Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You didn't respond though, I don't think, or not quoting me at least.


But never mind that, as by and large we seem to agree on the point I'm making, which is that if posters are making claims like that (not just the claim I used as an example - specific claims about anything tbh) I think it's reasonable for them to have to back those claims up.

Sorry if i didnt (or if i didnt address your main point).

Yeah, I agree with that.

But I think I put down a post after yours asking a few 'what ifs' about what reasonable posters can or should do if unreasonable posters aren't following those ideals.

Mods grab what is reported and what they can, to the line that the mods agree with.

For the blurry parts beyond that, i do think you have to engage and demonstrate the paucity of argument, shine a light, stay patient, do the work.

And thats the antithesis of slagging the whole forum, staying away and writing the whole place off as a cesspit or demanding it be shut down.

Kivaro

end of the road wrote: »

well of course it does, but so what? they are a tiny but very vocal minority who the majority think are crack pots.
how about taking some responsibility and debunking their drivel?
current affairs is not going to be a forum that only caters to our views, you need to understand and accept this.

This is it in a nutshell.
As a young lad I remember a time when any Sinn Fein representative, MP, or spokesperson who appeared on television or radio, had their audio cut off by the broadcaster. So all you would see is someone talking, but with no audio as they were muted. This bizarre and ludicrous situation went on for a while.

There are only a few posters, maybe 3 or 4, who want the Current Affairs forum completely shut down (muted). Maybe they lack the faculty to properly engage in discussion so try to censor it, but as EOTR says above, maybe they should focus on debunking instead as a mature response.

Annasopra

Kivaro wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell.
As a young lad I remember a time when any Sinn Fein representative, MP, or spokesperson who appeared on television or radio, had their audio cut off by the broadcaster. So all you would see is someone talking, but with no audio as they were muted. This bizarre and ludicrous situation went on for a while.

There are only a few posters, maybe 3 or 4, who want the Current Affairs forum completely shut down (muted). Maybe they lack the faculty to properly engage in discussion so try to censor it, but as EOTR says above, maybe they should focus on debunking instead as a mature response.

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

Omackeral

It's not possible to have a meaningful debate when posters comment something then disappear without addressing their points or flat out ignores any challenges to their logic.

At least if someone says something immature/unethical/controversial and sticks around to defend what they said, there's a conversation to be had.

nullzero

If certain threads are "cesspits" why engage at all?

Popping in, making statements that are in turn challenged, which you then do not respond to is a useless exercise.

At least validate your opinions with supporting evidence.

The truth is that there are threads on this site where people tend to congregate in groups, who agree with each other, and it isn't ideal. However if there is validity to any counter argument to be had that goes against the grain of popular opinion on those threads it is still worth making the argument, even in the face of people who have things wrong thanking each others posts and hurling abuse at you.

Ultimately it comes down to two things, 1 being the time you have to engage meaningfully. And 2 the veracity of your argument.

It's all very fine saying that the "alt right" is responsible for x y and z both on boards and in the real world, but it is up to the individual stating these things as fact to back them up. The same goes for making a statement about all left wing people, these type of arguments are ludicrous.

If you don't wish to engage meaningfully and back up your opinions, why engage? Why discuss anything if all you want is an echo chamber (yeah I know)?

blanch152

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

To be fair, I see very similar comments made about right-wing people, in fact, what is said about them is often far worse.

Discodog

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

You forgot "scum". Everyone is either scum or a scumbag. Then there's the use of capitals.

Discodog

Kivaro wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell.
As a young lad I remember a time when any Sinn Fein representative, MP, or spokesperson who appeared on television or radio, had their audio cut off by the broadcaster. So all you would see is someone talking, but with no audio as they were muted. This bizarre and ludicrous situation went on for a while.

There are only a few posters, maybe 3 or 4, who want the Current Affairs forum completely shut down (muted). Maybe they lack the faculty to properly engage in discussion so try to censor it, but as EOTR says above, maybe they should focus on debunking instead as a mature response.

I haven't seen anyone ask for it's closure. But why is it the only place where one can discuss current affairs ? I am sure that there are plenty on Boards that would welcome a normally moderated forum for such discussion. Good luck with debunking that Ireland has too many immigrants or people on welfare are scroungers or even that a "scumbag" with a knife deserves to be shot dead.

Some topics can't have an alternative view because the mob will shout it down & so you end up with the "echo chamber" that everyone says they don't want.

nullzero

Discodog wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone ask for it's closure. But why is it the only place where one can discuss current affairs ? I am sure that there are plenty on Boards that would welcome a normally moderated forum for such discussion. Good luck with debunking that Ireland has too many immigrants or people on welfare are scroungers or even that a "scumbag" with a knife deserves to be shot dead.

Some topics can't have an alternative view because the mob will shout it down & so you end up with the "echo chamber" that everyone says they don't want.

This is a normally moderated forum.

The problem with what you're referencing (The George Nkencho thread namely) is that every time somebody comes into the thread spouting rhetoric about the alt right in Ireland and how George Nkencho was killed because of his skin colour, those engaging in that line of discussion are able to provide no evidence to support their claims.

It is also notable that anyone engaging in any sort of racist rhetoric has been dealt with accordingly.

That case in particular is divisive for some people because the narrative of racially motivated killing by police hasn't stood up to scrutiny. This wasn't Ireland's George Floyd moment, much to the chagrin of some.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

This is a normally moderated forum.

The problem with what you're referencing (The George Nkencho thread namely) is that every time somebody comes into the thread spouting rhetoric about the alt right in Ireland and how George Nkencho was killed because of his skin colour, those engaging in that line of discussion are unable to provide no evidence to support their claims.

It is also notable that anyone engaging in any sort of racist rhetoric has been dealt with accordingly.

That case in particular is divisive for some people because the narrative of racially motivated killing by police hasn't stood up to scrutiny. This wasn't Ireland's George Floyd moment, much to the chagrin of some.

What was occurring in the thread last night was far from normal tbh. It was a couple of people ranting about being ratted out because somebody had screenshotted the discussion and posted it on Twitter. Then implications seemed to made about a specific user being responsible for it ending up on Twitter. It was rather nasty to say the least.

And in terms of racist rhetoric being dealt with, I can think of a fair few posters that have gonna down pretty racist rabbit holes on CA and continue to do so. On and off warnings but narrowly avoiding being outright banned.

Annasopra

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What was occurring in the thread last night was far from normal tbh. It was a couple of people ranting about being ratted out because somebody had screenshotted the discussion and posted it on Twitter. Then implications seemed to made about a specific user being responsible for it ending up on Twitter. It was rather nasty to say the least.

And in terms of racist rhetoric being dealt with, I can think of a fair few posters that have gonna down pretty racist rabbit holes on CA and continue to do so. On and off warnings but narrowly avoiding being outright banned.

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

Discodog

nullzero wrote: »

This is a normally moderated forum.

The problem with what you're referencing (The George Nkencho thread namely) is that every time somebody comes into the thread spouting rhetoric about the alt right in Ireland and how George Nkencho was killed because of his skin colour, those engaging in that line of discussion are able to provide no evidence to support their claims.

It is also notable that anyone engaging in any sort of racist rhetoric has been dealt with accordingly.

That case in particular is divisive for some people because the narrative of racially motivated killing by police hasn't stood up to scrutiny. This wasn't Ireland's George Floyd moment, much to the chagrin of some.

Try using the language of CA in other Boards fora. CA is given very light touch moderation as per it's Charter & that's fine if it's what Boards want. But there should be room on Boards for people, that want to discuss the issues, without terms like "scum" etc.

Omackeral

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

You've no interest in providing any feedback at all on this thread.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

Surely this needs examples shown


Im not doubting yous

but complaining about x and not providing an example seems to be crux of issue

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What was occurring in the thread last night was far from normal tbh. It was a couple of people ranting about being ratted out

Snitches get stiches ....

I believe people were laughing at the idea ,

Imagine that

CtevenSrowder

Discodog wrote: »

Try using the language of CA in other Boards fora. CA is given very light touch moderation as per it's Charter & that's fine if it's what Boards want. But there should be room on Boards for people, that want to discuss the issues, without terms like "scum" etc.

Then go to the politics forum.

Discodog

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Then go to the politics forum.

Current affairs isn't politics. Sometimes it can be but often not.

nullzero

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And today its not even about George Nkencho at all - just lots of lashing out at left wing people.

The same "left wing people" who are on that thread offering no evidence to back up anything they're claiming, yourself included?

Why should those posters take you seriously or respect your position when you cannot defend it in any form to begin with?

There's plenty of threads on this and other forums where "right wing people" are ridiculed.

You can't have everything your own way all the time.

If you have an argument to make and you can stand over its veracity, then take those people on. So far you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support a single thing you've said on that thread.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

osarusan wrote: »

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.

Well, snoopsheep is conversing with Joeytheparrot there who is notorious for NOT doing the bolded. He runs when challenged. If Joeytheparrot wants other to back up what they say in the interest of a robust and open discussion, he should be prepared to do the same himself.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Discodog wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone ask for it's closure. But why is it the only place where one can discuss current affairs ? I am sure that there are plenty on Boards that would welcome a normally moderated forum for such discussion. Good luck with debunking that Ireland has too many immigrants or people on welfare are scroungers or even that a "scumbag" with a knife deserves to be shot dead.

Some topics can't have an alternative view because the mob will shout it down & so you end up with the "echo chamber" that everyone says they don't want.

I don’t know, call me crazy but I’d say a forum entitled ‘Current Affairs’ is the perfect place to discuss... current affairs. I don’t know what you mean by ‘normally moderated forum’. What is abnormal about the moderation of ‘Current Affairs’?

osarusan

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, snoopsheep is conversing with Joeytheparrot there who is notorious for NOT doing the bolded. He runs when challenged. If Joeytheparrot wants other to back up what they say in the interest of a robust and open discussion, he should be prepared to do the same himself.

There are plenty of posters who are all for backing up claims when somebody else is making them, but not when they make them themselves. This hypocrisy (in every aspect of debate, not just that one) is a hallmark of CA.


Every poster should be prepared to back up what they say when making such claims. I think it would improve the quality of debate significantly, by removing the bottom layer of baseless claims and resulting pointless back and forth.

Wibbs

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its really not in any way possible to debunk in a mature way when the level of debate is that left wing people are resentful, self loathing, have no purpose in life, make no contribution to society, are miserable, are mentally ill and destroy peoples lives. That isnt in anyway whatsoever a mature discussion.

In the multiculturalism thread as an example the number of "left wing" people who were threadbanned, or banned from the forum itself absolutely dwarfed the number of "right wing" people who were. The examples of insult you give were all present and with some extra spice on top. Indeed the consistent MO for the vast majority of such posters was to come in, respond to a post, when they felt their arguments were debunked or disrespected, or they were running out of steam to call racism or some other ism, then in short order run to insult, then leave, or get banned.

Now I can certainly see and can happily acknowledge examples of what you mention towards the "left" and that's not on, but the fact you seem blind to it going the other way when there are more than plenty of examples says more about your baseline position than the realities involved.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

osarusan wrote: »

There are plenty of posters who are all for backing up claims when somebody else is making them, but not when they make them themselves. This hypocrisy (in every aspect of debate, not just that one) is a hallmark of CA.


Every poster should be prepared to back up what they say when making such claims. I think it would improve the quality of debate significantly, by removing the bottom layer of baseless claims and resulting pointless back and forth.

Right... but if somebody comes to Feedback to complain about people not backing up their claims and cites it as a reason for not getting more involved in CA and pontificates about the need for robust, evidenced debate, they better be damn sure they are not guilty of same. That’s hypocritical and should be flagged.

And I’d disagree that it’s a hallmark of CA. I have a few threads I contribute to and people are pretty darn good at backing up what they say because the most regular contributors really give a shit about the topics and have given them a lot of thought. So I can’t even really relate to your point here. People might not like the evidence provided but that’s different.

SchrodingersCat

Wibbs wrote: »

In the multiculturalism thread as an example the number of "left wing" people who were threadbanned, or banned from the forum itself absolutely dwarfed the number of "right wing" people who were.

Where are you getting these numbers to compare from?

Wibbs

From reading and posting in the thread. It was extremely obvious to anyone doing the same. The pattern outlined above was with a couple of welcome exceptions remarkably similar.

TheValeyard

Can I complain about the complainers?

osarusan

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Right... but if somebody comes to Feedback to complain about people not backing up their claims and cites it as a reason for not getting more involved in CA and pontificates about the need for robust, evidenced debate, they better be damn sure they are not guilty of same. That’s hypocritical and should be flagged.

No issue with any of that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And I’d disagree that it’s a hallmark of CA. I have a few threads I contribute to and people are pretty darn good at backing up what they say because the most regular contributors really give a shit about the topics and have given them a lot of thought. So I can’t even really relate to your point here. People might not like the evidence provided but that’s different.

There are indeed loads of posters who make great contributions and do offer robust debate, and that's great.

Unfortunately there are also posters who absolutely stink the place up with bad faith hypocritical sh!tposting. It's the apparent need to cater to this kind of poster that I don't understand.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

osarusan wrote: »

No issue with any of that.


There are indeed loads of posters who make great contributions and do offer robust debate, and that's great.

Unfortunately there are also posters who absolutely stink the place up with bad faith hypocritical sh!tposting. It's the apparent need to cater to this kind of poster that I don't understand.

I’ve used a few different forums and messageboards over the years and still do and shitposters were and are present on all of them. They’ll never be completely eradicated from a site and boards probably does a better job than most at moderating them. But yeah, they’ll always be there so we need to move around them and reply to the people who interest us.

SchrodingersCat

Wibbs wrote: »

From reading and posting in the thread. It was extremely obvious to anyone doing the same. The pattern outlined above was with a couple of welcome exceptions remarkably similar.

Ah right. I thought you might have had actual, not anecdotal evidence.