On Legitimate and Illegitimate Protest

Wow. That's a lot of words. I have done a 360 on violent protest. I never much liked it, but I could at least appreciate the emotion and sentiment behind it. I'm not a pacifist. But aims, strategy, and tactics must compliment each other. In the case of Toronto, I've been thinking, if the Black Bloc didn't exist, government would have to invent them. They have been so incredibly effective at shifting the focus away from the waste, away from police state tactics, away from the growing recognition of the illegitimacy of the G20 and onto the "hey, look!" specatcle of a sideshow.

I am not one to argue that people ought not to protest, and I abhor the so-called "free speech zones" setup to deprive us of free speech, but in this case, in this one case, a entirely peaceful protest could have seriously jeopardized the Harper government as public focus demanded to know why it was necessary to waste a $1 billion on cops dressed up like Mussolini's black shirts.

Instead, all anyone talks about is the violence. What a waste. I read an excellent essay that argued the Black Bloc protects the G20. I accept that argument. It deflects scrutiny away from the real crimes being committed inside the fence.

black bloc pretty tame compared to these south korean labour activists.  this is real violence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsdvTaFskc&feature=related

In the case of Toronto, I've been thinking, if the Black Bloc didn't exist, government would have to invent them. They have been so incredibly effective at shifting the focus away from the waste, away from police state tactics, away from the growing recognition of the illegitimacy of the G20 and onto the "hey, look!" specatcle of a sideshow.

I am not one to argue that people ought not to protest, and I abhor the so-called "free speech zones" setup to deprive us of free speech, but in this case, in this one case, a entirely peaceful protest could have seriously jeopardized the Harper government as public focus demanded to know why it was necessary to waste a $1 billion on cops dressed up like Mussolini's black shirts.

Instead, all anyone talks about is the violence. What a waste. I read an excellent essay that argued the Black Bloc protects the G20. I accept that argument. It deflects scrutiny away from the real crimes being committed inside the fence.

See, I disagree with that assessment, Frustrated Mess.  Without the BB, everything would have been nicely stage managed and none of the stuff you project would happen, would have happened.   

The BB made the system do something it has no practice at, and that is thinking on it's feet.

For example,  people can still talk about the waste of a billion.  And people still are.  And people will come election time, again. 

And so much more.   

This will be seen as a watershed event.

I understand that the bourgeois capitalist state, needs to be torn down and rebuilt. At times there will be violence..

But the problem is, randum violence, plays into the hands of the ruling elite.

It scares the passive elements of the working class. It lets the ruling elite curtail civil liberties.

The working class has struggled hard for these rights. Randum violence is used by the bourgeosie, to take them away at moments notice.

thanks [Nora], saw the piece elsewhere and glad you brought it here. I too think the BB acted as catalysts and 'change agents'  provoking the police into the kinds of heavy handed gestapo tactics that all are now aware of here. That being said, I think the days that they can infiltrate somebody else's parade or protest and then start smashing shit are probably numbered. It's fundamentally wrong to expose others to police actions for something they had no part in or awareness of. Respect and consent must inform all our relations between ourselves in such situations I think.

[post edited by moderator to remove personal information]

The actions of the black bloc gave the police a pretense for making all protesters and in fact all people on the street "illegitimate". 

Some would have us thank the black bloc for helping to reveal how much trouble our democracy is in, you know all those folks at the cabin hearing about little Tommy's ordeal will suddenly wake up to the danger Canada is in.  I think that most of those people will simply be terrified and realize that the best thing they can do is hide.  I think that was the intent and if you listen to people as they were released without charges they were told that if they EVER participated in another protest they would be arrested, voila protesting is illegal.

If the black bloc is so committed to these kinds of actions why don't we hear about them at other times?  Are the only actions they involve themselves in ones in which they can hide themselves in the midst of peaceful protesters?  Where are they now?  Are they taking any responsibility for Toronto?

A good article from the Toronto Media Coop:

Another good article by Chris Lawson:

Peaceful activism had its time in the sun, but has failed miserably as a force for change against an unmoveable enemy bereft of conscience or decency. The repetitive counsel for more of the same is an echo which originates from countless defeats.

Marginal black blocs were around long before the Seattle protests - I remember them well at the ARMX protest in Ottawa in the late 80s. Their time under the sun - the last 25 years or so - has marked the most profoundly unproductive time the left has ever witnessed, and the most triumphant period the right has ever experienced. So I completely and utterly reject your assertion.

We are not talking here about Sandinistas or other armed revolutionary groups who set out to achieve their goals with broad support from their community. We are talking about some children who like to break some windows and liken this to being heirs to the tradition of armed struggle, which is utter rubbish. Drawing any such parallel is an outrageous insult to all those who have fought and died for justice.

Thank you so much, [Nora].  I have been trying to find the words to exlain why I support the Black Bloc protestors even though I don't personally destroy things.  You have explained it so well and I agree with everything you wrote here.  I was in full support of the BB until I read that they also destroyed store windows of small businesses run by immigrants and that really bothered me.  However, I believe most of them probably would not condone that and I still believe in their cause.  I think in a world such as this one where there is no possible way to break free of capitalist oppression or even get the State to listen to the people's concerns, there can be no "right" or "wrong" way to protest.  When there is no right answer, no one's answer can really be "better" than anyone else's.

[post edited by moderator to remove potentially identifiable personal information]

It didn't bother you when they started assaulting other protestors and journalists?

Chronicles of Rebick: The Real G20 Conspiracy..

http://mostlywater.org/chronicles_rebick_real_g20_police_conspiracy_divi...

"Since my last article debunking long-time Toronto activist Judy Rebick's publicly promoted conspiracy theory that the Toronto police allowed the black bloc to run amok to justify the billion dollar G20 security budget, new information has come to my attention..."

Polunatic2, where in downtown were the 19,000 officers while those 2 thugs shown in your article were carrying that 10 ft weapon and destroying store fronts with it in plain view?  I live downtown and I have never before seen Yonge street completely empty of police.

Sure I recognize them, SJ. That's the "talking point" for brave civilians and soldiers who have fought and died for justice against nazism, fascism, imperialism, colonialism, and apartheid throughout the decades - the "talking point" which has been appropriated by those very enemies in (for example) the "Support the Troops" call over Afghanistan.

The talking point is perfectly fine and noble. The outrageous insult is applying it, without distinction, to the Canadian military of WWII and the Canadian military of Kandahar. To the national liberation forces of Viet Nam and the SUV boys of Ottawa. To the warriors of Oka and the window smashers of Toronto.

"It didn't bother you when they started assaulting other protestors and journalists?"

I didn't hear much about assaults to people. I was under the impression that they did not harm

anybody, but now I am starting to find out otherwise. Of course I do not support harming people.

The black bloc causes police brutality.  They are the chicken not the egg.  So what was the excuse for the police violence prior to the black blocs emergence? 

I understand the debate going on within the other side.  It and the debate going on here is going to give some police security official the moral certainty to order the shooting of people in our streets for breaking windows.  Most people here will agree they deserved everything they got for ruining our great movement. The Union movement can't even rally behind the workers in Sudbury trying to hang on to the pensions and benefits that were won in the early 1960's.  So we tell the truly marginalized young people who will never get anywhere near a Defined Benefit Pension that they should be nice and respectful to the police and their masters. Peaceful demonstrations have never worked wonders to get social change.

I hope that when the fascists round up the black bloc they don't inadvertently sweep up any of you nice protesters because it would obviously not be the fascists fault but the black blocs and then we will have to have ten more threads decrying the black bloc for the police actions.

I have one question regarding the thread title.

I know what constitutes a 'legitimate' protest. What is would make a protest illegitimate?

If some of the BB were imbeded police informants then their tactic was a resounding success.  Harper now has his excuse to continue transforming Canada into a police state.  The social activists movement has been marred as a violent destructive movement.  And the police departments now seem justified in getting the hundreds of millions for these 3 days.

So given that in the post-Seattle world, no one set of tactics - separate or combined - have been able to stave off the deepening economic and political crisis, perhaps we need to start thinking outside the box? There are victories (and they should be widely publicized and celebrated) but there are many more defeats as our adversaries have the means to fight us on a thousand fronts at the same time. They have a long term plan and if it takes an extra 5, 10 or even 20 years to get to where they're going, they've got the patience and resources to pull it off. 

Ideology is bullshit and the stated aim of the NeoCons (and unstated aim of the NeoLiberals) has been to fuck with reality based thinking as much as possible. The black block kiddies are ideologues, they're tv babies that are desperately playing at being authentic in the hopes that it makes them feel alive. They like destruction - fire, breaking glass, blood, etc - because it makes them feel real for an instant (it's fight club baby). They're stuck in a narcissistic loop they can't see beyond, they adopt an AnarchistTM identity to try to feel real and authentic (fake it until you make it!) and as a release for their resentment about the world not telling them they're more special than everyone else. They could just be authentic, of course, but that would mean they'd have to face their own hollowness and being "normal" or "average" like the rest of us they despise and consider themselves superior to (they consider themselves more empathetic even though they have no empathy and, like anyone wiht a narcissistic personality disorder that sees others as objects to be used for selfish ends, simply appropriate the suffering of others to hide the fact that all they have to offer is suburban angst and rage against their parents, who they equate with the state).

I must say, my favorite bit of AnarchyTM retardedness has been the merging of AnarchyTM with new age rubbish (keep up that unreality based thinking!) and the North American Earth First Liberation Front Press Office (don't forget to send them info about any of your direct actions to publicize!...wacky that it was set up right after the US declared environmentalists to be domestic terrorists). Pretty wacky that all these so called "anarchists" are such ideologues! Talk about an anarchy FAIL. Not to mention a reality FAIL.

@Polunatic2, the basic right of the people is to be able to express their opinions of things they like and don't like.  Rallies are one way of doing that, especially if the people don't have a media outlet to carry their view because all the mass media has been bought by large corporations who only present their point of view.

The Black Bloc tactics using violence to crash rallies by labour movements and the like is denying the people this option.  As seen in 2007, the police sometimes use Black Bloc tactics to crash such rallies and march organizers have to be aware of that and stop it.  Otherwise, we have lost our ability to express ourselves through rallies and peaceful demonstrations.  And I imagine that's not an outcome that you want.

@c_t

You make some valid points about protest rallies/marches. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the police were responsible for the BB tactics. 

The ineffectiveness of one form of tactics doesn't necessarily make another form effective in and of itself. Any tactic should be empowering for those participating. I share the frustration with the way some rallies are organized. How do we make them more empowering and effective? 

When you get the answer to that you will have your revolution.  

I think if we are going to have a debate about tactics we should look to see what has been tried and what the outcome was. So far i have been involved in many peaceful union lead marches and protests against cut backs and more cut backs and you know the cutbacks just keep on coming. Does any one really think that a large peaceful protest will change anything in Canadian politics?  

For those of you who want to right me of as a defeatist I say since I have actually gone to marches and rallies for decades I have earned the right to say they don't work.  But I will still go because I at least get to say I stood up for my beliefs because the beliefs themselves are worth fighting for.

I don't think any number of protesters will change any policy of Harper's or any of the provincial governments. Been there done that and was ignored.  Oh and by the way the only way that it appears the BC Liberals are in danger is from a populist anti-tax revolt not the progressive movements protests or the BC Feds fight back campaigns. 

The straw man is yours, not mine. Where did I say that the cause of the Left's failures in recent decades was the BBs? Simple, I didn't. I was responding to someone who insisted that BB tactics were the way to success, and noted that the era of the BB has actually been profoundly unsuccesful. I didn't say it was caused by the BB - merely that BBs obviously did nothing at all to enhance success.

Give up everything those things have achieved in the past century, and tell me that they haven't made the world better. No health care, no universal sufferage, etc. I wouldn't say they are sufficient, but they are quite obviously necessary to change. The BB clearly isn't.

My experience with anarchists is quite different than my experience with the AnarchistsTM I've met. The anarchists I've known over the years, and worked alongside many times, are nothing like the AnarchistsTM you see playing riot kiddie. Why? Because they engage in constructive action, even when engaged in protest. They never were deluded enough to make grandiose claims to be equivalent to indigenous freedom movements (or other self serving claims that appropriate the suffering of others). Sure there were always some street kids with drug and abuse issues (and lots of resentment against the cops) hanging around but they're not anarchists (writing CRASS on the back of your jacket doesn't make you an anarchist, it makes you a rather pathetic imitation of a punk rocker from before you were born, talk about nostalgia and lack of originality or authenticity!) In Quebec City NOT one local anarchist, those involved with community building and organizing stuff, knew the riot kiddies.

The main point really is that in my experience with  anarchists (which goes back to the 70s, yes anarchy is older than the G8/20 8sigh*), an authentic anarchist is flexible, adaptable and can deal with things in a context specific (and reality-based) way. There is no ideology to defend, there's merely doing the appropriate thing to get the best results. The AnarchistsTM are all about dogma - they're rigid and uncreative, so much so that they're easily manipulated and made into a tool of the state. They're merely providing a wrench to tighten "security" and being used as patsies to alienate the general public from their own best interest. They're tv babies, wired for sensationalism. They only really feel alive when they're engaged in sensationalistic activities and hopped up on adrenalin - just like the cops they mirror so perfectly with their black uniforms and anonymity, hatred for witnessing media and disdain the common man, and their total conviction that they're right and they are enttiled to use any means necessary to serve their personal ends (dressed up grandiosely as ideology, of course, just like the people they hate and equally dehumanize to justify their actions). AnarchistsTM HELP create the fear that police and politicians use to get more power...but, hey, it's all about releasing one's personal pent up frustration and not really about change anyway. I used to stand up for anarchists - even though I'm not into "isms" myself - but the riot kiddies/tourists and AnarchistsTM are more hockey fans really than they are revolutionaries of any kind. They're reactionaries - all they do is react. Direct Reaction isn't direct action.

FIFi  "They blah they blah they blah blah"

What are your believes? Stop telling us what you think someone else you have never met believes and thinks. It is tedious.

You implied that there's a correlation between the retreats and defeats of the Left over the last 25 years, and the emergence of black blocs during that same time, despite referring to them as "marginal". My point is that if you're going to dismiss such a marginal tactic because it's failed to deliver the desired results, there's a host of other tactics which have been even greater failures because not only have they failed to deliver, but they've been tried ad nauseum.

I can't find anywhere in this thread where Slumberjack insisted black bloc tactics are the way to success, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

You are incorrect. Protests helped to stop the WTO. But the purpose of protests is not to change government policy because you held a sign in the street. The purpose of protests, and why media, police and politicians believe they have to marginalize and attack protests, is because when you see someone who looks like you disagreeing with government policy, it can influence you to associate with the cause of the protest, It is the bandwagon effect that so frightens the authorities. Not the signs.

Thank you exactly.....almost what I would have responded.

Thanks for the link No Yards. I consider one of our great cultural myths to be the myths around the right to protest or strike.  We have few legal recourses for protest and any that are effective become illegal with the wave of a magic court injunction.  

I posted an article on this subject in the current events section.  The moderator suggested it'd be more appropriate here.  She's probably right.  Here it is...

Bloc Must Be Blocked

In the aftermath of Police State Weekend - the G20 Summit in Toronto - it is hard to find much hopefulness after seeing such a stark display of totalitarianism in one of the most inclusive, multicultural, and cosmopolitan cities in the world.  The weekend gained the dubious distinction as the largest mass arrest in Canadian history; where police arrested, and often beat, hundreds of protesters and bystanders who did not violate a single Canadian law, holding them for hours in squalid conditions at the former Toronto Film Studios ('Toronto Guantanamo'), and then releasing most without any charge.   Then, making matters worse, these criminal actions by the police received not criticism but praise from the three levels of government, with calls for a public inquiry falling on deaf ears. 

In my entire life living in Toronto, it was the worst few days I have witnessed.  The will of citizens in a democratic country suppressed by a police force not doing its job to uphold public safety, but rather making the public less safe by being primarily focused on undermining the protests.   Leaders hidden behind an ominous fence treating democracy like a trifling nuisance in the way of their serious business; with armed thugs 'protecting' them from the people they are supposed to be working for.

Yes, many hard lessons were learned from Police State Weekend, but it is hard to find hope or positivity in them.  There is one important lesson, though, that could be of great value to the activist community if it takes it to heart (which evidence suggests it has not).  The people engaging in these Black Bloc tactics are as much enemies to the causes of global justice, equality and environmental responsibility as the giant multinational corporations; and the politicians and police that defend their interests.

You only have to look at the recent Toronto Star poll saying that 70% of residents think the police force's actions were justified for proof.   While this certainly would seem insane to anyone who attended any of the protests, followed the coverage via sources like rabble.ca (which was by far the best) or watched any the disturbing videos on You Tube, when you look at the coverage in the mainstream media - especially television news - it's not surprising.  The coverage quickly degenerated into all smashed windows and burning cop cars.  The mainstream media's shameful coverage of the protests can be summed up in Peter Mansbridge's words to a reporter at a protest I caught on CBC on the Sunday.  "We'll get back to this story if there's a reason to do so.  If it's more than just tough talk."  In other words, it's only newsworthy if somebody breaks some shit - what was said at the protest and what they are actually protesting is deemed unworthy of coverage.

The vandalism of the Black Bloc makes possible this unfair, one-sided coverage that effectively silences the voices of dissent on the media stage.  The average uninformed person watching the action from their suburban living room heard next to nothing about why people were protesting and the alternatives to the status quo they were promoting, but instead got images of burning cars and bandana cloaked vandals running on a loop.  Without the peaceful protests getting shown on the news and being heard by that average uninformed person, the protesters are just preaching to the converted - other protesters who already share the same views.  And, as long as the message does not get out to the masses, there is never going to be the great egalitarian change all these fine people are working so hard to achieve. 

Of course, the Black Bloc are not solely to blame for this misrepresentation by the media that has resulted in 70% of Torontonians erroneously siding with the police.  The way the cop cars were abandoned as bait and the Black Bloc were left free to rampage for over an hour by the police suggests a sneaky public relations ploy to justify the massive security budget and the heavy handed tactics.   The mainstream media then, with equal voracity, took the bait and made these few incidents of vandalism the whole story; playing right into the hands of whoever was behind this tactical PR move. 

The difference with the Black Bloc, however, is the protest movement has far more power to exert influence on their behaviour than they have with the police and the media.  There could be a clear articulation of how damaging and counterproductive to the aims of the movement these actions are, and an accompanying public shaming.   And, more effectively, there could be groups working in protests to stop the actions of the Black Bloc; citizens doing the job that the police refuse to do.  Perhaps they could be the 'White Bloc,' pacifists in white (no covered faces, of course!  Don't wanna be confused with certain other white clad folks with covered faces...) keeping the protests peaceful. 

This would not be likely to result in violent in-fighting among protesters.  The so-called anarchists doing the Bloc thing are not truly violent people, just misguided ones.  Merely walking in front of them and blocking them from committing their acts of vandalism would do the job.  It really would not be as much of a risk to one's self as you might think.  'Blocking the Bloc' would be a walk in the park compared to dealing with a police force that engages in violence against actual human beings, not merely store windows and abandoned cop cars.  If you're gutsy enough to risk an arrest and beating at a G20 protest, taking on the Bloc would be relatively inconsequential.

With such a concerted effort, the Black Bloc could be effectively neutralized by mobilized activists and in that event, without the Bloc's vandalism, what would be left for the media to report?  For lack of more sensational material, the media would be forced to report on the substance of the protests.  Without footage of smashed windows and burning cop cars, they'd have to air speeches at the protests and interviews with activists; engaging in a dialogue on the real issues rather than acting as purveyors of vandal porn.  They'd also be forced to confront the question - if a bunch of hippy pacifist protesters could stop the Bloc, why couldn't the heavily armed police?

Currently, though, the activist community shows no signs of any such concerted effort.  The stock answer by the average peaceful G20 protester is to condemn the vandalism, say that the vast majority of protests were peaceful, and quite rightly, point out that the violence of the Black Bloc vandalism tactics are insignificant in comparison to the violence meted out by corporate states.   

This argument will obviously resonate with like-minded, politically and socially engaged citizens, but it is not enough to sway the unengaged majority.   It has not swayed 70% of Torontonians, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.  While I would never dispute the value and necessity of these protests, it is of greater importance for the messages of these protests to connect with the majority.  As long as the Black Bloc are allowed to dominate the media coverage, this is never going to happen.

And, if there are any Black Bloc fools reading this right now, you may as well go join the Conservative Party of Canada.  Your actions during Police State Weekend did more to help the causes of Stephen Harper than for any of the causes you purport to be fighting for. 

And, why the fuck would you smash the windows of small businesses?  Way to stick it to the man by making struggling immigrant entrepreneurs pay a couple of grand to repair the windows you smashed, you moron.

I agree with shawn - the BB did more of a disservice to the peaceful protesters (and their own cause - if they really have one beyond mindless vandalism).  The security bill was ridiculous and would have been extremely difficult to justify had everything gone peacefully. Why they even insisted on having it in the heart of downtown Toronto escapes me.  The CNE strikes me as a more reasonable, and easily/cheaply controlled, venue. 

Of course, a few black-clad juvenile half-wits claiming "non-violence" while they violently destroy property have effectively distracted the general population from everything and lent superficial legitimacy to the security bill.

I would have liked to see a few BB heads caved in (by fellow protesters or the police) to send the right message. If they're willing to employ violence, let them experience a little and see how willing they'd be the next time.  As it is, the police showed FAR too much restraint against the BB and seem to have focused their efforts in the wrong place.  

It had its day is what I said.  The power apparatus has adjusted over time, to where even a few placard bearing citizens raising their voices in a confined protest zone are seen as a threat to the system, if only to justify the imposition of ever increasing measures which ensures total security for the corporate class.  I'm of the opinion that when you directly confront power on its own terms within designated zones, either through BB tactics or through peaceful street protests, at this juncture you've already ensured your own defeat before a single slogan is uttered, or a brick is thrown.

On the other hand, BB tactics are a rarity in comparison with peaceful mass street movements, a few individuals here or there stepping out of line, causing as much trouble for others as for themselves.  To make any impression at all, it would need to be more widespread, to the point where everyone on the street takes up with similar intensity.

I would also add the protests give you the power of the collective. I mean that quite literally. And I think that power only grows stronger as our culture becomes more compartmentalized. There is nothing like the energy of a group of people bonded together in the streets. Nothing. And there is nothing like having that feeling for the first time. Which a lot of people experienced here in Toronto. (Even if they weren't out protesting, just out for the day.)

The administrators have good reason to be afraid of its life-changing implications. The administrators have good reason to try to nip it in the bud, to convert empowerment into fear.

Also agree very strongly with Cueball's post.

Activist surrenders to face G20 charges

Well and good, but what would be the remedy against fascist zones appearing whereever they please?  More protests in approved zones, similar to the revolving door approach?  Except for this sort of revolving door, peaceful or no, one comes out the other end more bloodied and worst for wear than the previous go around.  How many police beatings does it take before one decides to no longer permit it to occur, and at what cost?

Please stop using abusive language against other posters even if so far you are getting away with it. Simply calling for yourself to get banned does not make it better. I don't get why the Mods have not dealt with this yet but you can't keep abusing people who post here no matter how much you might disagree with them.

I don't happen to agree with the post you object to but the dialogue here really falls apart when one poster figures they can just call whomever they disagree with whatever they like.

And if you keep this up I do hope you get turfed. It is damaging to this place for people to see those who choose to express an opinion be treated the way you have been treating people the last couple days. Although I would prefer that you just agree to disagree without being so abusive, what you call one person does not just affect that person-- everyone else has to consider that you might turn on them as well. It sets up a disrespectful, unsafe and unfriendly environment.

The Mods perhaps should discuss just what kind of an environment they want to tolerate here because more people will start using language like this if you get away with it and more people who would like to post an opinion without abuse may refrain.

It is not existential. It is not about the left in general. It is about the lack of any effective moderation in the mods in this place which is increasingly becoming a farce. I did already what you said. What I was asked to do. Yesterday.

Kropotkin replied that reporting was "crying to Mom". But of course there was no reply from the mod who closed the thread with the very next post!

I reported a personal attack. It has been ignored. 21 hours not patient enough? I also reported another attack against another person also yesterday. All from someone who had received a warning a couple hours before.

So how long is reasonable to report a personal attack before the person gets at best the metaphorical tap on the wrist response? How many warnings do you give to people like Kropotkin before you grant his wish since he has been going over the line steadily daring you to ban him? How many times can people use the word Fuck not in general but addressed at someone else before you ban? How many warnings after saying that I expect to be banned -- advertising that I know it is not ok, that I know better? Is that what this place has come to?

Why don't you stop pretending that there is moderation here and just say it is a free for all then people can give what they take and I can just say Fuck right off right back? Are you cool with that? Can I just tell him what I think about him using the same language he does? I'd be ok with that too actually-- the real problem is the pretense that this behavior is not tolerated when it is -- even from people who repeatedly say they know they ought to be banned for this.

Three personal attacks on three different people from the same person reported to the mods in 24 hours and that is only good enough for a tap on the wrist. How many is too many? What does the tap on the wrist mean-- will you ban at 5 attacks? 50? 500? If you don't like the poster? Maybe if you don't agree with him? So maybe if someone is a rude shit its ok as long as the mod agrees with their POV?

And "Massa may I go now" is not considered offensive here (at least on a couple levels)?

And to make things more exciting -- when someone goes over the line you show "moderation" by criticizing the people who complained to you. Yep, you tell us to complain but criticize the person who is complaining-- for complaining.

As for the word fuck-- saying fuck was never the point-- it was the personal directed attacks -- saying fuck off asshole to someone who comes here to share an opinion is not the same as saying holy fuck-- or this thing that happened is fucking shit -- or is that all the same to you? I'd like to credit you with understanding the difference between the two except that would mean that your comment about me being intolerant to the word fuck was disingenuous on your part wouldn't it? So please let's hear how many personal attacks does it take to get your interest? And stop telling me to report  something when I did that yesterday. And revise the rules about what is tolerated so we can all play by the same rules--

Trying to improve on Cueball and writer's posts above...

Trying to be more eloquent...

Failing...

Adding my voice to the power of the collective.

Give People a Chance!

Catchfire, I have no idea how the mods felt about the complaint I made because you did not to respond to it-- even to say sure, racist tinged personal comments and calling posters assholes is fine.

"Thread long closed" Are you taking communications advice from the federal government? This was the thread closed yesterday right after a personal attack. Yesterday is long ago to you? My complaint was in minutes-- So how quick should I be? I guess the complaint has to be within 5 seconds but then can be ignored for a day?

And no, I entered this thread because I was interested in the topic. I saw the comment and thought that since the mods could not be bothered to respond to personal attacks the person attacked might appreciate someone else noticing that it breached rabble policy in as much as we even care about rabble policy anymore. I'd prefer this than to see more people leave because they can't take the bullshit that the mods seem fine with.

Anyway nice to see you dance around what I said for sarcastic angles and things you can misrepresent while ignoring everything substantive like the fact that a person is free to make personal attacks on rabble with not even a specific warning. Saying that's not nice ought to do it for a person who knows and keeps saying that what he is doing should get him banned.

Your sarcastic attacks on people doing exactly what you ask them to do really makes clear what you refuse to say directly: People should complain if they don't and not complain if they do and the mods can ignore the rabble policies unless they feel like doing something. And you can say whatever you like unless you direct it to the wrong person or you are the wrong person -- or is it just arbitrary?

Frankly after your last sarcastic pile, I feel that I want to reach for the F word to respond to you just to see where you want to draw the line with me. Nevermind that the personal attack I complained about stank of racism as well

So your sarcasm aside-- what are the rules anyway here because they sure are not this anymore?

"You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling"). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law. You understand that racist, sexist, homophobic, classist (e.g. poor-bashing) and other excluding language is not appropriate on babble. This policy applies to both public and private messages."

I've concluded that there must be a separate queue for moderating complaints.  Frankly Sean, you'll just have to wait your turn like the rest of us.  I'm still waiting for a response surrounding issues circa 2002, and I'll be damned at this point to give up my spot to a johnny come lately.

K- You suggested I was a akin to a slave owner just because I disagreed with you. I think the reference to something as offensive as that when there had been no racist or racial overtones to any part of the conversation was a personal attack using oppressive language but in the new Rabble we are alll okay with that apparently aren't we? That was not your first or last personal hit of the day either.

I guess part of the problem was I was remembering some of the most moving threads I have seen here about how not welcoming this place is from people posting in the anti-racism forum and I considered your approach to be a fine example of why they bid farewell. I can't imagine exactly what someone fighting racism in a supposedly progressive place would feel to see you use a reference to slavery simply to attack someone you did not agree with. I am sure it would make them feel like this is the place to be. That the moderator, after clearly having seen the issue is sarcastic about not considering it important must be really special.

Catchfire-- you speak so eloquently about how the only one of these offending statements that was my business was the one addressed directly to me. However, that is not exactly a progressive view of this. Perhaps you could read up a little on third party harassment and consider what your choices in what is acceptable here mean not just to the people in the conflict but to others.

6079_smith-- actually I tried that. No reply. As for the job being so difficult-- I agree it can be but just how many complaints do they get in a day of offensive posts/attacks? So many that a day later they can't get around to replying? And when they do read them to consider them not worthy of comment? No it was not just about looking for punishment-- it was also a request for the Mod to acknowledge that there was a problem with that kind of language or the use of a horrific history to make a personal attack.

This was not about the mods not reading or noticing a thread-- this is about after lecturing me about how important it was to flag offensive posts only a couple weeks ago to then ignore them for a day when the issues include personal attack on three different people and the use of oppressive language and then when they could not be ignored to dismiss the complaint with an attack on the complainer.

If you don't want to be a mod -- is someone forcing you to be one? I don't consider it necessary to feel sorry for how hard it is to be a moderator so much as to excuse being dismissive about behavior that is supposed to be against the policy of this place. If you are to be a moderator, then what's wrong with reading the flagged posts if nothing else and replying with even one word to them -- agree or disagree? But then the part following the realization of what went on to then attack me for complaining -- sorry I don't feel any reason to be polite about that.

It was the mod's decision to debate this with me in open thread. I too can receive a PM in reply to the flagged post. I would have managed it in PM if the mod had replied to the complaint without dismissing it as not even worthy of response.

As for your last point Kopotkin -- your baiting tactic aside, I did not support the post you had trouble with. I just objected to you calling a poster a fucking asshole and I objected to what you said to me because I think that drives people away from here that I would rather talk to and it encourages people like you who think it is more interesting to curse at the people you disagree with.

However, this whole debate is becoming in one way somewhat self regulating because I give a whole lot less of a shit about this place and the atmosphere here now than I did 24 hours ago. So now I feel I wasted some energy here trying to push for this place to retain a civility that clearly the moderator o that thread at least didn't care about.

Anyway, I took a break from this place a couple weeks ago and that was more enjoyable as tempting as it can be to discuss public issues than actually being here.