protestors (terrorists, pick whichever) were shot during that whole capital hill drama. One poster labelling the lady shot as 'human waste', another suggesting they should 'pump' rounds into a few more of the people there. It goes both ways, yet is a minority of posters that dehumanise and say such vile things.

There is decent debate to be had, and as I said, ultimately, it's only those with a certain political slant that seem to think there is a huge far right waiting to emerge in Ireland (there isn't), and now that boards will be the driving force behind it (laughable).

Our very own Overheal commented "chefs kiss" at the news that a woman was trampled to death.

Overheal

ToddDameron wrote: »

Our very own Overheal commented "chefs kiss" at the news that a woman was trampled to death.

You sure?

ToddDameron

Overheal wrote: »

You sure?

Are you denying you posted it? You're 100 percent sure you didn't post chefs kiss in response to a post about the guy tasing himself and the women being trampled? Because I have a juicy screenshot that says you are a bare faced liar.

Beasty

ToddDameron wrote: »

Are you denying you posted it? You're 100 percent sure you didn't post chefs kiss in response to a post about the guy tasing himself and the women being trampled?

As you seem to want to personalise Site Feedback, consider yourself banned from posting in this thread

Overheal

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There isn't 'widespread' concern about what goes on on parlour.com. I'd guarantee that the overwhelming majority of people have never even heard of the site (I hadn't till I think 2 days ago).

In Ireland, no. In international politics however yes. Especially in US politics because it played such a pivotal role in the coup attempt. Anyway it's one example. How about another: caring about what happens with human rights in Saudi Arabia even though we don't live there. People have a right to censure or be critical of speech happening in another thread even if they don't actively get down in the mud there, or otherwise try to start a direct battle with pugilistic posters over virtues.

Beasty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well it was you who labeled the woman shot as human waste, so I wouldn't put it past you. I do have some sympathy for you though, being American and living there it is no doubt very easy to be sucked into that kind of politic, considering how things are over there at the moment.

You are also threadbanned

Now can everyone treat this as feedback on the forum, and not an opportunity to get jibes in at others

EDIT
Threadban lifted after poster gave assurances over future posting in this thread

KyussB

People need to be extemely careful about calling for increased censorship, like what is happening with Parlour, and basically all major social media sites when it comes to Trump etc. - we're entering one of the most dangerous periods of increased censorship ever seen on the Internet - and the Irish Government has even introduced laws, presently only targetting political ads, which will mandate that social media sites like Boards apply something akin to 'fact checking' type moderating for these ads.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers etc.. What it is going to become, is mandatory enforcement of the Overton Window, as defined by private tech companies.

People need to keep a close eye on this - there are already fresh examples of this type of 'fact checking' gone wrong, here on Boards (not specific to political ads).

Overheal

KyussB wrote: »

People need to be extemely careful about calling for increased censorship, like what is happening with Parlour, and basically all major social media sites when it comes to Trump etc. - we're entering one of the most dangerous periods of increased censorship ever seen on the Internet - and the Irish Government has even introduced laws, presently only targetting political ads, which will mandate that social media sites like Boards apply something akin to 'fact checking' type moderating for these ads.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers etc.. What it is going to become, is mandatory enforcement of the Overton Window, as defined by private tech companies.

People need to keep a close eye on this - there are already fresh examples of this type of 'fact checking' gone wrong, here on Boards (not specific to political ads).

How long should some of these subjects be entertained, though.

People have been denying the holocaust since it happened, no amount of investigation or additional discovery will convince them otherwise. 80 years on. There's a point where it is simply in nobody's best interest to keep entertaining such drivel, when it becomes dangerous to.

I knew for weeks people were beating their chests about '1776' this and 'retake our country by force' that, and I tried, for weeks, to reason with these people, they were arguing about breaches of law and the law was explained to them in great detail. They didn't ever care, they just wanted the pretext to start a coup.

They gave equal time on the news to climate change scientists and climate deniers, calling it a 'balanced' debate. All it did was give undue amplification to <1% of academia that remains skeptical and has lead to broader science-denialism, and almost certainly only made this current pandemic more lethal as a direct result.

We do not have to give an equal platform to terrible ideas.

Sweetemotion

Overheal wrote: »

How long should some of these subjects be entertained, though.

People have been denying the holocaust since it happened, no amount of investigation or additional discovery will convince them otherwise. 80 years on. There's a point where it is simply in nobody's best interest to keep entertaining such drivel, when it becomes dangerous to.

I knew for weeks people were beating their chests about '1776' this and 'retake our country by force' that, and I tried, for weeks, to reason with these people, they were arguing about breaches of law and the law was explained to them in great detail. They didn't ever care, they just wanted the pretext to start a coup.

They gave equal time on the news to climate change scientists and climate deniers, calling it a 'balanced' debate. All it did was give undue amplification to <1% of academia that remains skeptical and has lead to broader science-denialism, and almost certainly only made this current pandemic more lethal as a direct result.

We do not have to give an equal platform to terrible ideas.

Everything should be up for debate and be questioned.

KyussB

Actually, my prior post is wrong about political ads - the new laws are only about establishing identity of advertisers. Nonetheless, the rise of badly applied and heavily biased fact checking, has become prevalent throughout major social media platforms.

Claims that a topic of discussion is dangerous, usually involve extreme and selective exaggeration of what counts as 'dangerous'.

Mainstream discussion of a war with Iraq Iran and installing a puppet government? Not considered dangerous enough to censor by any media/social-media outlet.
Minority/fringe discussion of a coup, by people who can raid a poorly secured building for a few hours, but will never have the manpower/firepower or organization needed to take/hold the hundreds/thousands of key locations needed to pull off a coup? Dangerous, apparently...

Mainstream = never censored. Minority/fringe = dangerous. That's basically the definition of enforcing the Overton Window.

People need to be able to grapple with extremely offensive topics, and advocates of those topics, without calling for limitations and censorship of those topics/people.
The real problem with such discussions is usually brigading/astroturfing, and bad faith discussion where it becomes increasingly clear that the person knows that what they are presenting is false - you target that separately, and that is always going to be a struggle.

Censoring and deplatforming doesn't weed out terrible ideas, it weeds out minority ideas good and bad that are offensive to mainstream views - and it bolsters/keeps the terrible ideas that are already mainstream.

I dunno you do find that some people also take obscurities and post at obstructive length about them

That's worth intercepting for the greater good of prioritising debate time and attention in many contexts

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It just depends on whether Boards.ie care about rampant trolls and dodgy threads being a good look or not. The twitter thread sharing thing might be a sign of things to come.

Plenty of left wing extreme view posters actioned regularly.

Its almost as if behaviour was moderated and beliefs weren't

And it's almost as if a rump of posters of a certain bent found that problematic but were avoiding saying so

Hardly worth engaging with tbh

And this is relevant i guess. Mods will pick up the stuff that's beyond the line, as it should be

Yeah, the line should be debated, and moved, as contexts change.

Yeah, the line mightnt suit your personal argument at any one time

But knowing where the line is, knowing something is well within it but you disagree with it, but still popping up in this thread like the keystone cops through a revolving door, its just pointless stuff

Be different if people were even arguing the case for a change in where the lines are, or reporting the stuff they objected to.

But they just keep coming in here and tapping their feet at the mods as if the mere fact of their disliking something were all the evidence and work required

Mickeroo

coinop, don't post in this thread again.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Because if anyone had any urge to participate in that thread, it would become pretty apparent that it's an example of a thread that's become a cesspit. Most people don't want to go anywhere near participating in it for that reason.

I agree. We can see that now with all the ranting and raving about left wing people being resentful, self loathing, having no purpose in life, making no contribution to society, being miserable, being mentally ill and destroying peoples lives.

Seriously.

Yet still in this thread people pretend that "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly"

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I agree. We can see that now with all the ranting and raving about left wing people being resentful, self loathing, having no purpose in life, making no contribution to society, being miserable, being mentally ill and destroying peoples lives.

Seriously.

Yet still in this thread people pretend that "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly"

You seem to think that an unpleasant post or posts in a thread means that that last paragraph is untrue.

You're completely wrong of course, or at the very least youve simply not bothered to make the case.

But nobody can force you to post anywhere i guess.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to think that an unpleasant post or posts in a thread means that that last paragraph is untrue.

You're completely wrong of course, or at the very least youve simply not bothered to make the case.

But nobody can force you to post anywhere i guess.

It does. Most rational thinking people wouldnt walk into a thread like that thinking that there could in any way be robust, frank and open discussion

I dont think its good practice to set your own POV up as "most people" tbh

We have a determined but small group in here multiple times about a very busy forum that contains posts you don't agree with and therefore wont participate in.

The available evidence isn't at all that that viewpoint is a majority nor anything like a majority.

Its not like

i. Mods dont take out the reported stuff that's in breach
ii. Unpleasant posts are limited to one political grouping

So given the above it's hard again to paint this as anything more than "people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me"

Or, if you like, "people should be allowed to disagree with me but only in the manner i approve of"

Omackeral

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Seriously.

Yet still in this thread people pretend that "a multiplicity of views can be debated robustly, frankly, and openly"

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It does. Most rational thinking people wouldnt walk into a thread like that thinking that there could in any way be robust, frank and open discussion

You keep repeating this line despite the fact you don’t engage in open or frank discussion yourself. I don’t know why you keep doing it. You’ve been asked by multiple posters why you post in a hit and run style and you never respond to this. If you dont want to respond that’s fine, although it’s very strange, but you keep parroting about robust, frank and open discussion. Do you not see how your own actions are at odds with your complaining about?

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

So given the above it's hard again to paint this as anything more than "people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with me"

Or, if you like, "people should be allowed to disagree with me but only in the manner i approve of"

You made a similar point a few days ago, and I replied to the post then:

osarusan wrote: »

But it isn't anything to do with 'disagreement', not on my part at least.


An example from the Nkencho thread is the claim, oft repeated, that he had 30+ convictions. Posters were repeatedly asked to provide some kind of source, evidence, anything to back this up, but offered sweet f**k all.


And that kind of stuff is rife in CA, from all sides. Claim what you like: X said this, Y did that, Z never did that. Ignore requests for evidence, let some posters latch onto it and others bitch about it, job done.


That's not an issue of disagreement, it's just trying to esablish basic facts.

I don't see how wanting somebody to provide evidence for a claim they make is anything to do with disagreement. I think it's absolutely reasonable to ask somebody to back up a claim before we get down to discussing it.


I've said this before, but I cannot comprehend what good a 'there is no need to back up any claim' policy does in terms of frank, open, robust debate. It just encourages those who want to talk crap.

You did, i responded, and i think id fairly admit that a specific claim like that needs challenging and backing up (because i agree with that!)

I thought mods acted on that one?

As for me making the point again, yeah i did, in response to a totally different thing but which is (as far as i can see) much more representative of the complaints in this thread of the last couple hundred pages.