Corbyn’s leftist clique

[jaxie]

Its not discussing seperate politicians. Its the constant turning threads into a singular topic. Like..lets say a member started bring every single politics thread (and some threads that arent to do with politics) round to Rees Mogg. This would be an issue. Where, mentioning Rees Mogg in a thread would not. It would become an even bigger issue if suddenly a couple+ of posters started doing this, and quoting all of each others posts in the derailed threads to keep the derailment going each time. Which would often end up in an argument that is offtopic, samey, and could have been stopped before it even started.

The huge problem we have to sort out now is, that there are now so many members who are bringing all threads round to Corbyn...that any mention of Corbyn turns entire threads into bickering about Corbyn. I ****ing hate the word Corbyn recently, not just for himself, but because I have typed it, and read it way too many times.

Can any of you think of a solution here, as I actually am struggling, a lot...to think of solutions beyond deleting posts when they start taking threads offtopic. Given removing the regular offtopic posts (that usually are just sniping...and turn into full blown arguments half the time) is apparently the wrong thing to do :shrug: I do welcome all suggestions here. Feels a bit..rock and a hard place.

Well I feel I should probably say here that that whole thread appeared starting with him not being an angel and going straight to scum almost straight after I had previously posted a thread about him being jostled at a university. Which was in fact news and was a subject of concern because of how sinister it all looked. I've seen uni protesters before but you don't often see them masked up like that. You could say that very thread was a Reese Mogg jibe, right after the news one. :shrug:

However, if you don't allow people to express their view that is censorship. But allowing them to express their view is also allowing mentions of the opposition in threads where MPs are called names if you letting the name calling go on. You could try having a politics section away from debates. You could try some specific rules but then people should be told if rules changes because they aren't mind readers.

The most important thing is the same rules for everyone. If we aren't allowed to even mention Corbyn's name then others shouldn't be allowed to call MPs scum etc. There has to be some balance surely?

[Vicky.]

Vicky, with great respect... You must have seem some of the stuff posted about the Tories. Not just May, but any Tory who's in the news that day. Have you had a lot of complaints about that? Because it's looking pretty one-sided at the moment. Like I said, Corbyn is the leader of one of the main parties in the UK. And he is a controversial figure. Discussions about politics always get heated... but it looks like Corbyn is being singled out for special attention? I've seen some pretty crappy stuff posted about the Tories... but you know, that's politics. And if we, as adults, are going to discuss politics, some feelings are going to get hurt. It's the way it is. I don't support Corbyn, but I don't support May either. And I feel like as a 37 year old professional woman I shouldn't be told that" you were only making that comment to upset [insert name of Corbyn supporter] when it is not true. At the moment it looks like Admin is taking sides and not being impartial... otherwise you're going to have to police every mention, of every politician, from every party in case someone feels like their being baited.
Its not about crappy things or whatever being said, honestly its not. People can be as crappy as they like about him (without death threats and such, the usual rules) and yes politics topics do get heated. Of course.

But this is specifically about every thread seemingly coming back to Corbyn bickering. I wouldn't say its about baiting either tbh. Its just the general derailing of so many threads in this section. That Rees Mogg thread right..I didn't see it while it was all going on so can only go on what was deleted and when, but within 4 comments..there was a Corbyn post. Nothing at all about the OP, just a random Corbyn post. Within a few minutes of that, another, and another, then quotes of these Corbyn posts. None of these were actually referencing Mogg, or what the thread was about, or even saying anything at all really besides basically 'Corbyn is bad', then that post quoted 'yes, he is', then some random comment about him killing babies or something. Do you not see how this is quite..childish? And certainly not any kind of debate. I would argue that many of the replies in the thread were childish, and that the actual OP could have done with some writing in it to set the debate...but this is not just about that thread. This has been going on for a while now. In so many threads.

No we have not had complaints (recently) about Tories. However that would change if, as I said, all of a sudden each and every politics thread (and some other threads) suddenly started being brought round to whichever Tory.

If you start to notice someone (or someones) regularly bringing threads offtopic by mentioning May, or random Tories, or even Trump or some other person do let us know. It will be treat exactly the same. Its the consistent one liners that are nothing to do with the thread and all about a singular topic that are the problem here, not the person.

[Vicky.]

What about moving all off-topic discussions of Corbyn (or other issues that derail threads) into specific big threads that have already been created for that purpose? A bit like that thread TS was posting in the other week that he suggested was recreated, if a discussion about x turns into a discussion like 'yeah x is x but CORBYN IS Y', then rather than the posts being removed which seems to be frustrating people, they're moved to a Jeremy Corbyn thread (I think one was created recently, and certainly arista had the original when he first became leader and updated it for about 18 months), where the members involved can then discuss his relation to the original topic to their hearts content, while everyone else continues the original discussion back in the main thread.

I don't feel this would satisfy people either, but it is an interesting suggestion and may be better than deleting posts. An issue here would be, many of the posts won't actually be a discussion though. Like, if all the offtopic things were moved there the thread would read

Corbyn is a bad man
People who support Corbyn are idiots
But Corbyn is just as bad
You support Corbyn so shut up
Actual well thought out post mentioning Corbyns name but being mainly on original topic..I felt would be fair to put in here but honestly, such a post would not be moved in the first place

A few offtopic posts is fine. Hell even whole threads taken offtopic are fine if the discussion naturally goes that way. But when you have a 'but corbyn' post a few minutes into a thread about something else, and then the same thing happening to the next created thread and so on..well its..I don't know the word to actualy put here.

But TLDR; I think that would annoy people much more. And would not stop them feeling 'censored'.

[Crimson Dynamo]

recent baiting thread on Jacob Rees MOgg


page one comments:

He's scum.

100% agree.

Hes a dickhead, I doubt many people like him.

what a knob

That's the problem, people do like him. He's a cultural Icon in Eton, Cambridge and Oxford and he's the cute Harry Potter for a lot of people who read right wing propaganda.

He's a vile saboteur and an enemy of the people. He's UKIP on steroids and the scariest man in parliament.


:idc:

[Vicky.]

recent baiting thread on Jacob Rees MOgg

page one comments:


:idc:

The thread is about Rees Mogg though. Can you find any examples of anyone else being brought up over and over again randomly in different topics? (except Trump, if you are going back a while. As we did have issues with that at one stage too, luckily thats died out now...but those members who were continually on about trump kicked off that their posts were removed too, thinking about it)

IF that was a thread about something Corbyn/other random person had done or something, and those posts were in it, all about Rees Mogg with no other substance and nothing at all to do with the actual topic, then they would also be deleted. Even moreso if they were all being quoted and the thread was filling up with more Mogg crap.

I don't know why I am arguing about that Rees Mogg thread as I have already acknowedged that I probably would have handled it differently in the first place. But this does not negate the loads of threads that descend into Corbyn bickering (both supporters and detractors end up on this, obviously)

This is not about whos on the recieving end of whichever negative/positive comments. Its about the continual bringing round of many threads that are nothing to do with Corbyn, to Corbyn.

I don't really know what else to say on this as I feel I am still just reeating myself over and over so :shrug: Carry on.

[Brillopad]

recent baiting thread on Jacob Rees MOgg


page one comments:












:idc:

Exactly LT. Some really can't handle hearing opposing opinions - it's like kids sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming. Some people need to grow up.

[jet]

Thank you mods for your replies. I'm still not clear though.

Taking the above post by LT as rather a good example because all mentions of Corbyn were deleted, you are saying that from now on in threads about another politician or party Corbyn is not allowed to be mentioned and the people baiting and calling the politician names with the odd relevant post about the actual OP, can all just talk away to each other. Those whose interest lies in comparing him to Corbyn, another possible future PM, or mentioning Corbyn at all will not be allowed to do so and are certainly not allowed to counter the baiting.

So from now on, no Corbyn mentions unless the thread is specifically about him and Labour....but all other politicians and parties can be mentioned elsewhere in other threads, baiting included, like in the above example, but never Corbyn.
That is what is being said, right? Sounds like a death knoll for the political side of SD to me if free discussion is being censored because some don't like a controversial and very current figure's name being brought up so often.

They need their 'safe place' eh?














:idc:[/QUOTE]

[Jack_]

You aren't the only person who has a Corbyn avatar and it's a fair question. If someones face is there it makes you think of them. If we aren't supposed to mention him then it's going to be harder if, as well as being the leader of the opposition, we have to keep seeing his face. I can't speak for others but I am personally influenced by visuals.

Interestingly talking of mudslinging, I don't think I've seen Corbyn called scum on a thread in recent history.

Who's the other member? I've just checked Kizzy's and hers is a Theresa May avatar. I don't recall seeing any other Corbyn avatars over the last six weeks or so to be honest.

But sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling. If I'm rarely posting in the Serious Debates section, are you honestly trying to suggest that you seeing mine (and other's) posts in different sections is making you want to talk about Jeremy Corbyn in threads that bear very little relation to him? With all due respect, you're a grown woman - it is your responsibility to determine how you respond to threads - making out that 'the nasty Corbyn avatars put him into my head I couldn't help it :(' is just silly. Basically you're just trying to pass the buck because you're unhappy that the mods are asking for threads not to be derailed.

I don't understand people's opposition to the word 'scum' either, I really couldn't care less if people called Corbyn that or not...he and his supporters have been insulted in far worse terms on this forum.

I don't feel this would satisfy people either, but it is an interesting suggestion and may be better than deleting posts. An issue here would be, many of the posts won't actually be a discussion though. Like, if all the offtopic things were moved there the thread would read







A few offtopic posts is fine. Hell even whole threads taken offtopic are fine if the discussion naturally goes that way. But when you have a 'but corbyn' post a few minutes into a thread about something else, and then the same thing happening to the next created thread and so on..well its..I don't know the word to actualy put here.

But TLDR; I think that would annoy people much more. And would not stop them feeling 'censored'.

That's a fair point actually. But then often it's those pointless posts which descend into a side-debate/argument which then derail the whole thread, as is what happened a couple of weeks ago with the thread Toy Soldier, Kizzy and Livia were involved in (sorry I cba to go and find it). He was brought up, the bickering began, TS suggested the thread be recreated so both the Corbyn and original debate could continue and even Kizzy - the Corbyn supporter - disagreed!

You know me, I have very little issue with people discussing whatever they like, but I do agree that when almost every thread in this section is taken off-topic it's annoying as hell. So I just think it'd be better that if the bickering and mudslinging begins, it's moved to a big thread where they can all continue until they're blue in the face, while everyone else can get back to the topic at hand.

You wouldn't be censoring them, they could still continue their discussion about how and why Corbyn is somehow related to the original topic, but it wouldn't be derailing the debate in the original thread itself.

[Crimson Dynamo]

and Jack, at least take the santa hat off

[Niamh.]

and Jack, at least take the santa hat off

There's definitely a joke in there about snowflakes

https://media1.tenor.com/images/11eec371f0550f26d0cfd1fad7095d1f/tenor.gif?itemid=5156748

[smudgie]

Simple answer.
Ban Corbyn and ALL mention of him from TIBB. :idc:

[jaxie]

Who's the other member? I've just checked Kizzy's and hers is a Theresa May avatar. I don't recall seeing any other Corbyn avatars over the last six weeks or so to be honest.

But sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling. If I'm rarely posting in the Serious Debates section, are you honestly trying to suggest that you seeing mine (and other's) posts in different sections is making you want to talk about Jeremy Corbyn in threads that bear very little relation to him? With all due respect, you're a grown woman - it is your responsibility to determine how you respond to threads - making out that 'the nasty Corbyn avatars put him into my head I couldn't help it :(' is just silly. Basically you're just trying to pass the buck because you're unhappy that the mods are asking for threads not to be derailed.


I've explained the point without calling you silly etc. I have nothing further to say about it. It's not 'about you.'

[Crimson Dynamo]

Simple answer.
Ban Corbyn and ALL mention of him from TIBB. :idc:

and all his supporters

:dance:

[Jack_]

I've explained the point without calling you silly etc. I have nothing further to say about it. It's not 'about you.'

I didn't call you silly, I said the implication you were making was silly. Because it was, hence why you can't defend it.

If it's not about me, then you shouldn't have made an indirect comment about my avatar should you?

[jet]

I didn't call you silly, I said the implication you were making was silly. Because it was, hence why you can't defend it.

If it's not about me, then you shouldn't have made an indirect comment about my avatar should you?

I understand Jaxie's point. Looking at Corbyn's face makes me feel sick. I'm really not being flippant here, I'm serious.

[Livia]

There's definitely a joke in there about snowflakes

https://media1.tenor.com/images/11eec371f0550f26d0cfd1fad7095d1f/tenor.gif?itemid=5156748

LMAOOOOOOooooooooo...


As jet mentioned, thanks to the mods for their replies here. It's good to know it's being looked at and not just put down to "you're baiting a Corbyn fan". Much appreciated.

[jet]

LMAOOOOOOooooooooo...


As jet mentioned, thanks to the mods for their replies here. It's good to know it's being looked at and not just put down to "you're baiting a Corbyn fan". Much appreciated.

Yes, it is...and I hope definite rules about when we can mention Corbyn are posted because at the moment they are still confusing and seem unfair.
This is as important for the mods too as what one mod does another may not. It's too open to interpretation and bias, although I've always found Niamh and Vicky in particular to be very fair.

[joeysteele]

What about moving all off-topic discussions of Corbyn (or other issues that derail threads) into specific big threads that have already been created for that purpose? A bit like that thread TS was posting in the other week that he suggested was recreated, if a discussion about x turns into a discussion like 'yeah x is x but CORBYN IS Y', then rather than the posts being removed which seems to be frustrating people, they're moved to a Jeremy Corbyn thread (I think one was created recently, and certainly arista had the original when he first became leader and updated it for about 18 months), where the members involved can then discuss his relation to the original topic to their hearts content, while everyone else continues the original discussion back in the main thread.

Voice of reason for me you are Jack_

I agree with your idea myself and your point as to arista's thread re Corbyn, is a very strong and valid one.

[Tom4784]

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

[jet]

You might want to see a doctor about that, if you don't have to wait three weeks for an appointment that is.

Unfortunately a doctor can't do much to erase the sight of bomb victims from my mind, murdered by the IRA, and supported by Corbyn. Every time I see Corbyn's face, I am reminded of the carnage.

[Jack_]

Unfortunately a doctor can't do much to erase the sight of bomb victims from my mind, murdered by the IRA, and supported by Corbyn. Every time I see Corbyn's face, I am reminded of the carnage.

You can turn avatars off in your control panel, just letting you know.

[jet]

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

That is stating a FACT, not an inflammatory opinion.

[jaxie]

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

Can you back up the accusation of scum with a news report? Or is it just an idle insult because you don't like the person? News reports including those with historic photographs have been posted that call into question Corbyn's sympathies. It's a subject that bears discussion about someone who could be prime minister of this country. Not an insult to your favourite. :shrug:

This isn't about Brillo, or any issue you might or might not have with her. I don't even remember if she was part of that thread until after all the deletions. I see mention of the far right and calling some us far right as much as Brillo says leftie. You can always find someone who might have said something on both sides of a disagreement but that doesn't mean you, as someone who is supposed to be a moderator and therefore, we hope, impartial should say it. I don't know what else to say to you Dezzy, if you can't see it for yourself.

Personally I've never called Corbyn scum and I wouldn't be that impressed with those doing so in the same way that I wasn't impressed by the Reese Mogg thread. I can only speak for myself but I can tell you that when you ask you are projecting and thinking for people by assuming that is what we would do. Take issue with it when we've said it, not before we've thought of it. I might have said remoaner once or twice back in the early days around the referendum after being called stupid so many times I lost count but once people made a fuss about how they found it offensive I didn't use it anymore.

[jet]

You can turn avatars off in your control panel, just letting you know.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

[Withano]

That is stating a FACT, not an inflammatory opinion.

Werent you asked about 20 times in one thread to provide evidence about a fortnight ago.. and it sort of boiled down to 'well its a fact for me, from my perspective'. Did you ever find evidence for it in the end or are we still stuck there? Genuinely curious.

[Withano]

Can you back up the accusation of scum with a news report? Or is it just an idle insult because you don't like the person? News reports including those with historic photographs have been posted that call into question Corbyn's sympathies. It's a subject that bears discussion about someone who could be prime minister of this country. Not an insult to your favourite. :shrug:

This isn't about Brillo, or any issue you might or might not have with her. I don't even remember if she was part of that thread until after all the deletions. I see mention of the far right and calling some us far right as much as Brillo says leftie. You can always find someone who might have said something on both sides of a disagreement but that doesn't mean you, as someone who is supposed to be a moderator and therefore, we hope, impartial should say it. I don't know what else to say to you Dezzy, if you can't see it for yourself.

Personally I've never called Corbyn scum and I wouldn't be that impressed with those doing so in the same way that I wasn't impressed by the Reese Mogg thread. I can only speak for myself but I can tell you that when you ask you are projecting and thinking for people by assuming that is what we would do. Take issue with it when we've said it, not before we've thought of it. I might have said remoaner once or twice back in the early days around the referendum after being called stupid so many times I lost count but once people made a fuss about how they found it offensive I didn't use it anymore.

A very quick search shows that you have called Aubrey and James Jordan scum?... its just an adjective that people use to describe someone they dislike. I dont see a problem with it... you clearly didnt either before recently.

[jet]

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

As a mod, though, and if there are all these members complaining about other members derailing threads with Corbyn mentions, why would you use language that is pretty well going to inflame members to respond in a similar vein? You aren't stupid. The word 'scum' isn't really the issue for me, it's the way felt you could use it and then delete posts when you got comeback. You should be setting an example, not using your position in an blatantly unfair way.

It's saying 'Ha, I can say what I like, and so can anyone else who wants to name call Ree Moggs, but if you say anything about Corbyn, I'll zap your posts'!!!

Because of your position as a mod, you got away with doing that, and its disgusting.

You also said that mentioning Corbyn was off topic and not relevant, and it was not. A critical post about a possible future PM should be open to comparative critical posts about his opposite in the opposition party. To say otherwise is censorship.

[jet]

Werent you asked about 20 times in one thread to provide evidence about a fortnight ago.. and it sort of boiled down to 'well its a fact for me, from my perspective'. Did you ever find evidence for it in the end or are we still stuck there? Genuinely curious.

I posted a long list of quotes and links about Corbyn's IRA involvement in this very thread, but you must have missed it. Not that there was any real need, because it is a fact that he was an IRA supporter. FACT. Many people now agree with that, but there is a few still behind with the times. If you do your research, and open your mind, you'll get there.

[jaxie]

A very quick search shows that you have called Aubrey and James Jordan scum?... its just an adjective that people use to describe someone they dislike. I dont see a problem with it... you clearly didnt either before recently.

I may well have used it describe James Jordan, his treatment of Gary Busey in CBB was just horrible. He and Dee at the time reminded me of the employees in one of those abusive mental care homes that sometimes get secretly filmed. I still have trouble looking at his face and am likely to switch off if hes on. However that is CBB. I have no idea who Aubrey is.

And you are rather missing the point. Which was why stronger posts like scum were fine on the thread while other relatively tame posts referring to Corbyn were deleted. Its about double standards not the word.

[Tom4784]

Can you back up the accusation of scum with a news report? Or is it just an idle insult because you don't like the person? News reports including those with historic photographs have been posted that call into question Corbyn's sympathies. It's a subject that bears discussion about someone who could be prime minister of this country. Not an insult to your favourite. :shrug:

This isn't about Brillo, or any issue you might or might not have with her. I don't even remember if she was part of that thread until after all the deletions. I see mention of the far right and calling some us far right as much as Brillo says leftie. You can always find someone who might have said something on both sides of a disagreement but that doesn't mean you, as someone who is supposed to be a moderator and therefore, we hope, impartial should say it. I don't know what else to say to you Dezzy, if you can't see it for yourself.

Personally I've never called Corbyn scum and I wouldn't be that impressed with those doing so in the same way that I wasn't impressed by the Reese Mogg thread. I can only speak for myself but I can tell you that when you ask you are projecting and thinking for people by assuming that is what we would do. Take issue with it when we've said it, not before we've thought of it. I might have said remoaner once or twice back in the early days around the referendum after being called stupid so many times I lost count but once people made a fuss about how they found it offensive I didn't use it anymore.

I explained my opinion that he is scum because of the way he voted against the interests of the vulnerable in favour of protecting his own interests and class in the thread itself, as a response to Brillo rather strangely accusing me of disliking him because he is white and educated? (I don't get it either) In a thread highlighting his dubious voting record no less. his voting history is common knowledge, you don't need an article, you just need google to find out the official voting histories of MPs.

You are entitled to call Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser, I'm entitled to call an MP scum, unless you're saying that I don't deserve an equal right to free speech as you do? Because you aren't arguing against what I said, you're arguing that I shouldn't have said it.

It's about you and the rest coming for me for 'inflammatory remarks; about a politician when you have a nine plus page thread calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser and Brillo regularly uses her terms to insult people that think differently to her. Of course it's relevant because it highlights your hypocrisy on the matter. It's okay for you and your friends to use the language you use but when it comes to me calling a politician scum which is ****ing tame compared to calling another a terrorist sympathiser, it's suddenly not okay. That is hypocritical no matter how you cut it.

What exactly do you know about the decisions I've made when it comes to moderating? You don't know anything you've just seen that I have an opposing opinion to you and you've taken that to mean that I can't be impartial although that logic makes no sense and it's based on nothing but a baseless assumption. I'd honestly say that I'm one of the most impartial moderatora on this website, when it comes to moderating people get the same treatment from me regardless of who they are, in fact I'm more prone to infracting friends then people I don't get on with so I completely resent what you said there and what you insinuated especially considering you haven't mentioned any other moderator who comments in debates and have strong opinions and I think that's proof that the issue is not with Moggs or Corbyn or the word 'Scum', it's because people have an issue with me. Always remember that no members aside from the mods are privy to the decisions we make, to make assumptions based on nothing and present them as arguments is pointless.

You might say you wouldn't be impressed with someone calling Corbyn scum but would you truly bring it up as you have here against me? Let's say, for example, Jet said that Corbyn is scum, would you try to pull her up on it like you did me? I don't think you would at all. You would remain silent at best. The problem about the remoaner stuff is that it's not just you, other people still say it and some of those people have gotten up in arms over me describing a politician they like as scum. It's hypocritical for them to take issue with me and it's hypocritical for you to call me out on saying 'scum' not about another member but about an MP in a thread about that said MP but not having a problem when your friends use, ahem, 'inflammatory language'

[jet]

I may well have used it describe James Jordan, his treatment of Gary Busey in CBB was just horrible. He and Dee at the time reminded me of the employees in one of those abusive mental care homes that sometimes get secretly filmed. I still have trouble looking at his face and am likely to switch off if hes on. However that is CBB. I have no idea who Aubrey is.

And you are rather missing the point. Which was why stronger posts like scum were fine on the thread while other relatively tame posts referring to Corbyn were deleted. Its about double standards not the word.

Exactly!

[jet]

a nine plus page thread calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser

That's not name calling though, that's a fact.

[Tom4784]

As a mod, though, and if there are all these members complaining about other members derailing threads with Corbyn mentions, why would you use language that is pretty well going to inflame members to respond in a similar vein? You aren't stupid. The word 'scum' isn't really the issue for me, it's the way felt you could use it and then delete posts when you got comeback. You should be setting an example, not using your position in an blatantly unfair way.

It's saying 'Ha, I can say what I like, and so can anyone else who wants to name call Ree Moggs, but if you say anything about Corbyn, I'll zap your posts'!!!

Because of your position as a mod, you got away with doing that, and its disgusting.

You also said that mentioning Corbyn was off topic and not relevant, and it was not. A critical post about a possible future PM should be open to comparative critical posts about his opposite in the opposition party. To say otherwise is censorship.

Ah, more jibes aimed at the fact that I'm a mod.

Nobody would be infracted or punished for saying that the subject of a thread (unless it was a forum member) was scum especially if they explained why, like I did. As Jack has mentioned, your friends have also used the word 'scum' to describe BB housemates. Not people making decisions that would lessen the quality of life for vulnerable people in the UK but z-list celebs on a reality TV show. Can you explain why that is okay but what I said isn't?

As for the deleted posts, did Vicky not post in this thread multiple times confirming that the posts deleted were as I said? Why are you trying to rewrite history to make out that I deleted posts because they were critical of me? Considering this thread has turned from the 'I hate Jeremy Corbyn' club to the 'I hate Dezzy' club in the last few pages, that's obviously not the case otherwise we'd have a lot of deleted posts in this topic alone.

A lot of your assumptions about my modding in this thread come from nothing more than your vehement dislike of me rather than anything factual.

You accused me of a lot in this thread and it's all directly from how you feel about me, not about my moderating, not about my opinions, it's about me. You suddenly aren't holding other moderators to the same standards you are trying to hold me to, you don't bring up the fact they are mods if they disagree with you in topics and I've seen other mods get into fiery issues without the accusations I have to deal with from the same people over and over.

It's okay to dislike me, I don't care if you do but don't try to drag me through the mud with baseless claims just because you don't like me. I ****ing reject that.

[Tom4784]

I may well have used it describe James Jordan, his treatment of Gary Busey in CBB was just horrible. He and Dee at the time reminded me of the employees in one of those abusive mental care homes that sometimes get secretly filmed. I still have trouble looking at his face and am likely to switch off if hes on. However that is CBB. I have no idea who Aubrey is.

And you are rather missing the point. Which was why stronger posts like scum were fine on the thread while other relatively tame posts referring to Corbyn were deleted. Its about double standards not the word.

My posts were relevant to the thread, it was my response to the subject of his voting history. Vicky has already confirmed that the posts deleted were, in her words, 'But I CAN see why they were deleted as they were basically just 'well you like Corbyn so ner ner ner ner ner' type posts from what I saw'.

That is why they were deleted. Two mods have said the same, two mods with quite wildly different political beliefs.

This double standard of which you speak is non-existent.

[jaxie]

I explained my opinion that he is scum because of the way he voted against the interests of the vulnerable in favour of protecting his own interests and class in the thread itself, as a response to Brillo rather strangely accusing me of disliking him because he is white and educated? (I don't get it either) In a thread highlighting his dubious voting record no less. his voting history is common knowledge, you don't need an article, you just need google to find out the official voting histories of MPs.

1. You are entitled to call Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser, I'm entitled to call an MP scum, unless you're saying that I don't deserve an equal right to free speech as you do? Because you aren't arguing against what I said, you're arguing that I shouldn't have said it.

It's about you and the rest coming for me for 'inflammatory remarks; about a politician when you have a nine plus page thread calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser and 2. Brillo regularly uses her terms to insult people that think differently to her. Of course it's relevant because it highlights your 3. hypocrisy on the matter. It's okay for you and your friends to use the language you use but when it comes to me calling a politician scum which is ****ing tame compared to calling another a terrorist sympathiser, it's suddenly not okay. That is hypocritical no matter how you cut it.

What exactly do you know about the decisions I've made when it comes to moderating? You don't know anything you've just seen that I have an opposing opinion to you and you've taken that to mean that I can't be impartial although that logic makes no sense and it's based on nothing but a baseless assumption. I'd honestly say that I'm one of the most impartial moderatora on this website, when it comes to moderating people get the same treatment from me regardless of who they are, in fact I'm more prone to infracting friends then people I don't get on with so I completely resent what you said there and what you insinuated especially considering you haven't mentioned any other moderator who comments in debates and have strong opinions and I think that's proof that the issue is not with Moggs or Corbyn or the word 'Scum', it's because people have an issue with me. Always remember that no members aside from the mods are privy to the decisions we make, to make assumptions based on nothing and present them as arguments is pointless.

You might say you wouldn't be impressed with someone calling Corbyn scum but would you truly bring it up as you have here against me? Let's say, for example, Jet said that Corbyn is scum, would you try to pull her up on it like you did me? I don't think you would at all. You would remain silent at best. The problem about the remoaner stuff is that it's not just you, other people still say it and some of those people have gotten up in arms over me describing a politician they like as scum. It's hypocritical for them to take issue with me and it's hypocritical for you to call me out on saying 'scum' not about another member but about an MP in a thread about that said MP but not having a problem when your friends use, ahem, 'inflammatory language'

1. No Dezzy I'm arguing that I had he same right to my opinion that you had to yours but you deleted my opinion. Even though I could argue your use of words was more aggressive than mine in that thread.

2. I am not Brillo, nor Brillo's keeper. I am talking about my posts being deleted. Not Brillo.

3. And so your resort to accusations and name calling. How would you know who I am friendly with or not? You don't know anything of the kind so don't presume. And again with the Brillo.

As with the last bit about calling Corbyn scum. If you called Corbyn scum then deleted my posts in the same context. Of course I would have the same issue with it.

I don't mention any of the other Mods because they are fine. I don't think any of them have deleted my posts and any disagreements are dealt with civilly. None of the others feel the need to call me names like hypoceite, at least not to my face!

It was you who had a strong opinion then deleted my posts, not Vicky, or Naimh or James or anyone else. :shrug:

[jet]

Ah, more jibes aimed at the fact that I'm a mod.

Nobody would be infracted or punished for saying that the subject of a thread (unless it was a forum member) was scum especially if they explained why, like I did. As Jack has mentioned, your friends have also used the word 'scum' to describe BB housemates. Not people making decisions that would lessen the quality of life for vulnerable people in the UK but z-list celebs on a reality TV show. Can you explain why that is okay but what I said isn't?

As for the deleted posts, did Vicky not post in this thread multiple times confirming that the posts deleted were as I said? Why are you trying to rewrite history to make out that I deleted posts because they were critical of me? Considering this thread has turned from the 'I hate Jeremy Corbyn' club to the 'I hate Dezzy' club in the last few pages, that's obviously not the case otherwise we'd have a lot of deleted posts in this topic alone.

A lot of your assumptions about my modding in this thread come from nothing more than your vehement dislike of me rather than anything factual.

You accused me of a lot in this thread and it's all directly from how you feel about me, not about my moderating, not about my opinions, it's about me. You suddenly aren't holding other moderators to the same standards you are trying to hold me to, you don't bring up the fact they are mods if they disagree with you in topics and I've seen other mods get into fiery issues without the accusations I have to deal with from the same people over and over.

It's okay to dislike me, I don't care if you do but don't try to drag me through the mud with baseless claims just because you don't like me. I ****ing reject that.

Dezzy, I don't dislike you, I don't know you. We just rarely agree on anything and I find you combative at times and hard work. :hee:
It wasn't about you in that thread, it was about you deleting the Corbyn posts, if it had all happened the way it did with another mod I'd have felt the same.

It isn't nice to be rounded on by so many and I can tell you are upset so I will certainly try to see it from your point of view also, and we'll just leave it at that, okay?

[Tom4784]

1. No Dezzy I'm arguing that I had he same right to my opinion that you had to yours but you deleted my opinion. Even though I could argue your use of words was more aggressive than mine in that thread.

2. I am not Brillo, nor Brillo's keeper. I am talking about my posts being deleted. Not Brillo.

3. And so your resort to accusations and name calling. How would you know who I am friendly with or not? You don't know anything of the kind so don't presume. And again with the Brillo.

I don't mention any of the other Mods because they are fine. I don't think any of them have deleted my posts and any disagreements are dealt with civilly. None of the others feel the need to call me names like hypoceite, at least not to my face!

It was you who had a strong opinion then deleted my posts, not Vicky, or Naimh or James or anyone else. :shrug:

But if you're going to make a big fuss about me calling an MP scum then why aren't you bothered about other members using way worse inflammatory language that is used to insult other members? That's the point I'm trying to make, you try to drag me over hot coals yet there's nothing but silence if someone else happened to do the same (let's be real calling someone a terrorist sympathiser is way worse than anything I said).

I've explained why your posts were deleted, Vicky backed that sentiment up, what more do you want?

Namecalling? Pointing out hypocrisy and explaining why it is hypocritical is not name calling.

Do you honestly think that I'm the only person who deletes your posts? Again, you know nothing about who moderates what so blaming me for it just because you dislike me is not logical.

[joeysteele]

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).


I agree wholeheartedly with all you say above.
I think your last paragraph is one of the fairest and strongest points made here.

[Tom4784]

Any way, I'm done. Nothing I say will change it because everything I say will probably be twisted out of shape any way.

You've got my explanations and my points, there's nothing else to say.

[jaxie]

But if you're going to make a big fuss about me calling an MP scum then why aren't you bothered about other members using way worse inflammatory language that is used to insult other members? That's the point I'm trying to make, you try to drag me over hot coals yet there's nothing but silence if someone else happened to do the same (let's be real calling someone a terrorist sympathiser is way worse than anything I said).

I've explained why your posts were deleted, Vicky backed that sentiment up, what more do you want?

Namecalling? Pointing out hypocrisy and explaining why it is hypocritical is not name calling.

Do you honestly think that I'm the only person who deletes your posts? Again, you know nothing about who moderates what so blaming me for it just because you dislike me is not logical.

Look this is getting embarrassing. Just stop. You are completely missing the point. However I will make it clear I don't dislike you or anyone else on the forum. At best I'm indifferent.

[bots]

i will state my thoughts for what its worth, and its not a direct attack on anyone.

This is a left leaning forum, the majority are young members with left leaning views, some extreme left wing. In the run up to the GE, while things were said about Corbyn, the majority was attack upon attack at the conservative party. This I really don't mind because it reflects the membership and its good to debate. However, when a unilateral decision is made to protect a political side by deleting the views of perfectly valid posters, its wrong, and if that is going to be the forum policy, then i won't contribute to the debate, because it's not even and fair. So for me until this is cleared up, I shall stay well clear of any political threads. If rules are going to be applied to political debate, they should be applied fairly and evenly

[jet]

i will state my thoughts for what its worth, and its not a direct attack on anyone.

This is a left leaning forum, the majority are young members with left leaning views, some extreme left wing. In the run up to the GE, while things were said about Corbyn, the majority was attack upon attack at the conservative party. This I really don't mind because it reflects the membership and its good to debate. However, when a unilateral decision is made to protect a political side by deleting the views of perfectly valid posters, its wrong, and if that is going to be the forum policy, then i won't contribute to the debate, because it's not even and fair. So for me until this is cleared up, I shall stay well clear of any political threads. If rules are going to be applied to political debate, they should be applied fairly and evenly

I totally agree with this, and I'll do the same meanwhile and steer clear.

[Brillopad]

On the issue of the scum thing.

Does anybody that has taken issue with me calling a politician scum take issue with the fact that there's members accusing another politcian of being a terrorist sympathiser?

Would these people take issue if the thread was about Jeremy Corbyn and I called him scum? They wouldn't, they'd probably agree with me.

Lastly, it's been said that calling a politician scum is inflammatory but has anyone that's tried to come for me ever pulled up say, Brillo on her frequent uses of terms such as lefties, snowflakes and Remoaners? Why is what I said unacceptable yet you are all silent when one of your own uses apparently 'inflammatory language'?

I'll tell you why, because it's me, that's what the difference is here and it's completely hypocritical and until you can resolve those hypocrisies then I completely reject what you've said on the issue of me calling a politcian scum (and then explaining why afterwards, something that has been conveniently forgotten about in this thread).

FCOL - I don’t use the word leftie half as much as some on here use the term far-right and it is nearly always reactionary. Leftie is just short for left-wing where as far-right implies a lot more ie nazi. There is no comparison.

Neither can words such as snowflake and remoaner, words I use very occasionally, compare to words such as nazi, racist etc. You do understand that the word snowflake is a totally reactionary word to OTT PC don’t you - without one the other would not exist. You’re deliberately trying to twist the point being made here and divert attention away from your own actions.

[Livia]

I totally agree with this, and I'll do the same meanwhile and steer clear.

Me too.

[Brillopad]

i will state my thoughts for what its worth, and its not a direct attack on anyone.

This is a left leaning forum, the majority are young members with left leaning views, some extreme left wing. In the run up to the GE, while things were said about Corbyn, the majority was attack upon attack at the conservative party. This I really don't mind because it reflects the membership and its good to debate. However, when a unilateral decision is made to protect a political side by deleting the views of perfectly valid posters, its wrong, and if that is going to be the forum policy, then i won't contribute to the debate, because it's not even and fair. So for me until this is cleared up, I shall stay well clear of any political threads. If rules are going to be applied to political debate, they should be applied fairly and evenly

Although I agree with that in principle doesn’t that just give those that seek to shut down the opinions of others what they want. Isn’t that effectively giving them exactly what they want - free reign without challenge. Mixed feelings on this.

[Ammi]

..the thing is though, who are ‘they’ that would be given exactly what they wanted..?..it’s often said..’this is where the cause of members not wanting to post on SD is’...but that ‘cause’ isn’t a fixed thing, its what an individual thinks it is and where the issues lie...over time I’ve had private conversations about why a person feels put off from posting in SD and those conversations have all differed in their reasons, although some have been similar...and some members even saying, oh I’m off now because ‘that group’ or that member is ‘shutting down’ and it’s just not worth it etc..and some would rather discuss topics by PM, rather than in a thread atm for the reasons they have which also can be different...but ‘that group’ or ‘that member’ is so interchangeable as well, depending on perceptions...so far as modding is concerned, we must be a nightmare ..:love:...and I do totally agree with Dezzy in the ‘do we only take issue because of the person’, who we might personally just not feel any connection of thoughts with or conveyance of thoughts whatsoever...anyways, none of that’s helpful but what I wanted to say is...jet, you’re pretty amazing, you know that..?..:love:...you felt a potential ‘pack’ in the thread vein toward Dezzy might develop...which you immediately ‘withdrew’ from having any part of...I think I like you a lot actually..:laugh:..(...btw jet, Dezzy is pretty amazing as well and a great and devoted moderator also ..)...

[Ammi]

...actually Vicky is an awful moderator...she looked up my file and saw I hadn’t pressed the report button since 2016, when I haven’t really been here for the whole of 2017..that’s how forum aware she is..:laugh:...(...obviously she’s not awful at all and I’m sure she won’t mind be saying that...)...but I guess it’s showing how difficult the general moderator thing is in trying their best to be objective and observant etc...

[Cherie]

..the thing is though, who are ‘they’ that would be given exactly what they wanted..?..it’s often said..’this is where the cause of members not wanting to post on SD is’...but that ‘cause’ isn’t a fixed thing, its what an individual thinks it is and where the issues lie...over time I’ve had private conversations about why a person feels put off from posting in SD and those conversations have all differed in their reasons, although some have been similar...and some members even saying, oh I’m off now because ‘that group’ or that member is ‘shutting down’ and it’s just not worth it etc..and some would rather discuss topics by PM, rather than in a thread atm for the reasons they have which also can be different...but ‘that group’ or ‘that member’ is so interchangeable as well, depending on perceptions...so far as modding is concerned, we must be a nightmare ..:love:...and I do totally agree with Dezzy in the ‘do we only take issue because of the person’, who we might personally just not feel any connection of thoughts with or conveyance of thoughts whatsoever...anyways, none of that’s helpful but what I wanted to say is...jet, you’re pretty amazing, you know that..?..:love:...you felt a potential ‘pack’ in the thread vein toward Dezzy might develop...which you immediately ‘withdrew’ from having any part of...I think I like you a lot actually..:laugh:..(...btw jet, Dezzy is pretty amazing as well and a great and devoted moderator also ..)...

Jet and Jaxie were the only ones posting and given they had their posts removed were quite entitled, I didn't see any pack mentality on the thread or any potential to see one develop

[user104658]

Me too.

#metoo they touched me on the...

Oh wait this thread is about some other thing. Some kinda whingey nonsense. Never mind. Me too about that as well I guess. What is it we're talking about?

Actually I guess my two cents is what it always is; this is a private forum, the people running it pick the mods, if you don't like their policies then by all means complain about it but if the status quo has been decided then :shrug:. If the forum staff don't want every SD thread to become a Jezza Corbz thread then that's their business. If the forum staff want to force every thread on every topic to be about a micropiglet wearing a monocle that's their business. No one is being oppressed here. This isn't a public space. You're in someone else's house and if you don't like the game they're playing, you are free to go home. This applies to all of us and is well worth remembering.

[Ammi]

..I have to say as well, I do find it personally quite heartbreaking with jet, when his personal experiences and pain are so obvious in ‘anti Corbyn’ posts...and he’s asked for ‘proof’ when that ‘proof’ is right there in everything he writes of his thoughts...and I do understand the need for ‘absolute proof’ also...but there are so many of us who have shared painful, emotional experiences in our lives over time and we can all relate and we can all feel and we do relate and we do feel... but ‘proof’ isn’t always asked for on other topics beyond Jeremy Corbyn...the ‘lack of objectivity’ as it were, isn’t always attached to and applied equally either...

[Brillopad]

..the thing is though, who are ‘they’ that would be given exactly what they wanted..?..it’s often said..’this is where the cause of members not wanting to post on SD is’...but that ‘cause’ isn’t a fixed thing, its what an individual thinks it is and where the issues lie...over time I’ve had private conversations about why a person feels put off from posting in SD and those conversations have all differed in their reasons, although some have been similar...and some members even saying, oh I’m off now because ‘that group’ or that member is ‘shutting down’ and it’s just not worth it etc..and some would rather discuss topics by PM, rather than in a thread atm for the reasons they have which also can be different...but ‘that group’ or ‘that member’ is so interchangeable as well, depending on perceptions...so far as modding is concerned, we must be a nightmare ..:love:...and I do totally agree with Dezzy in the ‘do we only take issue because of the person’, who we might personally just not feel any connection of thoughts with or conveyance of thoughts whatsoever...anyways, none of that’s helpful but what I wanted to say is...jet, you’re pretty amazing, you know that..?..:love:...you felt a potential ‘pack’ in the thread vein toward Dezzy might develop...which you immediately ‘withdrew’ from having any part of...I think I like you a lot actually..:laugh:..(...btw jet, Dezzy is pretty amazing as well and a great and devoted moderator also ..)...

The thing with Dezzy’s comments is that he himself is quick to take issue because of the person - something that has not gone unnoticed by others in a thread on many occasions. He is quick to dish it out but not so keen to be on the receiving end of it it seems when he perceives that is what is happening to him. It is not nice for anyone on the receiving end, that unpleasant feeling of a ‘pack’ mentality developing - something maybe he should think about before being so quick to give it.

[Ammi]

The thing with Dezzy’s comments is that he himself is quick to take issue because of the person - something that has not gone unnoticed by others in a thread on many occasions. He is quick to dish it out but not so keen to be on the receiving end of it it seems. It is not nice for anyone on the receiving end - something maybe he should think about before being so quick to give it.

...but then all of us are quick to dish it out but not so keen on receiving, Brillo..:laugh:...I mean, our faults make us human and they’re there in all of us...it just feels, and quite often actually to me...that it’s more of a dash it’s Dezzy thing, as opposed to any other moderator who may sometimes be open to criticism also...I hate this whole ‘hypocrisy’ vein of thought anyway in terms of the forum specifically because we’re all hypocrites, each and every one of us...because we’re human and one size doesn’t fit all in every topic or individual stories we tend to discuss...anyways, I must go and start my day, Brillo..

[joeysteele]

..I have to say as well, I do find it personally quite heartbreaking with jet, when his personal experiences and pain are so obvious in ‘anti Corbyn’ posts...and he’s asked for ‘proof’ when that ‘proof’ is right there in everything he writes of his thoughts...and I do understand the need for ‘absolute proof’ also...but there are so many of us who have shared painful, emotional experiences in our lives over time and we can all relate and we can all feel and we do relate and we do feel... but ‘proof’ isn’t always asked for on other topics beyond Jeremy Corbyn...the ‘lack of objectivity’ as it were, isn’t always attached to and applied equally either...


Not to open up things I've withdrawn from.
I would always want to know as much substantiated proof someone had intentionally supported fully,terrorist activities and the murders of innocent people, before I would declare that as proven fact.
Just as with sexual abuse allegations on issues or indeed any other very serious allegations being made against anyone.
Even the MPs expenses scandal, I would make no condonement of,until the full official investigation from authorities found some responsible on.

I fully support anyone's thinking and I get regular abuse for my position in political thinking now.
I however join in as to any serious allegation making against anyone as to very serious crimes without full,substantiated proof that has come from official investigation as to for example Corbyn and subsequent charges as to same.

The fact,there is none,not a jot,from any official sources,parliamentary watchdog,police or the courts will never see me entertaining anything other, than the allegations being a personal view or feeling,rather than being presented as full actual indisputable fact.

[user104658]

..I have to say as well, I do find it personally quite heartbreaking with jet, when his personal experiences and pain are so obvious in ‘anti Corbyn’ posts...and he’s asked for ‘proof’ when that ‘proof’ is right there in everything he writes of his thoughts...and I do understand the need for ‘absolute proof’ also...but there are so many of us who have shared painful, emotional experiences in our lives over time and we can all relate and we can all feel and we do relate and we do feel... but ‘proof’ isn’t always asked for on other topics beyond Jeremy Corbyn...the ‘lack of objectivity’ as it were, isn’t always attached to and applied equally either...

To be fair Ammi, I think most people have been sympathetic to jet's experiences. I know I have and have said as much, and I've never seen people ask him to prove his OWN experiences or provide proof to justify his OWN feelings about Corbyn. However, on top of his own personal feelings, jet can become quite frustrated / annoyed when other people don't join him in his feelings about Corbyn... and that's where people might express a need for some sort of more concrete evidence before making their own minds up.

I mean - I personally was prompted to look at Corbyn more critically due to his posts and now don't particularly like the man... but I still can't find evidence of the more extreme things.

[user104658]

... And while that doesn't invalidate jet's feelings or what jet knows, it is perfectly fair for people to say "I can't base *my* opinions on things that *you* know" and ask for evidence.

[Niamh.]

Jet is a girl :fist:

[Brillopad]

...but then all of us are quick to dish it out but not so keen on receiving, Brillo..:laugh:...I mean, our faults make us human and they’re there in all of us...it just feels, and quite often actually to me...that it’s more of a dash it’s Dezzy thing, as opposed to any other moderator who may sometimes be open to criticism also...I hate this whole ‘hypocrisy’ vein of thought anyway in terms of the forum specifically because we’re all hypocrites, each and every one of us...because we’re human and one size doesn’t fit all in every topic or individual stories we tend to discuss...anyways, I must go and start my day, Brillo..

I do agree with much of that Ammi and agree we are all hypocrites at one time or another because as you say we all come with the flaws that come with being a human being.

But as someone who has felt singled-out by Dezzy and ‘friends’ on several occasions I have refused to be intimidated by it and, as such, am not as inclined to be so gracious on this.

[user104658]

Jet is a girl :fist:Microaggression!

[Ammi]

To be fair Ammi, I think most people have been sympathetic to jet's experiences. I know I have and have said as much, and I've never seen people ask him to prove his OWN experiences or provide proof to justify his OWN feelings about Corbyn. However, on top of his own personal feelings, jet can become quite frustrated / annoyed when other people don't join him in his feelings about Corbyn... and that's where people might express a need for some sort of more concrete evidence before making their own minds up.

I mean - I personally was prompted to look at Corbyn more critically due to his posts and now don't particularly like the man... but I still can't find evidence of the more extreme things.

..yeah I do realise all of that TS...but I guess what I’m saying quite badly, as I’m prone to ...that Jet isnt the only person (..with very painful personal stuff..)..to become frustrated/annoyed etc, as you say...but more ‘tact’ and more understanding is something I’ve observed with others that haven’t been more focused on ‘Corbyn’...so I also see and understand his frustration and annoyance as well, if that’s what is felt he is showing...

[Ammi]

Jet is a girl :fist:

...has Mrs Jet been told that yet...:laugh:..this maybe should be merged with any transgender threads...she’s going to be quite surprised when she reads and finds out...

[Niamh.]

Microaggression!

I thought she was a he for ages as well, sorry Jet :worry:

[Cherie]

Jet is a real woman ( I am saying that in India's voice in my head)

[Ammi]

I do agree with much of that Ammi and agree we are all hypocrites at one time or another because as you say we all come with the flaws that come with being a human being.

But as someone who has felt singled-out by Dezzy and ‘friends’ on several occasions I have refused to be intimidated by it and, as such, am not as inclined to be so gracious on this.

..I’m not being gracious at all, I promise you Brillo, I’m very far from a gracious person and have many flaws also..I do see ‘the forum’ can be unfair to you at times as well...and I do feel that also and feel for you..:hug:..

[Niamh.]

Jet is a real woman ( I am saying that in India's voice in my head)

:laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

The irony of the thread title


:hehe:

[user104658]

I thought she was a he for ages as well, sorry Jet :worry:I don't buy it tbh

[Brillopad]

#metoo they touched me on the...

Oh wait this thread is about some other thing. Some kinda whingey nonsense. Never mind. Me too about that as well I guess. What is it we're talking about?

Actually I guess my two cents is what it always is; this is a private forum, the people running it pick the mods, if you don't like their policies then by all means complain about it but if the status quo has been decided then :shrug:. If the forum staff don't want every SD thread to become a Jezza Corbz thread then that's their business. If the forum staff want to force every thread on every topic to be about a micropiglet wearing a monocle that's their business. No one is being oppressed here. This isn't a public space. You're in someone else's house and if you don't like the game they're playing, you are free to go home. This applies to all of us and is well worth remembering.

That is all well and good but without members it wouldn’t be around for long so it isn’t completely a one-way thing is it. SD certainly woudn’t get much use if only those with one opinion could post. Debate usually involves the expression of differing opinions does it not.

Or is the site to become just a supporter of one political party - just another Corbynista.

[jet]

I really can't post as I have a hell of a migraine, but I just want to say a big thank you to Ammi. :love:

....and to clear it up I am ALL MAN. :fist: Even though I cry a lot and Mrs. Jet wears the trousers in our house. :laugh:

[Niamh.]

I really can't post as I have a hell of a migraine, but I just want to say a big thank you to Ammi. :love:

....and to clear it up I am ALL MAN. :fist: Even though I cry a lot and Mrs. Jet wears the trousers in our house. :laugh:

I always thought you were a man until someone told me you weren't, I'm really confused now :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

who else is masquerading as men on her but are actually ladies?

:suspect:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/56/c8/05/56c805ddf24c8f00a00bb358cd06942c.jpg

[user104658]

That is all well and good but without members it wouldn’t be around for long so it isn’t completely a one-way thing is it. SD certainly woudn’t get much use if only those with one opinion could post. Debate usually involves the expression of differing opinions does it not.

Or is the site to become just a supporter of one political party - just another Corbynista.True but again, that's up to the owners to decide, and if they think there's a problem, to take action.

As it stands I don't think there ARE that many passionate "Corbyn fans", no more than there were many "Farage fans" during the Brexit vote. Just a handful of each really.

[Cherie]

who else is masquerading as men on her but are actually ladies?

:suspect:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/56/c8/05/56c805ddf24c8f00a00bb358cd06942c.jpg

:hee: got you thinking now

[bots]

Although I agree with that in principle doesn’t that just give those that seek to shut down the opinions of others what they want. Isn’t that effectively giving them exactly what they want - free reign without challenge. Mixed feelings on this.

Its not a debate if there are not counter arguments put forward. Threads that are full of people in agreement soon wither and die.

I would say its better not to debate at all than participate in a censored sham pretending to be a debate

[user104658]

Its not a debate if there are not counter arguments put forward. Threads that are full of people in agreement soon wither and die.

I would say its better not to debate at all than participate in a censored sham pretending to be a debateBeing fair to the mod team, threads have been pulled completely off topic by people who have, essentially, decided that they have no interest in the actual thread topic and have something to say about something else that's far more important or "makes a point". I get the impression that there's been an overall decision to try to stop this from happening, and it's a recent decision, which is going to take some time to "settle" and be implemented in the best way. For example, turning a fairly academic thread about Hitler into "Corbyn moans" I can't accept as anything other than total nonsense. On the other hand, I feel like bringing up Corbyn (or May, or any other high profile politician) in any thread about UK domestic politics is absolutely fair game,so maybe the policy is being implemented too heavy-handedly. I can't say for certain because I can't see which posts were removed.

My only other caveat would be... If its not bringing it up in a way that actually engages with the thread topic, but instead having exactly the same posts and points regurgitated ad nauseum in multiple threads, then is it really adding anything to the debate? If it's just more "whataboutism" then I can't really agree that it does. A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

[bots]

Being fair to the mod team, threads have been pulled completely off topic by people who have, essentially, decided that they have no interest in the actual thread topic and have something to say about something else that's far more important or "makes a point". I get the impression that there's been an overall decision to try to stop this from happening, and it's a recent decision, which is going to take some time to "settle" and be implemented in the best way. For example, turning a fairly academic thread about Hitler into "Corbyn moans" I can't accept as anything other than total nonsense. On the other hand, I feel like bringing up Corbyn (or May, or any other high profile politician) in any thread about UK domestic politics is absolutely fair game,so maybe the policy is being implemented too heavy-handedly. I can't say for certain because I can't see which posts were removed.

My only other caveat would be... If its not bringing it up in a way that actually engages with the thread topic, but instead having exactly the same posts and points regurgitated ad nauseum in multiple threads, then is it really adding anything to the debate? If it's just more "whataboutism" then I can't really agree that it does. A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

The biggest issue I have is that posts were removed under the pretense that they were off topic (which they clearly were not) when they disagreed with the political leanings of those censoring. That is perfectly clear from a mod's responses to being questioned on this very thread.

My choice is to not participate under those conditions, others are free to make their own minds up

[Tom4784]

Right, one last post to mention something I forgot before.

Remember that we'll also remove posts that mention or allude to deleted posts, some posts in that thread were removed because they simply mentioned other deleted posts.

[user104658]

The biggest issue I have is that posts were removed under the pretense that they were off topic (which they clearly were not) when they disagreed with the political leanings of those censoring. That is perfectly clear from a mod's responses to being questioned on this very thread.


I'd have to take your word for that as I have no idea what posts were removed or of the content / tone of those posts.

I have to be honest and say that I'm inclined to believe that there was probably more to it than that, though, and that sometimes these posts are clearly made with the intent of baiting or point scoring "from other threads" rather than in the genuine spirit of engaging with the debate.

[bots]

I'd have to take your word for that as I have no idea what posts were removed or of the content / tone of those posts.

I have to be honest and say that I'm inclined to believe that there was probably more to it than that, though, and that sometimes these posts are clearly made with the intent of baiting or point scoring "from other threads" rather than in the genuine spirit of engaging with the debate.

that's up to you of course. I can only speak from my own opinion, and I pride myself in being pretty fair most of the time, and i see it as censorship. It is a private forum, they can make their own rules as they see fit, but I won't engage in future political debate on this forum under the current terms of censorship

[Kazanne]

that's up to you of course. I can only speak from my own opinion, and I pride myself in being pretty fair most of the time, and i see it as censorship. It is a private forum, they can make their own rules as they see fit, but I won't engage in future political debate on this forum under the current terms of censorship

Good for you , I pulled out for the same reason more or less and the unnecessary nastiness towards certain posters. no wonder people don't want to come in here.

[Maru]

Threads being pulled off-topic is an eyesore. It's part of how sections become about the same 6-8 people posting about the same topics time and time again and it makes it very clique-y. It being commonplace on TiBB is what is making it more unwelcome for other folk (not just right-leaning) to post in SD, because they don't want to end up in the same exact arguments all over again.

As long as it is held consistently, then I don't have any issues with that rule and I think it should be strongly enforced. I don't think deletions is necessary though. If it's just a few posts, then a mod can post (bold text and all) a reminder to stay on topic... if it goes sideways, lock the thread or move posts out to a new thread. If it's a real trouble user, then issue a short ban.

If it's a discussion you want to have, then start a new thread. There's no reason you can't link the other thread and start from there. I think that's a pretty fair compromise?

[Vicky.]

...actually Vicky is an awful moderator...she looked up my file and saw I hadn’t pressed the report button since 2016, when I haven’t really been here for the whole of 2017..that’s how forum aware she is..:laugh:...(...obviously she’s not awful at all and I’m sure she won’t mind be saying that...)...but I guess it’s showing how difficult the general moderator thing is in trying their best to be objective and observant etc...

:laugh: I failed slightly there for sure

I do not understand how people are taking this as trying to 'protect a political side' when its been explained literally over and over that this is about multiple threads going offtopic with the same stuff. I mean, if there was someone who liked Corbyn doing this in so many threads, the same would happen (I think from memory this did happen once actually, and that wasn't taken well either)

But y'all keep saying in this 9 page thread about how awful Corbyn and those around him, and his supporters are..that anyone who dislikes Corbyn or is right leaning is being censored. Maybe go say the same thing in any of the other multiple negative Corbyn threads, or threads that are negative about the left in general. Of course we are definitely trying to rid the site of any dissent. As a serious debates forum absolutely can work when all of the posters in there agree :conf2:

Anyway, I'm not being drawn back into discussions about it as I have repeated myself so many times already and seemingly been ignored if what people are taking away from this is that no negative posts about Corbyn are allowed. Its really just paranoid nonsense, it really is. Maybe pick yourself a left wing figure and start spamming all over the forum, about how much you love them, one line posts, random turning of every political threads into how much you love this left wing figure, and see what happens (actually please do not actually do this, no more offtopic stuff :laugh: ). As it will be exactly the same thing, which I reckon kind of proves that its not about silencing one side, its about trying to keep SD from being a repetitive load of bollocks.

Again, went into more than I planned to here but meh. It still won't be listened to and people will continue to have this (false) view that we are 'protecting' the left of whatever. The most left leaning member on here seems to bloody love all of the Corbyn discussions anyway, no matter how they start. It seems to be those who are not that into politics, or are just sick to death of seeing the same stuff everywhere that have issues with the repetitiveness in threads...

[Vicky.]

That is all well and good but without members it wouldn’t be around for long so it isn’t completely a one-way thing is it. SD certainly woudn’t get much use if only those with one opinion could post. Debate usually involves the expression of differing opinions does it not.

Or is the site to become just a supporter of one political party - just another Corbynista.

We are well aware of this, and this is why its clearly nonsense that we are trying to censor one side. If we were at the stage of wanting to censor one side (and you have to remember that among the staff there are a range of political stances too) then it would make much more sense to just close down this section fullstop wouldn't it. As the section cannot go on with only one viewpoint..it just would not work. As surely everyone knows. So this accusation that instead of trying to keep threads on topic, we have something against those of a certain political persuasion and want to censor them..its just rubbish.

I keep getting drawn into ****ing posting when I don't want to. So am now actually leaving the thread instead of reading the rest of the posts as I really do not want to get back into arguing about this when I have already gone over this clearly. And doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Or something.

[Vicky.]

Being fair to the mod team, threads have been pulled completely off topic by people who have, essentially, decided that they have no interest in the actual thread topic and have something to say about something else that's far more important or "makes a point". I get the impression that there's been an overall decision to try to stop this from happening, and it's a recent decision, which is going to take some time to "settle" and be implemented in the best way. For example, turning a fairly academic thread about Hitler into "Corbyn moans" I can't accept as anything other than total nonsense. On the other hand, I feel like bringing up Corbyn (or May, or any other high profile politician) in any thread about UK domestic politics is absolutely fair game,so maybe the policy is being implemented too heavy-handedly. I can't say for certain because I can't see which posts were removed.

My only other caveat would be... If its not bringing it up in a way that actually engages with the thread topic, but instead having exactly the same posts and points regurgitated ad nauseum in multiple threads, then is it really adding anything to the debate? If it's just more "whataboutism" then I can't really agree that it does. A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

EXACTLY THIS.

My god you can put things better than I can. This is what I was trying to say pages back. But was either misunderstood or ignored. I suspect purposely misunderstood.

Corbyn is relevant in many current political threads, of course. But the deleted posts were not comparing, say Corbyns voting record to Moggs or anything like that. They were literally just 'What about Corbyn' and 'You support Corbyn' 'random Corbyn bollocks' which were nothing at all to do with the actual thread. This was the problem in there, not bringing up Corbyn or being negative or whatever. There could be a similar thread about Corbyns voting record...and if people came into it not even acknowledging the topic and just posting 'what about May/Mogg' 'your opinion is crap as you support May/Mogg' or whatever, then those would be offtopic nonsense and removed too. Theres just no need for it. none at all. It adds nothing and takes threads offtopic on a regular basis. Its almost always the same stuff that does it...and it just so happens that its almost always 'but Corbyn' stuff. So its the 'but Corbyn' stuff thats being deleted.

I cannot leave the thread FFS. I am trying :laugh:

Disclaimer. I do agree it may have been heavy handed removing the posts in that Mogg thread though, as I said over and over. But I understood why they were deleted, which was basically because of TS bold part up there^

The more I have thought about the deletions, the more I do think I agree with them though. Especially given the amount of 'but Corbyn' posts there are elsewhere too and the sheer amount of threads that get taken offtopic by it all.

[bots]

:laugh: I failed slightly there for sure

I do not understand how people are taking this as trying to 'protect a political side' when its been explained literally over and over that this is about multiple threads going offtopic with the same stuff. I mean, if there was someone who liked Corbyn doing this in so many threads, the same would happen (I think from memory this did happen once actually, and that wasn't taken well either)

But y'all keep saying in this 9 page thread about how awful Corbyn and those around him, and his supporters are..that anyone who dislikes Corbyn or is right leaning is being censored. Maybe go say the same thing in any of the other multiple negative Corbyn threads, or threads that are negative about the left in general. Of course we are definitely trying to rid the site of any dissent. As a serious debates forum absolutely can work when all of the posters in there agree :conf2:

Anyway, I'm not being drawn back into discussions about it as I have repeated myself so many times already and seemingly been ignored if what people are taking away from this is that no negative posts about Corbyn are allowed. Its really just paranoid nonsense, it really is. Maybe pick yourself a left wing figure and start spamming all over the forum, about how much you love them, one line posts, random turning of every political threads into how much you love this left wing figure, and see what happens (actually please do not actually do this, no more offtopic stuff :laugh: ). As it will be exactly the same thing, which I reckon kind of proves that its not about silencing one side, its about trying to keep SD from being a repetitive load of bollocks.

Again, went into more than I planned to here but meh. It still won't be listened to and people will continue to have this (false) view that we are 'protecting' the left of whatever. The most left leaning member on here seems to bloody love all of the Corbyn discussions anyway, no matter how they start. It seems to be those who are not that into politics, or are just sick to death of seeing the same stuff everywhere that have issues with the repetitiveness in threads...

Vicky, I appreciate your well meaning explanations, I really do and I know you believe what you are saying to be true, but my perception is completely different and I'm not alone in that. The people raising criticism are not stupid people. They feel an injustice is being done. I've made my decision, that's what works best for me in the circumstances, time will tell how things go in the future

[Vicky.]

Vicky, I appreciate your well meaning explanations, I really do and I know you believe what you are saying to be true, but my perception is completely different and I'm not alone in that. The people raising criticism are not stupid people. They feel an injustice is being done. I've made my decision, that's what works best for me in the circumstances, time will tell how things go in the future

Yeah well thats totally up to you. I am not saying those criticizing are stupid people either.

[Jack_]

The most left leaning member on here seems to bloody love all of the Corbyn discussions anyway, no matter how they start.

:fist: that would be me, and I hate them!

[Vicky.]

:fist: that would be me, and I hate them!

Sorry, I was thinking of kizzy :laugh:

[Jack_]

Oh :laugh: she's definitely not as big a loony liberal lefty as me tho :smug:

[Vicky.]

I actually think I am more centre these days. Which worries me as people do say as you grow up you get more and more right wing. I have shifted from left to close to centre since turning 30 :worry: I could never be totally right wing though, I am sure of it. Especially as someone who is actually disabled..I couldn't be all for removing my own bloody rights and seeing myself as a parasite!

I am not sure if I actually have shifted or if its just Corbyn (its fine in this thread, its on topic clearly) that I disagree with. The whole identity politics rubbish seems to be what did it to start with, then it all went downhill from there. I would say I lean more to the left with most issues but I just cannot get behind this oppression olympics thing that seems to be going on. And I disagree with Corbyn on a fair few things, so not sure if its Corbyn I disagree with, or if I really am moving over slowly to 'the other side':laugh:

[Niamh.]

I actually think I am more centre these days. Which worries me as people do say as you grow up you get more and more right wing. I have shifted from left to close to centre since turning 30 :worry: I could never be totally right wing though, I am sure of it. Especially as someone who is actually disabled..I couldn't be all for removing my own bloody rights and seeing myself as a parasite!

I am not sure if I actually have shifted or if its just Corbyn (its fine in this thread, its on topic clearly) that I disagree with. The whole identity politics rubbish seems to be what did it to start with, then it all went downhill from there. I would say I lean more to the left with most issues but I just cannot get behind this oppression olympics thing that seems to be going on. And I disagree with Corbyn on a fair few things, so not sure if its Corbyn I disagree with, or if I really am moving over slowly to 'the other side':laugh:

I think it's probably the transgender V's Womens rights issues that's probably shifted how you lean a bit more, I'm the same but I've not changed because I've always been more left leaning and also a feminist but before feminism was more "left" now however it seems womens rights a re"right" because transgenders are the new left womens rights cause

[Vicky.]

I think it's probably the transgender V's Womens rights issues that's probably shifted how you lean a bit more, I'm the same but I've not changed because I've always been more left leaning and also a feminist but before feminism was more "left" now however it seems womens rights a re"right" because transgenders are the new left womens rights cause

Yeah thats probably right tbh. I feel I could not vote for labour in their current state, with them refusing to acknowledge that women are even a real ****ing thing and a group that really do require their own rights seperate from male people. I can see how that may colour a lot of my opinions. You are very right that feminism appears to now be a more right leaning thing :laugh:

[Vicky.]

Also having 'the wrong view' I have realised quite how 'the left' behave if you dare to have the wrong opinion on something. Which is a bit scary. This whole thing has really woke me up in so many ways.

[Maru]

I actually think I am more centre these days. Which worries me as people do say as you grow up you get more and more right wing. I have shifted from left to close to centre since turning 30 :worry: I could never be totally right wing though, I am sure of it. Especially as someone who is actually disabled..I couldn't be all for removing my own bloody rights and seeing myself as a parasite!

I am not sure if I actually have shifted or if its just Corbyn (its fine in this thread, its on topic clearly) that I disagree with. The whole identity politics rubbish seems to be what did it to start with, then it all went downhill from there. I would say I lean more to the left with most issues but I just cannot get behind this oppression olympics thing that seems to be going on. And I disagree with Corbyn on a fair few things, so not sure if its Corbyn I disagree with, or if I really am moving over slowly to 'the other side':laugh:

Politics is a sport of judgement, so we tend to equate the worst views with left/right aspects. I think many more people are centrist than they are right/left if we were just to judge that definition by it's worst views. Being right-leaning is not a "bad" word... maybe it is different in the UK, but here, it just means you stand for more traditional values, for self-responsibility, for a laws and an economic system that reflects this... but charity is encouraged

I don't know any politician here that has spoke of removing disability. Vicky, I am with you. We have a movement disorder in our family (unknown at the time) and I could never see their care stripped away. I think some welfare is reasonable and actually in society's interest.

[Vicky.]

Politics is a sport of judgement, so we tend to equate the worst views with left/right aspects. I think many more people are centrist than they are right/left if we were just to judge that definition by it's worst views. Being right-leaning is not a "bad" word... maybe it is different in the UK, but here, it just means you stand for more traditional values, for self-responsibility, for a laws and an economic system that reflects this... but charity is encouraged

I don't know any politician here that has spoke of removing disability. Vicky, I am with you. We have a movement disorder in our family (unknown at the time) and I could never see their care stripped away. I think some welfare is reasonable and actually in society's interest.
They don't outright say it, that would be political suicide. But they are chopping and chopping away at support for people like me. They changed DLA to PIP in an attempt to, not help the disabled, but cut down how many people were on the benefit. My cousin was on a lifetime DLA award as he has a progressive illness that specialists have said will never ever be cured and it affects his life in a huge way. When being 'transferred' over to PIP, his award was stripped away completely. The 'assessor' was an ex midwife, with no experience in his illness at all and they lied left right and centre ontop of that (this is a common experience for these assessments). He is now having to go through tribunals and stuff to get any award.

With DLA, you got the higher rate if you could not consistently mobilize over 50m. PIP has changed this to 20m. So these people who have had it cut away, they are still as ill as they were, just the government has randomly decided that they do not get the help. That kind of thing.

Honestly, if not for the treatment of the poor and disabled, I could maybe bring myself to vote Tory.

But right now, I am politically homeless for the first time in my life.

I cannot vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge..unless he sorts his **** out
And I cannot vote Tory for personal reasons
Any other vote is a waste, but all other political parties bar UKIP support this ridiculous 'self ID' (changing sex by ticking a box on a piece of paper) thing. I could not vote UKIP as I disagree with them on most matters too :laugh:

I agree that most people are probably centre. I think people feel like they HAVE to pick a 'side'.

[Livia]

They don't outright say it, that would be political suicide. But they are chopping and chopping away at support for people like me. They changed DLA to PIP in an attempt to, not help the disabled, but cut down how many people were on the benefit. My cousin was on a lifetime DLA award as he has a progressive illness that specialists have said will never ever be cured and it affects his life in a huge way. When being 'transferred' over to PIP, his award was stripped away completely. He is now having to go through tribunals ajnd stuff to get any award.

With DLA, you got the higher rate if you could not consistently mobilize over 50m. PIP has changed this to 20m. So these people who have had it cut away, they are still as ill as they were, just the government has randomly decided that they do not get the help. That kind of thing.

Honestly, if not for the treatment of the poor and disabled, I could maybe bring myself to vote Tory.

But right now, I am politically homeless for the first time in my life.

I cannot vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge..unless he sorts his **** out
And I cannot vote Tory for personal reasons
Any other vote is a waste, but all other political parties bar UKIP support this ridiculous 'self ID' (changing sex by ticking a box on a piece of paper) thing. I could not vote UKIP as I disagree with them on most matters too :laugh:

I agree that most people are probably centre. I think people feel like they HAVE to pick a 'side'.

This sums up how I feel about it all right now. If there was a general election tomorrow I would have to write on the ballot paper, none of the above.

[Vicky.]

Indeed. All parties seem to be going to ****. I don't get it at all. There have always been little things I disagreed with about each party. But these seem to have morphed into absolutely huge things that I cannot ignore. We need a new sensible party, who are centrist also.

But realistically, even a new party would stand no chance anyway. Its always going to be Tories or Labour. Lib dems were climbing up slowly, but Clegg ****ed that by going back on the one promise that won him the votes in the first place!

[jet]

A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

I get that, but once again the whole point I and others were making yesterday is being missed. On THAT thread, at least initially, there was no effort to engage the actual topic, it was just one or two word name calling of Ree Moggs (not that I care for him myself). So why is it not okay for others to respond and post about Corbyn in a similar vein (and many were NOT of that variety), comparing one future possible PM to another possible future PM? The tone of the thread was set already by the Ree Moggs detractors, it wasn't in any way a
discussion that was being derailed.

If the thread had contained well thought out posts and we had come in saying 'but what about Corbyn's shortcomings!!!', with disparaging one word this or that's then yes, I see the problem here. But that's not what happened, so it was unfair to delete all of the mentions of Corbyn and leaving all the posts that many considered started off the thread in a baiting manner intact.

Am I making any sense here because it doesn't seem to be understood and I really don't want to say any more about it or start it all up again, I really don't.

So really I think the TONE of a thread is all - important and what I really want to know is what happens going forward using the Ree Moggs thread as an example because obviously many of us were unhappy about the way it was handled.

Can a mod make it clear what the future policy on the type of thread like the Ree Moggs one is going to be please?

[Maru]

They don't outright say it, that would be political suicide. But they are chopping and chopping away at support for people like me. They changed DLA to PIP in an attempt to, not help the disabled, but cut down how many people were on the benefit. My cousin was on a lifetime DLA award as he has a progressive illness that specialists have said will never ever be cured and it affects his life in a huge way. When being 'transferred' over to PIP, his award was stripped away completely. The 'assessor' was an ex midwife, with no experience in his illness at all and they lied left right and centre ontop of that (this is a common experience for these assessments). He is now having to go through tribunals and stuff to get any award.

With DLA, you got the higher rate if you could not consistently mobilize over 50m. PIP has changed this to 20m. So these people who have had it cut away, they are still as ill as they were, just the government has randomly decided that they do not get the help. That kind of thing.

Honestly, if not for the treatment of the poor and disabled, I could maybe bring myself to vote Tory.

But right now, I am politically homeless for the first time in my life.

I cannot vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge..unless he sorts his **** out
And I cannot vote Tory for personal reasons
Any other vote is a waste, but all other political parties bar UKIP support this ridiculous 'self ID' (changing sex by ticking a box on a piece of paper) thing. I could not vote UKIP as I disagree with them on most matters too :laugh:

I agree that most people are probably centre. I think people feel like they HAVE to pick a 'side'.

That's ridiculous. You are actually screwed no matter which way you go then.. :laugh:

I can't say I can vote right-leaning across the board, as I tend to vote independent, but it is on a candidate versus position kind of deal. Sometimes it's a "no confidence" write-in, but it really depends.

The US does try to get people taken off disability, but it's not really a political platform, it's always been designed that way. It is also difficult to get in. Takes at least a year and a half and fighting almost certain soul draining appeal after appeal to get in. My family had a difficult time due to their disorder not being in the official list. But the US/state came back several years later and retroactively added them out of the blue, so they paid them what they were owed over the course of that time. They were lucky to have family care for them in the meantime, but they've been in since, so nearly 30 years.

We can't have any sort of income over a certain number if we apply. I think it is like $300/gross monthly... but they want you to see doctors so you can provide all sorts of documentation. :spin2: That's why a lot of people get lawyers to expedite the process, but not everyone can afford them. They do it to reduce fraud from people applying because they are pregnant, have an ingrown toenail, etc, but it obviously has the effect of creating all kinds of hardship.

The one thing I like about the US being so geographically diverse and separated in powers per state versus federal, is that if we wanted to ignore national, we easily could (and many do). I just focus on local politics/matter, where my vote really counts... whereas national is just a grudge match and we are unwilling participants of that cockery.

[Vicky.]

I get what you are saying jet.

Can you explain what exactly you mean by

Can a mod make it clear what the future policy on the type of thread like the Ree Moggs one is going to be please?

This though? What kind of thread? Like, an actual discussion thread about his voting record for example?

I think maybe, I might just start deleting threads that are not clear about what they are about and have absolutely no thought gone into them too. So that thread would probably be gone. As would the many many threads that literally just have a link to a news story in them and nothing else. Like, if you want to discuss that news story, discuss it? No need to just make a title and post a link with maybe a little quote of what they story says. Add your own actual opinion to it.

Would people be happy with this btw? As I don't want to be doing it for people to still moan :laugh:

As as I can see it, if this is done, then it would be fine to delete the random 'but what about Corbyn' 'what about Mogg' or whatever, as obviously your actual opinion would need to be given in reply to the OP, rather than one word/line (sometimes snipey) posts.

Basically, how would people feel about serious debates actually being serious debates again. With one word/one line stuff pretty much gone completely and discussion threads actually being discussion threads rather than snipey rubbish?

I may make a thread about this, as many will be avoiding this thread as they think that its yet another Corbyn argument going on :laugh:

[jet]

Oh, and I see you are all in the middle of an interesting discussion, so what I asked above can wait until later...It Just took me ages to post that as I have a hell of a migraine which isn't easing up yet...carry on :hee:

Edited to add: That was quick Vicky - a reply already! I'll have a proper read of it later after I lie down again for a while.

[Maru]

I get what you are saying jet.

Can you explain what exactly you mean by



This though? What kind of thread? Like, an actual discussion thread about his voting record for example?

I think maybe, I might just start deleting threads that are not clear about what they are about and have absolutely no thought gone into them too. So that thread would probably be gone. As would the many many threads that literally just have a link to a news story in them and nothing else. Like, if you want to discuss that news story, discuss it? No need to just make a title and post a link with maybe a little quote of what they story says. Add your own actual opinion to it.

You mean like my threads? :laugh: I usually post articles, but can't say I always agree with them. It's just a discussion starter and usually the articles are better worded than anything I could write. The other reason I think many people don't post too many OP essays in SD is because over half the time they turn into straw mans and character attacks anyway... so some ppl may not bother.

I think deleting ambiguous threads is fine given those are usually bait threads anyway... though a lock I think is better than deleting as long as it's not particularly offensive material.

[Vicky.]

You mean like my threads? :laugh: I usually post articles, but can't say I always agree with them. It's just a discussion starter and usually the articles are better worded than anything I could write. The other reason I think many people don't post too many OP essays in SD is because over half the time they turn into straw mans and character attacks anyway... so some ppl may not bother.

I think deleting ambiguous threads is fine given those are usually bait threads anyway... though a lock I think is better than deleting as long as it's not particularly offensive material.

It does not need to be an essay. I cant say I have ever notice your thread being nothing but a link? I think you always actually add something to the OP? Maybe not :laugh:

I know sometimes its a discussion starter, but even a starter should have something besides...'discuss' surely? Whoever is making the thread MUST have an opinion on it one way or the other? IDK..I know anything I make threads about, I always have an opinion on and want to discuss that. Maybe others are different. have made a poll anyway about all of this, where hopefully I will get a lot of opinions :)

[jaxie]

Re Vicky, Maru and Livia's conversation. My dad was a union man before his disablement and I grew up on a staunch socialist household. I have voted Labour in the past but was turned off them at different times by the loony left of the past, the behaviour of Tony Blair and the rise of Corbyn. For a number of years I was Lib Dem until they sold out the students and I don't like their stance over Brexit. I'd never vote for them again I don't think. I am left with no one really to vote for. I'm centreish politically and I don't think the right is all bad. What I definitely don't support is violence against particular MPs whoever they are.

Re Vicky's suggestion about deleting threads like that Mogg one I'd support that though I do sometimes just post an article with a sentence or two on something I find interesting to give others a chance to read it so it sounds like most threads I start would be gone!

BTW what happened to the zebras thread! :fist:

What Jet said for me too really. Our complaint/discussion was about that particular Mogg thread and our posts in it.

[Vicky.]

Zebra thread is in general chat :laugh:

OK jaxie have just had a look through your most recent started threads in this section and those are all fine from what I can see, as you do not just post the link and 'discuss' or just the link, you do actually say what you think about it. I don't mean everyone needs to do essays when starting threads, even though thats usually my style :laugh:

[Maru]

It does not need to be an essay. I cant say I have ever notice your thread being nothing but a link? I think you always actually add something to the OP? Maybe not :laugh:

It depends, sometimes it's just because of the {& News} filter portion of the sub... like making others aware of something that they didn't know about before, etc

I know sometimes its a discussion starter, but even a starter should have something besides...'discuss' surely? Whoever is making the thread MUST have an opinion on it one way or the other? IDK..I know anything I make threads about, I always have an opinion on and want to discuss that. Maybe others are different. have made a poll anyway about all of this, where hopefully I will get a lot of opinions :)

I understand what you're saying. If a rule is put forth, I think I can manage a simple post :laugh:

[user104658]

I hate one line replies.

[Maru]

I hate one line replies.

Those scumbag moderators must've edited out the rest of your post. Where are they? :fist:

[user104658]

Those scumbag moderators must've edited out the rest of your post. Where are they? :fist:Probably on YouTube watching Corbyn videos and whatnot!

[Withano]

I hate one line replies.

:clap1:

[Cherie]

I hate one line replies.

what if the one liner covers everything the person wants to say though :think:

[bots]

what if the one liner covers everything the person wants to say though :think:

.

[user104658]

what if the one liner covers everything the person wants to say though :think:That never happens.

[Livia]

I hate one line replies.

Brevity of the soul of wit, you know.

[Cherie]

That never happens.

I can be very succinct! I guess how people post may reflect real life personalties as well, like some people can get to the nub of the issue quickly, while others need to go all round the houses and fill in background

[user104658]

I can be very succinct! I guess how people post may reflect real life personalties as well, like some people can get to the nub of the issue quickly, while others need to go all round the houses and fill in background

No.

[jet]

Vicky, I hope you don't mind me posting your closing post in the thread you made to try to sort things out but I haven't been well today and slept a lot and have just resurfaced feeling somewhat better :hee:

I am closing my own thread as its now quite clear that no matter what we do, we will be in the wrong. I did think that maybe we could sort something out, but it is clear that this is not possible tbh. I don't know what I was thinking making this thread and being optimistic about it all. Also closing as I can see the direction this is now going to go, in exactly the same direction as most other threads.

Moderating is always going to be subjective. And context is important also so no 'set rules' would really work.

So I guess, I will be doing the same as usual, but I may also be reminding people that they need to be ontopic, and also intervening/deleting when appropriate. This will be my last attempt to sort out this section, and tbh, I am sure it won't work either but it has to be tried. If people do feel victimized, so be it. Its the nature of the job really isn't it..

So yeah, closed as its already going the same way as usual, tbh.

People may PM me if they disagree with this being closed, but I am sure most can see exactly why it was.

I really appreciate your effort and how you opened a thread with helpful suggestions and given everyone a voice and I'm sure most here feel the same.
I guess moderating any forum with people from all walks of life and opinions is a thankless and frustrating job most of the time. You couldn't pay me a handsome salary to do it!
So I'm thinking how do you moderate all sorts of people with all different opinions and experiences and emotions and backgrounds, and the answer is 'with great difficulty' so don't think your efforts have been in vain at all - it was inevitable that there is going to be all those voices wanting to be heard according to their their own views and perspectives.

And I too have my own view, of course, don't we all! and I don't really think the SD forum is that bad, really. I have little to complain about, apart from my and others opinions of the unfairness in the Ree Moggs thread which I think is a good example of something to look at and learn from, given the hassle it has caused....:hee:.

And another thing for me is people saying things like they do to Brillo (I hope you don't mind me referencing you here Brillo) like 'you are racist!' instead of 'your opinion sounds racist' as just an example. The first is stating a fixed opinion in the accusers mind, while the second is opening it up for further debate, explanation and clarification....and that goes for any terms people feel are derogatory - whether it be snowflake or sexist or fascist or whatever. It's little things like that that make a difference... Those things have caused so many problems here and are quite easy to fix if it is said 'it sounds like...can you explain further, rather than 'this is what you are'!

IMO only, apart from the above, and the big no - no of people getting awfully personal with each other, I'd let people go at it. Nobody can tame human beings with all their complexities or set ways and its futile to try. Like Ammi said, there can be young uns here with their own way of saying things or old hands with theirs. Let them hash it out among themselves unless it gets personal or someone is being uncomfortably targeted.

Only my probably simplistic take on it, but on the whole, I think the mods do a great job most of the time, suffering in silence! and it it is only when something in particular comes up that highlights a particular dissatisfaction, like that infamous Ree Moggs thread, do things need to be looked at and modified in light of that, just for future fairness and even -handedness.

So thanks in particular to Vicky, for making such a huge effort, and upwards and onward to SD and whatever it brings in the future - its never boring anyway, that's for sure! :laugh:

[Vicky.]

And another thing for me is people saying things like they do to Brillo (I hope you don't mind me referencing you here Brillo) like 'you are racist!' instead of 'your opinion sounds racist' as just an example. The first is stating a fixed opinion in the accusers mind, while the second is opening it up for further debate, explanation and clarification....and that goes for any terms people feel are derogatory - whether it be snowflake or sexist or fascist or whatever. It's little things like that that make a difference... Those things have caused so many problems here and are quite easy to fix if it is said 'it sounds like...can you explain further, rather than 'this is what you are'!


Yeah this part is really important. I have to note though that it does not only happen to brillo, it happens to a few members.

I do agree that instead of 'you are racist' it should be 'this post is racist and here is the reason why' or 'you are coming across quite racist, and here is why'. As yelling racist helps nothing at all, and definitely does not add to the debate. Of coutrse if you find a post racist, call it out and explain. But just a single you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc is a bit pointless.

I think a lot of the problems here at the moment cannot really be fixed by mods at all. They need to be fixed by members. Like, think about what you are posting, will the person take offence at the wording? I know sometimes people MEAN to cause offence but thats not very productive really. At times the person will take offence whatever, but you can still post it, aslong as its actually productive, if that makes sense.

I honestly think part of the problem is the lack of members posting in here, so its the same members going at each other all of the time and frustrating each other, then going into the next thread and it starts all over and then members end up with grudges against others, which carries on and on. Not sure if that can be sorted though, as its quite normal for a small group who know each other and each others opinions pretty well.

Glad you are feeling better too. And it seems, you have had a sex change, congratulations :laugh: I used to think you were male, then someone said you were female (I thought it was you that said this actually) but I still read your posts as..male, you type very male. And now I find out you are actually male again :D

[Vicky.]

Also, I meant to ask earlier, brllo do you want the offtopic stuff in here deleted, or is it ok to leave it? Whichever is fine, but let me know if you want it gone so it can all get back ontopic :p

[jaxie]

I'm not going to quote and clog the thread with more text but that was a great post Jet.

I also appreciate your efforts Vicky and your fairness over the thread we complained about. You did at least seem to understand our point over that particular thread and the deleted posts.

It's a shame that the thread you started had to closed, I thought the principle was very progressive of you.

[Vicky.]

I'm not going to quote and clog the thread with more text but that was a great post Jet.

I also appreciate your efforts Vicky and your fairness over the thread we complained about. You did at least seem to understand our point over that particular thread and the deleted posts.

It's a shame that the thread you started had to closed, I thought the principle was very progressive of you.

Oh yeah, I definitely did get your point. I could see it from both sides though, which was a bit of a problem. I had splinters in my arse from the fencesitting, tbh :laugh:

[jaxie]

Oh yeah, I definitely did get your point. I could see it from both sides though, which was a bit of a problem. I had splinters in my arse from the fencesitting, tbh :laugh:

Well I will take fence sitting over just siding with the other mod because it's easy. It makes me respect you that you at least considered our pov. .

It is a shame about the closed thread because it felt the penny might have dropped for at least one or two people about accusation language. But I get why you closed it with the argument breaking out towards the end. I think accusation language causes a lot of the probs. Like labelling people and such.

[Ammi]

..I don’t know whether you would consider re-opening the ‘take 2’ thread again, Vicky...I know you felt that it was ‘descending’, but I think some descension is necessary as well, actually quite vital, especially in the early stages of trying to ‘fix’....it’s a bit like a broken marriage, or a marriage that’s having difficulties and trying to work things out as a couple, so that they can stay together because they both want the same with that, neither wants to part ways..:laugh:...anyways, a lot of ‘negatives’ and things that went wrong or are going wrong have to be addressed first before that ‘building’ can happen...and I do think there was still much progression and positive in the thread, with maybe just a few ‘descensions’...descending is going to be my word of the day..:laugh:...also I think I might have said in the thread which is slightly happening here...unless it just all became impossible in it’s being negative, then the closing and cutting off as it were of closed threads...doesn’t really solve because what essentially is being said will still be felt so can be counter productive in the frustrations it causes...so the spilling over into other threads and thread after thread, would seem inevitable...if we’re seeking to ‘fix’ as I think we all are, then there has to be a ‘thrashing out’ period of the good and the bad and maybe only think of ‘closing’ if it all became too ‘ugly’...which doesn’t seem to be happening anyway...anyways, I seem to have missed a lot while not here so I probably wouldn’t participate much myself, because I don’t think I’m personally being very productive in my contribution...but it feels it’s something that others feel a definite need for, for their voices/all voices to be heard..?...

[Vicky.]

Yeah..it was descending but I also kind of felt, we are never going to come to any kind of consensus realistically. Might be worth having a no holds barred 'get it all off your chest' thread, but I don't think james would go for that somehow :joker:

[user104658]

Yeah..it was descending but I also kind of felt, we are never going to come to any kind of consensus realistically. Might be worth having a no holds barred 'get it all off your chest' thread, but I don't think james would go for that somehow :joker:

I hope this happens cuz I got words for all y'all. :fist:

[jaxie]

Yeah..it was descending but I also kind of felt, we are never going to come to any kind of consensus realistically. Might be worth having a no holds barred 'get it all off your chest' thread, but I don't think james would go for that somehow :joker:

I thought we kind of did that in another thread not that long ago.

A time out room for Dezzy and Brillo? :hehe:

[Livia]

I hope this happens cuz I got words for all y'all. :fist:

I have only two for you, TS.

[user104658]

I thought we kind of did that in another thread not that long ago.

A time out room for Dezzy and Brillo? :hehe:

https://i.imgur.com/sP6CyS6.jpg

[user104658]

I have only two for you, TS.

" Howyou Doin' "

yQDi8uoZiZY

[Livia]

" Howyou Doin' "

yQDi8uoZiZY

LOL... not even close!

[Vicky.]

I thought we kind of did that in another thread not that long ago.

A time out room for Dezzy and Brillo? :hehe:

Ah yes we did thats right. And it helped nothing at all.

Back to the drawing board

https://i.imgur.com/sP6CyS6.jpg

:D

[smudgie]

https://i.imgur.com/sP6CyS6.jpg

:hehe: Do we really need a picture of your mancave/garage TS?

[Livia]

:hehe: Do we really need a picture of your mancave/garage TS?

If that's TS's dungeon, I'm going to wager £50 that he is not the one in charge in there :-)

[Alf]

The front page of tomorrow's (or now today's) Sun

Headline: Corbyn And The Commie Spy


The Corbynites are not very happy on Twitter, they've gone all Donald Trump on The Sun's ass, and are screaming fake news.