Why is the "Truth" thread closed?

[Serial_Apologist]

I think that I can undestand why this thread has been closed but regret it nonetheless. Offensive posts can always be removed by moderators should they occur, whether in this kind of thead or any other, but if the standard of discussion could remain on the level of that illustrated by Richard Barrett just before it was closed, I could see no obvious reason to close it; monitor it carefully, perhaps, but close it? Richard's observations would almost certainly be broadly echoed by Daniel Barenboim; would we really wish to exclude from here the kinds of thing that he might want to say about the matters concerned?

Well said.

Maybe Israel is now the last taboo?

[Beef Oven!]

I think that I can undestand why this thread has been closed but regret it nonetheless. Offensive posts can always be removed by moderators should they occur, whether in this kind of thead or any other, but if the standard of discussion could remain on the level of that illustrated by Richard Barrett just before it was closed, I could see no obvious reason to close it; monitor it carefully, perhaps, but close it? Richard's observations would almost certainly be broadly echoed by Daniel Barenboim; would we really wish to exclude from here the kinds of thing that he might want to say about the matters concerned?

As I understand it, there was nothing wrong with any posts, nor the subject. The potential interest that could be aroused by some people who surf the net looking for a particular vent, was the issue. The thread was closed to manage that risk. I think it was the right thing to do.

[ahinton]

As I understand it, there was nothing wrong with any posts, nor the subject. The potential interest that could be aroused by some people who surf the net looking for a particular vent, was the issue. The thread was closed to manage that risk. I think it was the right thing to do.

As I stated, I could understand it too (and for that reason, for that matter), but that doesn't stop me finding it regrettable; the risk here might ultimately be that ever more of what gets posted here be viewed as potentially susceptible to such intrusion as you describe - and if taking such closure action on each such occasions wouldn't be tantamount to inviting self-censorship to the point of putting entire fora in jeopardy, I'm not quite sure what would.

[jean]

Maybe Israel is now the last taboo?

This response just demonstrates the problem.

The thread made mention of antisemitism. There was no need to mention Israel at all.

By suggesting that criticism of Israel is what's being silenced, you manage to suggest there's no such thing as antisemitism after all.

[Serial_Apologist]

This response just demonstrates the problem.

The thread made mention of antisemitism. There was no need to mention Israel at all.

By suggesting that criticism of Israel is what's being silenced, you manage to suggest there's no such thing as antisemitism after all.

I have a lot of respect for you jean, but how you deduce what you have written here is beyond me.

[Beef Oven!]

As I stated, I could understand it too (and for that reason, for that matter), but that doesn't stop me finding it regrettable; the risk here might ultimately be that ever more of what gets posted here be viewed as potentially susceptible to such intrusion as you describe - and if taking such closure action on each such occasions wouldn't be tantamount to inviting self-censorship to the point of putting entire fora in jeopardy, I'm not quite sure what would.

You said that you felt that the thread could remain open if members could post to the level illustrated by Richard Barrett.

Well that's not the point. That would not have mitigated the risk, sufficiently.

I don't think you have understood why the thread needed to be closed.

The debate had wandered off the thread topic, and people had said their bit.

[MrGongGong]

As I understand it, there was nothing wrong with any posts, nor the subject. The potential interest that could be aroused by some people who surf the net looking for a particular vent, was the issue. The thread was closed to manage that risk. I think it was the right thing to do.

Given you are a long time apologist for the Kippers who go on and on about how their freedom of speech has been removed by "Political Correctness" this is rather amusing.

The thread made mention of antisemitism. There was no need to mention Israel at all.
By suggesting that criticism of Israel is what's being silenced, you manage to suggest there's no such thing as antisemitism after all.

With all respect Jean I think this is a little naive.
Every time there is any discussion of antisemitism in the media Israel is talked about.

There is such a thing. But the apologists for Israel have managed to conflate it with criticism of their behaviour. If we have a situation where it's impossible to separate the two then we really have given in to some rather unpleasant people.

[Beef Oven!]

Jean mentioned a possible anti-Semitic undertone regarding the George/Gideon thing. This was cleared up and Jean ended her querying of it. I basically said that I thought anti-Semitism was a real issue at the moment in the UK and it was more important than political correctness (which was my cheap-shot at Jean (sorry)). Israel was brought up because some people took it to be an opportunity to talk about Palestine (I think), which was totally irrelevant.

Everyone should just back-off.

[Richard Barrett]

Everyone should just back-off.

You really like telling people what to do, don't you?

MrGG asked "How does one (a serious question) separate out REAL anti semitism from those who perceive it in all opposition to Israel?" after the diversion on George Osborne. I gave what I thought was a coherent and measured response to this, and the thread was closed. I think it's a shame that this whole important complex of subjects can't be discussed here, either as an offshoot of some other discussion or (presumably) on its own thread, but I've seen for myself here and elsewhere what kind of people that has a tendency to attract, so I can understand to some extent why that should be, even though it does seem to put the (real) threat of Z***ist trolling on a higher level of importance than the free discussion of politics and current affairs which this subforum was set up to enable.

[ahinton]

You said that you felt that the thread could remain open if members could post to the level illustrated by Richard Barrett.

Well that's not the point. That would not have mitigated the risk, sufficiently.

What I actually wrote was
if the standard of discussion could remain on the level of that illustrated by Richard Barrett just before it was closed, I could see no obvious reason to close it; monitor it carefully, perhaps, but close it?
Stating a personal opinion that "I could see no obvious reason to close" the thread if discussion was maintained on that kind of level is not precisely synonymous with saying that I "felt that the thread could remain open if members could post to the level illustrated by Richard Barrett"; I'm not the only member of this forum and each of has has an opinion on that. My concern was that such closure - especially so early on in the thread's progress - might risk being seen to represent a kind of thin end of a self-censorious wedge wherein more topics than should be the case might of themselves be deemed inappropriate to discuss here; were that to become the case, the constraints upon the topic range and discussion remit of the forum might become too great for its own good.

I don't think you have understood why the thread needed to be closed.

You might think that; I could possibly comment(!) and so I will by once again reminding you that I wrote
As I stated, I could understand it too (and for that reason, for that matter), but that doesn't stop me finding it regrettable
Now that seems pretty clear to me that I could understand what lay behind the thread closure decision but expressed regret at it nevertheless; likewise, that's not syunonymous with failing to understand the reason behind the closure.

The debate had wandered off the thread topic, and people had said their bit.

Many a thread on many another topic has "wandered off the thread topic" without that directly resulting in its closure!

[MrGongGong]

You really like telling people what to do, don't you?

MrGG asked "How does one (a serious question) separate out REAL anti semitism from those who perceive it in all opposition to Israel?" after the diversion on George Osborne. I gave what I thought was a coherent and measured response to this, and the thread was closed. I think it's a shame that this whole important complex of subjects can't be discussed here, either as an offshoot of some other discussion or (presumably) on its own thread, but I've seen for myself here and elsewhere what kind of people that has a tendency to attract, so I can understand to some extent why that should be, even though it does seem to put the (real) threat of Z***ist trolling on a higher level of importance than the free discussion of politics and current affairs which this subforum was set up to enable.

Sorry for asking
I DO think it's a real issue that is never discussed and your reply was measured and coherent.


And what on earth is the problem with "wandering off topic" anyway?

Why do some people want ALL discussions to be conducted like a Grammar School debating society?

and how do you know

The debate had wandered off the thread topic, and people had said their bit.

Is mr Beef doing a degree in Epistemology by any chance?

[Beef Oven!]

You really like telling people what to do, don't you?

No, I don't like telling people what to do, but I will if I feel it is needed.

MrGG asked "How does one (a serious question) separate out REAL anti semitism from those who perceive it in all opposition to Israel?" after the diversion on George Osborne. I gave what I thought was a coherent and measured response to this, and the thread was closed. I think it's a shame that this whole important complex of subjects can't be discussed here, either as an offshoot of some other discussion or (presumably) on its own thread, but I've seen for myself here and elsewhere what kind of people that has a tendency to attract, so I can understand to some extent why that should be, even though it does seem to put the (real) threat of Z***ist trolling on a higher level of importance than the free discussion of politics and current affairs which this subforum was set up to enable.

He asked a valid question and I gave a reasoned answer, but you appear to have only seen your own 'coherent and measured response'.

I do agree with you about trolling trumping debate being a worry. All I was thinking was that I thought that Jazzbo took a proportionate decision in relation to the risk. He appears to have balanced off the fact that the thread had wandered, and as you and I agree, the valid question had been put, and reasoned answers given.

[jean]

With all respect Jean I think this is a little naive.
Every time there is any discussion of antisemitism in the media Israel is talked about.

There is such a thing. But the apologists for Israel have managed to conflate it with criticism of their behaviour. If we have a situation where it's impossible to separate the two then we really have given in to some rather unpleasant people.

With all respect Mr GG there was no mention at all of Israel on this thread until some posters thought antisemitism could not even be mentioned without it being thrown into the mix.

It wasn't those you call the rather unpleasant people who did that.

[jean]

Jean mentioned a possible anti-Semitic undertone regarding the George/Gideon thing. This was cleared up and Jean ended her querying of it. I basically said that I thought anti-Semitism was a real issue at the moment in the UK and it was more important than political correctness (which was my cheap-shot at Jean (sorry)). Israel was brought up because some people took it to be an opportunity to talk about Palestine (I think), which was totally irrelevant.

Agree totally.

[MrGongGong]

With all respect Mr GG there was no mention at all of Israel on this thread until some posters thought antisemitism could not even be mentioned without it being thrown into the mix.

It wasn't those you call the rather unpleasant people who did that.

I was asking a simple question really.

Could you give me an example of where antisemitism (is it a special and uniquely offensive hate crime? more than other persecutions?) is discussed without this being mentioned?