Forums, Facebook and Free Speech
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Only because YOU didn't like what they were saying. The modern liberal leftie runs away from direct questioning. You posed the thread in a very posturing manner, and yet you still ran away and were light on detail. What are you people scared of? Why is a point of view different to yours 'barging' or 'stomping'?. No one impinged your right to reply you have a keyboard in front of you. Pathetic. markcoznottz said:
Halb said:
WinstonWolf said:
He certainly seems to manage to report nearly every thread he's on. Bottom line, the lefties hate free speech it's in their blood.
How do you know this?Mary Hamilton said:
ecently, the Guardian took the decision to cut down the number of places where we open comments on stories relating to a few contentious subjects – particularly migration and race. The aim isn’t to stop comments appearing at all, but rather to enable us to manage them more effectively, keep a closer watch on the conversation, feed back what’s being said, and make sure the discussion is constructive and not abusive. We hope it’ll help us to be responsible hosts, essentially.
We expect a great deal of our commenters, and we try to hold them to some specific standards. We want to host conversations where there is a constructive debate, where our audience can help us broaden our journalism with their expertise, their knowledge, their considered thoughts and opinions, and where they can use our site as a platform to make connections with the world and with those around them. It’s not hard to see the value there.
If by value you mean political and implicit intent then no, it's really not hard to see what they're doing: on topics where they feel the majority view of their readers and/or the national as a whole conflicts with their world view and ideals, they'll block discussion. Dangerous and disingenuous.We expect a great deal of our commenters, and we try to hold them to some specific standards. We want to host conversations where there is a constructive debate, where our audience can help us broaden our journalism with their expertise, their knowledge, their considered thoughts and opinions, and where they can use our site as a platform to make connections with the world and with those around them. It’s not hard to see the value there.
FWIW, I do not think this relates to PH's very different stance. they were happy for a reasoned debate to be conducted, but stepped in when it deteriorated into something akin to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, with stupidity and ignorance on both main sides of the discussion.
It's a funny thing about freedom of speech. People demand it as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they never use.
These days saying whatever you want can be seen as incitement and if you run a business and allow it to spread unfettered verbal diarrhoea you can be prosecuted. Seems reasonable to maintain some standards of propriety. Sites are now banning all political content (as it usually leads to unreasonable conflict and rudeness - possibly down to a generation of brief-speak loss of grammar) so those that do allow it will collect refugees from shrinking outlets. Maybe PH'ers should be thankful for a certain leeway in troubled times.
These days saying whatever you want can be seen as incitement and if you run a business and allow it to spread unfettered verbal diarrhoea you can be prosecuted. Seems reasonable to maintain some standards of propriety. Sites are now banning all political content (as it usually leads to unreasonable conflict and rudeness - possibly down to a generation of brief-speak loss of grammar) so those that do allow it will collect refugees from shrinking outlets. Maybe PH'ers should be thankful for a certain leeway in troubled times.
markcoznottz said:
Halb said:
WinstonWolf said:
He certainly seems to manage to report nearly every thread he's on. Bottom line, the lefties hate free speech it's in their blood.
How do you know this?IMO if people write obviously unpleasant posts, rather than delete them the mods should lock them so the posts are there for all to see and the poster defend, if they can. It's not just racism/extreme politics either, there have been various posts where the usual types poked fun at people killing themselves; those posts should have stood as testament to the lack of character of the poster. That said presumably haymarket is just protecting itself from whatever legal ramifications there are for being the publisher of 'offensive' material. It's stupid that they have to but this is the world we've allowed ourselves to be bullied into by the professionally offended and their lawyers.
It's a fine line for the Mods. On the one hand you have the sheer crassness, phobias and general unpleasant nature of posters, and then you have the give-and-take of discussion and the general atmosphere of chatting to decent sorts who can debate without bile and vitriol.
There are many great posters on here, but there are some nasty savage types who try and bark over anyone, thinking their bias/beliefs trump anything.
Poor old Mods!
There are many great posters on here, but there are some nasty savage types who try and bark over anyone, thinking their bias/beliefs trump anything.
Poor old Mods!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm struggling to define the commonly used term 'professionally offended' succinctly without just describing an argumentitive muppet. The latter being someone, typically of limited intelligence, who would for example chose to interpret a colloquial phrase literally in order to make some long winded banal point. The former is much like the latter except they throw in one or more 'isms in order to claim some perceived moral high ground, seemingly oblivious to the fact that everyone else is rolling their eyes at them. Both are tedious.Digga said:
If by value you mean political and implicit intent then no, it's really not hard to see what they're doing: on topics where they feel the majority view of their readers and/or the national as a whole conflicts with their world view and ideals, they'll block discussion. Dangerous and disingenuous.
FWIW, I do not think this relates to PH's very different stance. they were happy for a reasoned debate to be conducted, but stepped in when it deteriorated into something akin to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, with stupidity and ignorance on both main sides of the discussion.
But this is the thing-why is it 'dangerous and disingenuous' for the Guardian and yet PH's stance is ok? Is it because you don't see PH's stance as one sided-or because the Guardian is larger than PH?FWIW, I do not think this relates to PH's very different stance. they were happy for a reasoned debate to be conducted, but stepped in when it deteriorated into something akin to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, with stupidity and ignorance on both main sides of the discussion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff