| Removed thread 11:05 - Nov 15 with 19530 views | PhilTWTD |
Seemed to just be turning into the usual mud-slinging and misrepresentation. Got too much to do to deal with the abuse reports, PMs and emails which these threads generate. Not really sure it should be my job to deal with all that on what's ostensibly a football forum. |  | | |  |
| Removed thread on 02:10 - Nov 16 with 3128 views | BlueBadger |
| Removed thread on 15:47 - Nov 15 by Zapers |
Only time will tell if I’m wrong, then I’ll be the first to put their hands up and admit I’m wrong.
In the meantime it’s all speculation SB.
Enjoy your day.xx |
LOL |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 07:30 - Nov 16 with 3046 views | Cafe_Newman |
| Removed thread on 14:06 - Nov 15 by PhilTWTD |
Perhaps you're right, they threads degenerate into the same people making the same accusations at other users time after time after about the third page and others just joining in to poke people.
I do think those people who want to spend their time arguing about the Middle East really ought to take it elsewhere as I think most of us are fed up with it dominating. |
I've been a regular contributor to Palestine, Israel, Middle East, antisemitism, antizionism, Jewish, Muslim, Ukraine, Russia and other geopolitical and religion threads because they are important to me but I think you should ban them all.
Anyone expressing their views on these polarising topics however innocently will be met with opposing opinions which very often result in the thread being eventually pulled or even worse, people being banned.
There are bags of other places online where these topics can be discussed so if these threads are causing you a pain in the arse ban them all. If you do, we might even all get along better. |  | | |
| Removed thread on 07:38 - Nov 16 with 3027 views | Cafe_Newman |
| Removed thread on 14:20 - Nov 15 by wkj |
It wasn't thinly disguised or an attempt at stirring - It was a direct observation of how these posts usually go. If I named names it would be provocative and baiting, but I am more than happy to be direct if called out.
As for crying foul when I get negative replies, well, I don't very often make a serious op and am more likely to be reactionary. I stand my ground when I see the never ending cycle of people picking and needling others over and over again in a targeted manner and then having a victory lap once they're banned or the smug crap about "flouncing off" when people take a step back for a while.
I'm not claiming to be something I'm not. I have a swipe on me if I'm needled or see others needled in the course of a debate - simply because Phil has stated he wants the board to self moderate. Standing up for people who are routinely picked on isn't necessarily a bad trait either.
However, full circle... I'm not disguising anything, there are people on this board who don't care about debating, the mental wellbeing of others or the fact there is a real person behind the screen. We're all Town fans and on this forum should realistically be a group of people with a common cause that disagree a bit - not a bunch of people who are reliving high school cliques and popularity scalping who happen to support the same footy club. |
Not only do you see how it works but you express yourself eloquently and steer away from insulting other posters (at least as far as I have witnessed during my sporadic posting here). | | | |
| Removed thread on 07:58 - Nov 16 with 2985 views | Cafe_Newman |
| Removed thread on 16:46 - Nov 15 by GlasgowBlue |
It should work though.
If somebody wants to highlight the latest atrocity by the IDF then there is a ready made thread to do so. Likewise, if somebody wants to demonise an entire fanbase because of the actions of a minority of racist hooligan scumbags whilst at the same time minimising or dismissing antisemitism then they have a choice of two threads to go to.
At this point, I think it’s got to the stage where some posters would rather use the situation to troll or bait other board users.
Edit. Something else that needs to be addressed are the posters who contribute very little, have never started a thread, but spend most of their time downvoting and criticising other posters. Its passive aggressive sh1t stirring. [Post edited 15 Nov 2024 17:50]
|
I would rather downvote you for the views you hold which I find deeply offensive than articulate them and face ridiculous claims of antisemitism from you. When I agree with you, as I sometimes do, I upvote you.
I don't consider my actions so much passive aggressive as de-escalatory. I don't want there to be up or down voting on this site, but while voting remains a tool, I will use it. People who are sensitive to downvoting should join me in wanting it to be stopped or grow some thicker skin. [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 22:13]
| | | |
| Removed thread on 09:31 - Nov 16 with 2851 views | Churchman |
Just a few observations:
There are a lot of good posters on here with plenty to say and a lot of knowledge on certain topics. If you have an open mind, there’s plenty to learn, regardless of age. I don’t always agree with some people, but because their points are well reasoned, that’s great. I might actually be wrong and learn something.
I like the cliche you are born with one mouth and two ears. If you listen twice as much as you talk you won’t go too far wrong. The same principle applies to the written word for me. Firing emotive posts without thought rarely ends well. The other issue with the written word is that how a message is received is not always the same as what the sender intended. Mainly because body language, eyes, inflection is such a large part of communication.
I digress. The issue I have on here is that my view of debate, how the forum should be used is clearly shared by many, but not all. Trying to impose a view rather than express one is a bit sad, but it happens. Chipping away at somebody with one liners because their view is not yours or you don’t like the sound of them is frankly pathetic. Intolerance is plain stupid.
When I read a line like ‘I’ll call out somebody if they are wrong’ the warning comes on in my head that the author possibly has a closed mind. They might not be wrong. Query, challenge, ask, but dismissive swipe or slapping down is debate dangerous in my opinion.
The biggest problem with posters who know they are right and will dish out the abuse accordingly is that it switches debate off. It also stops others offering views to the point of them ignoring that topic and even the forum. That’s a real loss to the forum and is corrosive.
On the Middle East, i really don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I do have views on aspects of it. However it’s not something I’ll offer because I can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument or receive abuse from a stranger who wouldn't do it face to face. It’s a switch off, like a number of other topics. I’ve better things to do.
Solutions? There have been plenty of good uns suggested but the obvious one is an immediate and permanent ban on anyone descending to abuse or conducting a vendetta against somebody they don’t like. Sadly, unnecessary work for the administrator.
Secondly, I’d be tempted to ban threads on all domestic and international politics until say the new year. Just pull them as soon as they appear. Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up.
Lastly, I’d get rid of down votes. It’s a negative thing that serves little purpose to me other than to antagonise, which is why I don’t apply them.
Just a view. |  | | |
| Removed thread on 09:48 - Nov 16 with 2778 views | lowhouseblue |
| Removed thread on 09:31 - Nov 16 by Churchman |
Just a few observations:
There are a lot of good posters on here with plenty to say and a lot of knowledge on certain topics. If you have an open mind, there’s plenty to learn, regardless of age. I don’t always agree with some people, but because their points are well reasoned, that’s great. I might actually be wrong and learn something.
I like the cliche you are born with one mouth and two ears. If you listen twice as much as you talk you won’t go too far wrong. The same principle applies to the written word for me. Firing emotive posts without thought rarely ends well. The other issue with the written word is that how a message is received is not always the same as what the sender intended. Mainly because body language, eyes, inflection is such a large part of communication.
I digress. The issue I have on here is that my view of debate, how the forum should be used is clearly shared by many, but not all. Trying to impose a view rather than express one is a bit sad, but it happens. Chipping away at somebody with one liners because their view is not yours or you don’t like the sound of them is frankly pathetic. Intolerance is plain stupid.
When I read a line like ‘I’ll call out somebody if they are wrong’ the warning comes on in my head that the author possibly has a closed mind. They might not be wrong. Query, challenge, ask, but dismissive swipe or slapping down is debate dangerous in my opinion.
The biggest problem with posters who know they are right and will dish out the abuse accordingly is that it switches debate off. It also stops others offering views to the point of them ignoring that topic and even the forum. That’s a real loss to the forum and is corrosive.
On the Middle East, i really don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I do have views on aspects of it. However it’s not something I’ll offer because I can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument or receive abuse from a stranger who wouldn't do it face to face. It’s a switch off, like a number of other topics. I’ve better things to do.
Solutions? There have been plenty of good uns suggested but the obvious one is an immediate and permanent ban on anyone descending to abuse or conducting a vendetta against somebody they don’t like. Sadly, unnecessary work for the administrator.
Secondly, I’d be tempted to ban threads on all domestic and international politics until say the new year. Just pull them as soon as they appear. Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up.
Lastly, I’d get rid of down votes. It’s a negative thing that serves little purpose to me other than to antagonise, which is why I don’t apply them.
Just a view. |
good post. civilised discussion requires people to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong and that the other person's views, even when you might disagree with them, are legitimately held. an approach to politics which involves a single correct answer is both divisive and dull. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Removed thread on 09:51 - Nov 16 with 2779 views | azuremerlangus |
I thought we could a proper debate about the real Middle East - Derby Road/California? [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 9:53]
|  |
| |
| Removed thread on 10:38 - Nov 16 with 2690 views | Vegtablue |
| Removed thread on 09:31 - Nov 16 by Churchman |
Just a few observations:
There are a lot of good posters on here with plenty to say and a lot of knowledge on certain topics. If you have an open mind, there’s plenty to learn, regardless of age. I don’t always agree with some people, but because their points are well reasoned, that’s great. I might actually be wrong and learn something.
I like the cliche you are born with one mouth and two ears. If you listen twice as much as you talk you won’t go too far wrong. The same principle applies to the written word for me. Firing emotive posts without thought rarely ends well. The other issue with the written word is that how a message is received is not always the same as what the sender intended. Mainly because body language, eyes, inflection is such a large part of communication.
I digress. The issue I have on here is that my view of debate, how the forum should be used is clearly shared by many, but not all. Trying to impose a view rather than express one is a bit sad, but it happens. Chipping away at somebody with one liners because their view is not yours or you don’t like the sound of them is frankly pathetic. Intolerance is plain stupid.
When I read a line like ‘I’ll call out somebody if they are wrong’ the warning comes on in my head that the author possibly has a closed mind. They might not be wrong. Query, challenge, ask, but dismissive swipe or slapping down is debate dangerous in my opinion.
The biggest problem with posters who know they are right and will dish out the abuse accordingly is that it switches debate off. It also stops others offering views to the point of them ignoring that topic and even the forum. That’s a real loss to the forum and is corrosive.
On the Middle East, i really don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I do have views on aspects of it. However it’s not something I’ll offer because I can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument or receive abuse from a stranger who wouldn't do it face to face. It’s a switch off, like a number of other topics. I’ve better things to do.
Solutions? There have been plenty of good uns suggested but the obvious one is an immediate and permanent ban on anyone descending to abuse or conducting a vendetta against somebody they don’t like. Sadly, unnecessary work for the administrator.
Secondly, I’d be tempted to ban threads on all domestic and international politics until say the new year. Just pull them as soon as they appear. Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up.
Lastly, I’d get rid of down votes. It’s a negative thing that serves little purpose to me other than to antagonise, which is why I don’t apply them.
Just a view. |
You are a wise man Churchman. On your last paragraph, the unintended consequence of removing downvotes alone could be that insults between posters become 'popular' posts, because one internet football forum gang is unable to balance out the other.
I don't know if the intention of the voting system is to create incentives to contribute 'well', or to incentivise regular positing to build one's score, or just to provide a quick way to express support / disapproval, or a mixture of things. It does seem to sow division more than it fosters unity, though I do appreciate the tool every so often for its time-saving value.
Turning to the general rancour on here, I'll admit to sometimes being mildly amused by the childish spats I stumble across when reading TWTD, nearly always involving the same cast of characters. It doesn't put me off posting and the majority of bad behaviour I see is juvenile to my eyes more than it is nasty - sometimes it reads to me as one poster's attempt to be playful not being reciprocated - but then I do miss the majority of pulled threads and have read some wrong'uns as well.
What's clearly a disgrace is how it impacts on Phil's time; I'd encourage him to be less tolerant in order to preserve what sanity he has left. A couple of well-worn subjects have no place on the board other than to 'poke' and 'attack' other members, while it may be possible for Phil to identify a small handful of posters who demand more time and energy from him than the rest of the board put together. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Removed thread on 10:57 - Nov 16 with 2635 views | TheBlueGnu |
| Removed thread on 18:59 - Nov 15 by Ryorry |
That's a good example of you at your disingenuous, misleading worst.
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think I shouldn't "get involved" in a thread started by Phil that's fundamental not only to his health & well-being, but that of all other board users too. |
"disingenuous" - great word ! I also like the word "SPLASH" | |
| |
| Removed thread on 11:59 - Nov 16 with 2518 views | Ryorry |
| Removed thread on 10:38 - Nov 16 by Vegtablue |
You are a wise man Churchman. On your last paragraph, the unintended consequence of removing downvotes alone could be that insults between posters become 'popular' posts, because one internet football forum gang is unable to balance out the other.
I don't know if the intention of the voting system is to create incentives to contribute 'well', or to incentivise regular positing to build one's score, or just to provide a quick way to express support / disapproval, or a mixture of things. It does seem to sow division more than it fosters unity, though I do appreciate the tool every so often for its time-saving value.
Turning to the general rancour on here, I'll admit to sometimes being mildly amused by the childish spats I stumble across when reading TWTD, nearly always involving the same cast of characters. It doesn't put me off posting and the majority of bad behaviour I see is juvenile to my eyes more than it is nasty - sometimes it reads to me as one poster's attempt to be playful not being reciprocated - but then I do miss the majority of pulled threads and have read some wrong'uns as well.
What's clearly a disgrace is how it impacts on Phil's time; I'd encourage him to be less tolerant in order to preserve what sanity he has left. A couple of well-worn subjects have no place on the board other than to 'poke' and 'attack' other members, while it may be possible for Phil to identify a small handful of posters who demand more time and energy from him than the rest of the board put together. |
Often seems to me that Phil's too tolerant for his own good, but he's his own man and maybe he's more comfortable erring on the side of kindness.
Good point in your first para, I think Gav's said that's why site policy is not to remove downvotes. Agree they're also a useful way of expressing a view if you don't have time to post. But they can be & often are abused - maybe the time's come for a trial month where they're (late edit, I meant the whole voting system) removed altogether?
The historical spats on here can be incredible - some people's memories are amazing! What a sad life must they be leading for someone to downvote another regularly for 10 years whilst refusing to give any reason for it.
The childishness can also be huge fun though - cod knows where we'd be without the fish puns. [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 20:32]
|  |
| |
| Removed thread on 13:20 - Nov 16 with 2406 views | blueasfook |
| Removed thread on 07:30 - Nov 16 by Cafe_Newman |
I've been a regular contributor to Palestine, Israel, Middle East, antisemitism, antizionism, Jewish, Muslim, Ukraine, Russia and other geopolitical and religion threads because they are important to me but I think you should ban them all.
Anyone expressing their views on these polarising topics however innocently will be met with opposing opinions which very often result in the thread being eventually pulled or even worse, people being banned.
There are bags of other places online where these topics can be discussed so if these threads are causing you a pain in the arse ban them all. If you do, we might even all get along better. |
Even if you kept it "just football", people would still fight. Anyone who remembers the endless Pablo vs Kuqi debates will testify to that. The problem is the board will always get a small number of sh1tposters who are simply here to provoke and argue.
Kuqi by the way |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 14:38 - Nov 16 with 2319 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Removed thread on 09:31 - Nov 16 by Churchman |
Just a few observations:
There are a lot of good posters on here with plenty to say and a lot of knowledge on certain topics. If you have an open mind, there’s plenty to learn, regardless of age. I don’t always agree with some people, but because their points are well reasoned, that’s great. I might actually be wrong and learn something.
I like the cliche you are born with one mouth and two ears. If you listen twice as much as you talk you won’t go too far wrong. The same principle applies to the written word for me. Firing emotive posts without thought rarely ends well. The other issue with the written word is that how a message is received is not always the same as what the sender intended. Mainly because body language, eyes, inflection is such a large part of communication.
I digress. The issue I have on here is that my view of debate, how the forum should be used is clearly shared by many, but not all. Trying to impose a view rather than express one is a bit sad, but it happens. Chipping away at somebody with one liners because their view is not yours or you don’t like the sound of them is frankly pathetic. Intolerance is plain stupid.
When I read a line like ‘I’ll call out somebody if they are wrong’ the warning comes on in my head that the author possibly has a closed mind. They might not be wrong. Query, challenge, ask, but dismissive swipe or slapping down is debate dangerous in my opinion.
The biggest problem with posters who know they are right and will dish out the abuse accordingly is that it switches debate off. It also stops others offering views to the point of them ignoring that topic and even the forum. That’s a real loss to the forum and is corrosive.
On the Middle East, i really don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I do have views on aspects of it. However it’s not something I’ll offer because I can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument or receive abuse from a stranger who wouldn't do it face to face. It’s a switch off, like a number of other topics. I’ve better things to do.
Solutions? There have been plenty of good uns suggested but the obvious one is an immediate and permanent ban on anyone descending to abuse or conducting a vendetta against somebody they don’t like. Sadly, unnecessary work for the administrator.
Secondly, I’d be tempted to ban threads on all domestic and international politics until say the new year. Just pull them as soon as they appear. Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up.
Lastly, I’d get rid of down votes. It’s a negative thing that serves little purpose to me other than to antagonise, which is why I don’t apply them.
Just a view. |
“Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up”.
Although sometimes I get in there straight away 
Decent observations there. I’m not a fan of down votes, but do use them sometimes if someone’s being deliberately provocative and you’d get nowhere by posting a reply.
Not sure about banning any post topics though. I’ve always like that this place is a broad church. Not that I’m particularly bothered about it all, but the ME issue is causing us problems on here so maybe your suggestion would be for the best just for the ME. Dunno 🤷♂️ [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 14:40]
|  |
| |
| Removed thread on 14:59 - Nov 16 with 2269 views | witchdoctor |
| Removed thread on 09:31 - Nov 16 by Churchman |
Just a few observations:
There are a lot of good posters on here with plenty to say and a lot of knowledge on certain topics. If you have an open mind, there’s plenty to learn, regardless of age. I don’t always agree with some people, but because their points are well reasoned, that’s great. I might actually be wrong and learn something.
I like the cliche you are born with one mouth and two ears. If you listen twice as much as you talk you won’t go too far wrong. The same principle applies to the written word for me. Firing emotive posts without thought rarely ends well. The other issue with the written word is that how a message is received is not always the same as what the sender intended. Mainly because body language, eyes, inflection is such a large part of communication.
I digress. The issue I have on here is that my view of debate, how the forum should be used is clearly shared by many, but not all. Trying to impose a view rather than express one is a bit sad, but it happens. Chipping away at somebody with one liners because their view is not yours or you don’t like the sound of them is frankly pathetic. Intolerance is plain stupid.
When I read a line like ‘I’ll call out somebody if they are wrong’ the warning comes on in my head that the author possibly has a closed mind. They might not be wrong. Query, challenge, ask, but dismissive swipe or slapping down is debate dangerous in my opinion.
The biggest problem with posters who know they are right and will dish out the abuse accordingly is that it switches debate off. It also stops others offering views to the point of them ignoring that topic and even the forum. That’s a real loss to the forum and is corrosive.
On the Middle East, i really don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I do have views on aspects of it. However it’s not something I’ll offer because I can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument or receive abuse from a stranger who wouldn't do it face to face. It’s a switch off, like a number of other topics. I’ve better things to do.
Solutions? There have been plenty of good uns suggested but the obvious one is an immediate and permanent ban on anyone descending to abuse or conducting a vendetta against somebody they don’t like. Sadly, unnecessary work for the administrator.
Secondly, I’d be tempted to ban threads on all domestic and international politics until say the new year. Just pull them as soon as they appear. Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up.
Lastly, I’d get rid of down votes. It’s a negative thing that serves little purpose to me other than to antagonise, which is why I don’t apply them.
Just a view. |
splendid post Mr Churchman..so many good points…especially regarding folk posting on here something they wouldn’t say face to face… |  | | |
| Removed thread on 15:13 - Nov 16 with 2231 views | wkj |
| Removed thread on 07:58 - Nov 16 by Cafe_Newman |
I would rather downvote you for the views you hold which I find deeply offensive than articulate them and face ridiculous claims of antisemitism from you. When I agree with you, as I sometimes do, I upvote you.
I don't consider my actions so much passive aggressive as de-escalatory. I don't want there to be up or down voting on this site, but while voting remains a tool, I will use it. People who are sensitive to downvoting should join me in wanting it to be stopped or grow some thicker skin. [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 22:13]
|
I appreciate your words on the other post. I have been on TWTD forums for about 15 years or so, and that is a considerable chunk of years to develop and mature. I've thrown a few barbs around, but usually am trying to convey dry humour when I do. In the past I have been a bit of an arse on here in certain situations, but now I just want to see some of the "Vintage" posters like PJH to return, have much more ITFC chatter from the past or present, and leave this divisive boIIocks in the stable.
Moving on...
I think you nail it on the head with how I find the claims of antisemitism very offensive too, and then when someone's words or intentions are misrepresented (Such as when I used the word "Compels" to describe the actions of David Ames' murderer and many replies were attempting to frame it that I was blaming Ames' political bias for his murderer's actions)
Usually I pipe up when it is clear that there is no middle ground, and dare I say, when it seems there is no desire to find middle ground.
One thing I hate more, and this isn't just GB - Is when posts almost feel like "YOU MUST FEEL THIS WAY" or I will berate/mock/belittle/trivialize your point of view. At the end of the day, it is highly unlikely that anyone on TWTD will alter their opinions unless they have discovered something compelling via their own research. Trying to ram an opinion into someone is akin to trying to force feed peas to a preschooler, they wont eat it unless they want to.
Long story short, I use the up and down arrows in much the same way, its not usually to be personal but to state "I highly agree/like this post" or "I highly disagree/refute this post" so I don't really understand when people take it so personal (unless someone is clearly just throwing downers about because who is posting, not what they're posting.
I really hope Phil takes a deep dive on this thread and absorbs what is frustration and what is venom. For the most part, I think it has been a handy exercise in laundry airing with a bit of sour pickles dotted about. |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 15:18 - Nov 16 with 2209 views | wkj |
| Removed thread on 09:31 - Nov 16 by Churchman |
Just a few observations:
There are a lot of good posters on here with plenty to say and a lot of knowledge on certain topics. If you have an open mind, there’s plenty to learn, regardless of age. I don’t always agree with some people, but because their points are well reasoned, that’s great. I might actually be wrong and learn something.
I like the cliche you are born with one mouth and two ears. If you listen twice as much as you talk you won’t go too far wrong. The same principle applies to the written word for me. Firing emotive posts without thought rarely ends well. The other issue with the written word is that how a message is received is not always the same as what the sender intended. Mainly because body language, eyes, inflection is such a large part of communication.
I digress. The issue I have on here is that my view of debate, how the forum should be used is clearly shared by many, but not all. Trying to impose a view rather than express one is a bit sad, but it happens. Chipping away at somebody with one liners because their view is not yours or you don’t like the sound of them is frankly pathetic. Intolerance is plain stupid.
When I read a line like ‘I’ll call out somebody if they are wrong’ the warning comes on in my head that the author possibly has a closed mind. They might not be wrong. Query, challenge, ask, but dismissive swipe or slapping down is debate dangerous in my opinion.
The biggest problem with posters who know they are right and will dish out the abuse accordingly is that it switches debate off. It also stops others offering views to the point of them ignoring that topic and even the forum. That’s a real loss to the forum and is corrosive.
On the Middle East, i really don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I do have views on aspects of it. However it’s not something I’ll offer because I can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument or receive abuse from a stranger who wouldn't do it face to face. It’s a switch off, like a number of other topics. I’ve better things to do.
Solutions? There have been plenty of good uns suggested but the obvious one is an immediate and permanent ban on anyone descending to abuse or conducting a vendetta against somebody they don’t like. Sadly, unnecessary work for the administrator.
Secondly, I’d be tempted to ban threads on all domestic and international politics until say the new year. Just pull them as soon as they appear. Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up.
Lastly, I’d get rid of down votes. It’s a negative thing that serves little purpose to me other than to antagonise, which is why I don’t apply them.
Just a view. |
Good post, and food for thought in some aspects.
To be perfectly honest, I think getting rid of up and down arrows would make more sense. It's not like it is in any way accurate because when there is a post archive then it will change the numbers, so, its really inaccurate. | |
| |
| Removed thread on 16:04 - Nov 16 with 2138 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Removed thread on 07:58 - Nov 16 by Cafe_Newman |
I would rather downvote you for the views you hold which I find deeply offensive than articulate them and face ridiculous claims of antisemitism from you. When I agree with you, as I sometimes do, I upvote you.
I don't consider my actions so much passive aggressive as de-escalatory. I don't want there to be up or down voting on this site, but while voting remains a tool, I will use it. People who are sensitive to downvoting should join me in wanting it to be stopped or grow some thicker skin. [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 22:13]
|
As a rule of thumb, people only get accused of posting antisemitism when they post something which supports or repeats anti semitic tropes. There is clear guidance in the IHRA definition. If somebody posted something that was racist against Muslims or any other people of colour then you wouldn't complain if those racial tropes were challenged.
It's very easy to be pro Palestine and be against many of the actions of the Israeli government without falling into troublesome language.
For example, I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal who should stand trial before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
I believe that the current Israeli government is a coalition of far right Zealots and terrorist supporters.
I believe that the illegal settlements should be demolished and the land returned to the Palestinian people.
I believe in a two state solution that sees Israel return to it's pre 1967 borders.
I believe that Israel should cease hostilities in Gaza as Hamas has been utterly defeated. A peace keeping force of Arab coalition countries (not aligned with Iran) should now go into Gaza.
See, it's very easy to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and their current action in Gaza without resorting to anti semitic tropes. I just did that.
What I weill call our is Systematic denial, distortion and minimization of the attacks and of Jewish suffering. The victim blaming on here often falls into age old anti semitic tropes about untrustworthy Jews.
What i will call out is the denial of anti semitic attacks on Jews and those who support the collective punishment of anyone suspected of being Jewish because of the actions of a minority f Israelis or Jews. Something we saw repeated by Noggin on numerous occasions on the deleted thread. There was documented evidence of a premeditated and coordinated "Jew hunt" with other phrases such as "Jewish cancer" used. To continually deny that it was an anti semitic attack is giving antisemitism a free ride, and I will make no apology for calling it out and reminding the board of the numerous occasions that particular poster has done so.
What I will call out, and this is something that you are particularly guilty of, is the constant campaign to delegitimize Zionism, call Zionists racists, and over promote an example where a Zionist or Zionist group has supported far right scumbags (guess what? Some Zionists can be utter c**ts. As can some Christians, some Muslims etc). You tar all Zionists with the same brush. Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a homeland in their ancestral territory. Israel. 90% of worldwide Jews believe in the Jewish state of Israel. When you call all Zionists racists and supporters of terrorism you are labeling the majority of Jews worldwide as terrorists and racist. That my friend is anti semitic and anyone doing so will be called out on it. Just as anyone who labels all Muslims as extremists or terrorists will be.
Now I don't believe Phil wanted his thread to go down this particular road, but seeing as you singled me out for criticism, when Noggin and others on the deleted thread posted some pretty vile stuff, whilst I put across a balanced view that there was disgusting behaviour from a minority of Maccabi fans and that there was a coordinated attack on anyone suspected of being Jewish or "helping Jews", I'm sorry but as Stevie Wonder once said "I ain't gonna stand for it".
Now, about these "views I hold which you find deeply offensive"? [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 19:24]
|  |
| |
| Removed thread on 18:01 - Nov 16 with 1967 views | Ryorry |
| Removed thread on 15:18 - Nov 16 by wkj |
Good post, and food for thought in some aspects.
To be perfectly honest, I think getting rid of up and down arrows would make more sense. It's not like it is in any way accurate because when there is a post archive then it will change the numbers, so, its really inaccurate. |
I think there's something to be said for allowing the voting for individual posts to remain, whilst removing the cumulative totals for each poster.
That would still allow strong approval/disapproval indicators to be immediatelyt visible to those who don't have the time to read a lot of long posts; whilst removing what seems to be the biggest motive for those who abuse the system. | |
| |
| Removed thread on 19:07 - Nov 16 with 1889 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Removed thread on 15:13 - Nov 16 by wkj |
I appreciate your words on the other post. I have been on TWTD forums for about 15 years or so, and that is a considerable chunk of years to develop and mature. I've thrown a few barbs around, but usually am trying to convey dry humour when I do. In the past I have been a bit of an arse on here in certain situations, but now I just want to see some of the "Vintage" posters like PJH to return, have much more ITFC chatter from the past or present, and leave this divisive boIIocks in the stable.
Moving on...
I think you nail it on the head with how I find the claims of antisemitism very offensive too, and then when someone's words or intentions are misrepresented (Such as when I used the word "Compels" to describe the actions of David Ames' murderer and many replies were attempting to frame it that I was blaming Ames' political bias for his murderer's actions)
Usually I pipe up when it is clear that there is no middle ground, and dare I say, when it seems there is no desire to find middle ground.
One thing I hate more, and this isn't just GB - Is when posts almost feel like "YOU MUST FEEL THIS WAY" or I will berate/mock/belittle/trivialize your point of view. At the end of the day, it is highly unlikely that anyone on TWTD will alter their opinions unless they have discovered something compelling via their own research. Trying to ram an opinion into someone is akin to trying to force feed peas to a preschooler, they wont eat it unless they want to.
Long story short, I use the up and down arrows in much the same way, its not usually to be personal but to state "I highly agree/like this post" or "I highly disagree/refute this post" so I don't really understand when people take it so personal (unless someone is clearly just throwing downers about because who is posting, not what they're posting.
I really hope Phil takes a deep dive on this thread and absorbs what is frustration and what is venom. For the most part, I think it has been a handy exercise in laundry airing with a bit of sour pickles dotted about. |
You do see people on here change their views quite a lot. It probably happens more than you think. I’m even thinking of trying Battenberg cake… Well, maybe not, we’ll see.
Those that are very open tend not to be the ones shouting the loudest though. I’m not often fixed on a particular angle (the benefit of not being on/belonging to a tribe on social media). Except for Brexit, where my own lived experiences will override anyone’s probably not lived views that it was in any way a success/sensible thing to do. And that the last few Tory governments were an incompetent, populist sh*tshow. But I’ve worked with Tory politicians and know they’re not all like that. Other than that, I’m happy to listen and learn if the view/advice is coming from a place of experience, which isn’t that rare on TWTD. We have people from all walks of life with all sorts of expertise. There’s some excellent posts amongst the sniping between the same small group of posters. | |
| |
| Removed thread on 19:56 - Nov 16 with 1798 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Removed thread on 16:04 - Nov 16 by GlasgowBlue |
As a rule of thumb, people only get accused of posting antisemitism when they post something which supports or repeats anti semitic tropes. There is clear guidance in the IHRA definition. If somebody posted something that was racist against Muslims or any other people of colour then you wouldn't complain if those racial tropes were challenged.
It's very easy to be pro Palestine and be against many of the actions of the Israeli government without falling into troublesome language.
For example, I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal who should stand trial before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
I believe that the current Israeli government is a coalition of far right Zealots and terrorist supporters.
I believe that the illegal settlements should be demolished and the land returned to the Palestinian people.
I believe in a two state solution that sees Israel return to it's pre 1967 borders.
I believe that Israel should cease hostilities in Gaza as Hamas has been utterly defeated. A peace keeping force of Arab coalition countries (not aligned with Iran) should now go into Gaza.
See, it's very easy to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and their current action in Gaza without resorting to anti semitic tropes. I just did that.
What I weill call our is Systematic denial, distortion and minimization of the attacks and of Jewish suffering. The victim blaming on here often falls into age old anti semitic tropes about untrustworthy Jews.
What i will call out is the denial of anti semitic attacks on Jews and those who support the collective punishment of anyone suspected of being Jewish because of the actions of a minority f Israelis or Jews. Something we saw repeated by Noggin on numerous occasions on the deleted thread. There was documented evidence of a premeditated and coordinated "Jew hunt" with other phrases such as "Jewish cancer" used. To continually deny that it was an anti semitic attack is giving antisemitism a free ride, and I will make no apology for calling it out and reminding the board of the numerous occasions that particular poster has done so.
What I will call out, and this is something that you are particularly guilty of, is the constant campaign to delegitimize Zionism, call Zionists racists, and over promote an example where a Zionist or Zionist group has supported far right scumbags (guess what? Some Zionists can be utter c**ts. As can some Christians, some Muslims etc). You tar all Zionists with the same brush. Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a homeland in their ancestral territory. Israel. 90% of worldwide Jews believe in the Jewish state of Israel. When you call all Zionists racists and supporters of terrorism you are labeling the majority of Jews worldwide as terrorists and racist. That my friend is anti semitic and anyone doing so will be called out on it. Just as anyone who labels all Muslims as extremists or terrorists will be.
Now I don't believe Phil wanted his thread to go down this particular road, but seeing as you singled me out for criticism, when Noggin and others on the deleted thread posted some pretty vile stuff, whilst I put across a balanced view that there was disgusting behaviour from a minority of Maccabi fans and that there was a coordinated attack on anyone suspected of being Jewish or "helping Jews", I'm sorry but as Stevie Wonder once said "I ain't gonna stand for it".
Now, about these "views I hold which you find deeply offensive"? [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 19:24]
|
Not only have you repeatedly inappropriately used the label of antisemitism, you have recently linked a tweet referencing a pogrom in Amsterdam and accused me of a campaign of PM harassment as a result of one well intentioned message. You could probably do with looking inwards in relation to how and why threads get deleted. |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 20:03 - Nov 16 with 1777 views | TheBlueGnu |
| Removed thread on 09:31 - Nov 16 by Churchman |
Just a few observations:
There are a lot of good posters on here with plenty to say and a lot of knowledge on certain topics. If you have an open mind, there’s plenty to learn, regardless of age. I don’t always agree with some people, but because their points are well reasoned, that’s great. I might actually be wrong and learn something.
I like the cliche you are born with one mouth and two ears. If you listen twice as much as you talk you won’t go too far wrong. The same principle applies to the written word for me. Firing emotive posts without thought rarely ends well. The other issue with the written word is that how a message is received is not always the same as what the sender intended. Mainly because body language, eyes, inflection is such a large part of communication.
I digress. The issue I have on here is that my view of debate, how the forum should be used is clearly shared by many, but not all. Trying to impose a view rather than express one is a bit sad, but it happens. Chipping away at somebody with one liners because their view is not yours or you don’t like the sound of them is frankly pathetic. Intolerance is plain stupid.
When I read a line like ‘I’ll call out somebody if they are wrong’ the warning comes on in my head that the author possibly has a closed mind. They might not be wrong. Query, challenge, ask, but dismissive swipe or slapping down is debate dangerous in my opinion.
The biggest problem with posters who know they are right and will dish out the abuse accordingly is that it switches debate off. It also stops others offering views to the point of them ignoring that topic and even the forum. That’s a real loss to the forum and is corrosive.
On the Middle East, i really don’t have an axe to grind either way, but I do have views on aspects of it. However it’s not something I’ll offer because I can’t be bothered getting into a pointless argument or receive abuse from a stranger who wouldn't do it face to face. It’s a switch off, like a number of other topics. I’ve better things to do.
Solutions? There have been plenty of good uns suggested but the obvious one is an immediate and permanent ban on anyone descending to abuse or conducting a vendetta against somebody they don’t like. Sadly, unnecessary work for the administrator.
Secondly, I’d be tempted to ban threads on all domestic and international politics until say the new year. Just pull them as soon as they appear. Or as has been suggested, pin them after three pages which is about the time the ignorant and frankly stupid usually start up.
Lastly, I’d get rid of down votes. It’s a negative thing that serves little purpose to me other than to antagonise, which is why I don’t apply them.
Just a view. |
Can anyone remember the Melchester Rovers team from Roy of the Rovers ? | |
| |
| Removed thread on 20:09 - Nov 16 with 1760 views | TheBlueGnu |
| Removed thread on 14:59 - Nov 16 by witchdoctor |
splendid post Mr Churchman..so many good points…especially regarding folk posting on here something they wouldn’t say face to face… |
David Kelly - restaurant helper in Robins Nest, Mr O'Reilly the builder in Fawlty Towers. I'm happy to say that face to face if anyone is interested. | |
| |
| Removed thread on 20:47 - Nov 16 with 1671 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Removed thread on 20:03 - Nov 16 by TheBlueGnu |
Can anyone remember the Melchester Rovers team from Roy of the Rovers ? |
I’ve got the Subbuteo version. The magazine did a readers offer and I convinced my parents my life was in threat if I didn’t get a set. They’re in the garage, albeit a bit battered and the keeper is no more, which was par for the course for all my keepers. | |
| |
| Removed thread on 22:01 - Nov 16 with 1564 views | Bigalhunter |
| Removed thread on 07:58 - Nov 16 by Cafe_Newman |
I would rather downvote you for the views you hold which I find deeply offensive than articulate them and face ridiculous claims of antisemitism from you. When I agree with you, as I sometimes do, I upvote you.
I don't consider my actions so much passive aggressive as de-escalatory. I don't want there to be up or down voting on this site, but while voting remains a tool, I will use it. People who are sensitive to downvoting should join me in wanting it to be stopped or grow some thicker skin. [Post edited 16 Nov 2024 22:13]
|
Well said.
Apart from a couple of predictably loyal backing singers, I think the majority of contributors to these particular debates have come to a similar conclusion, based solely on the tiresomely familiar method and behaviour you have so accurately highlighted. |  |
| |
| Removed thread on 22:57 - Nov 16 with 1440 views | TresBonne |
Why bother posting this 24/7? Just tell people to move their endless arguments over wars in the Middle East somewhere else. Cant believe some on here. Grown adults with nothing better to do than to argue over conflicts and politics with strangers on the internet they’ll probably never meet and, if they did meet, would probably get on quite well over their love of Ipswich Town. |  | | |
| Removed thread on 23:26 - Nov 16 with 1374 views | TheBlueGnu |
| Removed thread on 20:47 - Nov 16 by Swansea_Blue |
I’ve got the Subbuteo version. The magazine did a readers offer and I convinced my parents my life was in threat if I didn’t get a set. They’re in the garage, albeit a bit battered and the keeper is no more, which was par for the course for all my keepers. |
I had the Rentaghost version:
Jackson, Darbyshire, Staniforth, Brayshaw, Emery, Weir, Nicholls, Biggins, Alberge, Segal, Marchal | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
