David McGoldrick on Robert Peston

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




FMBlade1 said:
Yes and all of it is deplorable, though as I quite clearly stated 'to different degrees'. Everyone is getting abused. What happened to #bekind after Caroline Flack? It only lasted around a week at most :(
Click to expand...


'To different degrees' is related to the amount of abuse someone is getting, not the reason for them getting that abuse.
 
Klaatu Barada Nikto said:
'To different degrees' is related to the amount of abuse someone is getting, not the reason for them getting that abuse.
Click to expand...

I can see why you read it like that though it was meant both. Me being abused for being overweight (I'm not, as my profile picture shows) is not the same as being abused for colour of skin. However both are abuse for different reasons and to different degrees of seriousness.
 
Yellarbellyblade said:
Me I’d turn it all off and get people to bloody talk face to face again (Covid allowing of course) but that’s probably my age. Joking apart though I do get that but as long as there are judicial checks and balances I think it’s doable. Things like is there an open and transparent legal system within the country would be a start. Companies clearly have responsibility to safeguard personal data but equally that shouldn’t be used to protect people spreading vile abuse or even libellous accusations. I don’t use my real name on here but if I started spouting racist bollocks, for example, I would quite rightly expect the mods to give up my details to the authorities
Click to expand...

Likewise, I would expect the same for myself or anyone else for that matter.
 
How would mandatory ID work for like, meme accounts, bot account and corporate accounts etc? Would they have to be tied to a verified person account?
 
FMBlade1 said:
I can see why you read it like that though it was meant both. Me being abused for being overweight (I'm not, as my profile picture shows) is not the same as being abused for colour of skin. However both are abuse for different reasons and to different degrees of seriousness.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are plenty of fatists around. Have been interested to see that Coronation Street is running a story about prejudice towards the gothic/alternative community that to some degree parallels the truly awful events from 2010 that resulted in the death of Sophie Lancaster.
 
Fair play to Didz for going on there last night. He is an absolute credit to the club both on and off the pitch. As he said on there he’s taking a stand because it’s the right thing to do, not just for him but for his kids as well.

Social Media companies need to get serious about putting an end to this. If they can come up with clever ways to bombard you with adverts for any old shite you don’t need they can surely come up with a way to stop this happening.

The Tory on Peston made a good point about protecting whistle blowers but that aside a proper audit trail back to the user is a start. Some serious bans for culprits as well, not just having their tweet taken down.

To use an anaology, if you walked in to your local supermarket and another punter started giving you vile uncalled for abuse you’d expect them to do something about it. You wouldn’t feel it was right to simply put your trolley back and never return.
 
FMBlade1 said:
I can see why you read it like that though it was meant both. Me being abused for being overweight (I'm not, as my profile picture shows) is not the same as being abused for colour of skin. However both are abuse for different reasons and to different degrees of seriousness.
Click to expand...
But it hurts just the same.
 
FMBlade1 said:
Of course I agree with you on this:

View attachment 111659


I for one agree with voter ID for voting. If you disagree and think that's racist, you cannot also ask for ID on social media platforms as that would disproportionately silence people of colour and minorities.
Click to expand...
Isn't the issue with voter ID that the steps being asked to verify ID are not the simpler ones e.g. not akin to a credit check that Bartman referenced. So Republicans are asking for levels of ID proof that they know will be a problem for a certain demographic because excluding them helps the Republicans. . . which is a dick move.

I have no issue with Paypal asking for ID bearing in mind what they do. Anyone questioning that as odd is the weirdo.

As for social media. I personally have no issue with being ID'd for an account and I think it would stop some abuse/grooming and what not. There is also no doubt that it would quash dissent against despots. Two very different problems in different parts of the world. There's clearly more to consider than just shouting "ID them if you've got nowt to hide" It's amazing how much of the abuse isn't even from a fake account though and just a nob head with no filter. Those abusing the medium should have it taken from them. Multiple accounts should be a no-no unless it's business and personal.
 
diplomat said:
Isn't the issue with voter ID that the steps being asked to verify ID are not the simpler ones e.g. not akin to a credit check that Bartman referenced. So Republicans are asking for levels of ID proof that they know will be a problem for a certain demographic because excluding them helps the Republicans. . . which is a dick move.

I have no issue with Paypal asking for ID bearing in mind what they do. Anyone questioning that as odd is the weirdo.

As for social media. I personally have no issue with being ID'd for an account and I think it would stop some abuse/grooming and what not. There is also no doubt that it would quash dissent against despots. Two very different problems in different parts of the world. There's clearly more to consider than just shouting "ID them if you've got nowt to hide" It's amazing how much of the abuse isn't even from a fake account though and just a nob head with no filter. Those abusing the medium should have it taken from them. Multiple accounts should be a no-no unless it's business and personal.
Click to expand...

So the Republicans would say that they are filtering out illegal immigrants who vote Democrat. It is true though that minorities vote for them much less than the Democrats, though Trump actually made significant inroads into this demographic.

Personally I think they are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Similarly one could argue that the Democrats are playing a dick move by granting amnesty to immigrants as it helps them as shown by how blue California has turned in the last generation.

So no I don't think there is an issue with Paypal or voter ID. With social media as you say it's much more difficult with despots, whistle blowers, under 18's etc.
 


Only a day too late, and after it had trended massively.

This is where social medias companies need kicking, how slow they are.
 
My take on all this is that I never say anything about someone that I wouldn't say to them.

Therefore I don't require anonymity as I can usually back up my point of view with a reasoned argument.

There would be far less problems caused by social media if posters were not allowed to remain anonymous because they would then have to back up their arguments.

95% of trolls, bigots and extremists would disappear over night if they had to face reality and justify their views, whilst knowing that all their friends and family could see exactly what they were thinking and saying.

We have already lost the right to free speech because the law sets limits on what we're allowed to say and going forward we will become more and more restricted whilst ever we try and continue to protect a minority of extreme posters by giving them anonymity.
 
Maidenhead said:
My take on all this is that I never say anything about someone that I wouldn't say to them.

Therefore I don't require anonymity as I can usually back up my point of view with a reasoned argument.

There would be far less problems caused by social media if posters were not allowed to remain anonymous because they would then have to back up their arguments.

95% of trolls, bigots and extremists would disappear over night if they had to face reality and justify their views, whilst knowing that all their friends and family could see exactly what they were thinking and saying.

We have already lost the right to free speech because the law sets limits on what we're allowed to say and going forward we will become more and more restricted whilst ever we try and continue to protect a minority of extreme posters by giving them anonymity.
Click to expand...

It's a myth that these trolls are all anonymous. Some of them do what they do with a badge of honour and make a career out of it.

Others are just so stupid and do it when they can be clearly identified.
 
Obviously racial, and any other, abuse is wrong but the ability to speak freely is a positive even if it's a point of view I disagree with.

Plenty of countries are anti homosexual marriage but social media allows people in those countries to debate issues like this.

Myanmar is under a military coup and they shut down social media to stop legitimate protests about it. A social media ID platform would be something people like this would prefer.
 



FMBlade1 said:
So the Republicans would say that they are filtering out illegal immigrants who vote Democrat.
Click to expand...

No, actually. Non-citizens (including undocumented or “illegal“ immigrants) are not able to vote.

Republicans’ main aim, with voter ID, is suppression of the black and Hispanic vote. One part of a concerted strategy that has included gutting the Voting Rights Act (1965)—one of the landmark achievements of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s—by the conservative Supreme Court in 2013.
 
ShockingBadBuy said:
No, actually. Non-citizens (including undocumented or “illegal“ immigrants) are not able to vote.

Republicans’ main aim, with voter ID, is suppression of the black and Hispanic vote. One part of a concerted strategy that has included gutting the Voting Rights Act (1965)—one of the landmark achievements of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s—by the conservative Supreme Court in 2013.
Click to expand...

Some do, though not many I think. Of course they aren't allowed to but many are voting. Are you saying that no-one out of the 11 million undocumented immigrants vote? Even if it's only 10,000 that could swing a state like Georgia or Arizona. How has California turned so blue after being Regan's state? Sanctuary cities etc.

Republicans have made decent progress in capturing just under a third of Hispanic votes, look how they turned Florida into a solid state particularly in the Miami Dade district.

With the black vote they are far behind but Trump made inroads.

After all it's tricky when Joe Biden says 'If you don't vote me you aint black' and to Mitt Romney in 2012 'He'll put y'all back in chains'. Also have a read of the 'Uncle Tim' trending on Twitter last night.

The Voting Rights Act still stands (which was passed in 1960's by both parties against the Dixiecrats). It's just that voters have to prove they are being disenfranchised.

Some people think people are too poor, lazy and stupid to get ID's so therefore they should vote without them. I would disagree.
 
Last edited:
FMBlade1 said:
James McClean got terrible sectarian abuse for years and there was no boycotts or outrage.

Ched Evans has had the same for different reasons even after his conviction was quashed.

It shouldn't be normalized or accepted but it does happen to everyone, though to different degrees of course.
Click to expand...

Klaatu Barada Nikto said:
James Mclean, you have a point.

But are you seriously comparing the abuse David McGoldrick gets that's connected to the colour of his skin, to the abuse that Ched Evans got for turning up uninvited to a hotel room at 3am and sticking his dick in a drunk lass without even saying a word to her?
Click to expand...
McLean got his abuse, obscenely, due to his political opinions he espoused.

How many white footballers been abused online for being white? I’m guessing none.
 
FMBlade1 said:
Some do, though not many I think. Of course they aren't allowed to but many are voting. Are you saying that no-one out of the 11 million undocumented immigrants vote? Even if it's only 10,000 that could swing a state like Georgia or Arizona. How has California turned so blue after being Regan's state? Sanctuary cities etc.

Republicans have made decent progress in capturing just under a third of Hispanic votes, look how they turned Florida into a solid state particularly in the Miami Dade district.

With the black vote they are far behind but Trump made inroads.

After all it's tricky when Joe Biden says 'If you don't vote me you aint black' and to Mitt Romney in 2012 'He'll put y'all back in chains'. Also have a read of the 'Uncle Tim' trending on Twitter last night.

The Voting Rights Act still stands (which was passed in 1960's by both parties against the Dixiecrats). It's just that voters have to prove they are being disenfranchised.

Some people think people are too poor, lazy and stupid to get ID's so therefore they should vote without them. I would disagree.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendation I should read last night’s Twitter for informed opinion on this.

Call me old fashioned, but I remember when “research” meant months/years in archives, fieldwork, interviews and reading, a few conference papers a year (with feedback from folk who know better), a draft paper or 20 to peer-reviewed journals, and maybe a book or two.

But, yeah, last night’s Twitter.

I know who I trust to be right about the Voting Rights Act, voting trends, and contemporary conservative attempts at disenfranchisement.
 
ShockingBadBuy said:
Thanks for the recommendation I should read last night’s Twitter for informed opinion on this.

Call me old fashioned, but I remember when “research” meant months/years in archives, fieldwork, interviews and reading, a few conference papers a year (with feedback from folk who know better), a draft paper or 20 to peer-reviewed journals, and maybe a book or two.

But, yeah, last night’s Twitter.

I know who I trust to be right about the Voting Rights Act, voting trends, and contemporary conservative attempts at disenfranchisement.
Click to expand...

Er I said look at Twitter to see the abuse a black conservative Tim Scott was received with a trend of 'Uncle Tim'. That goes some way to explaining why there are so few of them.

Academia is 90%+ made up of people on the left so that's probably just as reliable as Twitter.

Conservatives want to disenfranchise people who shouldn't vote. What's the problem with that?
 
FMBlade1 said:
Academia is 90%+ made up of people on the left so that's probably just as reliable as Twitter.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

FMBlade1 said:
Conservatives want to disenfranchise people who shouldn't vote. What's the problem with that?
Click to expand...
I thought it was you who was always talking about the persistence of Jim Crow?

I must be wrong.
 
ShockingBadBuy said:
Sigh.


I thought it was you who was always talking about the persistence of Jim Crow?

I must be wrong.
Click to expand...

Joe Biden is the one who brought up Jim Crow by saying that's what the new Georgia voting laws are.


Therefore if that's true asking people for ID on Social Media is also a Jim Crow style move as it will disproportionally silence minorities.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

s20Blade
Let's have some Bladey Bladeness and bring back...
Replies
12
Views
873
Grey Blade
Grey Blade
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
'I played for both' ⚽️ Blades v Saints
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
diode_blade
diode_blade
J
Osula
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Old Programme seller
Old Programme seller
toledo
Next weekend in Cancun
Replies
15
Views
1K
toledo
toledo
B
England Uncapped World Cup Squad With a Blades Bias
Replies
6
Views
690
Bobby Boo
Bobby Boo

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom