Are Haymarket interested in sorting out the knobheads here?
Discussion
T5XARV said:
Really ? That thread has gone too, has it ?
The Charlie Hebdo thing doesn't help sure. But it depends on your standpoint and the size of your balls.
The frequency, hate and ferocity of these attacks are bound to stir feelings of concern, anger and a demand for answers. And so they should.
Pistonheads is the place for such discussion.
To debate such an emotionally charged subject with everyone minding their P's and Q's, all of the time, is akin to participating in a Monty Python Sketch.
.........
'I say old bean, pardon me for saying, but people of a certain religious demographic certainly seem keen to support the use of terrorist tactics in an effort to subjugate the indigenous population with a view to the enforced Islamification of the host nation, what ?'
" Yes - 'Convert or die' Is what I've read"
>'You're both wrong. Islam is the religion of peace, these people have mental health issues, the man on the TV told us, see. You must be racist with views like that.
Are you a pair of f
king Nazi's ?'
'I'm ever so sorry if I offended anyone with my opinion, I'll shut the fk up and fk off while I'm doing it, chin chin.'
'Me too. I'm off to start a post about 'bloody cyclists' and drool at pictures of shiny supercars.....'
As you point out, without a hint of self-consciousness, eliding every member of Islam with any given attacker is the root of the problem that derails every one of these threads. But you don't see that as a problem, because presumably that's your prejudice. The Charlie Hebdo thing doesn't help sure. But it depends on your standpoint and the size of your balls.
The frequency, hate and ferocity of these attacks are bound to stir feelings of concern, anger and a demand for answers. And so they should.
Pistonheads is the place for such discussion.
To debate such an emotionally charged subject with everyone minding their P's and Q's, all of the time, is akin to participating in a Monty Python Sketch.
.........
'I say old bean, pardon me for saying, but people of a certain religious demographic certainly seem keen to support the use of terrorist tactics in an effort to subjugate the indigenous population with a view to the enforced Islamification of the host nation, what ?'
" Yes - 'Convert or die' Is what I've read"
>'You're both wrong. Islam is the religion of peace, these people have mental health issues, the man on the TV told us, see. You must be racist with views like that.
Are you a pair of f
king Nazi's ?''I'm ever so sorry if I offended anyone with my opinion, I'll shut the f
k up and fk off while I'm doing it, chin chin.''Me too. I'm off to start a post about 'bloody cyclists' and drool at pictures of shiny supercars.....'
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 6th August 23:33
Pistonheads is the place to debate what the owners say can be debated on the terms the owners impose. Don't like it? Buy the website or find somewhere else.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 7th August 00:44
s3fella said:
And the one on the apparent terrorist machete attack on 2 female plod in Belgium.
Haymarket don't seem to like the debates on such sickening attacks. IMHO censorship such as this is wrong. There's nothing offensive in that thread. Apart from the facts surrounding the event itself.
I struggle to understand why the blind spot is so massive over this. Haymarket don't seem to like the debates on such sickening attacks. IMHO censorship such as this is wrong. There's nothing offensive in that thread. Apart from the facts surrounding the event itself.
As I see it Haymarket has no objection to debates about the attacks themselves, or any other newsworthy incident. It's objection is when the debate becomes derailed by sweeping prejudiced generalizations that go way beyond the original incident.
The knife attack thread had posters claiming that the Met and the BBC were fabricating mental illness as a cover, because it really was a terrorist attack; by default all such attacks should be regarded as Islamic terrorism now; even if the killer was mentally ill he was still an Islamic terrorist; he wasn't Danish because he didn't have a Danish sounding name; he was Somalian (even though he wasn't) and therefore an Islamic terrorist.
How are any of these points debating the incident? They're not. They are absolutely nothing more than attempts to project and spread particular prejudices which have no basis in fact. It's ridiculous to suggest that that thread was a debate about anything. It was a car crash.
Try this. Suppose every time the news reported a robbery or a rape by a black man, a thread popped up in NPE with posts claiming that all blacks are thieves or rapists, that the accused wa British because he didn't have a British sounding name; or that any other blacks who'd failed to police this individual before he acted were by implication implicit in the crime.
That is not "debate" of any sort. If you think otherwise, I suggest your moral compass needs a check over.
But again, more to the point, Haymarket doesn't think it is genuine debate (or so it appears). So unless you can get the rules changed or buy the site, lump it or move on. Pretty straightforward.
Earlier on, Greg66 said......
My post above is a simplified parody highlighting the level to which debate has dropped.
It is not necessarily reflective of my views. Its an example. It is not meant to be taken seriously.
But you did take it seriously all the same in order to post your 'Don't like the rules ?' rubbish. Again.
Like you own the place. Or to suck up to the mods.......and thats just saaad....
Greg66 said:
More to the point, and what cuts through this whole debate, is that this is a privately owned vehicle. The owner sets the rules. Dont like the rules? Bugger off somewhere else where you can have free rein to say what you want. Reddit has some pretty grim little corners, and no doubt the EDL is always looking for new recruits.
You're in danger of repeating yourself, again. Let it go Greg. Breathe.My post above is a simplified parody highlighting the level to which debate has dropped.
It is not necessarily reflective of my views. Its an example. It is not meant to be taken seriously.
But you did take it seriously all the same in order to post your 'Don't like the rules ?' rubbish. Again.
Like you own the place. Or to suck up to the mods.......and thats just saaad....
Greg66 said:
I struggle to understand why the blind spot is so massive over this.
As I see it Haymarket has no objection to debates about the attacks themselves, or any other newsworthy incident. It's objection is when the debate becomes derailed by sweeping prejudiced generalizations that go way beyond the original incident.
The knife attack thread had posters claiming that the Met and the BBC were fabricating mental illness as a cover, because it really was a terrorist attack; by default all such attacks should be regarded as Islamic terrorism now; even if the killer was mentally ill he was still an Islamic terrorist; he wasn't Danish because he didn't have a Danish sounding name; he was Somalian (even though he wasn't) and therefore an Islamic terrorist.
How are any of these points debating the incident? They're not. They are absolutely nothing more than attempts to project and spread particular prejudices which have no basis in fact. It's ridiculous to suggest that that thread was a debate about anything. It was a car crash.
Try this. Suppose every time the news reported a robbery or a rape by a black man, a thread popped up in NPE with posts claiming that all blacks are thieves or rapists, that the accused wa British because he didn't have a British sounding name; or that any other blacks who'd failed to police this individual before he acted were by implication implicit in the crime.
That is not "debate" of any sort. If you think otherwise, I suggest your moral compass needs a check over.
But again, more to the point, Haymarket doesn't think it is genuine debate (or so it appears). So unless you can get the rules changed or buy the site, lump it or move on. Pretty straightforward.
I suggest you go and have a read of the actual Belgium machete thread as what you say is being said or happening, just isn't. I think it is all in your head pal. As I see it Haymarket has no objection to debates about the attacks themselves, or any other newsworthy incident. It's objection is when the debate becomes derailed by sweeping prejudiced generalizations that go way beyond the original incident.
The knife attack thread had posters claiming that the Met and the BBC were fabricating mental illness as a cover, because it really was a terrorist attack; by default all such attacks should be regarded as Islamic terrorism now; even if the killer was mentally ill he was still an Islamic terrorist; he wasn't Danish because he didn't have a Danish sounding name; he was Somalian (even though he wasn't) and therefore an Islamic terrorist.
How are any of these points debating the incident? They're not. They are absolutely nothing more than attempts to project and spread particular prejudices which have no basis in fact. It's ridiculous to suggest that that thread was a debate about anything. It was a car crash.
Try this. Suppose every time the news reported a robbery or a rape by a black man, a thread popped up in NPE with posts claiming that all blacks are thieves or rapists, that the accused wa British because he didn't have a British sounding name; or that any other blacks who'd failed to police this individual before he acted were by implication implicit in the crime.
That is not "debate" of any sort. If you think otherwise, I suggest your moral compass needs a check over.
But again, more to the point, Haymarket doesn't think it is genuine debate (or so it appears). So unless you can get the rules changed or buy the site, lump it or move on. Pretty straightforward.
s3fella said:
Greg66 said:
I struggle to understand why the blind spot is so massive over this.
As I see it Haymarket has no objection to debates about the attacks themselves, or any other newsworthy incident. It's objection is when the debate becomes derailed by sweeping prejudiced generalizations that go way beyond the original incident.
The knife attack thread had posters claiming that the Met and the BBC were fabricating mental illness as a cover, because it really was a terrorist attack; by default all such attacks should be regarded as Islamic terrorism now; even if the killer was mentally ill he was still an Islamic terrorist; he wasn't Danish because he didn't have a Danish sounding name; he was Somalian (even though he wasn't) and therefore an Islamic terrorist.
How are any of these points debating the incident? They're not. They are absolutely nothing more than attempts to project and spread particular prejudices which have no basis in fact. It's ridiculous to suggest that that thread was a debate about anything. It was a car crash.
Try this. Suppose every time the news reported a robbery or a rape by a black man, a thread popped up in NPE with posts claiming that all blacks are thieves or rapists, that the accused wa British because he didn't have a British sounding name; or that any other blacks who'd failed to police this individual before he acted were by implication implicit in the crime.
That is not "debate" of any sort. If you think otherwise, I suggest your moral compass needs a check over.
But again, more to the point, Haymarket doesn't think it is genuine debate (or so it appears). So unless you can get the rules changed or buy the site, lump it or move on. Pretty straightforward.
I suggest you go and have a read of the actual Belgium machete thread as what you say is being said or happening, just isn't. I think it is all in your head pal. As I see it Haymarket has no objection to debates about the attacks themselves, or any other newsworthy incident. It's objection is when the debate becomes derailed by sweeping prejudiced generalizations that go way beyond the original incident.
The knife attack thread had posters claiming that the Met and the BBC were fabricating mental illness as a cover, because it really was a terrorist attack; by default all such attacks should be regarded as Islamic terrorism now; even if the killer was mentally ill he was still an Islamic terrorist; he wasn't Danish because he didn't have a Danish sounding name; he was Somalian (even though he wasn't) and therefore an Islamic terrorist.
How are any of these points debating the incident? They're not. They are absolutely nothing more than attempts to project and spread particular prejudices which have no basis in fact. It's ridiculous to suggest that that thread was a debate about anything. It was a car crash.
Try this. Suppose every time the news reported a robbery or a rape by a black man, a thread popped up in NPE with posts claiming that all blacks are thieves or rapists, that the accused wa British because he didn't have a British sounding name; or that any other blacks who'd failed to police this individual before he acted were by implication implicit in the crime.
That is not "debate" of any sort. If you think otherwise, I suggest your moral compass needs a check over.
But again, more to the point, Haymarket doesn't think it is genuine debate (or so it appears). So unless you can get the rules changed or buy the site, lump it or move on. Pretty straightforward.
No one has denied that some Muslims with extreme views are carrying out horrendous acts, yet some posters read (or guess) the perpetrator of any violent act is Muslim and immediately blame their faith for it, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.
rscott said:
The Belgian machete thread backs up Gregg66's point. It contains several posts mocking the idea that some of the other incidents (like the London attack) happened for reasons other than just because the attacker was Muslim.
No one has denied that some Muslims with extreme views are carrying out horrendous acts, yet some posters read (or guess) the perpetrator of any violent act is Muslim and immediately blame their faith for it, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.
You used to get that in SP&L which led to a lot of police officers disappearingNo one has denied that some Muslims with extreme views are carrying out horrendous acts, yet some posters read (or guess) the perpetrator of any violent act is Muslim and immediately blame their faith for it, irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.
Someone would come in and talk about a bad experience theyd had at the hands of an officer. Ok we know it can happen everyone can have a bad hair day. Trouble is it can then escalates into one of two camps
The first one is that you get a few loud posters claim that all officers act that way, and cos theyre loud it looks like everyone is saying it
or the second one, the in forum officers thought that due to the way the post was written, the calim was that all officers behave that way, so immediately there was a loud bunch almost proving the point my negativity
In either case the OP gets banned or hounded out for what was a true occurrence.
Is it mob rule or group think that makes people get together behind something that isn't there?
As covered in the threads just mentioned re religion machetes etc
s3fella said:
See, this is what I find odd. People are entitled to their opinions on all matters and including religion. And on a UK based forum, the majority of posters, if they follow the UK demographic will not be Muslims. Some will not give a crap about any religion, some will be tolerant of it all, and some will be very anti certain religions, including being anti Islam. Because we are a generally secular country and the majority of the UK is not Muslim.
So why do you think your beliefs and opinions should take precidence over those of others? And why do Haymarket seemingly agree with you?
Its a mystery.
Although perhaps the Charlie Hebdo massacre doesn't help?
I don't think my beliefs should take precedence at all. But it's Haymarket's ball and they get to decide what does and doesn't go.So why do you think your beliefs and opinions should take precidence over those of others? And why do Haymarket seemingly agree with you?
Its a mystery.
Although perhaps the Charlie Hebdo massacre doesn't help?
Like I said, if there was a thread about the evils of Islam and Muslims where people could discuss it I might not like it, but at least it would be focussed in one place.
As it is something happens and pretty much immediately it's "Religion of peace" and let's not forget "Alan's Snackbar" and the thread degenerates into the same old s
t which is an argument about religion between the usual suspects with perhaps the odd post about the actual incident if we're lucky.I've never used the report button, but perhaps other people might be? There's a reason these threads keep getting locked and people keep getting banned.
CAPP0 said:
Oh, the irony….
+1Moderators
I think we've managed to successfully snare all the knobs now with their ongoing repetitive discussions which transgress across the forum with their same mundane narrative irrespective of thread topic (it's them, no it's not them, it's them, no it's not them - rinse and repeat)...
BigLion said:
CAPP0 said:
Oh, the irony….
+1Moderators
I think we've managed to successfully snare all the knobs now with their ongoing repetitive discussions which transgress across the forum with their same mundane narrative irrespective of thread topic (it's them, no it's not them, it's them, no it's not them - rinse and repeat)...
Can I suggest that people agree, and the mods back this up, that when replying to other posts then we should all take what the original poster says at face value, without trying to second guess some ulterior motive or uncover some hidden agenda?
From my point of view most of the recent threads that have been closed have descended into nastiness when a certain group of posters have started throwing around accusations of racism and bigotry at anyone who disagrees with their point of view.
You might believe this to be true, but if we all just speculate as to why the other person is saying what they are saying then discussion will never get anywhere and insults are all we have.
If there is real racism and bigotry it will come out in discussion and if there is not then this nasty smear does not need to be introduced.
From my point of view most of the recent threads that have been closed have descended into nastiness when a certain group of posters have started throwing around accusations of racism and bigotry at anyone who disagrees with their point of view.
You might believe this to be true, but if we all just speculate as to why the other person is saying what they are saying then discussion will never get anywhere and insults are all we have.
If there is real racism and bigotry it will come out in discussion and if there is not then this nasty smear does not need to be introduced.
rscott said:
BigLion said:
CAPP0 said:
Oh, the irony….
+1Moderators
I think we've managed to successfully snare all the knobs now with their ongoing repetitive discussions which transgress across the forum with their same mundane narrative irrespective of thread topic (it's them, no it's not them, it's them, no it's not them - rinse and repeat)...
T5XARV said:
Clearly a certain moderator has both his feet in the opposing camp. Thats the problem.
Nice conspiracy theory. Might it be because you hold and express some objectionable views?
The clue is in the fact your posts have been moderated and deemed inappropriate. You do the math.
TheLordJohn said:
But they don't really mean it. It's just gibberish.
Voicing an opinion, is simply voicing an opinion.
Think a lot of society needs to grow a pair, and instead of seeking no remove everything you don't like the sound of by labelling it an 'ist' just realise we are all different, we were all brought up differently and we all have different views and beliefs.
Where do you stop, thought-police?
Would you find it acceptable for people to post their support for terrorist murders?Voicing an opinion, is simply voicing an opinion.
Think a lot of society needs to grow a pair, and instead of seeking no remove everything you don't like the sound of by labelling it an 'ist' just realise we are all different, we were all brought up differently and we all have different views and beliefs.
Where do you stop, thought-police?
AJS- said:
Can I suggest that people agree, and the mods back this up, that when replying to other posts then we should all take what the original poster says at face value, without trying to second guess some ulterior motive or uncover some hidden agenda?
From my point of view most of the recent threads that have been closed have descended into nastiness when a certain group of posters have started throwing around accusations of racism and bigotry at anyone who disagrees with their point of view.
You might believe this to be true, but if we all just speculate as to why the other person is saying what they are saying then discussion will never get anywhere and insults are all we have.
If there is real racism and bigotry it will come out in discussion and if there is not then this nasty smear does not need to be introduced.
How does that tie into you speculating about the recent London knife attack? You had no facts to back up your claims, but it didn't stop you pinning the blame where you always like to From my point of view most of the recent threads that have been closed have descended into nastiness when a certain group of posters have started throwing around accusations of racism and bigotry at anyone who disagrees with their point of view.
You might believe this to be true, but if we all just speculate as to why the other person is saying what they are saying then discussion will never get anywhere and insults are all we have.
If there is real racism and bigotry it will come out in discussion and if there is not then this nasty smear does not need to be introduced.
. Alpinestars said:
How does that tie into you speculating about the recent London knife attack? You had no facts to back up your claims, but it didn't stop you pinning the blame where you always like to .
Speculating about the story itself is different from speculating about someone's motivations for posting what they post. . Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff