Jump to content

Discussion of upsetting incidents


Guest

Featured Posts

Starting this thread as suggested by @Athy

 

Quote

- There has been some criticism of the removal of speculation about a canal death, reported in another thread. Some members feel that such speculation is O.K., others feel that it isn't. Now, as it happens, yesterday I was going through some of my old private message threads and deleting them. I came across one, on this very subject, from October 2018. On that occasion it was decided that speculation would be inappropriate. I was involved in the conversation but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me that made the decision. So when, a few days ago, I mentioned that I thought there had been a precedent, I'd remembered correctly. However, it MAY have been that someone connected with the deceased had contacted CWDF and asked that such speculation cease. The P.M. thread is now deleted so I can't say for certain.

 

   May I suggest that someone opens a new thread to discuss the matter? There are obviously feelings on both sides and it would be instructive to discover members' views.

 

Edited to add: Mods please feel free to move this into the suggestions section if that is more appropriate. I wasn't sure where it was best to start it.

Edited by TheMenagerieAfloat
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As  frequenter of a self moderated forum I know what I prefer. 

However I do consider "the relatives might see it" to be a false proposal. What is the likelihood of that, its miniscule. 

As I said about the pusher, it was all over the Manchester evening news, after several drownings. 

The importance of CWDF is vastly overinflated, even in the boating world, never mind the nation at large. 

I find some comments by the right wing junta here to be out of order and offensive, but I'll argue against them, not ask for their removal. 

 

That's all for now, off to a juggling class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!

 

My two penneth: I come to this forum becasue it is full of a different mix of individuals than some others. If I want saccharine platitudes I know how to access Facebook.

 

Yes, we might sometimes upset people unintentionally (and gross personal insults are pretty clearly off-limits around here which is fine)  but the choice to be upset lies to a large extent with the reader.

 

I've fallen into one of the bits of river in question myself when somewhat sleep deprived at the start of a relationship which led to some of the saddest (think scattering of small quantities of ashes in the same river for one thing) times in my life. And coming across mention of the location can trigger all sorts of memories. But those are mine, and for me to manage. Largely through black humour with very small audiences/large quantities of libations. If someone posts about it on here and I choose (note: choose) to read it, that is for me to deal with.

Black humour and distraction may help some, and offend others. Personally I find it hard to respond to overly-optimistic posts (particularly with as many emojis as characters) which imply things may some how be OK/for the best/... when they clearly are not. I've seen dignified posts from families saying they understand things are at a recovery stage and looking for help with that being replied to with all sorts of insensitive "hope found safe and well" nonsense... But I accept that others may find them comforting/well intentioned and don't suggest they be banned. Equally when someone expresses that they find a comment in poor taste, well, that seems OK too, no?

1 minute ago, Jim Riley said:

 

However I do consider "the relatives might see it" to be a false proposal. What is the likelihood of that, its miniscule. 

 

At least two people involved in one of the recent incidents are actively using boaty social media to publicise it... so, possibly more than you'd think?

 

Happy juggling.

  • Greenie 3
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think it is quite possible that a relative or friend of a boater might stumble across a comment on here, and there is the "friend", who glories in pointing out stupid speculation.

"Gallows humour" is a different thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree. But is there a difference between what is good manners (and laudable) and what is / ought to be enforceable? I rather think the 'enforceable' standards are best kept to a minimum.

 

This week, in real life, I received (unsolicited) condemnation of my toilet additive choices for my pump out in relation to what would / would not be socially acceptable to empty into an elsan. This hypothetical cassette loo (neither of my boats has a cassette and I have no intention of getting one so whatever I do/do not put in the bog is not going to be put down anyone's elsan) was spoken of most rudely. But I absolutely think the people should have been 'allowed' to speak to me that way - useful info as to what they are like!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheMenagerieAfloat said:

Agree. But is there a difference between what is good manners (and laudable) and what is / ought to be enforceable? I rather think the 'enforceable' standards are best kept to a minimum.

 

This week, in real life, I received (unsolicited) condemnation of my toilet additive choices for my pump out in relation to what would / would not be socially acceptable to empty into an elsan. This hypothetical cassette loo (neither of my boats has a cassette and I have no intention of getting one so whatever I do/do not put in the bog is not going to be put down anyone's elsan) was spoken of most rudely. But I absolutely think the people should have been 'allowed' to speak to me that way - useful info as to what they are like!

It's a balance isn't it, there have been times when the bickering has become tedious and sometimes intentional to cause trouble.

 

Hopefully mod intervention should be very rarely needed 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part I think people should be responsible for their own posts. Just as in “real life”. If they post something that someone else is offended by, will they have to live with that and it may or may not be an issue depending on how offensive the statement was and how easily offended the recipient was.


But as soon as you introduce thought police whose job it is to decide that something said by someone might offend some other unknown person and therefore their post must be obliterated, problems start.

 

The GDR Stasi state where what was said was strictly controlled to align with the group-think, and the Stasi spy system which set ordinary citizens to spy on their neighbour citizens for some minor reward and warm feeling of doing one’s bit, is strangely familiar on CWDF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

For the most part I think people should be responsible for their own posts. Just as in “real life”. If they post something that someone else is offended by, will they have to live with that and it may or may not be an issue depending on how offensive the statement was and how easily offended the recipient was.


But as soon as you introduce thought police whose job it is to decide that something said by someone might offend some other unknown person and therefore their post must be obliterated, problems start.

 

The GDR Stasi state where what was said was strictly controlled to align with the group-think, and the Stasi spy system which set ordinary citizens to spy on their neighbour citizens for some minor reward and warm feeling of doing one’s bit, is strangely familiar on CWDF.

I've reported this comment in case someone who I don't know might possibly take offence at it and you are such an insensitive person!

.

.

.

(Not really, but someone will!)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

For the most part I think people should be responsible for their own posts. Just as in “real life”. If they post something that someone else is offended by, will they have to live with that and it may or may not be an issue depending on how offensive the statement was and how easily offended the recipient was.


But as soon as you introduce thought police whose job it is to decide that something said by someone might offend some other unknown person and therefore their post must be obliterated, problems start.

 

The GDR Stasi state where what was said was strictly controlled to align with the group-think, and the Stasi spy system which set ordinary citizens to spy on their neighbour citizens for some minor reward and warm feeling of doing one’s bit, is strangely familiar on CWDF.

I think the last para is a bit over the top.  There are rules to this particular forum and they're there for a reason, and other forums are available where there aren't any rules. I don't think reporting posts one finds objectionable counts as spying - it tends to be abusive, racist, sexist or extremes of language which get reported and clobbered. Just being unpleasant doesn't get frowned on much.   But how you use language does matter, especially when there's no body language to moderate it.

In real life, if someone says something you find truly awful, you can always punch them on the nose.  On the internet, you can't, so a bit of editing occasionally doesn't go amiss.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

For the most part I think people should be responsible for their own posts. Just as in “real life”. If they post something that someone else is offended by, will they have to live with that and it may or may not be an issue depending on how offensive the statement was and how easily offended the recipient was.


But as soon as you introduce thought police whose job it is to decide that something said by someone might offend some other unknown person and therefore their post must be obliterated, problems start.

 

The GDR Stasi state where what was said was strictly controlled to align with the group-think, and the Stasi spy system which set ordinary citizens to spy on their neighbour citizens for some minor reward and warm feeling of doing one’s bit, is strangely familiar on CWDF.

I have a strong suspicion that there is an offence seeking industry. 
If you watch tv all there is are scripted virtual reality cooking programmes. They offend no one im sure ( never watched one)

Bring back edgy drama and discourse. Monty Python would have more complaints now than it ever did in the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the last para is a bit over the top.  There are rules to this particular forum and they're there for a reason, and other forums are available where there aren't any rules. I don't think reporting posts one finds objectionable counts as spying - it tends to be abusive, racist, sexist or extremes of language which get reported and clobbered. Just being unpleasant doesn't get frowned on much.   But how you use language does matter, especially when there's no body language to moderate it.

In real life, if someone says something you find truly awful, you can always punch them on the nose.  On the internet, you can't, so a bit of editing occasionally doesn't go amiss.

I agree up to a point. There are rules, although they are written very badly. For example, it is forbidden to post something you know to be false. So to post the joke “why did the chicken cross the road” etc would be against the rules because you know very well that the specific chicken you mention doesn’t exist, and if it did you have no idea what it’s motivation was.

But more to the point, rules are often made up on the spot to suit what the mods feel they ought to be doing, as opposed to what they are actually tasked with doing. Archetypal mission creep which occurs in many poorly regulated walks of life.

 

i also agree that reporting posts that are abusive, threatening or using profanities are fair game for reporting. Well to be honest I never get why profanities should be banned because it is just a group of letters arranged in a certain order, and as such entirely harmless, but I know the consensus is different. 

 

Racist or sexist is not fair game for reporting IMO - which is a bit controversial perhaps, but it is not illegal to be racist or sexist - just as well, because the majority of people are! And let’s remember that women are just as sexist as men!

 

I should be able to say that women are bad drivers because they are constantly on their phones making their next appointment with the hairdressers. Saying such is not illegal. Its only impact is to reflect badly on me, the author. That is my problem, not anyone else’s. I will be judged by my peers as a sexist whatsit and castigated accordingly. I might then get the message. Just silencing me by having my post deleted is pointless. 

 

But where it gets really bad is when someone reports me for being insufficiently woke, and in particular for saying something that might offend someone else. Not the person reporting me, oh no they are intellectually far above such trivial offence, but that other person, their imaginary friend who (even though they don’t exist) will be mortified, outraged, grossly offended and suicidal when they read my post.

 

And worse, when the reporter spends a long time replaying what has been posted, repeating over and over looking for a possible interpretation that, when twisted and distorted almost beyond recognition, could possibly be offensive. And with the motivation of a grudge, usually because they can’t win an argument any other way.

31 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

I have a strong suspicion that there is an offence seeking industry. 
If you watch tv all there is are scripted virtual reality cooking programmes. They offend no one im sure ( never watched one)

Bring back edgy drama and discourse. Monty Python would have more complaints now than it ever did in the 70s.

You are absolutely right and the phrase is “offence-porn”. But unlike the climax achieved with old fashioned porn, the climax achieved with offence porn is that fantastic warm buzz of righteous virtue you get by reporting your fellow citizen for uttering something that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended by.


 

Less messy, too.

 

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 4
  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the last para is a bit over the top.  There are rules to this particular forum and they're there for a reason, and other forums are available where there aren't any rules. I don't think reporting posts one finds objectionable counts as spying - it tends to be abusive, racist, sexist or extremes of language which get reported and clobbered. Just being unpleasant doesn't get frowned on much.   But how you use language does matter, especially when there's no body language to moderate it.

In real life, if someone says something you find truly awful, you can always punch them on the nose.  On the internet, you can't, so a bit of editing occasionally doesn't go amiss.

I disagree, my post was expunged. Bringing The Pusher into play may be unpleasant to some but it's hardly extreme offensive rude or racist language. Especially when it's been in the public domain around Manchester for a long while, inspiring a book promoted on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find odd with the forum is the way attitudes can vary so wildly from one thread to another.

 

Stolen boat?   The cry is can't speculate might be a divorce etc etc, must have a crime number etc.

Accidental Death?    Most seem happy to speculate, drowned, murdered, suicide etc.

 

On other things, such as the meaning of sausage or marriage:

Oh the English language is changing it is OK  but call a narrow boat a Barge and see what happens.

 

With regard to modding on the forum I have two opinions.

 

First it is fairly light touch and not intrusive, certainly it has never caused me any problems.

Second if members report something to a Mod I would expect action to be taken.  I can understand no action on a single report but if it is members then I would expect action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jerra said:

What I find odd with the forum is the way attitudes can vary so wildly from one thread to another.

 

Stolen boat?   The cry is can't speculate might be a divorce etc etc, must have a crime number etc.

Accidental Death?    Most seem happy to speculate, drowned, murdered, suicide etc.

 

On other things, such as the meaning of sausage or marriage:

Oh the English language is changing it is OK  but call a narrow boat a Barge and see what happens.

 

With regard to modding on the forum I have two opinions.

 

First it is fairly light touch and not intrusive, certainly it has never caused me any problems.

Second if members report something to a Mod I would expect action to be taken.  I can understand no action on a single report but if it is members then I would expect action.

It can be odd.  I suppose the stolen boat threads are often started by the owner or someone on their behalf.  So they can be challenged.  It's tricky though, and moderating forums like this is an inexact science.  However, a death, whether accidental or deliberate is a tragedy.  Both for the individual and for friends/family.  That deserves consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Riley said:

I disagree, my post was expunged. Bringing The Pusher into play may be unpleasant to some but it's hardly extreme offensive rude or racist language. Especially when it's been in the public domain around Manchester for a long while, inspiring a book promoted on here. 

As your post was binned and I never saw it, I can't really comment. I can't see why speculation about the mythical pusher should be a problem as it's well known as an urban myth. There are usually threads here about people dying in canals as the reasons can be of interest and relevance to us.

Re Nick's post, some aspects or expression of racism and sexism are illegal,but that isn't the point. Language is important because it affects the way you think,and therefore the way you act. So if you persist in calling foreigners wogs or probably less pleasant terms, or women slags etc, you end up thinking yourself superior to them,which you aint. It's a fairly short step from there to practical discrimination and moral or physical violence.

That's why words matter,and why it's correct,on a forum, to moderate the use of some of them, in my opinion.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

This is it in a nutshell.

 

What some call virtue signalling (or whatever) I call kindness. 

There is an important difference. The virtue signaller is all talk. Talking about being kind from the safety of a keyboard isn’t the same as being kind. Trying to control what others are allowed to say isn’t “kind”, it’s control freakery fascism.
 

By contrast the truly kind person actually does kind stuff and doesn’t make a lot of noise about it.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

There is an important difference. The virtue signaller is all talk. Talking about being kind from the safety of a keyboard isn’t the same as being kind. By contrast the truly kind person actually does kind stuff and doesn’t make a lot of noise about it.

Doing kinds things is kind - yes.  But saying kind things is also kind.  Why can't you see this?

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ange said:

Isn't it a sad world where anyone who talks about sympathy and humanity is shot down in flames with talk like fluffy bunny, snowflake and virtue signalling. I despair.

Exactly this. Right wing abuse politics coming straight out of the Trump / Murdoch playbook and only designed to prevent debate.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

There is an important difference. The virtue signaller is all talk. Talking about being kind from the safety of a keyboard isn’t the same as being kind. Trying to control what others are allowed to say isn’t “kind”, it’s control freakery fascism.
 

By contrast the truly kind person actually does kind stuff and doesn’t make a lot of noise about it.

How do you distinguish the difference?

 

How do you know the 'virtue signaller' online is not a kind generous person offline and does a whole load of good in the world? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Doing kinds things is kind - yes.  But saying kind things is also kind.  Why can't you see this?

Ok yes saying kind things to an individual in distress etc is a good and kind thing. But that isn’t what is happening here. People are not saying kind things, they are saying to someone else “Oooh you mustn’t say xyz just in case you offend some person neither of us actually know and who isn’t in the conversation”. That is not being kind, that is being a bossy control freak.

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

How do you distinguish the difference?

 

How do you know the 'virtue signaller' online is not a kind generous person offline and does a whole load of good in the world? 

Because in my experience, kind people just get on with it. They don’t crow about it.

 

And I’d go further, one person in this conversation I personally know to be a nasty spiteful hate-filled person in real life.

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.