[Humour] The Iron Fist of Bozza

[jakarta]

Christ, it was all about the biscuits...

 

[Motogull]

Textbook example of the type of post that pisses off 99% of posters on here, in my view. A thinly-veiled insult purely designed to goad / generate a reaction - and ensure that the same 4 or 5 of you will end up arguing amongst yourselves until what has been a pretty good debate ends up in the bearpit.

Sorry, but this has got to change.

I'm safely in the 1% camp on this one.

 

[Diablo]

Not sure I`m in agreement on this. IMO all, even the most ignorant should be able to have their say. Whether it be to "wind up" or indeed posters genuine opinion. I`m in favour of free speech for all. PPF included. It is the job of the sensible majority to challenge and post against vitriolic posts.

 

[McTavish]

It is the job of the sensible majority to challenge and post against vitriolic posts.

And that is the issue right there. I don't come to NSC to do a job - most of the time I am actively avoiding a job.

Increasingly when I see vitriolic posts I just move on to the next topic and don't engage. When there is a debate where people actually seem to be listening to each as has recently happened (largely) on the YCCC thread, I am happy to have my echo chamber clanged from the outside a little because at the very least it makes me re-examine my own suppositions and prejudices. When I post what I believe is a reasonable and considered opinion and the response is, "ignore him, he's another of the wokey-dokeys", I am less likely to post again.

I love NSC, largely because of the wide range of opinions, experiences and expertises but when so many threads descend into the same old entrenched positions from the usual suspects then something is lost.

And FWIW I think we should avoid the use of the word "gammon", it may have a 180 year history but "c**t" goes back at least 800 years...

 

[McTavish]

It is the job of the sensible majority to challenge and post against vitriolic posts.

And that is the issue right there. I don't come to NSC to do a job - most of the time I am actively avoiding a job.

Increasingly when I see vitriolic posts I just move on to the next topic and don't engage. When there is a debate where people actually seem to be listening to each as has recently happened (largely) on the YCCC thread, I am happy to have my echo chamber clanged from the outside a little because at the very least it makes me re-examine my own suppositions and prejudices. When I post what I believe is a reasonable and considered opinion and the response is, "ignore him, he's another of the wokey-dokeys", I am less likely to post again.

I love NSC, largely because of the wide range of opinions, experiences and expertises but when so many threads descend into the same old entrenched positions from the usual suspects then something is lost.

And FWIW I think we should avoid the use of the word "gammon", it may have a 180 year history but "c**t" goes back at least 800 years...

[edit: just re-read this and for the avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting that "gammon" and "c**t" are analogous; I was expressing the view that just because a word has a long history, it doesn't mean that it is OK to use to describe people that you don't like...]

 

[beorhthelm]

Textbook example of the type of post that pisses off 99% of posters on here, in my view. A thinly-veiled insult purely designed to goad / generate a reaction - and ensure that the same 4 or 5 of you will end up arguing amongst yourselves until what has been a pretty good debate ends up in the bearpit.

Sorry, but this has got to change.

right. our perjotive terms are ok, their perjotive terms are unacceptable.

if we're all grown ups we dont need a list of banned words, what grates is the obvious antagonism and superiority shown in arguing that one term is worthy of a ban.

and while we're here, the fixation some have on other posters having second accounts, obvious playing the man and not the ball.

 

[sparkie]

Best ban ‘gammon’ too, then eh?

Why not ? Most of the problems occur when a small number of prolific posters start using labels to belittle, divide, pigeon hole, dismiss and dehumanise.

 

[dazzer6666]

Can we please have less tolerance for posters who persist in typing "would of", "could of" and "should of"? Perhaps a private warning for the first offence, public warning for second offence, 3 days ban for third offence, 3 months ban for fourth offence and permanent ban after five offences?

****ing liberals.

 

[Simster]

Can we please have less tolerance for posters who persist in typing "would of", "could of" and "should of"? Perhaps a private warning for the first offence, public warning for second offence, 3 days ban for third offence, 3 months ban for fourth offence and permanent ban after five offences?

I'd be 100% behind this, except judging by his whinging on this thread, [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] would probably complain it was a campaign against Brexiteers, which in fairness would be an easy mistake to make

 

[pastafarian]

Not sure I`m in agreement on this. IMO all, even the most ignorant should be able to have their say. Whether it be to "wind up" or indeed posters genuine opinion. I`m in favour of free speech for all. PPF included. It is the job of the sensible majority to challenge and post against vitriolic posts.

In fairness to NSC in general though, it is not a protector of free speech or a guardian of that freedom for its members.
NSC does not have to protect that freedom we expect and demand (with conditions) in the wider world.
NSC is a private forum. If its owner and moderators say the rules are " ok everyone, thats enough now, stop calling people soy-boys or gammon- those insults are designed and used to wind people up and its not wanted on here"......then that should be good enough for its members.
If someone doesnt like the rules then they are free to join another forum as well where that forums owner doesnt mind and you can voice such freedoms.

Flat earthers should be fair game though

 

[birthofanorange]

I'm just as guilty of all of the above (re: OP)
That said, I couldn't care less what nonce(ence) is thrown at me, when confined to the Pit.
As said, there's a few that seem to only be here to push an unacceptable (to me) far right agenda, and I feel fully justified in saying so, when necessary, but it shouldn't spill onto the main board.
I, for one, will make an effort to be civil, when civility is offered.

Edit: Pastafarian should be fair game though.

 

[clapham_gull]

I'm just as guilty of all of the above (re: OP)
That said, I couldn't care less what nonce(ence) is thrown at me, when confined to the Pit.
As said, there's a few that seem to only be here to push an unacceptable (to me) far right agenda, and I feel fully justified in saying so, when necessary, but it shouldn't spill onto the main board.

If you feel that you can't call out those with a far right agenda on the main board then something is clearly wrong. I think some have come to the mistaken belief that all views are equal when clearly they are not.

 

[pastafarian]

I'm just as guilty of all of the above (re: OP)
That said, I couldn't care less what nonce(ence) is thrown at me, when confined to the Pit.
As said, there's a few that seem to only be here to push an unacceptable (to me) far right agenda, and I feel fully justified in saying so, when necessary, but it shouldn't spill onto the main board.
I, for one, will make an effort to be civil, when civility is offered.

Edit: Pastafarian should be fair game though.

Yeah ok, whatever

 

[birthofanorange]

Yeah ok, whatever

Mwah!

 

[jcdenton08]

If you feel that you can't call out those with a far right agenda on the main board then something is clearly wrong. I think some have come to the mistaken belief that all views are equal when clearly they are not.

Define "far right"? Nah, don't really - that's a hypothetical.

To Mr. A it might mean people who commit racial hate crimes.
To Mrs. B it might mean people who hold racist views, maybe only against one racial group, maybe more (a literal definition, ie. someone who is prejudiced against racial groups).
To the next guy, slightly politically to the left of the last person, it might mean people who want immigration to be managed differently, with the unspoken inference that they have racist views.
The next person along thinks it means anyone who voted Brexit, because one of the outcomes of Brexit will be fewer immigrants. Therefore they voted for Brexit to get rid of other races, ie. they're all racists.
The next person knows for sure that if you read or have ever read the Daily Mail, you're definitely racist and therefore a right wing bigot.
The next one thinks if you have ever voted Conservative, you personally have a shrine to Hitler above your mantlepiece.

There are members of the BNP or EDL which are too "far right" for their own "group". And that is at the most extreme end of the spectrum. Lots of Labour members hate Corbyn, because he is too far left. Are Labour voters "loony lefties"? If one has a strong emotional reaction about people using that term, chances are you also feel just as strongly that the "Tory's are scum".

The centrist intelligentsia aren't exactly going to be smashing down NSC's front door to argue with fanatics in the cursed Bear Pit, are they?

The problem is with these labels - a lot of the time - is that the goalposts shift so much on what they actually mean. There has never been and will never be a consensus on what is the "acceptable politics". Whether those politics are social or economic, someone, somewhere will be offended and disagree. Their strength of feeling will determine how extreme their "opposition" is, how quickly an argument with escalate, and in our case, go straight to the Bear Pit.

There are a few who do seem to get their yah-yah's just saying controversial things, sort of unpaid NSC shock jocks. And generally the mods here do a good job managing them.

 

[clapham_gull]

Define "far right"? Nah, don't really - that's a hypothetical.

I know exactly what I mean by that and that doesn't include supporters of the Conservative Party, Brexiteers, those worried about immigration, readers of the Daily Mail or even complete bores drinking on their own at end of bar. I have friends I'd include in all those groups.

I'm talking about those quite open about their association (past and present) with far right political parties, or those posting links on here over time to disturbing pseudo academic content that hides in plain sight. If that's allowed even to be shot down or as source material for comedy parody accounts it completely blurs the boundaries of what is acceptable.

I also find the use of the term "Gammon" hypocritical and divisive, but in light of the above I find it strange it gets called out.

 

[pastafarian]

If you feel that you can't call out those with a far right agenda on the main board then something is clearly wrong. I think some have come to the mistaken belief that all views are equal when clearly they are not.

Cant say i have ever personally seen people posting far right agenda stuff on the main board.
One would hope that the moderators would have noticed immediately and nipped it straight in the bud ( perhaps, they have done just that, if it ever happened, and thats why i have never personally seen it)

 

[clapham_gull]

Cant say i have ever personally seen people posting far right agenda stuff on the main board.
One would hope that the moderators would have noticed immediately and nipped it straight in the bud ( perhaps, they have done just that, if it ever happened, and thats why i have never personally seen it)

It's clearly not swastikas and links to membership of the KKK. It's more insidious than that and builds up over time. Such posters generally talk little about football.

To my knowledge all are currently banned, but were allowed far too long to post because they are viewed as a "curio", "straw man" or source material for a parody comedy routine.

All well and good, but I think (over time) it has completely blurred the boundaries of what is acceptable. Particularly when they are given short term bans for abuse or the completely subjective crime of "trolling" rather than the sit and back and read their absolute agenda over time.

Everyone knows who they are (or have been) and it's of the complete bemusement to many of us on here they are allowed to return.

 

[pastafarian]

It's clearly not swastikas and links to membership of the KKK. It's more insidious than that and builds up over time. Such posters generally talk little about football.

To my knowledge all are currently banned, but were allowed far too long to post because they are viewed as a "curio", "straw man" or source material for a parody comedy routine.

All well and good, but I think (over time) it has completely blurred the boundaries of what is acceptable. Particularly when they are given short term bans for abuse or the completely subjective crime of "trolling" rather than the sit and back and read their absolute agenda over time.

Everyone knows who they are (or have been) and it's of the complete bemusement to many of us on here they are allowed to return.

Never seen any far right agenda stuff myself, there again i dont read every single thread.

 

[GT49er]

Define "far right"? Nah, don't really - that's a hypothetical.

To Mr. A it might mean people who commit racial hate crimes.
To Mrs. B it might mean people who hold racist views, maybe only against one racial group, maybe more (a literal definition, ie. someone who is prejudiced against racial groups).
To the next guy, slightly politically to the left of the last person, it might mean people who want immigration to be managed differently, with the unspoken inference that they have racist views.
The next person along thinks it means anyone who voted Brexit, because one of the outcomes of Brexit will be fewer immigrants. Therefore they voted for Brexit to get rid of other races, ie. they're all racists.
The next person knows for sure that if you read or have ever read the Daily Mail, you're definitely racist and therefore a right wing bigot.
The next one thinks if you have ever voted Conservative, you personally have a shrine to Hitler above your mantlepiece.

Spot on (got a bit lost on the rest of your post, TBH).

Never seen any far right agenda stuff myself, there again i dont read every single thread.

Exactly this. Some posters on here personally know some of the other posters, so maybe X knows that Y was once (or is) a member of a far right organisation. I don't - I only 'know' people through their postings on NSC. I have never seen a post extolling the virtues of the BNP or the EDF. I've never seen a post advocating p***s or b***ks to be 'sent home'. I'd never even heard of Tommy Robinson until I read posts railing about him on here.

I don't go into the bear pit, of course, so I don't know what gets said in there - and I'm happy to leave it that way