Is it just me....

[Geoff Parkstone]

So to get back to the thread purpose, would you be happy to see political threads either abolished or quarantined in a sub / secondary forum, thus containing the acrimony in a safe place, if it meant the forum could survive it's current suicidal mode as identified by MA??

Always assuming it's even possible

[Andy_Faber]

So to get back to the thread purpose, would you be happy to see political threads either abolished or quarantined in a sub / secondary forum, thus containing the acrimony in a safe place, if it meant the forum could survive it's current suicidal mode as identified by MA??

Always assuming it's even possible

My answers are the same as they were last time this came up for discussion. I paraphrase slightly

Yes I’d be happy to see political threads at least segregated. On all other pages, groups and forums I troll, politics are poison and the best run such forums have a zero tolerance policy

Yes a separate sub forum is possible on v-bulletin boards

Administratively I doubt we’ll get any response from Admin, they are very sporadic communicators. If we have a majority wishing to explore this I’ll try

[Geoff Parkstone]

My question was posed to rA...

[ramAnag]

My question was posed to rA...

Personally I don’t mind or see the need. If people want to look at the ‘political’ threads they can…if they don’t then they needn’t. They’re all clearly marked.
If it’s helpful…fine, but for me the forum is a group of people who, one apart, have a shared interest in DCFC in common. If conversation turns to other things…so be it, and that too is fine. I’ll contribute if interested or vaguely knowledgeable (i.e. Sith’s film thread).

Sorry, not being rude but I’ll be offline now till late Tuesday evening.

[SithHappens]

I can't see an issue with politics etc. But think some self moderation would be useful, before posting something maybe ask would I say this if we were sat face to face in a pub instead of online?

Moderation is a good thing but it needs to be fair (I'm not suggesting Andy isn't btw I have no idea what had been deleted etc), but I've seen it before when politics are allowed and moderating is done by someone who has very strong views one way or the other, leading to obvious bias in what's removed or not.

This if anything created the biggest issue rather than the posts actually made as it created resentment and more arguments and personal comments.

The only way that forum was able to ultimately deal with this was a blanket ban on politics.

[Andy_Faber]

I can't see an issue with politics etc. But think some self moderation would be useful, before posting something maybe ask would I say this if we were sat face to face in a pub instead of online?

Moderation is a good thing but it needs to be fair (I'm not suggesting Andy isn't btw I have no idea what had been deleted etc), but I've seen it before when politics are allowed and moderating is done by someone who has very strong views one way or the other, leading to obvious bias in what's removed or not.

This if anything created the biggest issue rather than the posts actually made as it created resentment and more arguments and personal comments.

The only way that forum was able to ultimately deal with this was a blanket ban on politics.

Just to clarify Sith, I’ve deleted about ten posts, all but two for name calling, one was for using an ‘ism’ without foundation, one was for a potentially defamatory untruth. I’ve also edited one post to remove an islam reference from an otherwise informative post and asked one forum member to provide better context when posting links. NB im non (party) political, but even that admission caused a spat before your time here

[Trickytreesreds]

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,

[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.

[Ramshank72]

I don't see the point in a second message room. The football / sport threads are stickied to the top, I don't bother scrolling down much to the political threads unless curiosity gets the cat, in which case it would be my choice to read / engage, the latter I rarely do - for what it's worth, everyone pretty much wants the same thing bar one red exception, just a slightly different view on how it's achieved, I can't be bothered to get involved.
Other than 1 tedious disagreement last year, the football chats have been largely been unscathed, and represent the amount of engagement you'd expect from an ageing internet forum. The forum won't grow, people largely don't want these things anymore.
So, "enjoy" it whilst it lasts!