What is it with posters that have to turn a thread into something other than what it is?

[eddie]

I’ve noticed this.

Okay perhaps I’m boring, or narrow minded or perhaps I just tend to stick to the topic, in the main, but I have noticed that some posters will comment on a thread with a comment that has fuck all to do with the actual OP or news item.

What’s with that? I get that some threads naturally evolve into something other than the topic but to make your first post about something other than the topic?

I honestly don’t get it.

[eddie]

Case in point:

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t28616-grooming-gang-review-kept-secret-as-home-office-claims-releasing-findings-not-in-public-interest

And another:

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t28617-photographer-captures-amazing-shot-of-ship-in-front-of-iceberg


See where and why the topic goes off the point.

And Why???

[Original Quill]

Political differences don't go by accepting the assumptions.  They go by introducing new assumptions.

It's called framing.  I might start a thread claiming that all blacks are criminals.  Someone who disagrees might introduce a new topic: slavery.  Because of slavery, they allege, blacks have been marginalized and economically disenfranchised.  They turn to crime as the only way to survive.

Note how the subject has changed?  We are no longer talking about modern day crime, but the history of slavery, some 500-years ago.

Now comes you, eds, and says...don't change the subject.  Stick on the topic of how blacks are all criminals.  You don't want to change the topic, or introduce the new element into the discussion.  That's how these discussions about 'off-topic' get started.  It's a 'left-handed' way of censorship: you can't talk about that...it's off-topic.

Political discussions are rarely direct contradictions, but go by way of reframing.  The clash of frames are the real political discussions.  You are either for free speech, or you are agin' it.  If you are for free speech you allow the discussion to go where it will; if you are against it, you start imposing these limits...which, in the end, amount to censorship.  You just don't want to hear a full and open airing of the subject.

For example: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t28616-grooming-gang-review-kept-secret-as-home-office-claims-releasing-findings-not-in-public-interest

[eddie]

You are totally missing the point. Ask yourself why.

[eddie]

Political differences don't go by accepting the assumptions.  They go by introducing new assumptions.

It's called framing.  I might start a thread claiming that all blacks are criminals.  Someone who disagrees might introduce a new topic: slavery.  Because of slavery, they allege, blacks have been marginalized and economically disenfranchised.  They turn to crime as the only way to survive.

Note how the subject has changed?  We are no longer talking about modern day crime, but the history of slavery, some 500-years ago.

Now comes you, eds, and says...don't change the subject.  Stick on the topic of how blacks are all criminals.  You don't want to change the topic, or introduce the new element into the discussion.  That's how these discussions about 'off-topic' get started.  It's a 'left-handed' way of censorship: you can't talk about that...it's off-topic.

Political discussions are rarely direct contradictions, but go by way of reframing.  The clash of frames are the real political discussions.  You are either for free speech, or you are agin' it.  If you are for free speech you allow the discussion to go where it will; if you are against it, you start imposing these limits...which, in the end, amount to censorship.  You just don't want to hear a full and open airing of the subject.

For example: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t28616-grooming-gang-review-kept-secret-as-home-office-claims-releasing-findings-not-in-public-interest

If you had spoken about the topic, which is about Muslim grooming gangs and their history, I could see your point.
But you didn’t.

You changed the topic from “Muslim grooming gangs” to “old white men who are republicans”.

Apples and sausages mate.

Work it out.

[Maddog]

I lot of folks are obnoxious ideologues that won't change their ways without constant correction.

[Original Quill]

Political differences don't go by accepting the assumptions.  They go by introducing new assumptions.

It's called framing.  I might start a thread claiming that all blacks are criminals.  Someone who disagrees might introduce a new topic: slavery.  Because of slavery, they allege, blacks have been marginalized and economically disenfranchised.  They turn to crime as the only way to survive.

Note how the subject has changed?  We are no longer talking about modern day crime, but the history of slavery, some 500-years ago.

Now comes you, eds, and says...don't change the subject.  Stick on the topic of how blacks are all criminals.  You don't want to change the topic, or introduce the new element into the discussion.  That's how these discussions about 'off-topic' get started.  It's a 'left-handed' way of censorship: you can't talk about that...it's off-topic.

Political discussions are rarely direct contradictions, but go by way of reframing.  The clash of frames are the real political discussions.  You are either for free speech, or you are agin' it.  If you are for free speech you allow the discussion to go where it will; if you are against it, you start imposing these limits...which, in the end, amount to censorship.  You just don't want to hear a full and open airing of the subject.

For example: https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t28616-grooming-gang-review-kept-secret-as-home-office-claims-releasing-findings-not-in-public-interest

If you had spoken about the topic, which is about Muslim grooming gangs and their history, I could see your point.
But you didn’t.

You changed the topic from “Muslim grooming gangs” to “old white men who are republicans”.

Apples and sausages mate.

Work it out.

Once again, you are trying to tell someone else (me) what to write and what my opinion should be. You are trying to say, you can't write about "old white men who are republicans". You are imposing a self-made rule to the effect, you must stay on topic. It looks good on paper, but imagine if you had told Einstein stay on the topic of Newtonian physics...you can't talk about relativity. You would have destroyed 150-years of progress.

We are rehashing the very debate that Galileo had with Pope Urban VIII. Urban's point was, stick to the topic of the Ptolemaic universe. You cannot reframe the discussion.

You shouldn't go around telling people what to think and write, eds.

[Eilzel]

I think the two examples are not equally off-topic.

The iceberg thread shows incredible pictures, but on (and especially on) a news forum, it isn't unreasonable to think such a thread could diverge slightly to the topic of climate change and rising sea levels. I'd say that's entirely to be expected, honestly.

Especially since the alternative would be a hand full of people saying 'oh, those are astonishing' or some such exclamation before the thread falls into the abyss of irrelevance

Whereas on the grooming thread, I tend to agree.

It doesn't help the discussion of Asian grooming gangs to switch to an entirely different group of people committing abuses, however similar.

The situation of prominent public figures using their power is not the same as larger number from a specific group clearly carrying out these actions. They should be discussed separately.

The Reason?

In my opinion the reason to change the subject in the latter example is mostly either a) pushing a personal vendetta/agenda; or b) discomfort at admitting something about the case in point.

[Fluffyx]

I’ve noticed this.

Okay perhaps I’m boring, or narrow minded or perhaps I just tend to stick to the topic, in the main, but I have noticed that some posters will comment on a thread with a comment that has fuck all to do with the actual OP or news item.

What’s with that? I get that some threads naturally evolve into something other than the topic but to make your first post about something other than the topic?

I honestly don’t get it.  

Sorry Eddie, I did this to a thread created about statements a Labour MP made. It ended up being about the lack of funding in the NHS.
I do apologise and I apologised to Thorin who I believe made the thread. It won't happen again,  I  certainly wouldn't like a poster highjacking my thread.

Apologies again x

[Guest]

I’ve noticed this.

Okay perhaps I’m boring, or narrow minded or perhaps I just tend to stick to the topic, in the main, but I have noticed that some posters will comment on a thread with a comment that has fuck all to do with the actual OP or news item.

What’s with that? I get that some threads naturally evolve into something other than the topic but to make your first post about something other than the topic?

I honestly don’t get it.  

Sorry Eddie, I did this to a thread created about statements a Labour MP made. It ended up being about the lack of funding in the NHS.
I do apologise and I apologised to Thorin who I believe made the thread. It won't happen again,  I  certainly wouldn't like a poster highjacking my thread.

Apologies again x

You have nothing to apologise for Fluffyx

You took this as an attack on the left and defended from this

Hence you never intended the thread to diverge and not worried that it did, as it generated conversation

So all is good with me

[Guest]

There is a distinction between thread evolution and thread deflection.
I actually enjoy threads that gradually change and evolve, especially when the original posters participate.
What is not good is when a thread is disrupted from its course in a deliberate attempt to  change it, rather than being allowed to follow it's  natural flow.

[Maddog]

There is a distinction between thread evolution and thread deflection.
I actually enjoy threads that gradually change and evolve, especially when the original posters participate.
What is not good is when a thread is disrupted from its course in a deliberate attempt to  change it, rather than being allowed to follow it's  natural flow.

Epstein was murdered by the royal family.

[drsynne]

Sorry to butt in. Can't find a new members thread and wanted to say Hi as I've just joined.

[lolly]

Sorry to butt in. Can't find a new members thread and wanted to say Hi as I've just joined.

Naughty!  


I personally really hate threads going off-topic unless of course is a natural progression

[eddie]

I think the two examples are not equally off-topic.

The iceberg thread shows incredible pictures, but on (and especially on) a news forum, it isn't unreasonable to think such a thread could diverge slightly to the topic of climate change and rising sea levels. I'd say that's entirely to be expected, honestly.

Especially since the alternative would be a hand full of people saying 'oh, those are astonishing' or some such exclamation before the thread falls into the abyss of irrelevance

Whereas on the grooming thread, I tend to agree.

It doesn't help the discussion of Asian grooming gangs to switch to an entirely different group of people committing abuses, however similar.

The situation of prominent public figures using their power is not the same as larger number from a specific group clearly carrying out these actions. They should be discussed separately.

The Reason?

In my opinion the reason to change the subject in the latter example is mostly either a) pushing a personal vendetta/agenda; or b) discomfort at admitting something about the case in point.

Totally agree, especially with the last paragraph.
And that was my point.

[eddie]

I’ve noticed this.

Okay perhaps I’m boring, or narrow minded or perhaps I just tend to stick to the topic, in the main, but I have noticed that some posters will comment on a thread with a comment that has fuck all to do with the actual OP or news item.

What’s with that? I get that some threads naturally evolve into something other than the topic but to make your first post about something other than the topic?

I honestly don’t get it.  

Sorry Eddie, I did this to a thread created about statements a Labour MP made. It ended up being about the lack of funding in the NHS.
I do apologise and I apologised to Thorin who I believe made the thread. It won't happen again,  I  certainly wouldn't like a poster highjacking my thread.

Apologies again x

No problem. That wasn’t what I was driving at. My point was about the first post, not a natural way of evolving a thread.

[Ben Reilly]

I think when people do this, it's either because they want to direct the discussion to what I call their "pet issues," or the actual topic makes them feel uncomfortable. Probably a combination of the two.

It is really frustrating on a debate forum, though.

[Tommy Monk]

I think the two examples are not equally off-topic.

The iceberg thread shows incredible pictures, but on (and especially on) a news forum, it isn't unreasonable to think such a thread could diverge slightly to the topic of climate change and rising sea levels. I'd say that's entirely to be expected, honestly.

Especially since the alternative would be a hand full of people saying 'oh, those are astonishing' or some such exclamation before the thread falls into the abyss of irrelevance

Whereas on the grooming thread, I tend to agree.

It doesn't help the discussion of Asian grooming gangs to switch to an entirely different group of people committing abuses, however similar.

The situation of prominent public figures using their power is not the same as larger number from a specific group clearly carrying out these actions. They should be discussed separately.

The Reason?

In my opinion the reason to change the subject in the latter example is mostly either a) pushing a personal vendetta/agenda; or b) discomfort at admitting something about the case in point.

Totally agree, especially with the last paragraph.
And that was my point.

I was going to say the same about the iceberg thread Les... And it wasn't me who started the divergence there...

[drsynne]

Sorry to butt in. Can't find a new members thread and wanted to say Hi as I've just joined.

Naughty!  


I personally really hate threads going off-topic unless of course is a natural progression

My apologies. Found a nice welcome post for me earlier.

[Fluffyx]

Totally agree, especially with the last paragraph.
And that was my point.

I was going to say the same about the iceberg thread Les... And it wasn't me who started the divergence there...

I really want to steal your sig by Orwell Mr Monk.never a truer word has been uttered.
Obviously social norms dictate I won't steal your signature.
Orwellian times we lives in now, I wonder if he knew how perceptiveand intelligent a gentleman he truly was.

[Tommy Monk]

It's not mine fluff... It is as much yours to use as it is anyone elses...

[Sponsored content]