A discussion on the rules.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Using SF/IRA as a title is an allegation.

Nope, it's hinting at the heavy connection between both, one that as pointed out repeatedly, SF have no problem using when it suits.

There's an intrinsic link between both, nobody disputes that, even Republicans. Now that the IRA is disbanded Republicans want people to not say SF/IRA because it is bad PR for them, it touches on spin doctorism for me.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, it's hinting at the heavy connection between both, one that as pointed out repeatedly, SF have no problem using when it suits.

There's an intrinsic link between both, nobody disputes that, even Republicans. Now that the IRA is disbanded Republicans want people to not say SF/IRA because it is bad PR for them, it touches on spin doctorism for me.

How can you be intrinsically linked to something that doesn't exist? How can it be allowed when all other 'allegations' have to accompanied by proof?
And it has nothing to do with PR, that is ridiculous. It has everything to do with allowing mature debate on a politics forum.
Moderators keep complaining of 'train wreck' threads when NI or SF are discussed and this is one of the reasons they invariably head towards train wrecks.
A simple ruling banning it's use in would stamp it out. As Godge proved, by making his point about historical connections (nobody is infringeing his right to make that point), there is no need for it in any context.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

How can you be intrinsically linked to something that doesn't exist? How can it be allowed when all other 'allegations' have to accompanied by proof?
And it has nothing to do with PR, that is ridiculous. It has everything to do with allowing mature debate on a politics forum.
Moderators keep complaining of 'train wreck' threads when NI or SF are discussed and this is one of the reasons they invariably head towards train wrecks.
A simple ruling banning it's use in would stamp it out. As Godge proved, by making his point about historical connections (nobody is infringeing his right to make that point), there is no need for it in any context.

I think you misunderstood my posts, I have no problem with the use of SF/IRA or FF/bankers to remind posters of the recent links both have and the legacy effects on both their policies and leaders. The fact that Micheal Martin and Michael McGrath try to disassociate themselves from the bank guarantee has as much effect on me as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness pretending to be men of democracy.

I will continue to use both where I feel it is appropriate. When time has passed and the generations have moved on and the terms are historical without relevance I will stop but we are a long, long way from that.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my posts.

Being a routine offender in this regard Godge, nobody 'misunderstands' your posts.
Seems you have the support of Boards/Politics forum to continue making an unproven allegation, so well done you.

Nodin

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I'm don't understand how Sinn Fein/IRA can be regarded as an insult. If Sinn Fein still regards the IRA terrorist campaign as legitimate, why would someone be offended if its link with the IRA is mentioned? It's either something to be ashamed of or it's not.

Its not a question of "shame", its one of accuracy.

Chips Lovell

I believe the discussion was about whether the term constituted abuse.

Nodin

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I believe the discussion was about whether the term constituted abuse.

Well it does in the fact that it's inaccurate. There is no longer a Provisional IRA.

walshb

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I believe the discussion was about whether the term constituted abuse.

It's about standards, something that is sorely lacking in many areas of society today!

Chips Lovell

Nodin wrote: »

Well it does in the fact that it's inaccurate. There is no longer a Provisional IRA.

I'm still struggling to see the "abuse through inaccuracy" line. Adopting a similar logic would see terms like the DL wing of Labour being regarded as abuse, since there is no longer a DL.

walshb

Being linked to the IRA has negative connotations. In the 21st century with so much having changed and with the North a now quite decent and peaceful place, I think being linked with a "terrorist" organisation is something that SF would dislike, particularly when that organisation is no longer valid!

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

Its not a question of "shame", its one of accuracy.

Ok, the IRA is disbanded, unarguable.

Are people going to still point out the links between SF and the IRA? Yep.
Is that relevant to a thread about opinion polls which shows SF joint top with FG? Yep.

I'm sorry, Republicans don't want to see anybody use the term SF/IRA, probably because it has negative connotations and was used as a slur by Unionist politicians in the past. But it is a real issue, and just because "they have gone away, you know" doesn't mean the connection disappeared over night.

*Apologies for any offence caused by using the term disappeared.

Nodin

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I'm still struggling to see the "abuse through inaccuracy" line. Adopting a similar logic would see terms like the DL wing of Labour being regarded as abuse, since there is no longer a DL.

Well Labour/Workers Party is most likely to be the term used, I would have thought, but its much the same thing, as the workers party is defunct.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

Well Labour/Workers Party is most likely to be the term used, I would have thought, but its much the same thing, as the workers party is defunct.

Stickies, that type of stuff, and yep, an odd poster still drags that shyte up!

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Using SF/IRA as a title is an allegation.

Not in this case no, it's the showing the links between both, something which nobody denies.

walshb wrote: »

Being linked to the IRA has negative connotations. In the 21st century with so much having changed and with the North a now quite decent and peaceful place, I think being linked with a "terrorist" organisation is something that SF would dislike, particularly when that organisation is no longer valid!

SF don't view the IRA negatively, which makes the whole SF/IRA thing all the more bizarre!

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Not in this case no, it's the showing the links between both, something which nobody denies.

Except that there is NOTHING to link to.

I don't think it is possible, nor do I expect for moderators to be neutral, but you are supporting the use of unproven allegations here. Forget about what you think about the IRA or SF here for a moment.
Nobody is trying to censor people trying to make SF's historical link to the IRA, what we are asking for is that the use of SF/IRA as an attempt to flame debates be cut out on a 'politics' forum. That is AH behaviour.

walshb

K-9 wrote: »

Not in this case no, it's the showing the links between both, something which nobody denies.



SF don't view the IRA negatively, which makes the whole SF/IRA thing all the more bizarre!

Maybe during the height of the troubles they didn't, but seriously, they cannot have the same sort of connection or affection today as they did back then. Now to be linked with them is more damaging and serious than years gone by. So much has changed in the past few years. The quest for peace and harmony swamped the people of the North. SF have been slowly loosening the grip/connection that the IRA, a now defunct unit, had on them.

K-9

walshb wrote: »

Maybe during the height of the troubles they didn't, but seriously, they cannot have the same sort of connection or affection today as they did back then. Now to be linked with them is more damaging and serious than years gone by. So much has changed in the past few years. The quest for peace and harmony swamped the people of the North. SF have been slowly loosening the grip/connection that the IRA, a now defunct unit, had on them.

Well they seem to be doing all right at polls and elections so I'm not quite sure you are correct!

I don't think it is possible, nor do I expect for moderators to be neutral, but you are supporting the use of unproven allegations here. Forget about what you think about the IRA or SF here for a moment.
Nobody is trying to censor people trying to make SF's historical link to the IRA, what we are asking for is that the use of SF/IRA as an attempt to flame debates be cut out on a 'politics' forum. That is AH behaviour.

It isn't an allegation, it is a connection, no more than people label Gilmore a stickie or from the WP, or FF as the same as the Haughey years. Seriously, I think you need to take a step back here and try to look at it with some objectivity.

All parties have histories that will get dragged up in threads about opinion polls, because well, often that informs their voting preference.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't an allegation, it is a connection, no more than people label Gilmore a stickie or from the WP, or FF as the same as the Haughey years. Seriously, I think you need to take a step back here and try to look at it with some objectivity.

All parties have histories that will get dragged up in threads about opinion polls, because well, often that informs their voting preference.

It is a DOUBLE allegation.
Using SF/IRA implies/alleges that the IRA still exist and that SF are connected to them.
Both are untrue.
Objectively, why can you not recognise that simple fact?

Again...people are free to make historical connections within posts if it is relevant, I nor anybody I know off has an objection to that, please stop saying that is what we are talking about here.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Except that there is NOTHING to link to.

I don't think it is possible, nor do I expect for moderators to be neutral, but you are supporting the use of unproven allegations here. Forget about what you think about the IRA or SF here for a moment.
Nobody is trying to censor people trying to make SF's historical link to the IRA, what we are asking for is that the use of SF/IRA as an attempt to flame debates be cut out on a 'politics' forum. That is AH behaviour.

http://socialistunity.com/gerry-adams-writing-guardian-recent-arrest-interrogation-psni/

"I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will".

I am with Gerry Adams on this, I will not disassociate him and Sinn Fein from the IRA.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

http://socialistunity.com/gerry-adams-writing-guardian-recent-arrest-interrogation-psni/

"I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will".

I am with Gerry Adams on this, I will not disassociate him and Sinn Fein from the IRA.

And?
Nobody is saying you cannot associate him or SF of that period with the IRA. Knock yourself out doing that if you wish.

You cannot associate modern SF with the IRA in the trite and insidious way you do, because the IRA do not exist.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

And?
Nobody is saying you cannot associate him or SF of that period with the IRA. Knock yourself out doing that if you wish.

You cannot associate modern SF with the IRA in the trite and insidious way you do, because the IRA do not exist.

Adams associates himself with the IRA, why wouldn't I associate him and his colleagues? I really don't understand your point. All the SF supporters have given up on this one but you still continue to harp on about it even though you don't support the party. Why does it bother you?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Adams associates himself with the IRA, why wouldn't I associate him and his colleagues? I really don't understand your point. All the SF supporters have given up on this one but you still continue to harp on about it even though you don't support the party. Why does it bother you?

There is no IRA and SF are not associated with them...they cannot be.

Why does it bother me?...because people like you attempt to tar all members of SF with the same brush and all republicans.
The thread where your friend Alastair got banned on, being a case in point.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

http://socialistunity.com/gerry-adams-writing-guardian-recent-arrest-interrogation-psni/

"I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will".

I am with Gerry Adams on this, I will not disassociate him and Sinn Fein from the IRA.

As long as I can say "blueshirts" and "stickies" in relation to their modern counterparts. Othewise its a double standard.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is no IRA and SF are not associated with them...they cannot be.

Why does it bother me?...because people like you attempt to tar all members of SF with the same brush and all republicans.
The thread where your friend Alastair got banned on, being a case in point.

I don't tar all republicans as SF/IRA, only members and supporters of SF.

I don't know which variety (or all?) of republicanism you support nor the acronym attached to it so I can't tar you with any brush nor do I.

Alastair is not a friend of mine, last I checked.

Godge

Nodin wrote: »

As long as I can say "blueshirts" and "stickies" in relation to their modern counterparts. Othewise its a double standard.

Blueshirts is an outdated historical label, nobody or no policy of FG can be linked to the Blueshirt era.

SF/IRA is a factual association in the words of the SF leader.

Lab/WP is also factual as there are still former members of the WP in Labour.

However, I would see "provos", "stickies" as terms of abuse, rather than factual links as there is a connotation to those terms.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

Blueshirts is an outdated historical label, nobody or no policy of FG can be linked to the Blueshirt era.

SF/IRA is a factual association in the words of the SF leader.

Lab/WP is also factual as there are still former members of the WP in Labour.

However, I would see "provos", "stickies" as terms of abuse, rather than factual links as there is a connotation to those terms.

........a factual past association.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...former association....

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Blueshirts is an outdated historical label, nobody or no policy of FG can be linked to the Blueshirt era.

'Yes they can be linked, I am of the belief that Enda is a secret Blueshirt (who I believe still exist) so from now on I am going to use the name FG/Blueshirt.

See how ridiculous your point is now?
You are making a subjective, unproven decision. The type of stuff worthy of AH.
But the mods here seem to be happy to allow that.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Yes they can be linked, I am of the belief that Enda is a secret Blueshirt (who I believe still exist) so from now on I am going to use the name FG/Blueshirt.

See how ridiculous your point is now?
You are making a subjective, unproven decision. The type of stuff worthy of AH.
But the mods here seem to be happy to allow that.

Broken analogy, rather silly now.

Adams has said he will never disassociate himself from the IRA. I have provided the link.

Kenny was never associated with the Blueshirts. Unless you have a link with a direct quote?

I really don't get why someone who doesn't support SF is pushing this so far. There have been reasonable responses from mods and others on this issue that have explained it clearly so I think we can leave it at that.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Broken analogy, rather silly now.

Adams has said he will never disassociate himself from the IRA. I have provided the link.

Kenny was never associated with the Blueshirts. Unless you have a link with a direct quote?

I really don't get why someone who doesn't support SF is pushing this so far. There have been reasonable responses from mods and others on this issue that have explained it clearly so I think we can leave it at that.

That is a PAST association.
You do not have the right to associate anybody in SF with the IRA without proving that the IRA exist and that that member is associated with it.
If you did it outside this arena you would be required to prove what you say.

But you are right, boards/politics forum seems to be giving you right.

Scofflaw

In brief, this:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, not like the Blueshirts. The men who ran the Blueshirts are all dead, and if any former members are alive, they are about 90.

The men who ran the 'Ra are now running Sinn Féin.

If actual fascists, as in, former members of a fascist party, were running FG, I would not vote for them.

There is nobody in Fine Gael now who was in the Blueshirts, or who had any association with them. The same is not true of SF and the IRA.

And that's basically that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

In brief, this:



There is nobody in Fine Gael now who was in the Blueshirts, or who had any association with them. The same is not true of SF and the IRA.

And that's basically that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Who in modern SF is in the IRA?

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

Moderators keep complaining of 'train wreck' threads when NI or SF are discussed and this is one of the reasons they invariably head towards train wrecks.

This one way exchange of views could easily go on for another 10 pages, but not see any actual change in the view. And that's why NI and SF threads invariably head towards train wreaks, not usage of the relatively inoffensive and arguably illustrative "SF/IRA" term.

For many, including SF themselves when it suits, SF and the IRA are inseparable. You may agree, you may disagree - but its true people think that way, and its true that view it can be arguably supported by reference to Sinn Fein themselves. It ought to be clear by now after 5 or 6 pages of discussion that this rule you want is not going to be put in place.

And I think Republican posters would find themselves collecting red and yellow cards every day for similar labelling of "Brits" "RUC/PSNI" "26 Counties" "Free State" "Paisleyite" and repetitive, tiresome conspiracy theories about "Securocrats" - which exist or don't to the same burden of evidence as the IRA. All of which lower the tone and serve to prevent proper debate. I don't think you'd really welcome a rule change where using anything other than the 100% correct terminology for a group or institution would be interpreted as an allegation and punished with infractions or bans.

Its a discussion forum, not an echo chamber. People are going to discuss things and express views you don't like.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

This one way exchange of views could easily go on for another 10 pages, but not see any actual change in the view. And that's why NI and SF threads invariably head towards train wreaks, not usage of the relatively inoffensive and arguably illustrative "SF/IRA" term.

For many, including SF themselves when it suits, SF and the IRA are inseparable. You may agree, you may disagree - but its true people think that way, and its true that view it can be arguably supported by reference to Sinn Fein themselves. It ought to be clear by now after 5 or 6 pages of discussion that this rule you want is not going to be put in place.

And I think Republican posters would find themselves collecting red and yellow cards every day for similar labelling of "Brits" "RUC/PSNI" "26 Counties" "Free State" "Paisleyite" and repetitive, tiresome conspiracy theories about "Securocrats". All of which lower the tone and serve to prevent proper debate. I don't think you'd really welcome a rule change where using anything other than the 100% correct terminology for a group or institution would be interpreted as an allegation and punished with infractions or bans.

Its a discussion forum, not an echo chamber. People are going to discuss things and express views you don't like.

I know boards/politics opinion on this now that two mods have spoken.

I would still like to know who in SF is in the IRA though? If somebody on here can prove membership and existence that would be the litmus test and validation of the term SF/IRA when referring to a current political party, exactly the same criteria applied to Fine Gael.

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

I know boards/politics opinion on this now that two mods have spoken.

I would still like to know who in SF is in the IRA though? If somebody on here can prove membership and existence that would be the litmus test and validation of the term SF/IRA when referring to a current political party, exactly the same criteria applied to Fine Gael.

This is probably the wrong thread for that. Its the rule discussion thread.

Valmont

Sand wrote: »

I don't think you'd really welcome a rule change where using anything other than the 100% correct terminology for a group or institution would be interpreted as an allegation and punished with infractions or bans.

That rule is in fact already explicitly in place in politics when invoking the sacred and secret cow of the left, Karl Marx. On this issue, the moderators were crystal clear that you may not use a term to refer to a particular group of posters if they are unhappy with its usage. So the Republican posters technically have precedent on their side, if not popular opinion.

Happyman42

And yet another mod interjection because we don't have a clear rule on this kind of taunting and baiting targeted at one political party with the blessing of boards/politics forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92629308&postcount=610

It's diminishing everybody.
A simple rule that everybody can adhere to: 'All political parties are referred to by their proper name or acronym'.
If somebody then wants to make a claim to do so then they can if it is relevant.

K-9

It is not one party as repeatedly pointed out by me and others. I've seen the name FFailures used, are we to ban that as well? It's getting like a wishlist from some political party hack if that's the case. I'm sure FFailure annoys FF supporters, that isn't a reason to ban it. To much Peter Mandelson/Campbell for my liking.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who in modern SF is in the IRA?

That's not what was said:

There is nobody in Fine Gael now who was in the Blueshirts, or who had any association with them. The same is not true of SF and the IRA.

You're not helping your case here.

regards,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

It is not one party as repeatedly pointed out by me and others. I've seen the name FFailures used, are we to ban that as well?

Yes...it's simple to enforce and would rule out repetitive conversations and hi-jacks. Somebody either uses it or they don't, there is no grey area.

That's not what was said:

It's part of what was said and it's a legitimate question if you use SF/IRA in a discussion about the current SF party.
Do you agree that it's use frequently diverts threads?

walshb

SF/IRA being compared to FFailures is for me not a fair comparison. The first is wholly inaccurate, and to some, offensive. The second is more joke shop stuff!

K-9

walshb wrote: »

SF/IRA being compared to FFailures is for me not a fair comparison. The first is wholly inaccurate, and to some, offensive.

It is not wholly inaccurate as the connections between both are clear and accepted, even by Republicans. It was seen as the political arm of the IRA with very good reason, nobody can deny that. It maybe offensive to some Republicans who supported the armed campaign or sympathised with it (which is a bit bizarre, the same people getting offended would be the first to give reasons for the IRA and accept the need for an armed campaign), but mods aren't here to cater to political supporter sensitivites. It is like something from the Thick of it.

FF supporters would object to FFailure, SF supporters to SF/IRA, FG to Blueshirts or FF lite, Labour to God knows what at this stage, the Greens, and the more hardline left wing parties others.

Hell, even the defunct PD's get a touch!

Sand

walshb wrote: »

SF/IRA being compared to FFailures is for me not a fair comparison. The first is wholly inaccurate, and to some, offensive. The second is more joke shop stuff!

They're both pretty accurate references. And everything is offensive to somebody. FF might not like being referenced as FFailure or ZanuFF but corruption and failure is the FF brand no matter if they like it or not. In the same way, SF and the IRA are heavily associated and SF positively *revel* in their association with the IRA when it comes to selling T shirt and mugs.

You're right though that its not a fair comparison - SF openly associate themselves with the IRA. FF deny and renounce any link to failure or Robert Mugabe. The FFailure/Zanu FF term is much more unfair than SF/IRA.

Parties and group cant simply escape their past when they choose. Simply because the Provos have decided to embrace the ballot box over the armalite a couple of years ago doesn't mean everyone else forgets who they are and what they have done, and the acts and people they continue to openly praise to this day. The SF/IRA term is why SF is transfer toxic. Ignoring it and trying to prevent it being mentioned wont help that. Toughen up, get over it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote: »

They're both pretty accurate references. And everything is offensive to somebody

Calling someone an idiot might be accurate and offensive as well although I think the Politics mods do not like that one
[/QUOTE]

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Calling someone an idiot might be accurate and offensive as well although I think the Politics mods do not like that one

You're free to call any politician or public figure you like an idiot, just not other posters. Since we're not talking about calling other posters "Sinn Fein/IRA" the analogy doesn't really hold.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Dub in Glasgo

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're free to call any politician or public figure you like an idiot, just not other posters. Since we're not talking about calling other posters "Sinn Fein/IRA" the analogy doesn't really hold.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How about idiotic supporters or SF/IRA supporters? Which one gets a ban? Neither or both?

A Dub in Glasgo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As if boards.ie makes that much of a difference :pac:

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

FFailure is an expression of a personal opinion.
SF/IRA in the context of a discussion of current Irish politics is an allegation.

Boards/Politics forum is standing over this and allowing it. That's the bottom line.
If it isn't, prove here and now that the IRA exist and SF are connected to them.