A discussion on the rules.

Karl Stein

I've been accused of being an illegal drug using criminal and and an associate of people in the PIRA.

Those who made those accusations didn't even get a yellow card.

Double standards on boards.ie?

Gosh, what a surprise.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

I explained my reasoning earlier, I thought it was a fair and reasonable thing to do. Nobody was singled out for protection. People can take my word on that. I've often given posters the benefit of any doubt when modding, I don't expect the same courtesy and decency back, but it would be nice when I say no protection of any sort entered my mind, posters I respect would step back and offer me the same.

....whether or not that was the intent, that would be the impression created, and indeed the effect.

Nodin

Don't suppose anyone from the moderation team would care to comment on this? Regardless of the specific wording, the intent and issue is fairly clear.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90019733&postcount=1243

alastair

Karl Stein wrote: »

I've been accused of being an illegal drug using criminal and and an associate of people in the PIRA.

Those who made those accusations didn't even get a yellow card.

Double standards on boards.ie?

Gosh, what a surprise.

How exactly does an accusation of being "an associate of people in the PIRA" warrant a yellow card? I worked with an ex (tried and sentenced) Provo. It doesn't rub off.

Which illegal drug were you accused of partaking in?

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Jimmy Saville is dead and that is entirely different.

Well, you can't defame a dead man. Of course, it would kind of defeat the purpose of rational discussion here if we had a free for all when discussing someone who's dead though.

The way I view it is that these discussions should be rational debates, while remaining clear of legal entanglements.

That is someone puts forward a claim or argument and unless a claim is overwhelmingly accepted as a truth, evidence be presented. Where it represents a claim that may be considered defamatory, then care should be made to make sure that the claim is alleged or fair comment.

Of Gerry Adams (he's just an example, as this is something that can apply elsewhere) and any alleged association he may have or have had with the PIRA, it seems to me to be one of those 'accepted truths' that everyone considers to be true but no one is really arsed to have it officially and legally recognised as true.

Don't get me wrong; personally, to me, it's pretty clear he at least used to me an active member and there no shortage of evidence to support this, but legally this remains an open topic.

As such I personally would not have a problem qualifying any such claim with 'allegedly' or simelar. Not to do so would create a dubious precedent in that other legally unproven 'truths' could also be claimed as true using the same loose criteria - effectively truth defined by what is popular or politically correct.

Nonetheless, keeping it 'legal' should not be the principle aim of how things are framed, just a practical one. Just because De Valera is dead should not mean that anyone could claim that he was a child molester, simply because you cannot defame the dead.

I just think that people are losing focus on the point of debate, to make rational and convincing arguments, backed up by evidence where necessary, and mixing up legal obligations with this.

Anyhow, just my 2c.

alastair

The Corinthian wrote: »

I just think that people are losing focus on the point of debate, to make rational and convincing arguments, backed up by evidence where necessary, and mixing up legal obligations with this.

Precisely. The mods made clear that the pulled post wasn't related to defamation at all. It's the quality of evidence that supports claims/comments, not any legal determinations. Jimmy Saville was never, and will never be found guilty in a court of law.

Happyman42

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, you can't defame a dead man. Of course, it would kind of defeat the purpose of rational discussion here if we had a free for all when discussing someone who's dead though.

The way I view it is that these discussions should be rational debates, while remaining clear of legal entanglements.

That is someone puts forward a claim or argument and unless a claim is overwhelmingly accepted as a truth, evidence be presented. Where it represents a claim that may be considered defamatory, then care should be made to make sure that the claim is alleged or fair comment.

Of Gerry Adams (he's just an example, as this is something that can apply elsewhere) and any alleged association he may have or have had with the PIRA, it seems to me to be one of those 'accepted truths' that everyone considers to be true but no one is really arsed to have it officially and legally recognised as true.

Don't get me wrong; personally, to me, it's pretty clear he at least used to me an active member and there no shortage of evidence to support this, but legally this remains an open topic.

As such I personally would not have a problem qualifying any such claim with 'allegedly' or simelar. Not to do so would create a dubious precedent in that other legally unproven 'truths' could also be claimed as true using the same loose criteria - effectively truth defined by what is popular or politically correct.

Nonetheless, keeping it 'legal' should not be the principle aim of how things are framed, just a practical one. Just because De Valera is dead should not mean that anyone could claim that he was a child molester, simply because you cannot defame the dead.

I just think that people are losing focus on the point of debate, to make rational and convincing arguments, backed up by evidence where necessary, and mixing up legal obligations with this.

Anyhow, just my 2c.

Shouldn't the principle be that if the 'person' denies the claim themselves then evidence should be presented?
What is to stop claims being made about anybody in that case?...I'll tell you what will and does stop it, the mods.
But funnily enough only selected accusations and claims are ignored.
In this case the person cited has been accused of a lot worse than membership of an illegal organisation.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Shouldn't the principle be that if the 'person' denies the claim themselves then evidence should be presented?
What is to stop claims being made about anybody in that case?.

As previously stated - lack of evidence. Follow the logic.

The Corinthian

Happyman42 wrote: »

Shouldn't the principle be that if the 'person' denies the claim themselves then evidence should be presented?

Can we claim that Gerry Adams is a paedophile then, by that logic? I'm not aware that he's ever denied being one.

Seeking evidence on all claims unless the claim is well accepted as true is a better standard - even then it can be challenged and the claimant forced to back up their claim, given that not everyone may agree that the claim is well accepted as true.

What is to stop claims being made about anybody in that case?...I'll tell you what will and does stop it, the mods.

Yes, but mods should only do so as a last resort - indeed, as a mod I can say that the last thing I like doing is having to interfere in a thread. I'd rather let people self regulate and only jump in where there's a malicious element (a shill, spammer or nutjob) or more commonly because someone has been to lazy to bother reading the charter. Otherwise, I've better things to do with my time.

But funnily enough only selected accusations and claims are ignored.

I can't comment on the post you're talking about as I've not read it. All I can say is that sometimes mods, like anyone, are biased - on some fora on Boards they're a remarkably self-entitled bunch of assholes - but they're generally unbiased on the Politics boards, in my experience.

What exactly is the offending claim though? That Adams was an active member of the PIRA?

While I would agree that I would word such a claim with a disclaimer because it's potentially (although unlikely to be prosecuted) defamation, I would have thought it was pretty well accepted as true, with one not needing to go far to find evidence for this.

I mean, do you genuinely believe that he was never a member?

Brown Bomber

I have a question if someone could find the time to answer? Why is it permissible to refer to the religious identity of Hamas as Muslims:

"The muslim terrorists know how to make the truce, the just don't know how to keep the truce."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91284204&postcount=268

But if you refer to the religious identity of Jewish Communists you get banned?

"The over 7 million Ukrainians that were starved to death, because of the actions of Jews like Lazar Kaganovich never got any sympathy though did they?"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91310497&postcount=300




Also, it appears JimeRyan22's banning was a case of mistaken identity. Someone might want to look into that.

FTA69

I reported the post about Kaganovich because it was a load of anti-Semitic sh*te. What possible relevance would the actions of an anti-Zionist Russian communist have on this debate? Especially actions that took place before the state of Israel was even founded? Are we to simply compile a list of Jewish people who did bad things throughout history and throw that in as well?

The Jews are not homogenous, and nor are they collectively responsible for things that Israel may or may not do. Conas' post was an insinuation that Jews as a people are somehow 'up to no good as usual' and that's a typical far-right tactic that's been used since time immemorial.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have a question if someone could find the time to answer? Why is it permissible to refer to the religious identity of Hamas as Muslims:

"The muslim terrorists know how to make the truce, the just don't know how to keep the truce."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91284204&postcount=268

But if you refer to the religious identity of Jewish Communists you get banned?

"The over 7 million Ukrainians that were starved to death, because of the actions of Jews like Lazar Kaganovich never got any sympathy though did they?"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91310497&postcount=300

Kaganovich was a Soviet administrator and a close associate of Stalin, and, as a communist, a doctrinaire atheist. Is it relevant that he was of Jewish origin? Was the collectivisation policy that caused the Holdomor a result, in any sense, of the religion that he abandoned?

Things like this are markers. If someone acts as if one of the main facts about a Soviet administrator, associate of Stalin, and architect of disasters is the religion he was born into and abandoned - if it's the fact that they cannot not mention, and the fact that appears to define the man for them, then we can generally say that that person is anti-Semitic, because there are many many things about Kaganovich that are vastly more relevant to his actions as a communist Soviet administrator.

This is different from simple association of Judaism with Zionism, or Islam with things like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Zionism is about the creation of a Jewish state, ISIS et al are about the creation of an Islamic state or the imposition of Islamic values (according to the views of the perpetrators). Hamas might be better called Palestinian than Muslim, but only at this stage historically, since they've largely adopted a Muslim counter-identity in response to Zionism.

And in turn we do also have simple anti-Islamic bigotry, which is similar to anti-Semitism.

It's not an easy line to police, and we can be sure that an anti-Semite will claim he is merely making the obvious association between Judaism and Zionism, just as we can be sure that pro-Zionists will claim that anyone mentioning the association is an anti-Semite. Similarly, we can be sure that the anti-Muslim bigot will claim he is merely making the obvious association, although as a general rule we lack pro-Jihandis to claim bigotry by everyone who is.

So in one sense, my response to you here is "Devil, you have sold yourself".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Also, it appears JimeRyan22's banning was a case of mistaken identity. Someone might want to look into that.

Someone has, and it wasn't.

regards,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

FTA69 wrote: »

I reported the post about Kaganovich because it was a load of anti-Semitic sh*te. What possible relevance would the actions of an anti-Zionist Russian communist have on this debate? Especially actions that took place before the state of Israel was even founded? Are we to simply compile a list of Jewish people who did bad things throughout history and throw that in as well?

The Jews are not homogenous, and nor are they collectively responsible for things that Israel may or may not do. Conas' post was an insinuation that Jews as a people are somehow 'up to no good as usual' and that's a typical far-right tactic that's been used since time immemorial.

You need to put the statement into context and stop reading between the lines for something you are only assuming is there

The statement wasn't just plucked out of the air - It has branched out from Israeli massacres in current events >>> Tragic Irony of the people who suffered the holocaust carrying out their own barbarism >>> Jews not having the monopoly on historical suffering. And in some cases are behind the suffering. With the case in point being the Holdomor and the Jewish Communist - Kaganovich, who was posthumously convicted of genocide by a Ukranian court.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Kaganovich was a Soviet administrator and a close associate of Stalin, and, as a communist, a doctrinaire atheist. Is it relevant that he was of Jewish origin? Was the collectivisation policy that caused the Holdomor a result, in any sense, of the religion that he abandoned?

Things like this are markers. If someone acts as if one of the main facts about a Soviet administrator, associate of Stalin, and architect of disasters is the religion he was born into and abandoned - if it's the fact that they cannot not mention, and the fact that appears to define the man for them, then we can generally say that that person is anti-Semitic, because there are many many things about Kaganovich that are vastly more relevant to his actions as a communist Soviet administrator.

This is different from simple association of Judaism with Zionism, or Islam with things like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Zionism is about the creation of a Jewish state, ISIS et al are about the creation of an Islamic state or the imposition of Islamic values (according to the views of the perpetrators). Hamas might be better called Palestinian than Muslim, but only at this stage historically, since they've largely adopted a Muslim counter-identity in response to Zionism.

And in turn we do also have simple anti-Islamic bigotry, which is similar to anti-Semitism.

It's not an easy line to police, and we can be sure that an anti-Semite will claim he is merely making the obvious association between Judaism and Zionism, just as we can be sure that pro-Zionists will claim that anyone mentioning the association is an anti-Semite. Similarly, we can be sure that the anti-Muslim bigot will claim he is merely making the obvious association, although as a general rule we lack pro-Jihandis to claim bigotry by everyone who is.

So in one sense, my response to you here is "Devil, you have sold yourself".



Someone has, and it wasn't.

regards,
Scofflaw

Right, but he never once said here or anywhere else that there was any inherent flaws in a Jew that makes them crueler or more prone to murder. He was contrasting the perceptions and awareness of Ukraines holocaust with the Jewish holocaust.

Using Jewish as an adjective isn't a perjorative, especially when it is documented fact. Same goes for Muslim as in the case with Hamas.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote:

The statement wasn't just plucked out of the air - It has branched out from Israeli massacres in current events >>> Tragic Irony of the people who suffered the holocaust carrying out their own barbarism >>> Jews not having the monopoly on historical suffering. And in some cases are behind the suffering. With the case in point being the Holdomor and the Jewish Communist - Kaganovich, who was posthumously convicted of genocide by a Ukranian court.

Brown Bomber wrote:

Right, but he never once said here or anywhere else that there was any inherent flaws in a Jew that makes them crueler or more prone to murder. He was contrasting the perceptions and awareness of Ukraines holocaust with the Jewish holocaust.

Using Jewish as an adjective isn't a perjorative, especially when it is documented fact. Same goes for Muslim as in the case with Hamas.

Hmm. OK, explain to me how Kaganovich's ancestry is relevant to his actions in the Ukraine, please.

regards,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. OK, explain to me how Kaganovich's ancestry is relevant to his actions in the Ukraine, please.

regards,
Scofflaw

What would be the use? You are using the term "ancestry" when it doesn't apply.

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What would be the use? You are using the term "ancestry" when it doesn't apply.

But neither does his religion matter as the famine was due to Stalins policy. It isn't as if Russian Jews didn't suffer under Stalin either.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What would be the use? You are using the term "ancestry" when it doesn't apply.

The use, at this stage, is that it stops me banning you permanently from participating in any Israel threads as an anti-Semite.

So, let me ask again, and this time please do not attempt evasion. Kaganovich was born to a Jewish family. You referred to him as "the Jewish Communist - Kaganovich, who was posthumously convicted of genocide".

I presume you can't see it, but highlighting Kaganovich's birth religion in this context is a statement of a belief that "inherent flaws in a Jew ... makes them crueler or more prone to murder". Like I said, "Devil, you have sold yourself".

So if you can't show any relevance of the "Jewish" there, you're on exactly the same page as Conas, and due exactly the same treatment. Until the matter is settled, please refrain from any posting in related threads.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

But neither does his religion matter as the famine was due to Stalins policy. It isn't as if Russian Jews didn't suffer under Stalin either.

Unfortunately you are correct, they did suffer.

However, his religion was atheist. He was an atheist Jew. Just like a large proportion of the Jewish state who consider themselves Jewish.

"Ancestry" conjures up false notions of some vague bloodline when the fact of the matter is that both of his parents were Jewish making it a fact that he was born Jewish under halakha and every Jewish definition there is. If he was alive today he would be entitled to be a full member of the Jewish state. Facts are facts.

Mentioning that someone who is Jewish is in fact Jewish isn't anti-semitic. It's a nonsense. Describing Tony Blair as "the British former PM" isn't anti-British. Describing Lionel Messi as "the Argentinian striker..." isn't anti-Argentinian.

The issue I have isn't that mentioning his ethnicity was relevant or not but that mentioning someone's ethnicity isn't of-itself a perjorative.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unfortunately you are correct, they did suffer.

However, his religion was atheist. He was an atheist Jew. Just like a large proportion of the Jewish state who consider themselves Jewish.

"Ancestry" conjures up false notions of some vague bloodline when the fact of the matter is that both of his parents were Jewish making it a fact that he was born Jewish under halakha and every Jewish definition there is. If he was alive today he would be entitled to be a full member of the Jewish state. Facts are facts. .

What relevance is his being "born Jewish" to what went on in the Ukraine?

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

The use, at this stage, is that it stops me banning you permanently from participating in any Israel threads as an anti-Semite.

So, let me ask again, and this time please do not attempt evasion. Kaganovich was born to a Jewish family. You referred to him as "the Jewish Communist - Kaganovich, who was posthumously convicted of genocide".

I presume you can't see it, but highlighting Kaganovich's birth religion in this context is a statement of a belief that "inherent flaws in a Jew ... makes them crueler or more prone to murder". Like I said, "Devil, you have sold yourself".

So if you can't show any relevance of the "Jewish" there, you're on exactly the same page as Conas, and due exactly the same treatment. Until the matter is settled, please refrain from any posting in related threads.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I was referring to ethnicity not religion. I was making a statement of fact. He was a Jewish Communist. Just like Chairman Mao was a Chinese Communist.

Would you ban someone for describing Mao as a Chinese Communist?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

What relevance is his being "born Jewish" to what went on in the Ukraine?

I wasn't involved in the discussion at all, but as I've said the context was:

It has branched out from Israeli massacres in current events >>> Tragic Irony of the people who suffered the holocaust carrying out their own barbarism >>> Jews not having the monopoly on historical suffering. And in some cases are behind the suffering. With the case in point being the Holdomor and the Jewish Communist - Kaganovich, who was posthumously convicted of genocide by a Ukranian court.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unfortunately you are correct, they did suffer.

However, his religion was atheist. He was an atheist Jew. Just like a large proportion of the Jewish state who consider themselves Jewish.

"Ancestry" conjures up false notions of some vague bloodline when the fact of the matter is that both of his parents were Jewish making it a fact that he was born Jewish under halakha and every Jewish definition there is. If he was alive today he would be entitled to be a full member of the Jewish state. Facts are facts.

Mentioning that someone who is Jewish is in fact Jewish isn't anti-semitic. It's a nonsense. Describing Tony Blair as "the British former PM" isn't anti-British. Describing Lionel Messi as "the Argentinian striker..." isn't anti-Argentinian.

The issue I have isn't that mentioning his ethnicity was relevant or not but that mentioning someone's ethnicity isn't of-itself a perjorative.

The question is not whether he was Jewish, BB. The question is why you mention it.

So far I have just one explanation for it, and you're not doing anything to contradict it.

We do not tolerate hate-speech or haters on the forum, and I can and will ban you if I think the evidence is sufficiently clear to require it. As I said, so far it is, so your better explanation needs to be forthcoming.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

I'm not big into atheism or religion for that matter, how's an Atheist Jew different from an Atheist Catholic or just an Atheist?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was referring to ethnicity not religion. I was making a statement of fact. He was a Jewish Communist. Just like Chairman Mao was a Chinese Communist.

Would you ban someone for describing Mao as a Chinese Communist?

The term "Chinese communism" refers to the doctrinal distinctiveness of Chinese Communism. The "Jewish" in "Jewish communist" serves no such purpose.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was referring to ethnicity not religion. I was making a statement of fact. He was a Jewish Communist. Just like Chairman Mao was a Chinese Communist.

Would you ban someone for describing Mao as a Chinese Communist?

If I felt that Mao's Chinese origin was irrelevant to his actions, and therefore being mentioned only because the person concerned was implying something about "the Chinese", then yes.

You're not getting why this is an issue, are you?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

The term "Chinese communism" refers to the doctrinal distinctiveness of Chinese Communism. The "Jewish" in "Jewish communist" serves no such purpose.

I said Communist not Communism.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not big into atheism or religion for that matter, how's an Atheist Jew different from an Atheist Catholic or just an Atheist?

The 'atheistic Jew' was a bogeyman of the right in Europe in the early 20th century. It seems to have been applied to any secular Jew without much care for their actual religious convictions, and more of an eye on their perceived liberal social outlook.

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not big into atheism or religion for that matter, how's an Atheist Jew different from an Atheist Catholic or just an Atheist?

Wiki.

Jewish atheism refers to atheism as practiced by people who are ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish. Because Jewishness encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not necessarily imply a contradiction. Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish.[1]

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I said Communist not Communism.

The same applies.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

The same applies.

Haha...Really? So the only possible "Chinese Communist" that could ever exist is a follower of "Chinese Communism"?. We both know that this isn't true.

Scofflaw

BB, I'm not getting anything from you here except very silly evasions, so I'm calling a mod vote on a permaban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

BB, I'm not getting anything from you here except very silly evasions, so I'm calling a mod vote on a permaban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

I'm questioning you. You're not answering.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

In fairness, I think you genuinely don't get the point here and don't mean any harm, but I'm afraid comments like those that Conas made are not acceptable on the forum.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, I think you genuinely don't get the point here and don't mean any harm, but I'm afraid comments like those that Conas made are not acceptable on the forum.

I think it goes a little deeper than that. If BB genuinely doesn't get why Kaganov's Jewish ethnicity is not relevant to his actions in the Holdomor, then he's implicitly saying that it is relevant.

And he refuses, or is unwilling, to explain why it's relevant, which leaves us with the uncomfortable fact that he must believe that Kagonov acted as he did at least in part because he was of Jewish ethnicity. Otherwise, how is his Jewish ethnicity so relevant as to deserve mention - why not highlight his Russian ethnicity, his Caucasian ethnicity, his Kievan origin, etc?

Possibly BB doesn't realise the bigotry implicit in such a view, or that the bigotry is implied by his otherwise inexplicable highlighting of Kagonov's Jewish ethnicity. But it's there either way, and that makes BB a very poor fit for Israel discussions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, I think you genuinely don't get the point here and don't mean any harm, but I'm afraid comments like those that Conas made are not acceptable on the forum.

First of all thank-you.

Second, If you assume malice then not only are they not acceptable here they have no place in society IMO. I'm not assuming malice because there isn't a single unambiguous statement that can be otherwise attributed to Conas that can be considered anti-semitic, to the best of my knowledge. You said yourself, just a few pages back here that you give people the benefit of doubt. That is what I am doing.

Actual anti-semitism is all to real and utterly disgusting. However, all Conas did; and be shown to have been done was share a fact. Relevant or not it is an indisputable fact. It's your house and you are free to do as you please and remove undesirables for expressing facts and opinions you may find distasteful but it is a slippery slope of censorship. It would be a shame to justify this through false charges of anti-semitism, which only delegitimise real claims of anti-semitism.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it goes a little deeper than that. If BB genuinely doesn't get why Kaganov's Jewish ethnicity is not relevant to his actions in the Holdomor, then he's implicitly saying that it is relevant.

And I never said it was relevant. Did I?

For clarity: I DO NOT THINK THAT HIS ETHNICITY IS RELEVANT TO HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE HOLDOMOR.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And he refuses, or is unwilling, to explain why it's relevant, which leaves us with the uncomfortable fact that he must believe that Kagonov acted as he did at least in part because he was of Jewish ethnicity. Otherwise, how is his Jewish ethnicity so relevant as to deserve mention - why not highlight his Russian ethnicity, his Caucasian ethnicity, his Kievan origin, etc?

How can I highlight any other ethnicity when he was 100% Jewish ethnicity?

I have no interest in speaking about him at all, other than to seek clarification in "a discussion on the rules" i.e. here as to why stating a fact gets you banned. The fact in question which led to the ban was that mentioning of Kaganovich was Jewish.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly BB doesn't realise the bigotry implicit in such a view, or that the bigotry is implied by his otherwise inexplicable highlighting of Kagonov's Jewish ethnicity. But it's there either way, and that makes BB a very poor fit for Israel discussions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Apparently so would The Yivo Institute of Jewish Research, which seems a little off. To quote from their encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Kaganovich_Lazar_Moiseevich

Kaganovich was the only Jew in the Politburo after the removal of Trotsky, Zinov’ev, and Kamenev.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

............... I'm not assuming malice because there isn't a single unambiguous statement that can be otherwise attributed to Conas that can be considered anti-semitic, to the best of my knowledge. .

One....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91308131&postcount=282

Two....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91244124&postcount=173

Three.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220699&postcount=98

Four..........
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220552&postcount=95

K-9

But that's an institute of Jewish Research, it's natural they'll mention it! Totally different from the comment by Conas. As for benefit of the doubt, yes, but in the overall context of his posts that one was the one that broke the camels back and is close to incitement to hatred imo. Anyway, Conas is free to appeal it. Mentioning somebodys religion naturally isn't a banable offence, mentioning it as if it was a defining reason for the famine and deaths of millions of people is, similar to criticising Blair and saying sure didn't Englishmen oversee the Irish famine.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

One....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91308131&postcount=282

Two....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91244124&postcount=173

Three.....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220699&postcount=98

Four..........
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91220552&postcount=95

I stand corrected. Specifically post 95. Too much generalising going on.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And I never said it was relevant. Did I?

For clarity: I DO NOT THINK THAT HIS ETHNICITY IS RELEVANT TO HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE HOLDOMOR.


How can I highlight any other ethnicity when he was 100% Jewish ethnicity?

I have no interest in speaking about him at all, other than to seek clarification in "a discussion on the rules" i.e. here as to why stating a fact gets you banned. The fact in question which led to the ban was that mentioning of Kaganovich was Jewish.


Apparently so would The Yivo Institute of Jewish Research, which seems a little off. To quote from their encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Kaganovich_Lazar_Moiseevich

It's not the mentioning of the fact, it's the connection of his ethnicity with his actions in the Holdomor.

You don't have to mention someone's ethnicity at all, you see. And when you not only mention their ethnicity in connection with their involvement in an atrocity, but explicitly connect their actions there, through their ethnicity, to the actions of others of their ethnicity, you're making a very strong statement that the ethnicity is a common causal connection.

"It's a fact that he was Jewish" is not a defence. It's obfuscation.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

But that's an institute of Jewish Research, it's natural they'll mention it! Totally different from the comment by Conas. As for benefit of the doubt, yes, but in the overall context of his posts that one was the one that broke the camels back and is close to incitement to hatred imo. Anyway, Conas is free to appeal it. Mentioning somebodys religion naturally isn't a banable offence, mentioning it as if it was a defining reason for the famine and deaths of millions of people is, similar to criticising Blair and saying sure didn't Englishmen oversee the Irish famine.

And I have to point out, again, that BB also sees the connection as worth mentioning. Just as Conas did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

But that's an institute of Jewish Research, it's natural they'll mention it!

Granted, but it is the context that gives away the intentions. It's like I said before Conas used the example of Kaganovich to illustrate a point - That Jewish suffering though tremendous isn't unique and not only this but the suffering has been at times at the hand of Jews themselves.

The relevance in this context is that Israel today abuses this suffering the Jewish people have endured ostensibly on the basis of this suffering and it's leaders often evoke the Holocaust to justify military aggression and expansionist policies.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

And I have to point out, again, that BB also sees the connection as worth mentioning. Just as Conas did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Then why didn't I make mention of it in the thread itself?

Once again...

I PERSONALY DO NOT see the connection as worth mentioning in relation to Holdomor.

That doesn't make it any less of a fact though.

My sole reason for mentioning it at all was to raise an issue I had. This is based on SOMEONE ELSE's statement. NOT MINE. Why are you twisting this?

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then why didn't I make mention of it in the thread itself?

Once again...

I PERSONALY DO NOT see the connection as worth mentioning in relation to Holdomor.

That doesn't make it any less of a fact though.

My sole reason for mentioning it at all was to raise an issue I had. This is based on SOMEONE ELSE's statement. NOT MINE. Why are you twisting this?

I'm not - I made the point that you couldn't see why Conas mentioning it was an issue, and that is explicitly my problem with you here. See my posts for details.

I'm saying you can't see anti-Semitism, and for a very simple reason, which is that you personally are also (albeit unconsciously) anti-Semitic.

Your defence, up to now, has consisted of stonewalling blanks, and attempts to pretend that we're discussing something else, as you're doing again here. It's not impressive, and I'm probably the wrong mod to not be impressing, given that up to now I have been your most regular defender from bans for trolling. I still don't think you can help yourself, but I think we're past the point where that's an adequate defence.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not - I made the point that you couldn't see why Conas mentioning it was an issue, and that is explicitly my problem with you here. See my posts for details.

As an isolated incident the mere act of mentioning that someone (who is in fact 100% Jewish) is Jewish isn't of itself anti-semitic,

Thanks to Nodin (links) & K9 ("the straw that broke the camel's back") I can understand where you are coming from.

What I don't understand is why you had to treat me like you were a cat playing with a mouse before you killed it. I was just asking for clarification based on an issue I had based on perceived hypocrisy and double standards. On the one hand I am observing that it is permissible to proclaim ad-infinitum that there is no such thing as the "Palestinian People" meanwhile on the other I see people getting banned (and worse) labelled as anti-semites, publically.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm saying you can't see anti-Semitism, and for a very simple reason, which is that you personally are also (albeit unconsciously) anti-Semitic.an

I would suggest that anyone who considers the use of "jewish" as a perjorative might want to look closer to home.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your defence, up to now, has consisted of stonewalling blanks, and attempts to pretend that we're discussing something else, as you're doing again here. It's not impressive, and I'm probably the wrong mod to not be impressing, given that up to now I have been your most regular defender from bans for trolling. I still don't think you can help yourself, but I think we're past the point where that's an adequate defence.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Defense of what? Believing that you may be mistaken? You are accusing me making the same statement as Conas. This is a completely false accusation.

I wanted to know the logic behind someone being banned for making a truthful statement. I repeated the truthful statement to demonstrate what the truthful statement was. The malice you assume in Conas' post has been explicitly rejected by me.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As an isolated incident the mere act of mentioning that someone (who is in fact 100% Jewish) is Jewish isn't of itself anti-semitic,

Indeed not, as I have explained at great length.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks to Nodin (links) & K9 ("the straw that broke the camel's back") I can understand where you are coming from.

What I don't understand is why you had to treat me like you were a cat playing with a mouse before you killed it.

I gave you an extended chance to offer me an alternative explanation, which you didn't do. You see it as cat and mouse because you can't see what needs explaining, can't see that there's an issue of any kind, and see that I apparently draw some information from that very failure - as indeed I do.

It's all a little Kafkaesque, I guess, from your perspective. And from mine too, now I think about it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was just asking for clarification based on an issue I had based on perceived hypocrisy and double standards.

On the one hand I am observing that it is permissible to proclaim ad-infinitum that there is no such thing as the "Palestinian People" meanwhile on the other I see people getting banned (and worse) labelled as anti-semites, publically.

Ah, yes, it's double standards, of course.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone who considers the use of "jewish" as a perjorative might want to look closer to home.

I can't work out whether that's insulting , or simply amazing as a blank failure to deal with reality.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Defense of what? Believing that you may be mistaken? You are accusing me making the same statement as Conas. This is a completely false accusation.

No, that's a completely false statement.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wanted to know the logic behind someone being banned for making a truthful statement. I repeated the truthful statement to demonstrate what the truthful statement was. The malice you assume in Conas' post has been explicitly rejected by me.

Well done you, and believe me, I do appreciate that you don't see how you're like him. Nor, apparently, do you see much wrong with his position, apart from perhaps some "over-generalisation".

Anyways, thanks for being a brick wall. I'm going to have a discussion, but the most likely outcome remains your permanent barring from any and all Israel-related threads on foot of your (apparently unconscious) anti-Semitism, and your definite temporary barring from all such threads until the matter is decided.

I invite you to consider that what I'm saying might be true, although I hold out little hope of your doing so.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

I gave you an extended chance to offer me an alternative explanation, which you didn't do

And how am I supposed to explain my innocence to a false accusation? You have set a trap here. You are accusing me of anti-semitism based on something someone else has said and demanding that repent and grovel. It's bad form.

I have condemned Conas' previous statements, openly and as soon as I became aware of them.

You have never warned/infracted/banned me once for anything anti-semitic at all. You have banned me for posting the pictures of the victims of an Israeli massacre and have just infracted me for the strangest sanction I have ever seen on boards. The statement "I said Communist not Communism". Was this a mistake?

Anyway, I passionately detest anti-semitism in all it's forms. Actual anti-semitism that is. So if you have been moderating any of my discussions and you observed actual anti-semitism and let it slide for some strange reason then please ban me for these posts.

Sand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... And let this be a lesson to anyone who dares question you.

Actually, Scofflaw doesn't usually wield mod powers to win arguments. There is no such thing as Jewish communism, certainly not on the same level as Chinese communism. And even if there was a distinct Jewish communism, Kaganov was not an adherent of it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not - I made the point that you couldn't see why Conas mentioning it was an issue, and that is explicitly my problem with you here. See my posts for details.

I'm saying you can't see anti-Semitism, and for a very simple reason, which is that you personally are also (albeit unconsciously) anti-Semitic.

Your defence, up to now, has consisted of stonewalling blanks, and attempts to pretend that we're discussing something else, as you're doing again here. It's not impressive, and I'm probably the wrong mod to not be impressing, given that up to now I have been your most regular defender from bans for trolling. I still don't think you can help yourself, but I think we're past the point where that's an adequate defence.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Whenever I venture into Israeli-Palestinian threads I tend to get pretty heavily assaulted by ... well, people who disagree strongly, almost instinctively, with Israels defence of it citizens. That said, is it against the charter to be be "unconsciously" anti-Semitic? If so, its been given pretty light punishment so far.