Justice for unseenwork

All things Rugby
User avatar
Uncle Fester
Posts: 19964
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Justice for unseenwork

Post by Uncle Fester »

The sensitive Susans should toughen up
User avatar
feckwanker
Posts: 6912
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by feckwanker »

Uncle Fester wrote:The sensitive Susans should toughen up
The irony.
Monk Zombie
Posts: 4460
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Monk Zombie »

so is unseenwork the hardy perrenial in the story ?
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 10405
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Frodder »

I thought it was a Spam account
User avatar
Glaston
Posts: 3153
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Glaston »

Nah.

We dont need them negative waves.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 39440
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Uncle Fester wrote:The sensitive Susans should toughen up
That's quite funny
iarmhiman
Posts: 40181
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by iarmhiman »

As a British citizen she should be allow say what she likes about her prime minister.

Sensitive susans is putting it mildly
C69
Posts: 39678
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by C69 »

Her posts were crass and now any time anyone expresses such thoughts towards politicians they should be banned.
Based upon this ridiculous precedent that is natch.

Next time a poster calls for the death of a state leader or glories in the death of a freedom fighter/terrorist you are banned?
wreckthehouse
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Belfast

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by wreckthehouse »

c69 wrote:Her posts were crass and now any time anyone expresses such thoughts towards politicians they should be banned.
Based upon this ridiculous precedent that is natch.

Next time a poster calls for the death of a state leader or glories in the death of a freedom fighter/terrorist you are banned?
I agree, terrorists are a great bunch of lads.
New guy
Posts: 4542
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by New guy »

Would the guys who think it's not ban worthy have been ok with somebody saying "good riddance" when Jo Cox got shot?
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 28559
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Sandstorm »

c69 wrote:Her posts were crass and now any time anyone expresses such thoughts towards politicians they should be banned.
Based upon this ridiculous precedent that is natch.

Next time a poster calls for the death of a state leader or glories in the death of a freedom fighter/terrorist you are banned?
I don't recall any other poster going on that nastily for half a page when Mugabe or Saddam's futures were discussed. She went waaay overboard IMO.
User avatar
Derwyn
Posts: 2522
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:08 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Derwyn »

There should be a poll for any banned posters. Let the people of the bored decide the fate of their own.
C69
Posts: 39678
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by C69 »

Sandstorm wrote:
c69 wrote:Her posts were crass and now any time anyone expresses such thoughts towards politicians they should be banned.
Based upon this ridiculous precedent that is natch.

Next time a poster calls for the death of a state leader or glories in the death of a freedom fighter/terrorist you are banned?
I don't recall any other poster going on that nastily for half a page when Mugabe or Saddam's futures were discussed. She went waaay overboard IMO.
Agreed there was no rejoicing here when those despots died.
C69
Posts: 39678
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by C69 »

Derwyn wrote:There should be a poll for any banned posters. Let the people of the bored decide the fate of their own.
Jesus and Barabas type justice :thumbup:
I like it
User avatar
AND-y
Posts: 16088
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by AND-y »

lol I expect she's loving that she successfully highlighted just how easy it is to get nevauffended types to get all ruffled and squawking tbh
User avatar
Lobby
Posts: 1598
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Lobby »

Her comments were entirely consistent with her posting history. She’s always demonstrated a despicable contempt for anyone whose views she disagrees with, and made clear that she wasn’t a supporter of Corbyn’s pretend ‘kinder, gentler politics’, so I can’t see why she has been banned now.
Ulsters Red Hand
Posts: 10553
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Ulsters Red Hand »

c69 wrote:Her posts were crass and now any time anyone expresses such thoughts towards politicians they should be banned.
Based upon this ridiculous precedent that is natch.

Next time a poster calls for the death of a state leader or glories in the death of a freedom fighter/terrorist you are banned?
Everyone with an ounce of common sense is saying the same thing
That is, you may not like Boris' politics but anything other than wishing him well is an unwelcome opinion
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 39440
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Anonymous 1 »

c69 wrote:Her posts were crass and now any time anyone expresses such thoughts towards politicians they should be banned.
Based upon this ridiculous precedent that is natch.

Next time a poster calls for the death of a state leader or glories in the death of a freedom fighter/terrorist you are banned?
Dream on
User avatar
PornDog
Posts: 2649
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by PornDog »

For what its worth, my first reaction to hearing Boris had caught it initially was one of mirth (because of his originally lax attitude - to be fair to him I think he/the UK government got on the right horse pretty quickly afterwards).

The vitriol that USW showed was definitely over the top and a little hard to wrap ones head around, but being who she is and Boris' previous uttering about bum boys and generally very un PC like attitudes to that community it is understandable. I realise there are counters to those perceptions (some better than others), but it's totally reasonable for someone with USW's background to not show the levels of understanding and to hold a grudge against someone whose earlier statements on the subject are, at the very least perceived to be, so overwhelmingly negative and harmful.

Again to revel in another persons life being in danger is not cool, but the level of vitriol is, while extreme, understandable.

Either way I think the banning is over the top and totally inconsistent considering worse things are said about others on here all the time. But I guess refereeing inconsistency is appropriate for a rugby bored.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11243
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by A5D5E5 »

New guy wrote:Would the guys who think it's not ban worthy have been ok with somebody saying "good riddance" when Jo Cox got shot?
I don't agree with banning people for holding or expressing unpleasant, offensive or even hateful views. Short of bans necessary for complying with the law, I wouldn't ban anyone.

Far better to have their opinions aired so they can be discussed, debated and ridiculed.

That would apply as much to somebody saying "good riddance" to Jo Cox as it would to somebody wishing ill of Boris Johnson or anyone else.
my 2 cents
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by my 2 cents »

It just plays into the victimhood status.

I'd prefer them to continue showing what a twisted dickhead they are.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 39440
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Anonymous 1 »

PornDog wrote:For what its worth, my first reaction to hearing Boris had caught it initially was one of mirth (because of his originally lax attitude - to be fair to him I think he/the UK government got on the right horse pretty quickly afterwards).

The vitriol that USW showed was definitely over the top and a little hard to wrap ones head around, but being who she is and Boris' previous uttering about bum boys and generally very un PC like attitudes to that community it is understandable. I realise there are counters to those perceptions (some better than others), but it's totally reasonable for someone with USW's background to not show the levels of understanding and to hold a grudge against someone whose earlier statements on the subject are, at the very least perceived to be, so overwhelmingly negative and harmful.

Again to revel in another persons life being in danger is not cool, but the level of vitriol is, while extreme, understandable.

Either way I think the banning is over the top and totally inconsistent considering worse things are said about others on here all the time. But I guess refereeing inconsistency is appropriate for a rugby bored.
I happen to think Boris is a cunt. His comments public comments on black people, gay people and women who wear Burkas are bad enough but I tend to think people say worse in private then they do to the media. However that being said I think unseenworks joyful reaction to his undoubted suffering is only "understandable" if you are looking at it from the angle of usw being a cunt as well.
Last edited by Anonymous 1 on Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14484
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by fatcat »

Anonymous. wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:The sensitive Susans should toughen up
That's quite funny
:o
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14484
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by fatcat »

AND-y wrote:lol I expect she's loving that she successfully highlighted just how easy it is to get nevauffended types to get all ruffled and squawking tbh
You're probably the last person who should be mocking others for getting ruffled and squawking - you're arguably the biggest jessie by far on here when it comes to tolerating other peoples' views.
User avatar
blindcider
Posts: 8097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by blindcider »

A5D5E5 wrote:
New guy wrote:Would the guys who think it's not ban worthy have been ok with somebody saying "good riddance" when Jo Cox got shot?
I don't agree with banning people for holding or expressing unpleasant, offensive or even hateful views. Short of bans necessary for complying with the law, I wouldn't ban anyone.

Far better to have their opinions aired so they can be discussed, debated and ridiculed.
I am more of the view that allowing to much "hate speech" masquerading under the banner of "free speech" normalises extreme views too much. Look at the general state of the internet where people comfortable in anonymity feel free to give death threats to people. Also with freedom of speech comes the obligation to self-censor - free speech does not give you the right to go out of your way to deliberately offend or upset people.

Also why should planet rugby allow their forum to be a vehicle for people to spread their manure to their audience?
bimboman
Posts: 66455
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by bimboman »

blindcider wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
New guy wrote:Would the guys who think it's not ban worthy have been ok with somebody saying "good riddance" when Jo Cox got shot?
I don't agree with banning people for holding or expressing unpleasant, offensive or even hateful views. Short of bans necessary for complying with the law, I wouldn't ban anyone.

Far better to have their opinions aired so they can be discussed, debated and ridiculed.
I am more of the view that allowing to much "hate speech" masquerading under the banner of "free speech" normalises extreme views too much. Look at the general state of the internet where people comfortable in anonymity feel free to give death threats to people. Also with freedom of speech comes the obligation to self-censor - free speech does not give you the right to go out of your way to deliberately offend or upset people.

Also why should planet rugby allow their forum to be a vehicle for people to spread their manure to their audience?

Free speech absolutely gives people the right to offend and upset. That’s very different to death threats and the like.

There is no right to not be offended. (The law has recently clarified this).

A private forum can have rules as it likes though.

These again are totally different issues.
User avatar
blindcider
Posts: 8097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by blindcider »

bimboman wrote:
blindcider wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
New guy wrote:Would the guys who think it's not ban worthy have been ok with somebody saying "good riddance" when Jo Cox got shot?
I don't agree with banning people for holding or expressing unpleasant, offensive or even hateful views. Short of bans necessary for complying with the law, I wouldn't ban anyone.

Far better to have their opinions aired so they can be discussed, debated and ridiculed.
I am more of the view that allowing to much "hate speech" masquerading under the banner of "free speech" normalises extreme views too much. Look at the general state of the internet where people comfortable in anonymity feel free to give death threats to people. Also with freedom of speech comes the obligation to self-censor - free speech does not give you the right to go out of your way to deliberately offend or upset people.

Also why should planet rugby allow their forum to be a vehicle for people to spread their manure to their audience?

Free speech absolutely gives people the right to offend and upset. That’s very different to death threats and the like.

A private forum can have rules as it likes though.

These again are totally different issues.
I happen to disagree, for me freedom of speech is the freedom to criticise and to be able to scrutinise others in public without fear of retaliation. its more about being able to speak out against government/administrational/political/religious control rather than Fred from down the road to spread fake news or to deliberatley offend people.
User avatar
A5D5E5
Posts: 11243
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by A5D5E5 »

blindcider wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
New guy wrote:Would the guys who think it's not ban worthy have been ok with somebody saying "good riddance" when Jo Cox got shot?
I don't agree with banning people for holding or expressing unpleasant, offensive or even hateful views. Short of bans necessary for complying with the law, I wouldn't ban anyone.

Far better to have their opinions aired so they can be discussed, debated and ridiculed.
I am more of the view that allowing to much "hate speech" masquerading under the banner of "free speech" normalises extreme views too much. Look at the general state of the internet where people comfortable in anonymity feel free to give death threats to people. Also with freedom of speech comes the obligation to self-censor - free speech does not give you the right to go out of your way to deliberately offend or upset people.

Also why should planet rugby allow their forum to be a vehicle for people to spread their manure to their audience?

Death threats and real extremes (such as the hate speech you mentioned) would be caught by my "bans necessary fir complying with the law". And whilst we only have free speech up to a point anyway - there are loads of things I can't say without the authorities getting interested (which for the avoidance of doubt, I don't want to say!), I am firmly of the view that offense can only be taken, not given.

I'm totally comfortable that the owners / editors of any medium can police or restrict what is said in any way they see fit, I'm just setting out my views on how I would do it were I in control.

Taking the specific example of USW's comments though, I think it is far more constructive to allow people to see that decent people of all political views detest such attitudes than to stop those views being presented.
bimboman
Posts: 66455
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by bimboman »


I happen to disagree, for me freedom of speech is the freedom to criticise and to be able to scrutinise others in public without fear of retaliation. its more about being able to speak out against government/administrational/political/religious control rather than Fred from down the road to spread fake news or to deliberatley offend people

Your criticism and scrutiny offend me.
User avatar
fonzeee
Posts: 3929
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by fonzeee »

Wait, unseenwork is a woman? Didn't see that coming.
frillage
Posts: 6663
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by frillage »

fonzeee wrote:Wait, unseenwork is a woman? Didn't see that coming.


Seems to be a question of where the unseen work has been done.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 39440
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Anonymous 1 »

blindcider wrote:
bimboman wrote:
blindcider wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
New guy wrote:Would the guys who think it's not ban worthy have been ok with somebody saying "good riddance" when Jo Cox got shot?
I don't agree with banning people for holding or expressing unpleasant, offensive or even hateful views. Short of bans necessary for complying with the law, I wouldn't ban anyone.

Far better to have their opinions aired so they can be discussed, debated and ridiculed.
I am more of the view that allowing to much "hate speech" masquerading under the banner of "free speech" normalises extreme views too much. Look at the general state of the internet where people comfortable in anonymity feel free to give death threats to people. Also with freedom of speech comes the obligation to self-censor - free speech does not give you the right to go out of your way to deliberately offend or upset people.

Also why should planet rugby allow their forum to be a vehicle for people to spread their manure to their audience?

Free speech absolutely gives people the right to offend and upset. That’s very different to death threats and the like.

A private forum can have rules as it likes though.

These again are totally different issues.
I happen to disagree, for me freedom of speech is the freedom to criticise and to be able to scrutinise others in public without fear of retaliation. its more about being able to speak out against government/administrational/political/religious control rather than Fred from down the road to spread fake news or to deliberatley offend people.
As has been pointed out this is a private forum
User avatar
HighKingLeinster
Posts: 21597
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by HighKingLeinster »

frillage wrote:
fonzeee wrote:Wait, unseenwork is a woman? Didn't see that coming.


Seems to be a question of where the unseen work has been done.
:lol:

this is a perfectly cromulent post
User avatar
Winnie
Posts: 15866
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Winnie »

HighKingLeinster wrote:
frillage wrote:
fonzeee wrote:Wait, unseenwork is a woman? Didn't see that coming.


Seems to be a question of where the unseen work has been done.
:lol:

this is a perfectly cromulent post
Not enough use of the word cromulent on this bored or in everyday life id you ask me
User avatar
HighKingLeinster
Posts: 21597
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by HighKingLeinster »

Winnie wrote:
HighKingLeinster wrote:
frillage wrote:
fonzeee wrote:Wait, unseenwork is a woman? Didn't see that coming.


Seems to be a question of where the unseen work has been done.
:lol:

this is a perfectly cromulent post
Not enough use of the word cromulent on this bored or in everyday life id you ask me
agreed. its use embiggins us all
User avatar
earl the beaver
Posts: 51030
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dirty Leeds

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by earl the beaver »

feckwanker wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:The sensitive Susans should toughen up
The irony.
Exactly, from man that got me banned for posting spoilers of a TV show ffs.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 39440
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by Anonymous 1 »

earl the beaver wrote:
feckwanker wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:The sensitive Susans should toughen up
The irony.
Exactly, from man that got me banned for posting spoilers of a TV show ffs.
Neighbours ?
User avatar
fatcat
Posts: 14484
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by fatcat »

The Addams Family
User avatar
HighKingLeinster
Posts: 21597
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 am

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by HighKingLeinster »

Anonymous. wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
feckwanker wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:The sensitive Susans should toughen up
The irony.
Exactly, from man that got me banned for posting spoilers of a TV show ffs.
Neighbours ?
Norn Irons Next Top Bigot.

Its very popular there
User avatar
HKCJ
Posts: 7760
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Auld Reekie

Re: Justice for unseenwork

Post by HKCJ »

I think she and rob loonan would’ve made a smashing couple. They could have been Braz and Lady Pen mkII. Just a shame they lived on the bored during different eras.
Post Reply