Hospitals are overloaded because demand is high, expectations sometimes unreasonable and funding inadequate. Lots of reasons for unaffordable housing: government policy on negative gearing set that little disaster going and public housing is underfunded. SFA to do with migrants as I see it, but never mind.
We’re off on a nerry little tangent which hardly surprises me. I am uncertain about the point or the usefulness of this thread, to be honest.
Whenever I see a post accusing “illegals” and “asylum seekers” causing the housing shortage I have to quote the number of empty homes in the U.K.
At the moment this stands at just under a million. Okay, many of these are only unoccupied for a short period but over a quarter of a million have been unoccupied for more than six months. Legislation and funding does exist to remedy this, but local authorities seem reluctant to use these powers.
See this:Empty Homes
Thing is, how do we know what ideologies 'lurkers' might hold?
We don't know and can't tell if any posters are racist, sexist or ablist, anti-semitic or anything else unless they reveal that in a post.
Judge people by their words and actions.
They may be posters who hold very socially-conservative views on the kind of issues discussed in Epiphanies, for instance. Should they be planked for holding such views or disagreeing with the prevailing or majority views on those issues here?
Is that in itself a threat? That they hold different views to the majority liberal/left consensus which is the prevailing tone here?
If they start dissing people who hold different views to them on these matters and are aggressive, condemnatory about it, then yes, they should be planked.
But barring them in advance just on case they say something objectionable seems over-the-top to me and I don’t say that to minimise the very real concerns that other posters have expressed on this issue.
The reality is, most right-wing types ain't going to hang around on these boards very long. That MAGA poster who was planked hasn't come back as far as I'm aware and I wouldn't expect them to. If they did and broke the rules again then I'd expect them to be planked again or permanently barred.
I know it's easy for me to say as I don't have to enforce the Commandments but we have checks and balances in place already.
A 'safe space' isn't necessarily one where there are no threats whatsoever but one where threatening behaviours are dealt with promptly.
We can't create a hermetically sealed laboratory-conditioned echo-chamber nor do I think we should try. What we should try to do is contain any inappropriate behaviour if, as and when it occurs.
SFA to do with migrants as I see it, but never mind.
Totally agree. But we have a poster claiming the overburdened hospitals and housing crisis are the fault of migrants. And as @sionisais says, migrant-blaming a popular sport in the UK as well.
My POV is that, if you look at who is actually maintaining the amenities and services we take for granted, it is as likely as not to be someone (or the children of someone) who came here from elsewhere.
The idea that society is made up of a homogeneous native population, unfailingly industrious, patriotic etc, being undermined/overwhelmed by feckless hordes with funny names and weird cuisines is total shite. But that appears to be the right-wing view.
FWIW I don't think opposition to immigrants is necessarily racism. It can also be xenophobia, which is a similar but different thing. And also = being a jerk under Commandment 1.
It's true that hosting of Commandment 1 is often quite light handed IMO, because people who air jerkish opinions usually get their backside handed to them by other posters and/or called to hell. I can see the argument for stricter hosting, although I'd still rather enforce our existing rules than invent a new one. Jerkishness is always going to be a judgement call to an extent, though, I think.
SFA to do with migrants as I see it, but never mind.
Totally agree. But we have a poster claiming the overburdened hospitals and housing crisis are the fault of migrants. And as @sionisais says, migrant-blaming a popular sport in the UK as well.
My POV is that, if you look at who is actually maintaining the amenities and services we take for granted, it is as likely as not to be someone (or the children of someone) who came here from elsewhere.
The idea that society is made up of a homogeneous native population, unfailingly industrious, patriotic etc, being undermined/overwhelmed by feckless hordes with funny names and weird cuisines is total shite. But that appears to be the right-wing view.
Firenze, if you are accusing Whimsical Christian of blaming migrants for the housing and hospital problems in Oz then I think you have it wrong. I read her post and take it that she thinks the country cannot afford more migrants in view of increasingly scarce resources. I happen to disagree but that is neither here nor there.
Our existing rules ban racist behaviour but many dont seem to think someone openly supporting racist campaigners, parties and leaders by posting that they do is racism but some mysterious other thing or there's some reason why that particular racist behaviour should be overlooked despite the longstanding rules against racist behaviour.
Depending on how much attention they pay and how directly it affects them people will also have varying levels of spotting -isms by dogwhistles.
I am not directly affected by racism but if this was about an issue that did directly affect me where I was in a tiny minority here, dependent on the goodwill of the majority to restrain those who are members of that self-same majority who want to scapegoat people like me, then it wouldn't fill me with confidence to see this amount of overlooking, rationalising and excusing behaviour aimed at behaviours that target people like me.
It's not overlooking, rationalising or excusing racism by not immediately planking someone who says, 'I support Trump' or 'I vote Reform' or 'I support Pauline Hanson.'
If anything they are calling judgement on themselves.
If they then say, 'I support Trump because ...' and cite a racist reason or 'I vote Reform because I want to send immigrants back to where they came from ...' or some such, then yes, plank them.
There are posters here who belong to churches and denominations which officially take a very conservative view on certain issues discussed in Epiphanies. Should they be barred from the Ship for that reason?
If they started harassing or haranguing other posters on the basis of that, then fine, they should be planked.
Trolls and campaigners soon reveal their true colours and are dealt with appropriately.
As @la vie en rouge says, those who voice jerkish opinions are either quickly called to Hell or admonished by other Shipmates - and yes, existing rules should be enforced.
I know this may be easy for me to say as I'm not a member of any group that is likely to come in for abuse, although I have been accused of acting 'fash' here before now because I wasn't considered left-wing enough - although I'm sure it was light-hearted and let it pass.
Should that poster (and I can't even remember who it was now) have been planked for calling me an offensive name and accusing me of fascism?
I've been reprimanded upthread by another Shipmate for flippant remarks.
Perhaps I should protest in stronger terms for being accused of acting 'fash' when there isn't a fascist bone in my body?
I can't stand Reform. I've fought against them and their predecessors UKIP in local elections. Others here have opposed the BNP through marches and other forms of activism. Good.
But banning people for supporting groups which, like it or loathe it, are allowed to operate in our democracies seems to be going too far. Banning them would only feed their sense of being marginalised or discriminated against.
It's not 'both-sides-ism' to say that these people - mistakenly in my view - think that the Overton Window has moved way to the left - just as those on the left believe its moved way to the right. It's simply a statement of how they view the world. That doesn't justify it or exonerate or overlook it.
Just to point out, there are other ways of jerkish behavior than just posting racist remarks. How about haranguing someone about a last name when the person has repeatedly said they will not give out that name? And I will admit in the past I have been jerkish when it came to the way I addressed a certain person about her faith group. For that, I am truly sorry. Don't forget the admonition of Jesus about taking out the speck in someone's eye when you have a log in your own.
By the way concerning the word, "illegals." There is no such thing. The word is really meant to dehumanize a person. What a person does may be illegal, but the person is still a person who deserves the respect accorded to other persons.
To the question should being a Republican be enough to get one banned, I certainly wish there were articulate Republicans like the former William F Buckley Jr. to engage in meaningful conversation on this board.
Which begs the question of course as to how far-right a group needs to go in order to be considered fascist.
Who decides?
Does 'I voted Reform in the local by-election' constitute fascism?
'I'm a member of the KKK' or 'BNP', yes.
We've had the accusation on this thread that Reform UK wants certain groups 'eradicated' or 'exterminated.'
Is genocide official Reform policy?
Alright, I wouldn't put it past Reform to go way over the top into highly dangerous territory if they were ever - heaven forbid - to form a government and if checks and balances were removed.
Misguided as I believe they are I don't believe the average Reform voter would be in favour of murder.
Ok, it's a slippery slope and the further right one goes the more slippery it becomes.
But I don't see anyone here advocating that we welcome fascists with open arms or overlook extreme right wing views.
For all we know there might be people on here already who hold views the rest of us would find abhorrent. You could be a fascist and not a member of a particular organisation or supporter of a particular party.
How would we know that Shipmate X wants to 'eradicate' or 'exterminate' certain groups unless they told us?
How would we know that Shipmate Y wasn't a paedophile or fond of 'upskirting' women or watching extreme pyrography or violent videos unless they posted about it?
Heck, how would we know I wasn't pretending to be a wooly liberal 'centrist' or whatever but using that stance as a cover for extreme right wing views?
That would only become apparent if I started articulating extreme right wing views or harassing people who don't share those views.
In which case I'd be barred and rightly so.
I know Reform supporters I'd consider very dodgy. I've met people who think Reform are too moderate and who'd last about 2.5 seconds here before they were planked. The chances of them posting here are very remote and I can avoid them in real life easily enough.
I know other Reform supporters who haven't really thought things through. Again, I doubt they'd post here and if they did they'd soon get bored and clear off somewhere they can sound off to their hearts content.
How safe is a safe space? Safe for whom? Genuine questions.
I suspect that I might have some half-formed opinions which would be objectionable to Louise.
It would not surprise me if both Louise and Pomona had thoughts which the other would find objectionable.
None of the above is obliged to post any of those thoughts.
The Ship has thus far chosen to move toward safer space, in the change from Dead Horses to Epiphanies. I support that extent of change, because I think it's reasonable and fair for an internet forum. While I think it's a limitation on free speech, and there are losses associated with that, ISTM justifiable and reasonable as it stands. I would not like to see it continue further in that direction.
Hosts are tasked with assessing jerkishness in posting, and IMO they have done so appropriately overall.
FWIW I don't think opposition to immigrants is necessarily racism. It can also be xenophobia, which is a similar but different thing. And also = being a jerk under Commandment 1.
Is it your opinion that any position other than open borders / free migration is xenophobic? Because to my knowledge, open borders / free migration is currently a policy held by precisely zero countries.
Any position other than completely open migration for anyone that wants to migrate is, at some level, "opposition to immigrants".
So, in enforcing this rule about bannings upon simple announcement of membership in certain groups, do the moderators have a specific list of groups which put one in the instant-banning category? And, if so, how extensive is it?
IOW if someone shows up and announces themselves a member of some local organization in his area that no one here has ever heard of, does that prompt the mods to research that group in order to determine if their ideology falls afoul of the rules? Or would that just get the wait-and-see-what-they-say approach?
So, in enforcing this rule about bannings upon simple announcement of membership in certain groups, do the moderators have a specific list of groups which put one in the instant-banning category? And, if so, how extensive is it?
IOW if someone shows up and announces themselves a member of some local organization in his area that no one here has ever heard of, does that prompt the mods to research that group in order to determine if their ideology falls afoul of the rules? Or would that just get the wait-and-see-what-they-say approach?
This post is making stuff up that doesn’t exist then asking admins to answer questions about something the poster imagines as if it is real.
So, in enforcing this rule about bannings upon simple announcement of membership in certain groups, do the moderators have a specific list of groups which put one in the instant-banning category? And, if so, how extensive is it?
IOW if someone shows up and announces themselves a member of some local organization in his area that no one here has ever heard of, does that prompt the mods to research that group in order to determine if their ideology falls afoul of the rules? Or would that just get the wait-and-see-what-they-say approach?
This post is making stuff up that doesn’t exist then asking admins to answer questions about something the poster imagines as if it is real.
I'm not sure what you're saying "doesn't exist". You mean there are no political organizations whose names and/or policies are unknown to the moderators on this site?
Maybe there should be a purity test that all new shipies should have to take, to make sure they won't come out with some obnoxious opinion that might offend someone's sensabilities.
I'm not sure what you're saying "doesn't exist". You mean there are no political organizations whose names and/or policies are unknown to the moderators on this site?
Discussion boards are about discussion. If someone comes on the ship and posts that they're an admirer of the People's Popular Front of Lower Dicker, or whatever other unknown organization, that doesn't actually communicate anything. If they tell us that they admire the PPFLD because of their unashamedly racist policies, that looks like a statement supporting racism. If they tell us that they admire the PPFLD, and then tell us about the PPFLD policies, many of which are explicitly racist, I think that's the same statement supporting racism: splitting it in to two statements doesn't change anything.
I'm not sure what you're saying "doesn't exist". You mean there are no political organizations whose names and/or policies are unknown to the moderators on this site?
Discussion boards are about discussion. If someone comes on the ship and posts that they're an admirer of the People's Popular Front of Lower Dicker, or whatever other unknown organization, that doesn't actually communicate anything. If they tell us that they admire the PPFLD because of their unashamedly racist policies, that looks like a statement supporting racism. If they tell us that they admire the PPFLD, and then tell us about the PPFLD policies, many of which are explicitly racist, I think that's the same statement supporting racism: splitting it in to two statements doesn't change anything.
So, I'm not clear. At what point do you think they should be banned: when they tell us simply that they support the PPFLD, or when they indicate that they have some idea that the policies of the PPFLD are racist and say they support them?
Lists are just not how anything round here has ever worked or is likely to work.
Mentions of/ demands for lists could in such a context function as attempts to construct strawman arguments against stuff nobody is arguing for.
I’m not sure it can be called a straw man given that an admin has specifically asked whether certain parties or political groupings should be considered so bigoted that simply expressing support for them constitutes a C1 violation:
The question is really what, if any, modern political affilations are inherently so prejudiced - people professing those affiliations should not be given access to the site.
Currently, that would only apply to self-professed nazis. Some have argued certain political affiliations are no morally different, inherently a c1 violation - and if we we permit this we run into a potential Nazi bar problem.
I am seeking to understand what the ship community thinks about this.
We are asking all of you, if you think that current policy of hosting c1 where we think we see patterns of jerkish posting or egregious single posts is sufficient OR if you think there are certain political parties or political groupings (that is it legal to express support for) that are so bigoted that a shipmate declaring support for them is by doing that breaking C1. For example self-identifying Nazis, KKK, supporters of Ayatollah Khomeni or others.
I’m really not sure how the Ship could come down on the side of “yes, there are parties and groups so inherently bigoted that merely expressing support for them constitutes a C1 violation” without having a list of which parties or groups fit that description.
Fair dos. I had forgotten that list from government. It wasn't something I thought we normally did as we refused to provide lists for slurs but still host slurs.
Interesting. Thanks. Do you have software that watches out for the appearance of those groups' names on the Ship? Because I'd think it would be otherwise pretty difficult to enforce a ban-upon-announcement policy, given that the list is pretty extensive and most of them aren't exactly household names.
And, just for the record, I wouldn't be criticizing a software-based method if there was one. We obviously all use computer-technology to get info in one way or another, eg. bill notifications on your phone rather than waiting for the mailbox. As long as the mods were actually double-checking the notifications before lowering the hammer on the offending poster, it'd be cool.
I'm someone, and there are a number of us on the Ship, who wouldn't have posted in Dead Horses and for whom Epiphanies has been a safe-enough space to talk about queer experience or issues relating to racial discrimination.
My background, as many here know, is Zimbabwean, from a mixed race family: many of my mother's sisters and brothers received British citizenship after independence and emigrated to the UK to work for the NHS or for further education. Others like myself moved to South Africa after the end of apartheid and have remained politically active and involved in the post-colonial struggles of southern Africa. I am always hesitant to use personal experience as a touchstone for being marginalised or an 'outsider' because it is more complex: there is educational privilege and cultural capital and I have spent considerable time working and living in Europe.
In South Africa, to identify as a member of any political party isn't an ambiguous statement: it is an immediate indication of where you stand in polarised debates. You are a member of X because you think there is white genocide happening and you see yourself as a victim of reverse racism; you are a member of Y because you are xenophobic and believe foreigners from Zambia or Angola are taking South African jobs; you are a member of Z because you think homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed for moral iniquity. The party currently in power is seen as inept and corrupt and has very little tacit support but the lack of a strong unified opposition means that opposition parties tend to take populist stances to draw in extremist voters.
I'm not sure it is that different in Britain when it comes to racist or anti-emigration sentiments associated with political parties. Unless somebody states from the outset, that they dislike what Reform stands for but support the party for obscure less known reasons, it sounds like bigotry to me.
In South Africa, to identify as a member of any political party isn't an ambiguous statement: it is an immediate indication of where you stand in polarised debates. You are a member of X because you think there is white genocide happening and you see yourself as a victim of reverse racism; you are a member of Y because you are xenophobic and believe foreigners from Zambia or Angola are taking South African jobs; you are a member of Z because you think homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed for moral iniquity. The party currently in power is seen as inept and corrupt and has very little tacit support but the lack of a strong unified opposition means that opposition parties tend to take populist stances to draw in extremist voters.
Back in the days when the ANC under Mbeki was promoting the Duesberg Hypothesis(resulting in over 300 000 deaths, as I understand it), would you say that anyone announcing themselves as an ANC voter should have been a priori considered a supporter of AIDS Denialism?
I find it very difficult to say "no redeeming features" to large groups of people. Certain individuals, maybe--at least for human purposes. But to write off large groups--hell, just shut down the Ship. Then we can all retreat to our own little locked down safety groups and never have to deal with our neighbors. (And if we do that, who's going to save the world? I'm not entirely joking about that.)
I think this is in poor taste when I know you know full well that for many people, their neighbour is now the person who might call ICE on them. I am failing to see why making the Ship safe for marginalised people is seen as such a ridiculous concept. Why is wanting respite from bigotry in the world at large so unreasonable?
What happens if a Shipmate calls ICE on another Shipmate? Is that risk worth having a MAGA supporter on board? Obviously, not that a Democrat couldn't call ICE on someone - but there's a clear increased risk.
Have you somehow missed the fact that me and my family are dealing with ICE up close and personal? And yes, we've had a death already.
That's precisely why I'm so flabbergasted at your stance here.
MAGA/Reform et al want me and people like me (on several different axes of oppression) exterminated. I think it is reasonable in that context to be alarmed at people fighting for the right to welcome people openly in support of such groups. This is why your comment that "then we can all retreat to our own little locked down safety groups and never have to deal with our neighbors" felt so astonishingly flippant to me at how real the dangers are here. What is wrong with wanting ONE online Christian space without the far-right?
And now I think you and some others have misunderstood me.
I'm not arguing that far right anti-immigrant types should be permitted to board the Ship and begin saying whatever they want, wherever they want,, however they want, without penalty. Nobody else gets to do that, why should they?
I am arguing that simply saying "I voted for Trump" (ugh) should not in itself be grounds for planking. If said person goes on to behave un-jerkishly, let them stay. If they hang out on the recipe thread and join the book club and discuss their pets, fine. None of that is jerkish. If they can contribute to political threads without being assholes, let them stay. I think this rather unlikely, given the lack of self-control we routinely see--but give them the chance. If they screw up, plank them.
I am asking only that they be treated like anybody else, and held to the same standards as anybody else. I don't think we are likely to see many Trumpistas joining the Ship; there's very little here to attract them. I think I've seen four in five years, all but one of whom have left, and quickly, too.
I am aware that you and some others would prefer to have the Ship be a safe haven where you don't have to encounter people who are associated with frankly nasty politicians and their followers. There's something to be said for safety. But how exactly do you expect a Trumpista to do harm to you--or more likely to me, given geography? We're in cyberspace, not using real names, so physical harm is pretty much ruled out. If the Trumpista makes threats, attempts to bully, gets emotionally nasty, etc. etc. etc. that person will be dealt with just as any other poster would be--which is to say, planked. Even the offending post is likely to be taken down, given recent trends among hosts and admins.
It's hard for me to see how much harm any poster is going to accomplish under those circumstances. About the worst he/she can do is to disagree with me. And given the general tenor of the Ship, about 50 or more Shipmates are bound to come along and jump all over him/her on my behalf. If anything, the Ship as it currently exists is more unsafe for a Trumpista than for you and me. And even then, the biggest thing they risk is a dogpile of righteous indignation.
...
This is probably the place where I should point out that political affiliation in the United States is not the same thing as it is in the UK. Here, in most places, you can simply declare yourself a Republican or Democrat or whatsit in casual conversation and be done with it. You don't sign up to a party; you don't have to send dues or attend meetings or make any commitment at all, even the commitment to vote for their candidates. If you go around telling everyone you are a Republican and yet you vote straight Democrat, that's nobody's business but yours--and nobody's going to know, either, unless you tell them. The level of commitment can be extremely low, and the amount that a given voter knows about his/her chosen party might be next to nothing. It's not supposed to be that way--good citizens educate themselves, and then choose--but there are people like this. There are people of every level of knowledge and commitment, some of them surprisingly low when considered by UK standards. And so when someone self-identifies as a Republican etc, we have no way of knowing what that means to them unless they tell us. Or show it, through their behavior and choices.
I can guarantee you that the most MAGA-minded person in my family has no desire to see you exterminated--or me, for that matter. I think he likes Trump because he is looking for someone who will "put the country back the way it used to be," and then my relative won't have to trouble his head with the complexities of a culture that has changed a great deal since he was a child. That's lazy of him, and irresponsible, and if I could change him, I would; but it's a far cry from "exterminate them."
Only one quibble. People in the UK who say, 'I'm Labour,' or 'I'm Conservative,' or 'I'm SNP' or Green, or Plaid Cymru or Reform or whatever else aren't necessarily paid-up members of those political parties either.
I'm sure it's the same with Australian, Canadian and political parties anywhere else where we are likely to have posters.
Membership of political parties has been declining here just as membership of voluntary groups and churches have.
Heck, I'm a member of a particular political party and yes that affiliation would 'place' me in general ideological terms. It's not an affiliation that would get me planked if new rules were introduced but it is one that gets me ribbed or pushed back at as certain posters assume it makes me complicit with policies they (or I) wouldn't agree with or positions they don't hold themselves - which is fine.
That's not commensurate with the unease and sense of threat felt by certain groups and posters when faced by bigots and virulent right-wingers of course and I'm not out to minimise that.
I can't speak for those groups of course as I'm not affected by those issues but I have seen how threatening the bigots and extreme right-wingers can be. I've experienced some very low level and subtle intimidation from those quarters but not enough to feel I'm in any danger.
I'm not talking about Reform there but those who think Reform is too moderate.
We have plenty of 'floating voters' here in the UK and plenty of people who don't vote at all.
By and large, I'd say the Ship attracts people who do have particular ideological or theological convictions of one form or other - if they didn't they wouldn't be engaging in debate here in the first place.
Every now and then we will have a new poster - or an old one gone rogue - who acts jerkishly. They either get dog piled by others or upbraided by Hosts and Admins or else get bored and wander off.
The Hosts and Admins are here to ensure that civilised and good-natured interaction takes place according to the Commandments.
They aren't here to police the private thoughts and behaviours of individual posters unless that manifests itself in jerkish behaviour towards other posters.
Misguided as I believe they are I don't believe the average Reform voter would be in favour of murder.
...
or watching extreme pyrography or violent videos unless they posted about it?
...
Heck, how would we know I wasn't pretending to be a wooly liberal 'centrist' or whatever but using that stance as a cover for extreme right wing views?
.
There's an awful lot of HaHa reactions at e.g. migrant boat accidents. Probably exaggerated by bots, a vocal minority, etc...
And even if perfectly correlated that's thousands of bad people in millions of voters. Out and out reform numbers might be more comparable.
The last extreme pyrographer I met, hid it by claiming to be an innocent knitter.
I think political/grouping names in board names is probably troublesome for new posters in general. Even if it's a 'good group' there's a good chance they can't speak for the group, and a non trivial chance of being fakes.
While the 'bad groups' problems are obvious.
Would 'The UK has the right to defend itself,' be subject to the same accusation of genocide apologetics?
Or 'Canada has the right to defend itself if Trump tried anything on?
Or 'Denmark and NATO have the right to defend their sovereign territory if Trump tried to annexe Greenland'?
What if someone were to say, 'Israel has the right to defend itself within the bounds of international law and not by genocidal attacks or illegal wars against its neighbours?'
On Reform supporters posting shite online. Yes, they do that. Some Reform councillors in a local authority not far from here are in deep doo-doo over that and rightly so.
If a Reform supporters spouted shite here then they should be planked. Same as anyone else.
Should I be planked for suggesting that Israel has the right to self-defence within certain parameters?
On Wikipedia we have this concept of "NOTHERE". It refers to editors of the encyclopedia who are present for other reasons than building the encyclopedia.
There are some examples of why a person might not be fully participating, including
* Promoting a business
* Using Wikipedia as a battleground
* No interest in working collaboratively
* Seeking a soapbox to legitimise a position
This is not Wikipedia and the purpose here is different, however it feels to me like there might be overlap.
Some people, including those who have fascist and neo-Nazi beliefs are not really interested in conversation. They have an ulterior motive if they are present on a public internet page like this. That purpose is to seek legitimacy for their extreme violence by dominating and belittling other people, dominance and violence being an integral part of the ideology.
We cannot assume anything about another person who is not directly associating themselves with fascism in the first instance. A person with the theoretical username "iranforever" could obviously have a whole range of political opinions.
However, it seems to me that it is very obvious when someone is "NOTHERE" for the reason everyone else is.
There's a line between fascists/neonazis and everyone else. The former should have no leeway at all ever. Delete Nazis immediately. Everyone else should get a bit of time. In my opinion.
Comments
Hospitals are overloaded because demand is high, expectations sometimes unreasonable and funding inadequate. Lots of reasons for unaffordable housing: government policy on negative gearing set that little disaster going and public housing is underfunded. SFA to do with migrants as I see it, but never mind.
We’re off on a nerry little tangent which hardly surprises me. I am uncertain about the point or the usefulness of this thread, to be honest.
At the moment this stands at just under a million. Okay, many of these are only unoccupied for a short period but over a quarter of a million have been unoccupied for more than six months. Legislation and funding does exist to remedy this, but local authorities seem reluctant to use these powers.
See this:Empty Homes
We don't know and can't tell if any posters are racist, sexist or ablist, anti-semitic or anything else unless they reveal that in a post.
Judge people by their words and actions.
They may be posters who hold very socially-conservative views on the kind of issues discussed in Epiphanies, for instance. Should they be planked for holding such views or disagreeing with the prevailing or majority views on those issues here?
Is that in itself a threat? That they hold different views to the majority liberal/left consensus which is the prevailing tone here?
If they start dissing people who hold different views to them on these matters and are aggressive, condemnatory about it, then yes, they should be planked.
But barring them in advance just on case they say something objectionable seems over-the-top to me and I don’t say that to minimise the very real concerns that other posters have expressed on this issue.
The reality is, most right-wing types ain't going to hang around on these boards very long. That MAGA poster who was planked hasn't come back as far as I'm aware and I wouldn't expect them to. If they did and broke the rules again then I'd expect them to be planked again or permanently barred.
I know it's easy for me to say as I don't have to enforce the Commandments but we have checks and balances in place already.
A 'safe space' isn't necessarily one where there are no threats whatsoever but one where threatening behaviours are dealt with promptly.
We can't create a hermetically sealed laboratory-conditioned echo-chamber nor do I think we should try. What we should try to do is contain any inappropriate behaviour if, as and when it occurs.
Totally agree. But we have a poster claiming the overburdened hospitals and housing crisis are the fault of migrants. And as @sionisais says, migrant-blaming a popular sport in the UK as well.
My POV is that, if you look at who is actually maintaining the amenities and services we take for granted, it is as likely as not to be someone (or the children of someone) who came here from elsewhere.
The idea that society is made up of a homogeneous native population, unfailingly industrious, patriotic etc, being undermined/overwhelmed by feckless hordes with funny names and weird cuisines is total shite. But that appears to be the right-wing view.
It's true that hosting of Commandment 1 is often quite light handed IMO, because people who air jerkish opinions usually get their backside handed to them by other posters and/or called to hell. I can see the argument for stricter hosting, although I'd still rather enforce our existing rules than invent a new one. Jerkishness is always going to be a judgement call to an extent, though, I think.
Firenze, if you are accusing Whimsical Christian of blaming migrants for the housing and hospital problems in Oz then I think you have it wrong. I read her post and take it that she thinks the country cannot afford more migrants in view of increasingly scarce resources. I happen to disagree but that is neither here nor there.
Depending on how much attention they pay and how directly it affects them people will also have varying levels of spotting -isms by dogwhistles.
I am not directly affected by racism but if this was about an issue that did directly affect me where I was in a tiny minority here, dependent on the goodwill of the majority to restrain those who are members of that self-same majority who want to scapegoat people like me, then it wouldn't fill me with confidence to see this amount of overlooking, rationalising and excusing behaviour aimed at behaviours that target people like me.
It's not overlooking, rationalising or excusing racism by not immediately planking someone who says, 'I support Trump' or 'I vote Reform' or 'I support Pauline Hanson.'
If anything they are calling judgement on themselves.
If they then say, 'I support Trump because ...' and cite a racist reason or 'I vote Reform because I want to send immigrants back to where they came from ...' or some such, then yes, plank them.
There are posters here who belong to churches and denominations which officially take a very conservative view on certain issues discussed in Epiphanies. Should they be barred from the Ship for that reason?
If they started harassing or haranguing other posters on the basis of that, then fine, they should be planked.
Trolls and campaigners soon reveal their true colours and are dealt with appropriately.
As @la vie en rouge says, those who voice jerkish opinions are either quickly called to Hell or admonished by other Shipmates - and yes, existing rules should be enforced.
I know this may be easy for me to say as I'm not a member of any group that is likely to come in for abuse, although I have been accused of acting 'fash' here before now because I wasn't considered left-wing enough - although I'm sure it was light-hearted and let it pass.
Should that poster (and I can't even remember who it was now) have been planked for calling me an offensive name and accusing me of fascism?
I've been reprimanded upthread by another Shipmate for flippant remarks.
Perhaps I should protest in stronger terms for being accused of acting 'fash' when there isn't a fascist bone in my body?
I can't stand Reform. I've fought against them and their predecessors UKIP in local elections. Others here have opposed the BNP through marches and other forms of activism. Good.
But banning people for supporting groups which, like it or loathe it, are allowed to operate in our democracies seems to be going too far. Banning them would only feed their sense of being marginalised or discriminated against.
It's not 'both-sides-ism' to say that these people - mistakenly in my view - think that the Overton Window has moved way to the left - just as those on the left believe its moved way to the right. It's simply a statement of how they view the world. That doesn't justify it or exonerate or overlook it.
No, stick to the existing rule and enforce them.
But I've made that point already.
By the way concerning the word, "illegals." There is no such thing. The word is really meant to dehumanize a person. What a person does may be illegal, but the person is still a person who deserves the respect accorded to other persons.
To the question should being a Republican be enough to get one banned, I certainly wish there were articulate Republicans like the former William F Buckley Jr. to engage in meaningful conversation on this board.
Who decides?
Does 'I voted Reform in the local by-election' constitute fascism?
'I'm a member of the KKK' or 'BNP', yes.
We've had the accusation on this thread that Reform UK wants certain groups 'eradicated' or 'exterminated.'
Is genocide official Reform policy?
Alright, I wouldn't put it past Reform to go way over the top into highly dangerous territory if they were ever - heaven forbid - to form a government and if checks and balances were removed.
Misguided as I believe they are I don't believe the average Reform voter would be in favour of murder.
Ok, it's a slippery slope and the further right one goes the more slippery it becomes.
But I don't see anyone here advocating that we welcome fascists with open arms or overlook extreme right wing views.
For all we know there might be people on here already who hold views the rest of us would find abhorrent. You could be a fascist and not a member of a particular organisation or supporter of a particular party.
How would we know that Shipmate X wants to 'eradicate' or 'exterminate' certain groups unless they told us?
How would we know that Shipmate Y wasn't a paedophile or fond of 'upskirting' women or watching extreme pyrography or violent videos unless they posted about it?
Heck, how would we know I wasn't pretending to be a wooly liberal 'centrist' or whatever but using that stance as a cover for extreme right wing views?
That would only become apparent if I started articulating extreme right wing views or harassing people who don't share those views.
In which case I'd be barred and rightly so.
I know Reform supporters I'd consider very dodgy. I've met people who think Reform are too moderate and who'd last about 2.5 seconds here before they were planked. The chances of them posting here are very remote and I can avoid them in real life easily enough.
I know other Reform supporters who haven't really thought things through. Again, I doubt they'd post here and if they did they'd soon get bored and clear off somewhere they can sound off to their hearts content.
I used it upthread, in quotes, because it is used by lazy racists who can’t accept that “undocumented migrants” is an accurate term.
I suspect that I might have some half-formed opinions which would be objectionable to Louise.
It would not surprise me if both Louise and Pomona had thoughts which the other would find objectionable.
None of the above is obliged to post any of those thoughts.
The Ship has thus far chosen to move toward safer space, in the change from Dead Horses to Epiphanies. I support that extent of change, because I think it's reasonable and fair for an internet forum. While I think it's a limitation on free speech, and there are losses associated with that, ISTM justifiable and reasonable as it stands. I would not like to see it continue further in that direction.
Hosts are tasked with assessing jerkishness in posting, and IMO they have done so appropriately overall.
Is it your opinion that any position other than open borders / free migration is xenophobic? Because to my knowledge, open borders / free migration is currently a policy held by precisely zero countries.
Any position other than completely open migration for anyone that wants to migrate is, at some level, "opposition to immigrants".
IOW if someone shows up and announces themselves a member of some local organization in his area that no one here has ever heard of, does that prompt the mods to research that group in order to determine if their ideology falls afoul of the rules? Or would that just get the wait-and-see-what-they-say approach?
This post is making stuff up that doesn’t exist then asking admins to answer questions about something the poster imagines as if it is real.
I'm not sure what you're saying "doesn't exist". You mean there are no political organizations whose names and/or policies are unknown to the moderators on this site?
Discussion boards are about discussion. If someone comes on the ship and posts that they're an admirer of the People's Popular Front of Lower Dicker, or whatever other unknown organization, that doesn't actually communicate anything. If they tell us that they admire the PPFLD because of their unashamedly racist policies, that looks like a statement supporting racism. If they tell us that they admire the PPFLD, and then tell us about the PPFLD policies, many of which are explicitly racist, I think that's the same statement supporting racism: splitting it in to two statements doesn't change anything.
Mentions of/ demands for lists could in such a context function as attempts to construct strawman arguments against stuff nobody is arguing for.
So, I'm not clear. At what point do you think they should be banned: when they tell us simply that they support the PPFLD, or when they indicate that they have some idea that the policies of the PPFLD are racist and say they support them?
I’m really not sure how the Ship could come down on the side of “yes, there are parties and groups so inherently bigoted that merely expressing support for them constitutes a C1 violation” without having a list of which parties or groups fit that description.
But don't the moderators at least need to have a specific group of organizations in mind that warrant automatic banning?
Interesting. Thanks. Do you have software that watches out for the appearance of those groups' names on the Ship? Because I'd think it would be otherwise pretty difficult to enforce a ban-upon-announcement policy, given that the list is pretty extensive and most of them aren't exactly household names.
Okay, thanks.
And, just for the record, I wouldn't be criticizing a software-based method if there was one. We obviously all use computer-technology to get info in one way or another, eg. bill notifications on your phone rather than waiting for the mailbox. As long as the mods were actually double-checking the notifications before lowering the hammer on the offending poster, it'd be cool.
My background, as many here know, is Zimbabwean, from a mixed race family: many of my mother's sisters and brothers received British citizenship after independence and emigrated to the UK to work for the NHS or for further education. Others like myself moved to South Africa after the end of apartheid and have remained politically active and involved in the post-colonial struggles of southern Africa. I am always hesitant to use personal experience as a touchstone for being marginalised or an 'outsider' because it is more complex: there is educational privilege and cultural capital and I have spent considerable time working and living in Europe.
In South Africa, to identify as a member of any political party isn't an ambiguous statement: it is an immediate indication of where you stand in polarised debates. You are a member of X because you think there is white genocide happening and you see yourself as a victim of reverse racism; you are a member of Y because you are xenophobic and believe foreigners from Zambia or Angola are taking South African jobs; you are a member of Z because you think homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed for moral iniquity. The party currently in power is seen as inept and corrupt and has very little tacit support but the lack of a strong unified opposition means that opposition parties tend to take populist stances to draw in extremist voters.
I'm not sure it is that different in Britain when it comes to racist or anti-emigration sentiments associated with political parties. Unless somebody states from the outset, that they dislike what Reform stands for but support the party for obscure less known reasons, it sounds like bigotry to me.
Back in the days when the ANC under Mbeki was promoting the Duesberg Hypothesis(resulting in over 300 000 deaths, as I understand it), would you say that anyone announcing themselves as an ANC voter should have been a priori considered a supporter of AIDS Denialism?
And now I think you and some others have misunderstood me.
I'm not arguing that far right anti-immigrant types should be permitted to board the Ship and begin saying whatever they want, wherever they want,, however they want, without penalty. Nobody else gets to do that, why should they?
I am arguing that simply saying "I voted for Trump" (ugh) should not in itself be grounds for planking. If said person goes on to behave un-jerkishly, let them stay. If they hang out on the recipe thread and join the book club and discuss their pets, fine. None of that is jerkish. If they can contribute to political threads without being assholes, let them stay. I think this rather unlikely, given the lack of self-control we routinely see--but give them the chance. If they screw up, plank them.
I am asking only that they be treated like anybody else, and held to the same standards as anybody else. I don't think we are likely to see many Trumpistas joining the Ship; there's very little here to attract them. I think I've seen four in five years, all but one of whom have left, and quickly, too.
I am aware that you and some others would prefer to have the Ship be a safe haven where you don't have to encounter people who are associated with frankly nasty politicians and their followers. There's something to be said for safety. But how exactly do you expect a Trumpista to do harm to you--or more likely to me, given geography? We're in cyberspace, not using real names, so physical harm is pretty much ruled out. If the Trumpista makes threats, attempts to bully, gets emotionally nasty, etc. etc. etc. that person will be dealt with just as any other poster would be--which is to say, planked. Even the offending post is likely to be taken down, given recent trends among hosts and admins.
It's hard for me to see how much harm any poster is going to accomplish under those circumstances. About the worst he/she can do is to disagree with me. And given the general tenor of the Ship, about 50 or more Shipmates are bound to come along and jump all over him/her on my behalf. If anything, the Ship as it currently exists is more unsafe for a Trumpista than for you and me. And even then, the biggest thing they risk is a dogpile of righteous indignation.
...
This is probably the place where I should point out that political affiliation in the United States is not the same thing as it is in the UK. Here, in most places, you can simply declare yourself a Republican or Democrat or whatsit in casual conversation and be done with it. You don't sign up to a party; you don't have to send dues or attend meetings or make any commitment at all, even the commitment to vote for their candidates. If you go around telling everyone you are a Republican and yet you vote straight Democrat, that's nobody's business but yours--and nobody's going to know, either, unless you tell them. The level of commitment can be extremely low, and the amount that a given voter knows about his/her chosen party might be next to nothing. It's not supposed to be that way--good citizens educate themselves, and then choose--but there are people like this. There are people of every level of knowledge and commitment, some of them surprisingly low when considered by UK standards. And so when someone self-identifies as a Republican etc, we have no way of knowing what that means to them unless they tell us. Or show it, through their behavior and choices.
I can guarantee you that the most MAGA-minded person in my family has no desire to see you exterminated--or me, for that matter. I think he likes Trump because he is looking for someone who will "put the country back the way it used to be," and then my relative won't have to trouble his head with the complexities of a culture that has changed a great deal since he was a child. That's lazy of him, and irresponsible, and if I could change him, I would; but it's a far cry from "exterminate them."
Only one quibble. People in the UK who say, 'I'm Labour,' or 'I'm Conservative,' or 'I'm SNP' or Green, or Plaid Cymru or Reform or whatever else aren't necessarily paid-up members of those political parties either.
I'm sure it's the same with Australian, Canadian and political parties anywhere else where we are likely to have posters.
Membership of political parties has been declining here just as membership of voluntary groups and churches have.
Heck, I'm a member of a particular political party and yes that affiliation would 'place' me in general ideological terms. It's not an affiliation that would get me planked if new rules were introduced but it is one that gets me ribbed or pushed back at as certain posters assume it makes me complicit with policies they (or I) wouldn't agree with or positions they don't hold themselves - which is fine.
That's not commensurate with the unease and sense of threat felt by certain groups and posters when faced by bigots and virulent right-wingers of course and I'm not out to minimise that.
I can't speak for those groups of course as I'm not affected by those issues but I have seen how threatening the bigots and extreme right-wingers can be. I've experienced some very low level and subtle intimidation from those quarters but not enough to feel I'm in any danger.
I'm not talking about Reform there but those who think Reform is too moderate.
We have plenty of 'floating voters' here in the UK and plenty of people who don't vote at all.
By and large, I'd say the Ship attracts people who do have particular ideological or theological convictions of one form or other - if they didn't they wouldn't be engaging in debate here in the first place.
Every now and then we will have a new poster - or an old one gone rogue - who acts jerkishly. They either get dog piled by others or upbraided by Hosts and Admins or else get bored and wander off.
The Hosts and Admins are here to ensure that civilised and good-natured interaction takes place according to the Commandments.
They aren't here to police the private thoughts and behaviours of individual posters unless that manifests itself in jerkish behaviour towards other posters.
There's an awful lot of HaHa reactions at e.g. migrant boat accidents. Probably exaggerated by bots, a vocal minority, etc...
And even if perfectly correlated that's thousands of bad people in millions of voters. Out and out reform numbers might be more comparable.
The last extreme pyrographer I met, hid it by claiming to be an innocent knitter.
I think political/grouping names in board names is probably troublesome for new posters in general. Even if it's a 'good group' there's a good chance they can't speak for the group, and a non trivial chance of being fakes.
While the 'bad groups' problems are obvious.
I suppose it might be hard to tell, but presumably someone could have a username indicating that they support this.
They tend to do so in coded terms, like "Israel has the right to defend itself", which is the "White Lives Matter" of genocide apologetics.
Or 'Canada has the right to defend itself if Trump tried anything on?
Or 'Denmark and NATO have the right to defend their sovereign territory if Trump tried to annexe Greenland'?
What if someone were to say, 'Israel has the right to defend itself within the bounds of international law and not by genocidal attacks or illegal wars against its neighbours?'
On Reform supporters posting shite online. Yes, they do that. Some Reform councillors in a local authority not far from here are in deep doo-doo over that and rightly so.
If a Reform supporters spouted shite here then they should be planked. Same as anyone else.
Should I be planked for suggesting that Israel has the right to self-defence within certain parameters?
You’re drawing a long bow there. Talk about sniffing out white supremacy where it probably isn’t.
Next thing it’ll be Reds under the bed.
There are some examples of why a person might not be fully participating, including
* Promoting a business
* Using Wikipedia as a battleground
* No interest in working collaboratively
* Seeking a soapbox to legitimise a position
This is not Wikipedia and the purpose here is different, however it feels to me like there might be overlap.
Some people, including those who have fascist and neo-Nazi beliefs are not really interested in conversation. They have an ulterior motive if they are present on a public internet page like this. That purpose is to seek legitimacy for their extreme violence by dominating and belittling other people, dominance and violence being an integral part of the ideology.
We cannot assume anything about another person who is not directly associating themselves with fascism in the first instance. A person with the theoretical username "iranforever" could obviously have a whole range of political opinions.
However, it seems to me that it is very obvious when someone is "NOTHERE" for the reason everyone else is.
There's a line between fascists/neonazis and everyone else. The former should have no leeway at all ever. Delete Nazis immediately. Everyone else should get a bit of time. In my opinion.