[Tom4784]

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

I would agree with that, can we also add words like scum etc, because they add nothing, you don't hear that at PMs questions, Teresa May shouting scum at the opposition

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I would agree with that, can we also add words like scum etc, because they add nothing, you don't hear that at PMs questions, Teresa May shouting scum at the opposition

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

I'd agree to that.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

I'm a bit confused with this too, because sometimes under the correct context, 'she is scum' could be fine? Like that rees-mogg thread where the OP was of a video that highlights the awful things that he has done under his time in parliament. A natural response could be that he is scum, and that would be for the reasons that the video brought up, is there need to reiterate why he is scum? If there was a thread on a mass murderer some time in the future, why cant people use that space to vent? Why must they give reasons to vent, the reasons are going to be obvious sometimes..

I dunno, I'm not being purposely difficult I promise.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think its the word scum specifically, but I do think that random posts just with 'she is scum' or whatever should be deleted. It clearly adds nothing at all to the discussion tbh. But if there was a post that actually had substance, and had the word scum in, that would be fine. if that makes sense.

yeah that's fine, just to stop people from just posting scum, or he/she's gross kinda posts which add nothing and are more aimed at the member rather than the party

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

I agree with this. Its fine to say you consider someones view to be transphobic, but it should be backed up with why you think that, basically?

But I do think random 'you are racist' posts should be considered an insult if the likes of 'snowflake' were

Personally I completely disagree with snowflake and leftie/rightie (never have heard rightie, ever) being insults though. Loony left, possibly. Remoaner is a clearly baiting term I reckon. I know its used in the press, but that doesnt change anything.

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

That was me




I think regardless of what extra rules get out in place, some people will always break them so is there really much point?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I clicked the wrong option but I agree with that.

I also think that terms like 'Snowflake', using leftie (or loony left) or rightie or whatever as an insult, remoaner etc should be infractable offenses, I read a good point the other day (maybe a few weeks back) that terms like 'cat lady' are infractable offenses but these typically aren't I also think these should be infractable too since they only serve as an insult.

I made this point in the CBB forum when India was still the main talking point but I don't think accusing a forum member of something (Hypocrisy, racism or, in the case of CBB, Transphobia, etc) should be considered an insult unless it's something among the lines of 'You're a racist wanker' etc. If someone says 'well, I think that view is sexist and here's the reasons why' that should not be considered an insult, it's an argument and one backed up with reasoning.

SO there we are again - you want to be able to infract people who say snowflake or leftie but still want to be able to use far more insulting words such as racist unles it is used in conjunction with a word such as wanker.

Might be fair if it also only applied to those who say something along the lines of leftie wanker. Waste of time when the mods still want to practice double standards.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

SO there we are again - you want to be able to infract people who say snowflake or leftie but still want to be able to use far more insulting words such as racist unles it is used in conjunction with a word such as wanker.

Might be fair if it also only applied to those who say something along the lines of leftie wanker. Waste of time when the mods still want to practice double standards.

Like I said, if someone finds a view racist and they can explain why then it should be allowed because that is adding to the discussion, calling people remoaners and snowflakes only serves to bring a discussion to a screeching halt.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Like I said, if someone finds a view racist and they can explain why then it should be allowed because that is adding to the discussion, calling people remoaners and snowflakes only serves to bring a discussion to a screeching halt.

That is your opinion not fact. So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay? You are not willing to change your stance one iota. Nothing will change clearly.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay?

There's other words you can use, snowflake is just an insult through and through. It'd be like saying 'you can call people stupid or ugly, just as long as you explain why.'

Thinking that someone's post is racist, in itself, is not an insult, especially if they explain why.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There's other words you can use, snowflake is just an insult through and through. It'd be like saying 'you can call people stupid or ugly, just as long as you explain why.'

Thinking that someone's post is racist, in itself, is not an insult, especially if they explain why.

Racist is an insult through and through. It is not for you to state what is and isn’t insulting and that is half the problem. People clearly do find it insulting but you think you know best and can insult people that way despite them not having made any reference to skin colour - you just interpret it in a hysterical way and try to label people based on that premise.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Racist is an insult through and through. It is not for you to state what is and isn’t insulting and that is half the problem. People clearly do find it insulting but you think you know best and can insult people that way despite them not having made any reference to skin colour - you just interpret it in a hysterical way and try to label people based on that premise.

Okay, let's see it from the other perspective, you prevent people from finding things racist and voicing but at the same time if someone's misogynistic or says something about the right then you can't voice your disapproval of what they are saying because if you're going to prevent people from being allowed to say that they believe something is racist then you better believe the same rules will apply to issues you care about as well.

It doesn't work because what you essentially want to do is neuter someone's right to reply, you can use a different word to snowflake and still say the same thing but you can't do the same if you find something racist and if someone finds something racist or sexist or homophobic then why can't they say so as long as it's not a one line response or done as an insult?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So if someone finds someone’s view snowflakey or hard left but give an explanation why that is okay?

"snowflakey" isn't an opinion though, it's a silly jibe.

What you are basically saying when you say "they are snowflakes!" is;

"In my opinion, those people are being too sensitive"

... And the latter would be totally fine to say. You can see the difference, surely.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"snowflakey" isn't an opinion though, it's a silly jibe.

What you are basically saying when you say "they are snowflakes!" is;

"In my opinion, those people are being too sensitive"

... And the latter would be totally fine to say. You can see the difference, surely.

Racist may have a valid meaning but is also used as a silly jibe - you honestly think you can say it isn’t.

I have been called racist based on my opposition to mass migration and/or Burkha wearing on many occasions by the very same people who claim it isn’t used to insult or shut-down when it clearly is - long before the flag-waving of the Muslim mother and son who had to wash dishes thread.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Racist may have a valid meaning but is also used as a silly jibe - you honestly think you can say it isn’t.

I have been called racist based on my opposition to mass migration and/or Burkha wearing on many occasions by the very same people who claim it isn’t used to insult or shut-down when it clearly is - long before the flag-waving of the Muslim mother and son who had to wash dishes thread.

While snowflake can ONLY be used as a jibe, it's not a valid comparison.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I think the only thing with locked threads, Maru...from my forum experience anyway...is that the thread becomes locked, so silliness can’t continue or whatever reason it has been...but that can then spill into other threads more/ a new thread...because people still want to say.....but the locking didn’t allow them....

Isn't that what suggestions is for? If it's done pretty consistently and frequent enough though, it shouldn't appear to be partial to the average user.

There's no way to end disputes, that's part of the job.