A discussion on the rules.

FreudianSlippers

Whist we're discussing rules, can we discuss this new conspiracy that the media somehow has some agenda or is ruled by one person or the NWO or whatever. Nobody has given any evidence to support this, other than continually shouting buzzwords like "tax non dom" and other such silliness.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Firstly, let point out that I'm obviously not a mod here so my contribution is merely to clarify some points raised regarding the law of defamation in Ireland.

Secondly, I should also say that I am against the banning of terms in this forum as a general rule - it follows that I believe the use of "SF/IRA" should be considered on a case by case basis (i.e. that it should be considered in the context of the post; this may become more clear in a moment).

One of the main points in relation to the law of defamation is that statements are both actionable without proof of damage and presumed to be false unless a successful defence is raised. There has been a lot of discussion about what a jury would or wouldn't find defamatory - flat out, as a practitioner in this area, you just never know what a jury is going to do in these cases. It would be particularly unwise to attempt to guess what would be a successful defence in these cases.

In relation to defamation of a class of persons, Section 10 of the Defamation Act 2009 states:

Where a person publishes a defamatory statement concerning a class of persons, a member of that class shall have a cause of action under this Act against that person if—

(a) by reason of the number of persons who are members of that class, or

(b) by virtue of the circumstances in which the statement is published,

the statement could reasonably be understood to refer, in particular, to the member concerned.

Again, it is potentially defamatory to refer to "SF/IRA" in circumstances where it was reasonably understood to be referring to a specific individual within that class of people.

The final point that should be raised is the issue of liability of hosts. It is correct that there is a general legal exemption from liability of intermediary service providers. However, this can be lifted by the receipt of notice of the tort. As boards is a post-moderated site, if a post was reported as being potentially defamatory and boards failed to remove it, they could be liable for the contents of that post.

In short, whilst I believe that "SF/IRA" is potentially defamatory, it is certainly actionable where it is used to refer to a specific individual. The merits of that case and chances of success are obviously up for debate, but the key is that in law the statement is presumed false until the defendant convinces the jury otherwise - I'm not sure the mere sale of coffee mugs would be the most resounding defence.

It's actionable where it implies a specific allegation - that is, membership of an illegal organisation. The point about "SF/IRA" being a prevalent term referring to Sinn Fein is that its prevalence means it can be argued not to carry the implication of IRA membership even when applied to an individual, and it is only that implication which is actionable.

If someone is a member of Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is regularly referred to as "SF/IRA", then referring to someone as "a member of SF/IRA" doesn't automatically carry the implication that they're personally a member of the IRA, only that they're a member of an organisation (SF) which is in turn connected to the IRA. I think you would have to dig further to show that the implication was specifically that the individual referred to was an IRA member.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's actionable where it implies a specific allegation - that is, membership of an illegal organisation. The point about "SF/IRA" being a prevalent term referring to Sinn Fein is that its prevalence means it can be argued not to carry the implication of IRA membership even when applied to an individual, and it is only that implication which is actionable.

If someone is a member of Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is regularly referred to as "SF/IRA", then referring to someone as "a member of SF/IRA" doesn't automatically carry the implication that they're personally a member of the IRA, only that they're a member of an organisation (SF) which is in turn connected to the IRA. I think you would have to dig further to show that the implication was specifically that the individual referred to was an IRA member.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That would certainly be the case if the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the meaning.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This has clearly been legalled and quite cunningly. On its face, it appears MLMcD has been defamed, but by calling her the "new generation" and saying that they want her (SF) to put pressure on SF/IRA to come clean.

Thus, specifically excluding the only identifiable person from the (potentially) defamatory statement.

That's good alright. It's like saying "We're asking Fine Gael and pedophiles to stop attacks on children"...

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's good alright. It's like saying "We're asking Fine Gael and pedophiles to stop attacks on children"...

Please do go on.............

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

Please do go on.............

Put away that food you scamp!

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's actionable where it implies a specific allegation - that is, membership of an illegal organisation. The point about "SF/IRA" being a prevalent term referring to Sinn Fein is that its prevalence means it can be argued not to carry the implication of IRA membership even when applied to an individual, and it is only that implication which is actionable.

If someone is a member of Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein is regularly referred to as "SF/IRA", then referring to someone as "a member of SF/IRA" doesn't automatically carry the implication that they're personally a member of the IRA, only that they're a member of an organisation (SF) which is in turn connected to the IRA. I think you would have to dig further to show that the implication was specifically that the individual referred to was an IRA member.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Use of the phrase "SF/IRA" implies an association between SF and the IRA. It does not imply that a member of one is a member of the other. Rather it collectively describes a particular mindset and association. Similar acronyms have been used to collectively describe left-wing groups.

I think the current controversy is only linking SF and IRA even more closely in the public eye. The fact that Gerry Adams can talk so knowledgeably on his blog about the kangaroo courts and the motivations of the IRA over the last 45 years shows a level of understanding of the IRA that only someone closely associated with them (at the very least) would know.

Gerry's blogs and public statements would be more than sufficient to show an association between SF/IRA in any defamation case.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That would certainly be the case if the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the meaning.

Which, in the case of a defence of truth, it would be. One would claim that:

1. it is true that the plaintiff is a member of Sinn Fein

2. it is true that Sinn Fein are associated with the IRA, and that "SF/IRA" is a term commonly used to refer to that association, and used to refer to Sinn Fein

3. it is therefore true that referring to someone as a member of "SF/IRA" can mean no more than they're a member of Sinn Fein, and that the use of the phrase by itself therefore cannot be held to establish an imputation of IRA membership by an individual.

I'd take a bet, but I imagine it would be rather a while before it was settled, if ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

There is a serious problem with this forum when somebody makes a reasonable allegation based on the information in the public domain and a reasonable analysis of those facts using the standards of civil proof and is immediately shouted down by a number of posters suggesting that without criminal proof the allegation doesn't stand up.

In particular, the way the Gerry Adams threads have been derailed by people who won't listed to reasoned arguments based on the public information and demand proof at every turn is not conducive to good discussion.

If we were all to respond in kind to every post about the golden circle or Irish Water or Enda Kenny or Alan Shatter, the threads would melt down. Apologies for the few I posted to demonstrate how quickly this could happen.

Examples of posts that do little to add to the sum of human knowledge on the subject of Gerry Adams and are little more than cynical attempts to stifle debate:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733295&postcount=963

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733101&postcount=951

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733215&postcount=957

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92731911&postcount=924

Dan_Solo

Scofflaw wrote: »

2. it is true that Sinn Fein are associated with the IRA, and that "SF/IRA" is a term commonly used to refer to that association, and used to refer to Sinn Fein

That's like saying Enda Kenny is commonly referred to as a c**t so it's be OK to call him that in a newspaper. Non-whites and travellers are often referred to by other names too, so I guess that's OK now?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Examples of posts that do little to add to the sum of human knowledge on the subject of Gerry Adams and are little more than cynical attempts to stifle debate:

Asking for sources, evidence and data are now "cynical attempts to stifle debate". We don't we all just state our opinion then and not bother reading each other's posts if we don't care if any of it is true?

Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's like saying Enda Kenny is commonly referred to as a c**t so it's be OK to call him that in a newspaper. Non-whites and travellers are often referred to by other names too, so I guess that's OK now?

No, your analogy just doesn't actually work, that's all. None of those things that people get called are organisations that actually exist, nor are the people in question organisations.

You seem to have missed the point entirely, I'm afraid - which is fair enough, it's a reasonably complex one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Examples of posts that do little to add to the sum of human knowledge on the subject of Gerry Adams and are little more than cynical attempts to stifle debate:



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92733101&postcount=951

I asked for sources and I didn't get them.
Are you trying to turn the place into somewhere where you can say whatever you want without backing it up?

Dan_Solo

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, your analogy just doesn't actually work, that's all. None of those things that people get called are organisations that actually exist, nor are the people in question organisations.

You seem to have missed the point entirely, I'm afraid - which is fair enough, it's a reasonably complex one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The IRA has also been verified by multiple independent sources as no longer existing.
Your point? All too complicated for you?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The IRA has also been verified by multiple independent sources as no longer existing.
Your point? All too complicated for you?

No longer active, stood down etc. but not no longer existing. Bring me your proof that they are no longer existing.

Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The IRA has also been verified by multiple independent sources as no longer existing.
Your point? All too complicated for you?

Aaaand we're back to nitpicking again. Are you denying that the IRA ever existed? Or are you demanding that the moment they're claimed as disbanded everyone should just forget and move on? And I do say "claimed", because you know, secret illegal organisation etc, and there does seem to be some doubt over the matter.

Anyway, I've already been round this loop once. The association is still strong enough for me to be satisfied it's reasonable to link the two organisations - a good example of which is, indeed, Gerry Adams stating that the IRA no longer exists.

regards,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

No longer active, stood down etc. but not no longer existing. Bring me your proof that they are no longer existing.

The point is Godge and the mods, if you accuse somebody of a connection to a defunct organisation then it is up to you to provide proof.
In the context of a current affairs debate 'SF/IRA' is wrong and wholly against the spirit of good debate.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

The point is Godge and the mods, if you accuse somebody of a connection to a defunct organisation then it is up to you to provide proof.
In the context of a current affairs debate 'SF/IRA' is wrong and wholly against the sirit of good debate.

Nobody independent has ever said that it no longer exists.

They have said that the arms were decommissioned, they have said it is no longer active, that is had stood down, but nobody, apart from Gerry Adams (and how would he know?) has said that it no longer exists.

If you are going to make the statement that the IRA which we know existed, no longer exists, please provide clear irrefutable evidence.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Nobody independent has ever said that it no longer exists.

They have said that the arms were decommissioned, they have said it is no longer active, that is had stood down, but nobody, apart from Gerry Adams (and how would he know?) has said that it no longer exists.

If you are going to make the statement that the IRA which we know existed, no longer exists, please provide clear irrefutable evidence.

It is you and others who are using 'SF/IRA'

I'm asking you to prove it exists and SF are connected to it currently.
Quite simple.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is you and others who are using 'SF/IRA'

I'm asking you to prove it exists and SF are connected to it currently. Otherwise, I am asking you to cease and desist.
Quite simple.

I am happy to desist once I have seen proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the IRA no longer exist. Until then, all the evidence I have is that they still exist. There has been no winding-up process.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

The point is Godge and the mods, if you accuse somebody of a connection to a defunct organisation then it is up to you to provide proof.
In the context of a current affairs debate 'SF/IRA' is wrong and wholly against the spirit of good debate.

A question there is whether something like the current Mairia Cahill affair really is a current affair. At the time it happened, Sinn Fein and the IRA were still visibly joined at the hip, and the IRA undeniably in existence. And if people want to highlight the connection between the two organisations that undeniably existed at the time relevant to the Cahill affair, I can't see any reason they shouldn't.

This is part of their legacy as an organisation, and if it's for Sinn Fein to clear that toxic legacy up, as it appears to be, then that's what they have to do. If that reminds everyone of the link between the two, that's just life - Sinn Fein get to suffer from the legacy of a connection to a terrorist organisation because, well, they were connected to a terrorist organisation. Lie down with the dog, get up with fleas.

It'll wear off eventually.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is you and others who are using 'SF/IRA'

I'm asking you to prove it exists and SF are connected to it currently. Otherwise, I am asking you to cease and desist.
Quite simple.

And I'm going to make the point, from a mod perspective, that asking is all you're entitled to do. Whether people choose to honour your request is up to them, and no badgering will be tolerated.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dan_Solo

So we can safely use all previous associations when we refer to organisations? That'll be fun.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

A question there is whether something like the current Mairia Cahill affair really is a current affair. At the time it happened, Sinn Fein and the IRA were still visibly joined at the hip, and the IRA undeniably in existence. And if people want to highlight the connection between the two organisations that undeniably existed at the time relevant to the Cahill affair, I can't see any reason they shouldn't.

This is part of their legacy as an organisation, and if it's for Sinn Fein to clear that toxic legacy up, as it appears to be, then that's what they have to do. If that reminds everyone of the link between the two, that's just life - Sinn Fein get to suffer from the legacy of a connection to a terrorist organisation because, well, they were connected to a terrorist organisation. Lie down with the dog, get up with fleas.

It'll wear off eventually.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have consistently been asking about it's use in discussions about the current SF party.


P.s. I don't understand how my answer to Godge has been seen as 'badgering'. Could you elaborate?

conorh91

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which, in the case of a defence of truth, it would be. One would claim that:

1. it is true that the plaintiff is a member of Sinn Fein

2. it is true that Sinn Fein are associated with the IRA, and that "SF/IRA" is a term commonly used to refer to that association, and used to refer to Sinn Fein

3. it is therefore true that referring to someone as a member of "SF/IRA" can mean no more than they're a member of Sinn Fein, and that the use of the phrase by itself therefore cannot be held to establish an imputation of IRA membership by an individual.

I'd take a bet, but I imagine it would be rather a while before it was settled, if ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You're confusing the statutory defence of 'truth' with the more fundamental interpretation of "defamatory statement"

The defence of truth arises only where it is established/admitted that a statement tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable men.

But you seem to be making a different claim. That the statement does not injure a person's reputation.

You/boards.ie may freely take a gamble that an IRA association is not injurious to reputation. It might work out. I just don't see why this forum sees the need to establish a line in the sand. Why not just accept that the SF/IRA formulation can be defamatory, and take it case-by-case to achieve the same effect?

Godge wrote: »

There is a serious problem with this forum when somebody makes a reasonable allegation

As far as the defamation act is concerned, there is no such thing as a "reasonable allegation"

An allegation is either injurious to reputation, or it is not.
An allegation is either true or it is not, and it is presumed not.

FreudianSlippers

I was just having a look at one of the more heated SF threads. I would agree that there is a difference between simply saying "SF/IRA" and/or discussing the historical actions of "SF/IRA", but to insinuate or, in some cases, flat out state that current SF members are members of the IRA or that "SF/IRA" are engaging in illegal or otherwise unsavoury behaviour could potentially be defamatory.

I would again state that we should not be engaging in theoretical defences of truth or honest opinion or whatever if they cannot be factually supported. It is for a jury to determine whether there is a valid defence to a case in defamation, not armchair lawyers (or even real lawyers as juries are so unpredictable in Ireland).

Sacksian

Could I make an argument on behalf of reasonableness?

I'm not a fan of SF by any stretch of the imagination but what purpose does the SF/IRA term serve other than to antagonise people? Is it that useful a term?

If you're talking about current members of SF, then discuss their SF membership. If putative membership of IRA is relevant to the discussion, then discuss that. Otherwise, why should the terms be conflated, unless it's as a political prodding stick.

The soccer forum has banned the use of slang terms for players, managers, teams, etc, because people were getting offended and threads were being derailed.

How many political discussions benefit from the continued use of SF/IRA?

Drop it and you can continue all of the separate (and important) arguments about what Gerry Adams did or didn't do or the links between SF and the IRA or whether the IRA continues to exist - but the automatic conflation of the terms seems to be a little pointless and actively frustrates discussion.

K-9

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I was just having a look at one of the more heated SF threads. I would agree that there is a difference between simply saying "SF/IRA" and/or discussing the historical actions of "SF/IRA", but to insinuate or, in some cases, flat out state that current SF members are members of the IRA or that "SF/IRA" are engaging in illegal or otherwise unsavoury behaviour could potentially be defamatory.

That seems fair enough to me.

We're just going round in circles at this stage.

P.s. I don't understand how my answer to Godge has been seen as 'badgering'. Could you elaborate?

Asking him to cease and desist isn't on.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Asking him to cease and desist isn't on.

Ok, wasn't intended to sound rude. Withdrawn.

Godge

Sacksian wrote: »

Could I make an argument on behalf of reasonableness?

I'm not a fan of SF by any stretch of the imagination but what purpose does the SF/IRA term serve other than to antagonise people? Is it that useful a term?

If you're talking about current members of SF, then discuss their SF membership. If putative membership of IRA is relevant to the discussion, then discuss that. Otherwise, why should the terms be conflated, unless it's as a political prodding stick.

The soccer forum has banned the use of slang terms for players, managers, teams, etc, because people were getting offended and threads were being derailed.

How many political discussions benefit from the continued use of SF/IRA?

Drop it and you can continue all of the separate (and important) arguments about what Gerry Adams did or didn't do or the links between SF and the IRA or whether the IRA continues to exist - but the automatic conflation of the terms seems to be a little pointless and actively frustrates discussion.

The term "golden circle" would equally have to be banned especially when it is used in relation to the current Government where there is no evidence at all about the operation of a "golden circle".

There are many similar pejorative terms in use about the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail, Alan Shatter, Fine Gael, Pat Rabbitte, etc. that have not been proved in court and that are equally defamatory and should be banned if you are to ban the SF/IRA phrase.

The phrase SF/IRA has been used in public by Micheal Martin and the Irish Independent in recent days and it certainly has more legal certainty than some of the puerile rubbish posted on here. Banning it on its own would be seen as protecting one group of overly-sensitive posters rather than addressing a wider issue of defamatory labels.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The term "golden circle" would equally have to be banned especially when it is used in relation to the current Government where there is no evidence at all about the operation of a "golden circle".

There are many similar pejorative terms in use about the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail, Alan Shatter, Fine Gael, Pat Rabbitte, etc. that have not been proved in court and that are equally defamatory and should be banned if you are to ban the SF/IRA phrase.

The phrase SF/IRA has been used in public by Micheal Martin and the Irish Independent in recent days and it certainly has more legal certainty than some of the puerile rubbish posted on here. Banning it on its own would be seen as protecting one group of overly-sensitive posters rather than addressing a wider issue of defamatory labels.

It's very simple; refer to all democratic parties using the title they use themselves. One rule for all, no favouritism there.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's very simple; refer to all democratic parties using the title they use themselves. One rule for all, no favouritism there.

But when I use the phrase SF/IRA, I am not referring to the party Sinn Fein. I am happy to use SF or Sinn Fein when I am referring to the party Sinn Fein. When the reference is to something different I will continue to use SF/IRA. To give an example, here is how I would refer to the party:

"Sinn Fein's economic policies are lunacy as any rational person would conclude"

Here is an example of SF/IRA:

"The failure of SF/IRA to hand over the names to the Gardai and social services of the rapists and child sex abusers that were expelled from the North is an absolute disgrace."

Happyman42

What is the problem with using 'The failure of SF and the IRA...' other than your mission to remind people about the past of one single party? If I defended the use of FG/Blueshirts in the same way,'that I just wish to remind people about their historical link' would I get away with it?

FreudianSlippers

The forward slash is most commonly used to mean "or" or "and/or"; i.e. male/female. I would not take it to mean that the words before and after a synonymous

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is the problem with using 'The failure of SF and the IRA...' other than your mission to remind people about the past of one single party? If I defended the use of FG/Blueshirts in the same way,'that I just wish to remind people about their historical link' would I get away with it?

Blueshirts isn't specifically acted on either, but the pretty clear difference has been outlined to you previously.

conorh91

Godge wrote: »

The term "golden circle" would equally have to be banned especially when it is used in relation to the current Government where there is no evidence at all about the operation of a "golden circle".

What is the natural and ordinary meaning of golden circle, though? There is an old common law rule that defamatory statements have to reach a minimum threshold of seriousness. As far as I am aware, that rule has not been affected by the 2009 Act. According to that rule, insults alone are not sufficiently serious to be defamatory. The term golden circle is nothing more than a vague insult, and does not naturally disclose any wrongdoing or illegality. It is certainly not comparable to an imputation of associating with an illegal terrorist organization.

There are many similar pejorative terms in use about the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail, Alan Shatter, Fine Gael, Pat Rabbitte, etc. that have not been proved in court and that are equally defamatory and should be banned if you are to ban the SF/IRA phrase.

For clarity, I personally would be 100% against banning the SF/IRA phrase. I have used it myself, and I believe it to be completely valid in certain circumstances.

The problem lies with terms like "SF/IRA TDs" (meaning current TDs) or similar terms where individuals are identifiable.

That's because in some circumstances, the term can, using its natural and ordinary meaning, impute an IRA association to TDs who currently reject the legitimacy of republican militancy in modern society. Or, failing that, it may contain an innuendo to the same effect.

I can't mention innuendo without recalling the now-infamous Lord McAlpine tweet by the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons:

‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face.*’

That was held to be defamatory. Perhaps that goes some way towards demonstrating that the courts tend not to allow themselves to be blindly led by over-analytical, over-literal scrutiny of words which, if you strain them, can be read in a non-defamatory way. Or, for the present discussion, an over-analytical scrutiny of the meaning of forward slashes which, if you really push it, can allow you to find a non-defamatory meaning. I don't think that's a runner.

alastair

The Mairia Cahill kangaroo court four are a perfect illustration of why SF/IRA is sometimes the most appropriate term applicable. No-one seems to be sure which particular hat they would least like to be known to have worn in their activities.

Scofflaw

alastair wrote: »

The Mairia Cahill kangaroo court four are a perfect illustration of why SF/IRA is sometimes the most appropriate term applicable. No-one seems to be sure which particular hat they would least like to be known to have worn in their activities.

This is frankly just trolling. Infracted, and unsurprisingly outraged responses deleted. However, just because someone posts something uncivil/trolling, you don't have to respond with tit-for-tat.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

I asked you and Godge (the 2 most frequent abusers of this moniker) a question on the Mairia Cahill thread which both of you refused to answer. So I'll ask it here too.
How can you use the blanket moniker for this time period when Mairia Cahill was a very active member of SF and who says herself 'was always against violence a to achieve a political end'?
It cannot be justified imo.

Jaysus, SF/IRA doesn't mean all SF members were in the IRA, there's only so many times we can keep going over this, indeed the Cahill case shows that SF and the IRA are intrinsically linked, denying this is getting very tiresome tbh.

Why else do we have Adams knowing about the IRA courts and the case? Give me an alternative reason.

Mod:

alastair and Dan_Solo, this tit for tat posting is getting very old.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Jaysus, SF/IRA doesn't mean all SF members were in the IRA, there's only so many times we can keep going over this, indeed the Cahill case shows that SF and the IRA are intrinsically linked, denying this is getting very tiresome tbh.

Why else do we have Adams knowing about the IRA courts and the case? Give me an alternative reason.

Mod:

alastair and Dan_Solo, this tit for tat posting is getting very old.

And I have also said many times that linking them in a post is fine, if it is relevant.
Using the tag SF/IRA does not accurately define SF (as evidenced by Cahill) of this period.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I have also said many times that linking them in a post is fine, if it is relevant.

And we're back to the point that the SF/IRA term is recent past and still politically relevant as shown by the Cahill case, unlike FG and blueshirts which we don't blanket ban either! Anybody ignoring that isn't open to the point we're making, and seeing as we often get accused of it, I'd suggest a biased view point is skewing their view.

Using the tag SF/IRA does not accurately define SF (as evidenced by Cahill) of this period.

For some it still does. We're talking about "throwaway" terms for political parties, FFailure etc., while I don't use them myself I don't see why we have to blanket ban them either. Generally I avoid posts like that, or it puts me of the point made.

The other side is if you think somebody is using a term for attention, why give it to them? If its ignored they'll get bored using it.

RDM_83 again

Why's ZanuFF still banned?its a pretty clear example that throwaway terms for political parties can be banned.

Dan_Solo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why's ZanuFF still banned?its a pretty clear example that throwaway terms for political parties can be banned.

"shinnerbot" is another one that is sometimes banned, sometimes not.

RDM_83 again

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"shinnerbot" is another one that is sometimes banned, sometimes not.

I'd presume thats because its aimed at posters not the party itself

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why's ZanuFF still banned?its a pretty clear example that throwaway terms for political parties can be banned.

Over usage I think, I wasn't modding at the time.

Dan_Solo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'd presume thats because its aimed at posters not the party itself

Not really. It's being used to describe any SF supporter, but usually in a general way so as not to be technically an ad hominem. As in "shinnerbots think A, B, C" when it's obvious the discussion has SF supporters as contributors.
I fail to see how this would differ substantively from "FG supporting assholes think X, Y, Z" myself in a discussion involving FG supporters.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not really. It's being used to describe any SF supporter, but usually in a general way so as not to be technically an ad hominem. As in "shinnerbots think A, B, C" when it's obvious the discussion has SF supporters as contributors.
I fail to see how this would differ substantively from "FG supporting assholes think X, Y, Z" myself in a discussion involving FG supporters.

Maybe because there are no assholes supporting FG, they support the other parties:D:D:D:D:D?

Scofflaw

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why's ZanuFF still banned?its a pretty clear example that throwaway terms for political parties can be banned.

Mindless over-usage. For a while every second post was "ZanuFF this...ZanuFF that...". If it had any actual value it would have been left alone, but it's just meaningless garbage.

As a general rule, what gets a term banned is a combination of being derogatory/offensive, politically meaningless, and over-used. "Beards" for union officials is a particularly good example, qualifying on all three counts, whereas something like ZanuFF needed a lot of over-use, because while it's pretty meaningless (FF aren't really all that like Zanu-PF), it's not all that derogatory, although the intention is evidently to be so. "Teabagger" for Tea Party proponents and libertarians is similar offensive, meaningless, and at one point bidding fair to becoming the common term.

SF/IRA is not derogatory- although some people find use of the term irritating/offensive, they find it so because it is politically meaningful, in respect of the long and politically recent association between SF and the IRA.

Yes, again, some posters would like to have that buried/forgotten/not talked about, and put forward the current dormancy of the PIRA as a reason to do so, but that doesn't change the politically very recent association. It's like saying people ought not to associate FF with the Celtic Tiger because that's now in the past. For many people the two organisations are politically synonymous because of their shared history.

Finally, it's not particularly over-used - some posters use it regularly, others don't, and virtually nobody uses it every time they intend reference to one or other organisation specifically.

"Blueshirts" is similar - it's not really derogatory, has a genuine, if purely historical, political association, and is used only by some posters.

In short, if a term tells you absolutely nothing beyond the fact that the posters wishes to express personal disgust without any real allusion to the reason for that disgust, then it fundamentally falls foul of the civility rules. Someone who uses "SF/IRA" may be expressing disgust, but they are expressing it with specific relation to the source of that disgust, which is that they genuinely do associate SF with the IRA. One can argue that they are wrong to associate the two, but not that they have a right to do so - and therefore to express it, since there is nothing derogatory in the term itself.

I think it should also be clear that the only possible way one might find "SF/IRA" derogatory in itself is if one considers the IRA to have been an illegitimate organisation. I think it's equally clear that the majority of those posters objecting to the term do not consider the IRA in that light, which makes their objections a very clear PR exercise which I feel no desire to assist them in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dan_Solo

Scofflaw wrote: »

In short, if a term tells you absolutely nothing beyond the fact that the posters wishes to express personal disgust without any real allusion to the reason for that disgust, then it fundamentally falls foul of the civility rules. Someone who uses "SF/IRA" may be expressing disgust, but they are expressing it with specific relation to the source of that disgust, which is that they genuinely do associate SF with the IRA. One can argue that they are wrong to associate the two, but not that they have a right to do so - and therefore to express it, since there is nothing derogatory in the term itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Where does "shinnerbot" fit into this description of acceptable, suitably civil terminology that isn't being used in discussions specifically as a derogatory term?

Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where does "shinnerbot" fit into this description of acceptable, suitably civil terminology that isn't being used in discussions specifically as a derogatory term?

It's unacceptable to call another poster a "shinnerbot", for the same reasons as "smear drone" is unacceptable - they're both personally offensive because of their implied mindless following of a party line, and they're both ad hominems for the same reason.

The problem is that something like "the shinnerbots will be all over this one" isn't quite the same thing unless it's clearly intended to mean a particular poster.

More generally, and let me make this clear to you specifically and personally, do not attempt to fight fire with fire. Do not say to yourself, as you appear to do, "aha, well, if they're allowed away with x, I must be allowed away with y, and will say it at every opportunity".

Just because we allow some incivility does not mean we encourage it, and if someone invariably takes anything they consider to be uncivil and uninfracted being said in the direction of them or their preferred political party as license to immediately respond in kind, that person is a problem that needs mod attention.

And no, you don't get to decide off your own bat that there's an imbalance somewhere, because you are in fact far too biased to make any such judgement reliably.

moderately,
Scofflaw