| Do my fellow posters think there 04:32 - Sep 26 with 2349 views | Benters |
Should be a sin bin type of punishment introduced on here?
Yellow card two weeks ban,Red card one month ban.If you come back and are a pain to admin then a one year ban.
When you look back at some of the decent people we have lost over the years,it’s sad really.
Just use the arrow system to vote if you can be bothered.
Have a good day people.
|  |
| |  |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 17:41 - Sep 26 with 146 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 16:47 - Sep 26 by positivity |
board admin decide who's breached (and re-breached ad nauseum!) the rules.
there's plenty of people who can debate constructively, i'm glad that those who can't are no longer posting.
banning something, just because a few can't behave is ridiculous |
"banning something, just because a few can't behave is ridiculous"
Quite so. "Schisms" surely don't get healed by hiding them away and pretending they don't exist do they? If anything shouldn't we encourage MORE (constructive) political debate so that at least this place starts to resemble the type of society we'd like to see in the wider world? (Too ambitious Phil?  ) |  |
| |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:09 - Sep 26 with 96 views | lowhouseblue |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 17:41 - Sep 26 by GlasgowBlue |
I was actually thinking much the same. Corbyn should have been on that list. There was a definite purity test on here when he became a party leader. Tories were suddenly the new nazis. If you voted Tory at any stage of your life then all of a sudden you were accountable for every decision made by those governments.
I know and get on with quite a few "left leaning" posters on here. As recently as last week I was having a drink with a few of them pre Everton. I don't think the same has happened with the newer wave of lefty posters, post 2015.
Once people had different political opinions but got on. Now they don't. Adversaries became enemies. And it's back to the purity test.
A prime example. Somebody, who will remain nameless, was slagging off Benters a few months back. I posted that I'd still rather have a pint with benters than I would [redacted]. What followed was post after post of "You're mates with a racist", 'You're judged by the company you keep", "Glasgow's pet racist" etc. [Post edited 26 Sep 18:12]
|
in real life i know very few people who express right wing views. at work colleagues are guardian readers or somewhere left of that. i know a few people who i guess must vote tory, but they just don't start political discussions. certainly in the pub there must be tories and reform leaning types - but conversations rarely go to politics, and if they do it's always jokey. so my hands on experience is one sided, but it's always been people who are loudest on the left who define others by their politics and write off everything else about them. perhaps tories do it as well but i've just not seen it. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:10 - Sep 26 with 95 views | Trequartista |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 17:41 - Sep 26 by You_Bloo_Right |
"banning something, just because a few can't behave is ridiculous"
Quite so. "Schisms" surely don't get healed by hiding them away and pretending they don't exist do they? If anything shouldn't we encourage MORE (constructive) political debate so that at least this place starts to resemble the type of society we'd like to see in the wider world? (Too ambitious Phil? ) |
It's difficult to explain and I'm not doing the greatest job in the world trying to explain it.
It's not political debate per se. If someone says nationalise everything and the other says privatise everything that's not a problem. If someone says drugs should be legalised, and another wants to enforce the law more strongly, again that's not going to kick off.
It's about what is acceptable to say and what isn't. Who can we support and who are we attacked for supporting. "You're supporting a racist" "You're waving imaginary red cards" (I'm trying to be balanced as obviously I have my own views).
It's not the political debate, it's certain political threads bring out the schism. Reform, Palestine, Trans to name but a few. |  |
| |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:15 - Sep 26 with 83 views | positivity |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:10 - Sep 26 by Trequartista |
It's difficult to explain and I'm not doing the greatest job in the world trying to explain it.
It's not political debate per se. If someone says nationalise everything and the other says privatise everything that's not a problem. If someone says drugs should be legalised, and another wants to enforce the law more strongly, again that's not going to kick off.
It's about what is acceptable to say and what isn't. Who can we support and who are we attacked for supporting. "You're supporting a racist" "You're waving imaginary red cards" (I'm trying to be balanced as obviously I have my own views).
It's not the political debate, it's certain political threads bring out the schism. Reform, Palestine, Trans to name but a few. |
and would banning debate solve these issues? every day's a school day and it's good to examine why you believe things.
as someone pointed out the other day, they learnt why "all lives matter" isn't appropriate as a response to black lives matter, as it was explained well.
seeing other people's pov and having an open mind are a good thing, banning debate isn't |  |
| |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:25 - Sep 26 with 60 views | Trequartista |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:15 - Sep 26 by positivity |
and would banning debate solve these issues? every day's a school day and it's good to examine why you believe things.
as someone pointed out the other day, they learnt why "all lives matter" isn't appropriate as a response to black lives matter, as it was explained well.
seeing other people's pov and having an open mind are a good thing, banning debate isn't |
That's a great example of a topic that blows up.
I could respond and say that why would you ditch a philosophy that thinks that everyone's lives should matter the same in preference to one that thinks that some lives matter more than others, and you would presumably respond that is not what it means and I'm sure we could have a grown-up debate about it.
But others won't. Some on one side won't accept the view of the other and deem them racist. On the other hand, if you do happen to be racist you'll probably be on the other side. (Again I'm just trying to be balanced here).
And those entrenched views aren't going to be changed any time soon. [Post edited 26 Sep 18:27]
| |
| |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:43 - Sep 26 with 27 views | armchaircritic59 |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 05:37 - Sep 26 by You_Bloo_Right |
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, I'd like to think that people can be civil enough to avoid bans in the first place; judicious use of the ignore option on the part of some may help with that.
Beyond that I'm happy for Phil to police the site however he wishes, thouigh that said the greater range of punishments and the more complex the rules for their application will surely only result in Phil using more of his time in a policing capacity - I don't see that as a good thing.
Personal views and all that. |
One thing we are fortunate to have in this country is the freedom of speech and therefore views, as sickening as some might seem to others. If we start banning people in any walk of life from having them and sending them to some theoretic sin bin, we risk going down some rather dark rabbit holes. Better just to let them spout their bile and either counter or ignore. |  | | |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 19:05 - Sep 26 with 11 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:10 - Sep 26 by Trequartista |
It's difficult to explain and I'm not doing the greatest job in the world trying to explain it.
It's not political debate per se. If someone says nationalise everything and the other says privatise everything that's not a problem. If someone says drugs should be legalised, and another wants to enforce the law more strongly, again that's not going to kick off.
It's about what is acceptable to say and what isn't. Who can we support and who are we attacked for supporting. "You're supporting a racist" "You're waving imaginary red cards" (I'm trying to be balanced as obviously I have my own views).
It's not the political debate, it's certain political threads bring out the schism. Reform, Palestine, Trans to name but a few. |
I understand your point but for me that is still more an issue with/for the individuals involved rather than the matter up for discussion.
Take, for example, "You're supporting a racist" versus "What I don't get is how you can be supportive of someone who holds such racist views". A clumsy example but I hope you see what I mean and of course the second version still requires evidence that the person being supported DOES hold such views.
The ability to conduct evidence based debates/discussions civilly with people who hold opposing views to one's own is essential in my view regardless of the issue itself. If nothing else I would hope that both parties would think more about both their own and the other person's position.
It is important, too, to distinguish between opinion and fact. In both cases, though, it is still valid to question the source of stated facts and the basis for opinions held. It's all beginning to sound like an Oxford Union formal debate and I know that's not how things work or would work but rather move closer to that than, "My Dad's bigger than your Dad".
So I would say that open and honest dialogue without recourse to name calling or abuse is the responsibility of people and should not be constrained by topic and I would contend that the more contentious the issue the more we need to talk about it. | |
| |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 19:06 - Sep 26 with 11 views | MattinLondon |
| Do my fellow posters think there on 18:43 - Sep 26 by armchaircritic59 |
One thing we are fortunate to have in this country is the freedom of speech and therefore views, as sickening as some might seem to others. If we start banning people in any walk of life from having them and sending them to some theoretic sin bin, we risk going down some rather dark rabbit holes. Better just to let them spout their bile and either counter or ignore. |
I disagree.
We have freedom of speech but not freedom of consequence.
And if someone is using racist language (or homophobic or misogynist) on here then they fully deserved to be banned from here. They do not have a right to type their bile out on here. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
