Everyone is so offended.

[irocfan]

techiedave said:

gruffalo said:

bhstewie said:

dudleybloke said:

The SJW's and JTRIG lot have been trying to shut down real conversations here for a while now.

So it's a conspiracy of some sort to to "shut down real conversations" rather than that possibly the sort of conversations some people want to have aren't the kind that Haymarket want their site associated with?

So what would Haymarket fear or risk by letting people voice their opinions, is it the laws around causing offence?

Mumsnet

which is a far less regulated place than here (and has even more knobs, ironically enough, than here) and yet it seems to bumble along ok

[Tom Logan]

irocfan said:

which is a far less regulated place than here (and has even more knobs, ironically enough, than here) and yet it seems to bumble along ok

What about the classifieds though?

Won't anyone think of the revenue?

[gruffalo]

Ridgemont said:

For what it's worth I didn't report the legoland thread, I generally give short shrift to SJW types and have little interest in closing down discussions.
I made an exception in that particular thread as I thought the subject matter was way too recent for the 'humour' involved. Frankie Boylesque comedy catharsis only works if you are genuinely funny. If not it makes you look like an absolute st of the highest order. And my original point was that the comments were tasteless. The fact it escalated from there was largely a product of forum ping pong.

As to the mod policy; its haymarkets playground, not fhe self regulating Wild West that example Usenet as was back in the day. When they close down a thread my impression isn't that it's down to PC or what have you. It's usually because they would rather not have to deal with the st PR that especially NPE could generate (see the Calais madness thread as an example).

All in your opinion.

Please I am not attacking you but why is your opinion correct or more valid than those who made the jokes.

I did not start this thread about the Legoland thread, I tried to start one a few weeks ago but that got very shouty and was closed down after a few pages with accusations of racism being thrown around,

[All that jazz]

gruffalo said:

Been seeing a building trend on PH for a while now where a thread is started, someone comes on saying they find some post offensive, a few retorts and then it all starts getting personal with direct insults and the mods close the thread down.

So why is this trend building, should people who find something offensive voice there offence or accept that it take all sorts to make this world and just let it be?

On the other side should posters no shoot from the hip and triple check every posting they are going to make in case they may cause offense.

Of course this is not just a PH phenomena but seems to be something that is building in society in general with people now able to be prosecuted for causing offense where does it end, is the western world becoming overly sensitive or are we all pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable.

For me I am one of the live and let live type of people, someone may say something that offends but just let it go, life is too short and you know what I may be wrong to feel offended.

What do other think because I find some people really hard to work out these days.

The site is rapidly turning into another mumsnet as it's like being in a group of women with the constant "offendedness" at everything. The recent 'bailiff' thread and also the 'blokes saying inappropriate things' thread are 2 good examples where you can see a long list of perpetually offended members that perhaps shouldn't be allowed access to the internet. And yes, before someone points it out, I am well aware that I was the subject that sparked the 'when is PH going to sort out the knobheads' thread in Website Feedback which came as a direct result of my later comments in the 'bailiff' thread, although personally I don't see what all the fuss was about so just ignored it.

I really don't understand why so many people take internet forums so seriously and work themselves up into a lather if someone dares to deviate off-topic or makes a blunt/cheeky remark. Isn't it generally accepted that the female species tend to be the ones that take stuff seriously, whine a lot and don't like being mocked whereas blokes tend to be more relaxed about stuff, not take life too seriously, act a bit daft and take the piss a bit if an opportunity presents itself? Certainly works that way within my circle of friends and relatives anyway.

Imho internet forums should be for chilling out/relaxing, asking advice/responding to requests for advice on stuff if you know, generally having a laugh/joke/enjoying oneself and this site usually delivers on all. It should not be a place where an army of perpetually offended people come hounding you with pitchforks because they didn't like the tone of your post - and I'll be the first to admit that I can be very blunt, harsh and to-the-point in my replies (sometimes justified, sometimes not) which has put me firmly in the "knob" category for some members here but I don't get all offended over it, I just accept that people have different personalities which sometimes clash and it's just internet randoms where none of it really matters anyway.

I don't understand why some people are up in arms over their perceived lack of moderation on topics either. Could those people be the perpetually offended brigade that spend all their time bashing the 'report' button and then get even more irate when the mods correctly identify them as being a member of said brigade and swiftly delete their reports? I personally find that the moderation here is extremely relaxed and the forums fairly self-policing. Many of the topics posted here would never see the light of day on other sites and even some of the tame ones would be swiftly removed by overzealous mods if it didn't fit in with their own personal agenda. Marshalla comes in for a lot of criticism but I think s/he does a good job under difficult circumstances, specifically any thread about religion or Muslims/Islam usually. I will openly admit I don't help the situation as I have strong personal views on said topics but even though I've had my wings clipped by Marshalla on a few occasions when I've blatantly overstepped the mark, many other posts have been left to remain. I would say that is fairly balanced, unbiased moderation which is exactly what they're there for, is it not?

[Smollet]

Freedom of speech does mean that sometimes things are said that some find offensive. Deal with it in an adult way rather than throw the toys out of the pram.I would only resort to contacting a mod if someone became personally offensive and it was unfounded.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Smollet said:

Freedom of speech does mean that sometimes things are said that some find offensive.

Which is now severely restricted.

You can still think what you like, but make that public and you could be prosecuted.

[Smollet]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Smollet said:

Freedom of speech does mean that sometimes things are said that some find offensive.

Which is now severely restricted.

You can still think what you like, but make that public and you could be prosecuted.

I was referring to such things such as I voted to leave the EU or I don't like cats and they should be banned which some people find offensive and get their panties in a twist. Obviously racial slurs etc are something quite different.

[andy_s]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv...

Millennials offended at the portrayal of Millennials being easily offended...

[Derek Smith]

All that jazz said:

The site is rapidly turning into another mumsnet as it's like being in a group of women with the constant "offendedness" at everything.

I quoted a phrase, a very funny one, on here. It was from an F1 magazine commenting on the Jos Verstappen fire in Germany. It was apposite, which to me was the justification.

It seemed to me that if it was in a mainstream, if rather nerdish, sports magazine it would be acceptable, but I'm afraid not.

It was a dig at Germans of previous generations over something they did many years ago and is mentioned once or twice a year, perhaps more frequently, on the History Channel. But, it seems, it is out of bounds on here.

It is a strange world.

I would assume that some Germans might not have liked being reminded of a dark past but does that mean that we must not talk about the slave trade, or include a barbed comment on it, in case it upsets someone from Bristol?

Perhaps I am thick skinned but when someone does mention the slave trade I am not personally offended. That I had nothing to do with it is, perhaps, a reason. However, I don't think it should be ignored and any dig about it, whether it is direct or via humour, should not be banned.

It is a shame and the comment was memorable, funny and timely. I still can't see the problem with it.

I have no right not to be offended. If a post of mine upsets someone's sensibilities then they have a right to reply.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Smollet said:

Obviously racial slurs etc are something quite different.

Which proves my point.

[Smollet]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Which proves my point.

Indeed. The point I was trying to make in a rather poor fashion was that people get offended over the most trivial of matters in terms of overall offensiveness

[finnie]

Surprised it's not been posted already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs

[finnie]

Short version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

Edited by finnie on Sunday 14th August 11:06

[Alpinestars]

Derek Smith said:

I have no right not to be offended. If a post of mine upsets someone's sensibilities then they have a right to reply.

Too many negatives in the first sentence?

I agree with your last sentence, but the problem with the Internet is that people post behind from behind a screen, with annonimity, and no accountability. I suspect most people would moderate what they say in real life, face to face.

A lack of natural moderation means comments quickly escalate to arguments and threats.

[dandarez]

Alpinestars said:

Derek Smith said:

I have no right not to be offended. If a post of mine upsets someone's sensibilities then they have a right to reply.

Too many negatives in the first sentence?

I agree with your last sentence, but the problem with the Internet is that people post behind from behind a screen, with annonimity, and no accountability. I suspect most people would moderate what they say in real life, face to face.

A lack of natural moderation means comments quickly escalate to arguments and threats.

Yep. But you can argue forever about double negatives.

What about your 'bubble gum' sentence?










'Double bum'.

[anonymous-user]

Shaw Tarse said:

Sylvaforever said:

Here ya go


http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?mem...

what's the betting this gets censored ?

You've done your fair share of reporting posts.

Was that when he was Mojocvh before he was banned, or since he has been Sylvaforever?

[Likes Fast Cars]

Alpinestars said:

Derek Smith said:

I have no right not to be offended. If a post of mine upsets someone's sensibilities then they have a right to reply.

Too many negatives in the first sentence?

I agree with your last sentence, but the problem with the Internet is that people post behind from behind a screen, with annonimity, and no accountability. I suspect most people would moderate what they say in real life, face to face.

A lack of natural moderation means comments quickly escalate to arguments and threats.

re: "I suspect most people would moderate what they say in real life, face to face.", I know a lot of people in real life situations who say it like it is and don't hold back. My preferred way if I'm honest.

What I have noticed over the years is the lack of face-to-face communication we all employ in our daily lives and a propensity for most people to resort to e-mail and forums as the primary means of interaction, which do not convey the intent, mood, humour, emotion, or depth of what a person is trying to say. I've lost count of the number of times I have had to "referee" situations in the workplace because someone got the wrong end of the stick when they read an e-mail and escalated a matter which didn't exist; get the parties in a room and the message is usually conveyed and understood very quickly - without offence or criticism - and everyone gets on with things.

[Alpinestars]

Likes Fast Cars said:

re: "I suspect most people would moderate what they say in real life, face to face.", I know a lot of people in real life situations who say it like it is and don't hold back. My preferred way if I'm honest.

What I have noticed over the years is the lack of face-to-face communication we all employ in our daily lives and a propensity for most people to resort to e-mail and forums as the primary means of interaction, which do not convey the intent, mood, humour, emotion, or depth of what a person is trying to say. I've lost count of the number of times I have had to "referee" situations in the workplace because someone got the wrong end of the stick when they read an e-mail and escalated a matter which didn't exist; get the parties in a room and the message is usually conveyed and understood very quickly - without offence or criticism - and everyone gets on with things.

I think it's both that and the anonymous lack of accountability.

[mybrainhurts]

basherX said:

Pistonheads: where the pious, pedantic and professionally-offended come to meet.

Whatever you do do, don't suggest bicycles should be banned from public roads, or a bicyclist will get all offended and report you to a mod and you'll get banned for a week.

Dammit...did it again.

[Halmyre]

Jimbeaux said:

dudleybloke said:

The SJW's and JTRIG lot have been trying to shut down real conversations here for a while now.

I saw a nice bumper sticker that is a response to to all of this SJW BS: "Don't spread my wealth, spread my work ethic".

Wealth does not equate to hard work, and vice-versa.