|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 17:41:08 GMT
Well fake is obviously an insult; sheikh is obviously associated with an ethnicity. But let's not have ten pages debating it, unless someone wants to open a new thread about it in General Chat.
|
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 20:14:08 GMT
Well fake is obviously an insult; sheikh is obviously associated with an ethnicity. But let's not have ten pages debating it, unless someone wants to open a new thread about it in General Chat. I don't really think that's how conversation works though is it? Someone has made an accusation of racism - pretty serious - other people don't agree. You can't respond to the point and then say "But let's not have any responses to my point". Fake sheik was the undercover reporter for The Sun associated with entrapping people including a lot of football scandals. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 20:26:54 GMT
Well fake is obviously an insult; sheikh is obviously associated with an ethnicity. But let's not have ten pages debating it, unless someone wants to open a new thread about it in General Chat. I don't really think that's how conversation works though is it? Someone has made an accusation of racism - pretty serious - other people don't agree. You can't respond to the point and then say "But let's not have any responses to my point". Fake sheik was the undercover reporter for The Sun associated with entrapping people including a lot of football scandals. I wasn't suggesting you not respond to my point, I was suggesting you open a thread in the appropriate forum and discuss it. I realise most conversations don't spread over multiple forums, but this one will have to, if it continues. But, you're probably right that I should have just said 'take it to another forum' without putting in my two whatsits and then saying it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 31, 2017 20:31:24 GMT
Well fake is obviously an insult; sheikh is obviously associated with an ethnicity. But let's not have ten pages debating it, unless someone wants to open a new thread about it in General Chat. I don't really think that's how conversation works though is it? Someone has made an accusation of racism - pretty serious - other people don't agree. You can't respond to the point and then say "But let's not have any responses to my point". Fake sheik was the undercover reporter for The Sun associated with entrapping people including a lot of football scandals. How is suggesting people start a thread on something saying "you can't respond"? You've had a shocker there. What we are trying to get past here are the endless political debates that bog down what is supposed to be the football section of the forum. It's becoming tedious. In my opinion the fake sheikh stuff isn't racist, but the endless references to camels probably is even if that's not the intention. Either way, neither is needed to raise a point about the owners is it? |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 20:45:41 GMT
I don't really think that's how conversation works though is it? Someone has made an accusation of racism - pretty serious - other people don't agree. You can't respond to the point and then say "But let's not have any responses to my point". Fake sheik was the undercover reporter for The Sun associated with entrapping people including a lot of football scandals. I wasn't suggesting you not respond to my point, I was suggesting you open a thread in the appropriate forum and discuss it. I realise most conversations don't spread over multiple forums, but this one will have to, if it continues. But, you're probably right that I should have just said 'take it to another forum' without putting in my two whatsits and then saying it. It's probably something that goes to the heart of the matter though isn't it? The suggestion was that those sort of comments should be moderated on the basis that they are a racial slur. It's quite easy in the context I've given to see that that is or likely not be the case. It's not a discussion about those comments but the issue of the moderation of things like that. (I disagreed completely with those comments but not strictly on the grounds that they may have been racist). |
|
|
|
Post by BrightonGas on Aug 31, 2017 20:46:36 GMT
You're spot on Hugo. I would also point out I used the word borderline. Any reference to Sheikhs or Camels is embarrassing.Im too tired to think of a parallel that a Jordanian might use to talk about somebody from England or Bristol,either way I don't think it should be tolerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 20:52:18 GMT
I wasn't suggesting you not respond to my point, I was suggesting you open a thread in the appropriate forum and discuss it. I realise most conversations don't spread over multiple forums, but this one will have to, if it continues. But, you're probably right that I should have just said 'take it to another forum' without putting in my two whatsits and then saying it. It's probably something that goes to the heart of the matter though isn't it? The suggestion was that those sort of comments should be moderated on the basis that they are a racial slur. It's quite easy in the context I've given to see that that is or likely not be the case. It's not a discussion about those comments but the issue of the moderation of things like that. (I disagreed completely with those comments but not strictly on the grounds that they may have been racist). The comments weren't moderated. And you haven't given a context to show that it is likely to not be racist, because Wael isn't an undercover journalist. I'm not saying it is racist. But your pointing out that it's also a reference to a genuinely fake character doesn't point either way. It's irrelevant coz Wael isn't supposed to be undercover, so calling him fake is irrefutably an insult. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 21:04:54 GMT
It's probably something that goes to the heart of the matter though isn't it? The suggestion was that those sort of comments should be moderated on the basis that they are a racial slur. It's quite easy in the context I've given to see that that is or likely not be the case. It's not a discussion about those comments but the issue of the moderation of things like that. (I disagreed completely with those comments but not strictly on the grounds that they may have been racist). The comments weren't moderated. And you haven't given a context to show that it is likely to not be racist, because Wael isn't an undercover journalist. I'm not saying it is racist. But your pointing out that it's also a reference to a genuinely fake character doesn't point either way. It's irrelevant coz Wael isn't supposed to be undercover, so calling him fake is irrefutably an insult. The context is that the fake sheik journalist was involved in football scandals such as Sven asking him to buy Aston Villa and install him as manager. Wael has purchased a football club and the accusation in the thread in question was that he did not genuinely have the money to invest... as the fake sheik did not at Aston Villa. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 21:07:33 GMT
I don't really think that's how conversation works though is it? Someone has made an accusation of racism - pretty serious - other people don't agree. You can't respond to the point and then say "But let's not have any responses to my point". Fake sheik was the undercover reporter for The Sun associated with entrapping people including a lot of football scandals. How is suggesting people start a thread on something saying "you can't respond"? You've had a shocker there. What we are trying to get past here are the endless political debates that bog down what is supposed to be the football section of the forum. It's becoming tedious. In my opinion the fake sheikh stuff isn't racist, but the endless references to camels probably is even if that's not the intention. Either way, neither is needed to raise a point about the owners is it? I think saying "let's not have ten pages of debate on it" is clearly intended to suppress response. As I've said the discussion was about moderating when someone says "that's racist". Having a new thread on just that point is completely without nuance or context. |
|
|
|
Post by BrightonGas on Aug 31, 2017 21:12:41 GMT
The comments weren't moderated. And you haven't given a context to show that it is likely to not be racist, because Wael isn't an undercover journalist. I'm not saying it is racist. But your pointing out that it's also a reference to a genuinely fake character doesn't point either way. It's irrelevant coz Wael isn't supposed to be undercover, so calling him fake is irrefutably an insult. The context is that the fake sheik journalist was involved in football scandals such as Sven asking him to buy Aston Villa and install him as manager. Wael has purchased a football club and the accusation in the thread in question was that he did not genuinely have the money to invest... as the fake sheik did not at Aston Villa. Do you genuinely think that's a valid comparison? Rovers are investing behind the scenes, the journalist did not. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 21:17:46 GMT
The context is that the fake sheik journalist was involved in football scandals such as Sven asking him to buy Aston Villa and install him as manager. Wael has purchased a football club and the accusation in the thread in question was that he did not genuinely have the money to invest... as the fake sheik did not at Aston Villa. Do you genuinely think that's a valid comparison? Rovers are investing behind the scenes, the journalist did not. I don't think that no. But I didn't start that thread. The person who did evidently does. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 21:18:38 GMT
The comments weren't moderated. And you haven't given a context to show that it is likely to not be racist, because Wael isn't an undercover journalist. I'm not saying it is racist. But your pointing out that it's also a reference to a genuinely fake character doesn't point either way. It's irrelevant coz Wael isn't supposed to be undercover, so calling him fake is irrefutably an insult. The context is that the fake sheik journalist was involved in football scandals such as Sven asking him to buy Aston Villa and install him as manager. Wael has purchased a football club and the accusation in the thread in question was that he did not genuinely have the money to invest... as the fake sheik did not at Aston Villa. Sure, but that fake sheikh was genuinely fake, so his name was a point of pride (and marketing) it wasn't an insult. But it was an insult to Wael. I mean, no one is really suggesting Wael is doing this for his newspaper column, are they? I don't recall anyone suggesting Francesco Becchetti was a fake sheikh. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 21:19:36 GMT
I think saying "let's not have ten pages of debate on it" is clearly intended to suppress response. Well, you've suppressed stuff by only quoting half the sentence. That's really disingenuous. The suggestion of the full sentence is clearly 'this belongs in general chat,' not 'let's not discuss this.' |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 21:23:03 GMT
The context is that the fake sheik journalist was involved in football scandals such as Sven asking him to buy Aston Villa and install him as manager. Wael has purchased a football club and the accusation in the thread in question was that he did not genuinely have the money to invest... as the fake sheik did not at Aston Villa. Sure, but that fake sheikh was genuinely fake, so his name was a point of pride (and marketing) it wasn't an insult. But it was an insult to Wael. I mean, no one is really suggesting Wael is doing this for his newspaper column, are they? I don't recall anyone suggesting Francesco Becchetti was a fake sheikh. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact it was an insult. I don't go on the Leyton Orient forum so I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 21:29:28 GMT
As I've said the discussion was about moderating when someone says "that's racist". Having a new thread on just that point is completely without nuance or context. I didn't get that as the point of the post (though it may have been). Not really sure what nuance and context you're after, a hypothetical detailed response to posts that haven't happened yet based on real posts that were never moderated in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 21:29:30 GMT
I think saying "let's not have ten pages of debate on it" is clearly intended to suppress response. Well, you've suppressed stuff by only quoting half the sentence. That's really disingenuous. The suggestion of the full sentence is clearly 'this belongs in general chat,' not 'let's not discuss this.' I'm not trying to be disingenuous - the full quote is only up there. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 21:32:30 GMT
As I've said the discussion was about moderating when someone says "that's racist". Having a new thread on just that point is completely without nuance or context. Not really sure that makes much sense. I didn't get that as the point of the post (though it may have been). Not really sure what nuance and context you're after, a hypothetical detailed response to posts that haven't happened yet based on real posts that were never moderated in the first place? The discussion was about moderation. The allegation of racism was made in relation to comments that person felt should have been moderated. Removing the present discussion from that context it becomes an entirely different beast. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 21:34:36 GMT
Well, you've suppressed stuff by only quoting half the sentence. That's really disingenuous. The suggestion of the full sentence is clearly 'this belongs in general chat,' not 'let's not discuss this.' I'm not trying to be disingenuous - the full quote is only up there. Well, I've said four times now that the intention was to take the discussion to General Chat, and I've taken the discussion to General Chat, so you still talking about me suppressing discussion, while discussing it with me, and only using half a sentence as evidence, really is disingenuous, and it's also clearly ludicrous, coz look, I'm here discussing it. Here. Look. Now. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 31, 2017 21:40:14 GMT
Not really sure that makes much sense. I didn't get that as the point of the post (though it may have been). Not really sure what nuance and context you're after, a hypothetical detailed response to posts that haven't happened yet based on real posts that were never moderated in the first place? The discussion was about moderation. The allegation of racism was made in relation to comments that person felt should have been moderated. Removing the present discussion from that context it becomes an entirely different beast. Yes, of course it does. I was suggesting moving the discussion of whether it was racist or not to GC, not the discussion on moderation. The discussion on moderation is still going on on that thread. As far as I'm concerned, the specific point of the 'fake sheikh' being racist or not has nothing to do with the broad thrust of board moderation, and I thought it might hijack the thread so I suggested moving it to GC. If you want to talk about general racist stuff in regard to moderation, I would use the moderation thread in Gas Works. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 31, 2017 21:40:38 GMT
I'm not trying to be disingenuous - the full quote is only up there. Well, I've said four times now that the intention was to take the discussion to General Chat, and I've taken the discussion to General Chat, so you still talking about me suppressing discussion, while discussing it with me, and only using half a sentence as evidence, really is disingenuous, and it's also clearly ludicrous, coz look, I'm here discussing it. Here. Look. Now. Without the context of the original thread or the original response that prompted the discussion - which was exactly my point in the first place. |
|
