babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Baiting should not be defended on babble
June 14, 2010 - 2:47pm
next
Are we being baited with this "next" post? :D (kidding)
I agree! he said angrily
Wait, he thought, what does Unionist mean by "baiting"? Is this whole thing a trap?
Could we agree on a description of what baiting is on a discussion board like this?, he asked.
With this comment, a mod closed the thread on "anti-semitism".
Yet, the same mod had not one word to say about the following statements by a brand-new participant on this board. Remember - s/he is talking about babblers, none of whom had defended the positions which s/he is innocently questioning:
These are vicious and ugly innuendoes, typical of the ones used to attack Mohammed El-Masry when he was falsely alleged to have said that every Israeli of military age was a legitimate target for suicide bombers.
Instead of educating this new babbler about the importance of not engaging in pro-Zionist (or any kind of) baiting and provocation, we hear lectures against those who are outraged by these remarks.
I said from the start of that thread what it was, and that's what it was. But I disagree strongly with this decision and am saying so here.
Michelle, you're in a jolly mood, but I think we used to have a nose for provocation around here, however "skillfully" it was being done. In the aftermath of the Israeli murder of humanitarian activists, for babble to be debating whether or not we are anti-semitic is obscene. Even my legendary sense of humour is being strained here.
You think it's baiting, Unionist. I think you're wrong. A better approach would be to flag the post for a mod to examine, giving the reason you think it constitutes baiting. If we disagree, then instead of engaging with hostile and antagonistic posts, you just ignore the thread, and it dies. It's a pretty simple and elegant solution, actually.
You're right, Catchfire, and I ignored my own warnings when I made that post - although it was pretty mild-mannered, I thought. I will flag such stuff as "offensive" next time.
However, if someone (you, or anyone) doesn't condemn posts like this:
... I can't guarantee you won't be hearing from me publicly.
I know you have a difficult job to do. But occasionally, like with the above quote, it should be a no-brainer.
I don't recall seeing any anti-Semitic posts on babble (but, if there have been any, I'm sure they were dealt with appropriately). Typically, claims of anti-Semitism are merely a shield that is hoisted by apologists for Israeli government conduct or Zionism.
@ Unionist
The only point I am making here is that intolerance and violence should never be condoned - especially based on someone's race, nationality, gender or belief. I don't understand why anyone should find this threatening.
As I said, I find it troubling that murdering Jews would concern you only if it happened outside Israel. Please feel free to clarify if I did not understand your words correctly.
I think murder is murder, and it all perpetuates the cycle of violence. To not oppose murder because of someone's race or nationality is a bad mistake that only works against peace, and makes us more like those whom we oppose. I know some people feel it is fair game, and that there are no innocent bystanders in a conflict zone. I disagree.
And (again, to respond to your call for actual incidents), I don't need to cite events like the murders on the Achille Lauro, and in Mumbai, or any other discrimination-based attack to justify my concern.
Feel free to call me an apologist for saying this, but the fact is I am not, and I have done nothing to give you any reason to make that accusation.
But Smith, has Unionist given you any reason to believe that your third para above should be aimed at him?
Or has anyone on babble given you reason to think that?
I think that rather than reopen this debate, and invite further baiting (which I think virtually everyone on the thread in question was guilty of at some point), I would invite anyone interested in the context to simply check out that thread, try to read posts from all sides taking whatever is written at face value, and then we can discuss baiting, if we so desire, without diverging into a topic that has already been shut down by the mods.
Thanks, skdadl. I've already flagged his post for his persistent innuendo that babblers (or anyone here) considers it ok to "murder Jews" within Israel. I'm expecting the mods to deal with that by educating this 4-day-old babbler in our policy.
Yes, read the other thread.
In fact, my point about "fair game" is general (I said "some people") but I think it is a fair point to raise in response to his specific comment.
Believe me, Smith: I read the other thread, post by post, day by day as it developed. I didn't pipe up, as I'm sure others didn't, for the same reason -- because we're all scared.
You could also just tell me what you really meant if I am mistaken.
..or not.
I simply said that I disagreed with one of your statements, explained why, and invited you to clarify.
I have said my piece, and if you have nothing else to add that is fine by me.
But with respect to "persistent innuendo", to be clear you started up this thread, quoted some of my posts and made some comments about them and me. I think it would fair that I might want to respond.
I think, based on my brief time here, that the folk on babble are made of tougher stuff than that.
Okay.
Unionist said:
to which 6079 smith responded:
Unionist's point was that Hamas is being portrayed in a very particular way as being against "all Jews", even though there is no evidence to support that (and other claims about what Hamas is)
6079 Smith decided to add a bit of grease to the fire by manufacturing something that wasn't said.
6079 Smith, as a new member of the community it behooves you to dial down the exaggeration you wrote, using a crude, despicable and hateful manner, simply to make your rhetorical point. Stop it. Like any community, there are people who know each other fairly well, and the newer people take a bit more time to get to know. You are very new to the community. Baiting to make a point isn't okay, and certainly attributing disgusting ideas that nobody on babble actually said, is bordering on slander, among other things. Stop it.
All of this should have been said in the thread itself. Being human and imperfect as moderators is reality.
Do we need this thread to stay open now?
unionist and skdadl are absolutely correct in their take on what is happening, and I never said a word in that thread, as I could not believe the oblique attacks that were being allowed by the moderators.
He is casting aspersions far and wide right on into the sustainers of this site territory in my view.
Scary
Also scary
Because this is where they lead
"Communist brutalitarianism." McCarthy was inventive, eh? I'm reminded of a couple of our federal ministers.
Oh, really? REALLY? You did indeed put your two cents in there, and actually accused me, completely unfoundedly, of saying some pretty despicable things that I never even remotely said.
This is absolute fallacy, I "asked" 6 questions, at post # 49, that I never got answers for, I made NO statements, nor opinions, let alone made accusations against you, and I am now reporting to the moderators that you have made a false statement against me, by saying that I was saying dispicable things about you in that thread and accusing you. when indeed I DID NOT.
http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1150915/Cytizen-H-wroteI-dont
The double standard here is ludicrous.
Most of the so called "attacks" from Smith were in the form of questions. You're right, your post was in the form of questions. One of which changed quite deliberately a key word in something I had said (which Unionist corrected you on). To my eye you were quite clearly insinuating things with your questions. If I am wrong, may I be judged as such. I thought your point was quite clear.
Alrighty then, this thread should be closed.
Again, I will acknowledge that Catchfire and I can't always intervene due to a number of factors. Flagging a post as offensive is the quickest way to get action.