Is it just me....

[Andy_Faber]

Agreed totally RS.

I don't mind the non footie threads although I rarely if ever post on them. I do read them as some are of interest but any abuse, offensive language or general snidieness (is there such a word?) is imo both unnecessary and demeaning to the poster. I feel that it is detrimental to the forum and so I have called it out at times.

If posters think that telling members not to read such threads is the answer then I find that almost an admission that some of its contents may be unacceptable!

We may not get many newbies joining but if any came on out of interest then I am sure that they would read both the footie and non footie threads. I can't see that they would be very impressed by long running slanging matches!

It's quite simple, just maintain a sense of decorum!

That’s all fine Mac and it was posts by yourself and MA that prompted me to implement a few ‘rules’ which in essence aimed to restore decorum. I included myself as part of the ‘problem’ and have curtailed (some of) my more annoying habits, notably nicknaming, which is usually done in a spirit of fun but which I recognise isn’t always received here in the same spirit. I doubt everyone will reflect on their behaviour, in fact looking back as far as forum history goes I know they won’t, but I hope for an overall improvement

[macstheman]

That’s all fine Mac and it was posts by yourself and MA that prompted me to implement a few ‘rules’ which in essence aimed to restore decorum. I included myself as part of the ‘problem’ and have curtailed (some of) my more annoying habits, notably nicknaming, which is usually done in a spirit of fun but which I recognise isn’t always received here in the same spirit. I doubt everyone will reflect on their behaviour, in fact looking back as far as forum history goes I know they won’t, but I hope for an overall improvement

With a little goodwill hopefully you're not required to intervene very often🤞

[swaledale]

Morning all, I see some lovely rants have occurred.

Talk about cancel culture, or censorhip. Does my mate want PRAVDA or the Morning Star running the forum now? .

Sorry RA, but you need to make your mind up mate. I have typed my opinion or spoke of something and you refuse to believe it or scream for proof.
When I give you proof, you either dismiss it(unless its BBC or Guardian), or refuse to read/listen it?
Andy to be fair, tends to fact check and gives his honest opinion.
When he gives his approval, you topic is either ignored or dropped. You need to ask yourself what you want from a discussion. A one sided rant, usually at the Tories, or acceptance that folks will not just listen to you and you alone. That is(sorry to say this) a classroom mentality. Teacher speaks, pupil listens and accepts.

NB, Can I just add this obsession with dissing GB news is really bonkers. ALL NEWS OUTLETS are biased in one form or another.
Seeing as you never watch GB news, is that an opinion based facts or just self imposed bias?
Let me tell you, when they have a discussion on there, they will invite guests from all spectrums of the political body. They will thrash it out evenly among them and there is no loaded audience either, to swing it.

I watched have I got news for you the other day.
Its supposed to be a satirical piss take of all parties in the politics of the UK.
What a load of tosh. In typical BBC fashion, there was 5, yes five jokes aimed at the current calamity government, the rest of the show was a full on assault of the Tory party and GB news, backed by a left wing audiance.
Hislop himself was a disgrace and yet how the audiance howled in approval.

The crux of it is to me.
You don't like someones opinions, don't read/respond to it.
Cut out the personal abuse and things stay a lot calmer.

Final thought, Swale calling for folks banning really is funny, seeing as said person has abused more folks on here than anyone.
But Chairman Mao would have been proud,

Two points.

1. If you think Geebeebies is unbiased, presents facts instead of falsehoods and if you think its a news media, then sorry but your totally deluded!

By the way it actually claimed to be entertainment, not news when Ofcom came calling about certain programmes that were clearly one sided and spreading falsehoods. I have in fact watched it, I feel for Neil Oliver, a once respected archaeologist now so desperate he makes ludicrous statements and claims. Farage is just his usual bull**** its so obviously a right wing propaganda shown, with a miniscule audience mostly made up it seems of people like yourself who wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit them on the arse.

2. You clearly didn't watch the same Have I got News for You programme as I did then, but then your preconceived ideas of bias obviously meant you don't understand what was said and you clearly can't count - I suspect you didn't actually watch, because what you have posted is a virtual direct copy of what other right wing commentators have said in criticism.

But then that's where you fail to grasp reality, most of the stuff you post is a direct parroting of what is pumped out by right wing grifters such as Farage et al, proving that you incapable of critical thinking and swallow this guff unquestioning. Some of us you see do actually look across a wide spectrum of media and amazingly enough we don't take what any of it says at face value. But then that's because we are capable of critical thinking and are not stupid enough to be taken in by simplistic falsehoods.

I have actually been laughing at those of a left leaning persuasion who have been spitting feathers because HIGNFY dared to criticise Starmer and Labour! At either end of the extremes of the political spectrum there are people for whom perspective is sadly lacking.

I have no issue with different points of view or those of a right wing persuasion, I do however find people who spout obvious lies, who use racist language, who are narrow minded, misogynistic and bigots offensive.

Clearly there is a weight of opinion on here that doesn't think that and that's fine, after all I mean it obvious that these billionaires are funding these grifters because they have the well being of the ordinary man or woman in the street at heart?

I'm sure many German's thought Hitler was fine and when he started persecuting Jews, thought, it has no impact on my life so I'm not bothered. So we will see where this acceptance of right wing ideas and pushing of neo fascist nationalist propaganda ends up. I have a feeling it won't be in a good place and I have a feeling that you and people like you will not be enjoying what happens.

Anyway toodle pip, one can't argue with stupid, so I will no longer bother.

[MadAmster]

obvious that these billionaires are funding these grifters because they have the well being of the ordinary man or woman in the street at heart?

2017. One of Trump's first actions was to give the Mega rich tax breaks. Biden and the Dems were up in arms about it. Biden is now nearing the end of his 4 year term in the White House and hasn't reversed those tax breaks for the mega rich.

Why not? Because it's those exact people who fund him and keep him in their back pocket. It doesn't matter who the government is, you'll get, for the most part, the government the rich want, not the one people think they voted for.

Hence the lack of action from labour on non-Dom tax relief.


Here in NL, Wilders has spent 2 decades doing a Farridge and pointing out the glaringly obvious without actually coming up with a single solution. He didn't really have to as he was always in opposition. Now, as the largest party, he's finding it increasingly difficult. He was against helping fund Ukraine from the off. He's now saying aid to Ukraine will continue for as long as is necessary. His party's ministers in the coalition cabinet are a joke. Coming out with comments that obviously will never happen. One of them, the Minister for Asylum and Migration, said yesterday morning, on camera, that the substantive document explaining how her intended emergency Law would look, was finished, completed and was being discussed by the leaders of the 4 coalition parties as she spoke. 55 minutes later, she said. again on camera, that it wasn't actually finished but that it almost was. Not the first time she's been stupid. Two weeks ago, she said she'd been to Denmark on a fact finding mission and had seen a sign, on the door of an asylum centre, "we also work here on your repatriation" and that she thought that it would be a good idea to have similar signage here at Dutch Asylum Centres. Journalists did their jobs and found out that there are zero asylum centres in Denmark with the repatriation sign she said she'd seen. I really don't think she'll last much longer as Minister for Asylum and Migration.

[ramAnag]

That’s all fine Mac and it was posts by yourself and MA that prompted me to implement a few ‘rulesÂ’ which in essence aimed to restore decorum. I included myself as part of the ‘problemÂ’ and have curtailed (some of) my more annoying habits, notably nicknaming, which is usually done in a spirit of fun but which I recognise isnÂ’t always received here in the same spirit. I doubt everyone will reflect on their behaviour, in fact looking back as far as forum history goes I know they wonÂ’t, but I hope for an overall improvement

So there you have it. Mac doesn’t object to the political threads at all and, judging by the amount he contributes to them, neither does MA. All they both, very reasonably, object to is the tiresome and sometimes offensive name calling.

Essentially, as I see it, there are two camps…one broadly on the Right comprising Tricky, yourself and GP (when he makes his mind up and isn’t just mischief making) and one broadly centre Left…made up of Swale, myself, MA with more occasional input from Sith and mac. Sorry if I’ve forgotten anyone or misinterpreted their political stances.

Of all those individuals I would argue that Tricky, Swale and yourself cause the most ‘upset’. Tricky because of the nature and content of his posts, Swale because he takes understandable exception to Tricky’s far right sympathies and becomes enraged too easily before resorting to language that some find unacceptable and you because you frequently go out of your way to wind up others, Swale in particular, and - as you have admitted - are far from shy when it comes to name calling.

We all have our faults, mine probably being having too much to say and not being good at letting things go, but, imo…the problem isn’t having a wide range of threads - including political ones - it’s: a) The posting of inflammatory, offensive and untrue comments. b) The reaction to such comments with language that is also sometimes offensive and c) Your desire to push an agenda which goes beyond your essential basic role of sanctioning those who transgress a&b above without ‘joining in’ and exacerbating the situation.

[Trickytreesreds]

So there you have it. Mac doesn’t object to the political threads at all and, judging by the amount he contributes to them, neither does MA. All they both, very reasonably, object to is the tiresome and sometimes offensive name calling.

Essentially, as I see it, there are two camps…one broadly on the Right comprising Tricky, yourself and GP (when he makes his mind up and isn’t just mischief making) and one broadly centre Left…made up of Swale, myself, MA with more occasional input from Sith and mac. Sorry if I’ve forgotten anyone or misinterpreted their political stances.

Of all those individuals I would argue that Tricky, Swale and yourself cause the most ‘upset’. Tricky because of the nature and content of his posts, Swale because he takes understandable exception to Tricky’s far right sympathies and becomes enraged too easily before resorting to language that some find unacceptable and you because you frequently go out of your way to wind up others, Swale in particular, and - as you have admitted - are far from shy when it comes to name calling.

We all have our faults, mine probably being having too much to say and not being good at letting things go, but, imo…the problem isn’t having a wide range of threads - including political ones - it’s: a) The posting of inflammatory, offensive and untrue comments. b) The reaction to such comments with language that is also sometimes offensive and c) Your desire to push an agenda which goes beyond your essential basic role of sanctioning those who transgress a&b above without ‘joining in’ and exacerbating the situation.

Oh I'm far right am I? If I am far right, you are way further left than you portray yourself. Your incessent hared for anything Tory betrays that. Anything a right wing party says or does, you are all over it in a flash. Anything the current regime does (and it includes plenty of left wing ideology) you igmore. If you was truly centre ground, you would call out every infair decision going, but you don't.

For your knowledge.

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.[1] The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.

Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, ***ist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.[2]

Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.[3]

[ramAnag]

Oh I'm far right am I? If I am far right, you are way further left than you portray yourself. Your incessent hared for anything Tory betrays that. Anything a right wing party says or does, you are all over it in a flash. Anything the current regime does (and it includes plenty of left wing ideology) you igmore. If you was truly centre ground, you would call out every infair decision going, but you don't.

For your knowledge.

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.[1] The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.

Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, ***ist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.[2]

Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.[3]

If we’re going to move forward there’s little point in you just posting the exact opposite of what I write eg…well if I’m far right, you’re further left…blah, blah, blah. It’s playground stuff and is what people, I think, want rid of.

Fact is you repeatedly declare, as is your right (no pun intended), your support for Trump, Farage, GBNews, UKIP, ReformUK, Tommy Robinson etc. You are opposed to immigration, show contempt for those desperate enough to arrive by boat, have a dislike of all things Muslim/Islam, show a mistrust of multiculturalism and generally display a desire to return to more jingoistic bygone days. That makes you further to the Right than anyone else on here, imo.

Obviously I think you’re wrong but recognise your right to support such ‘causes’. What, I think, you should recognise is that some of your views are objectionable to those of us who have moved on to embrace many aspects of ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism. I’ll argue/debate with you, but not with all the right wing sites you rely on to make your point and not in the facile ‘tit for tat’ style you’ve already introduced today.

[Andy_Faber]

So there you have it. Mac doesn’t object to the political threads at all and, judging by the amount he contributes to them, neither does MA. All they both, very reasonably, object to is the tiresome and sometimes offensive name calling.

Essentially, as I see it, there are two camps…one broadly on the Right comprising Tricky, yourself and GP (when he makes his mind up and isn’t just mischief making) and one broadly centre Left…made up of Swale, myself, MA with more occasional input from Sith and mac. Sorry if I’ve forgotten anyone or misinterpreted their political stances.

Of all those individuals I would argue that Tricky, Swale and yourself cause the most ‘upset’. Tricky because of the nature and content of his posts, Swale because he takes understandable exception to Tricky’s far right sympathies and becomes enraged too easily before resorting to language that some find unacceptable and you because you frequently go out of your way to wind up others, Swale in particular, and - as you have admitted - are far from shy when it comes to name calling.

We all have our faults, mine probably being having too much to say and not being good at letting things go, but, imo…the problem isn’t having a wide range of threads - including political ones - it’s: a) The posting of inflammatory, offensive and untrue comments. b) The reaction to such comments with language that is also sometimes offensive and c) Your desire to push an agenda which goes beyond your essential basic role of sanctioning those who transgress a&b above without ‘joining in’ and exacerbating the situation.

Thanks for the response (genuinely)

Regarding comments made abut myself.

I'm not 'broadly on the right', my 'worldview' is way more nuanced than can be contained by what I believe to be outmoded 'pigeonholes'. My opinions are well-considered and evidence/observation-based
I'm not pushing an agenda and don't know what you're getting at there

Regarding your general comments

You've really just pointed out that we all have our faults. That's human nature. You may find certain 'faults' more objectionable than I do and vice versa, likewise other forum members. If I took action on every post which a forum member didn't particularly like we wouldn't have much of a forum.

[ramAnag]

Thanks for the response (genuinely)

Regarding comments made abut myself.

I'm not 'broadly on the right', my 'worldview' is way more nuanced than can be contained by what I believe to be outmoded 'pigeonholes'. My opinions are well-considered and evidence/observation-based
I'm not pushing an agenda and don't know what you're getting at there

Regarding your general comments

You've really just pointed out that we all have our faults. That's human nature. You may find certain 'faults' more objectionable than I do and vice versa, likewise other forum members. If I took action on every post which a forum member didn't particularly like we wouldn't have much of a forum.

What I’m getting at is that you have been keen to rid the forum of the political threads, especially the Brexit one, since you became a moderator and you don’t like being taken to task by other posters, most notably Swale…but also me.

If your world view is ‘way more nuanced’ than ‘broadly on the right’ then I’m wrong…but that’s certainly how it comes across to me and I can only judge on what people/you write.

Of course you can’t take action on every post a forum member doesn’t like and no one is suggesting you can. What I think you can do however is uphold those ‘rules’ we commonly accept as being necessary and stop trying to introduce your own as regards what we can and cannot talk about.

Just my opinion.

[Andy_Faber]

What I’m getting at is that you have been keen to rid the forum of the political threads, especially the Brexit one, since you became a moderator and you don’t like being taken to task by other posters, most notably Swale…but also me.

If your world view is ‘way more nuanced’ than ‘broadly on the right’ then I’m wrong…but that’s certainly how it comes across to me and I can only judge on what people/you write.

Of course you can’t take action on every post a forum member doesn’t like and no one is suggesting you can. What I think you can do however is uphold those ‘rules’ we commonly accept as being necessary and stop trying to introduce your own as regards what we can and cannot talk about.

Just my opinion.

Regarding the 'political' threads, not true that I've been keen to get rid of them, I find it bizarre that folk want to use a footy forum to spout off about their political views but if they do then fair go. This is the only forum where I share my opinions by the way, and I'm not entirely sure why but I think its because of how the forum is laid out. One thing that I do object to is the hijacking of non-political threads with political asides/comments, chief culprit here over the past few years being yourself. Note also that none of the posts I've deleted recently were due to an opinion I disagreed with, most were for name calling.

Regarding the 'ban' on discussing Islam, that was in response to your own requests to TTR to stop. I was surprised you took issue with that, especially as it's moved us at least temporarily away from the subject

Regarding my 'leaning', fair enough if that's what you see, I think too often you fall in line with Swale's unavoidably kneejerk rejection of any opinion I have rather than take time to actually think about the opinion I've offered

As far as I'm aware, I do uphold a set of evenly applied rules. Until recently such rules were pretty 'laissez faire' (but still applied evenly), after a bit of a grumble (including by you) I just tightened them up a bit. One of those recently applied more actively was that of name-calling, and that decision came after you and only you had made a fuss about it. I found it strange that when I applied some control in that area it was you that objected

One thing I think you might be missing, or a trap that you are falling into, is that you only seem (on this forum) to regard 'diversity' as a race/colour issue and ignoring things such as neurodiversity. There's a particular line of unpleasant argument on the political threads that goes along the line of anyone disagreeing with a poster's opinion being of low intellect (in all its many forms and with all its many put-downs), some of which posts I've deleted for that reason. Have you not considered that calling someone a demeaning name of that nature (lets say 'thick') might impact someone, even if not the person it was aimed at, as much as calling a black person a 'w*g'?. Surely as someone coming from an education background you must be aware of the collateral impact of such name-calling? Maybe not but I'd hope so. I touched on this in a thread a while ago but as ever it got swallowed up in the right/left bunfight