babble-intro-img
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.

Changing thread titles

Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Anouncement:

The word "pig(s)" used to describe the police is no longer allowed in thread titles.

The reason is that the use of the word conflicts with rabble's editorial policy and anti-oppression mandate.

The word "pig(s)" to describe the police will be allowed in the body of threads themselves.

I've change the titles in the following threads:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/saskatoon-pigs...
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/fucking-rcmpig...
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/kenora-pigs-sh...
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/siu-probe-oppi...



Comments

E.Tamaran
Offline
Joined: Oct 17 2009

Maysie wrote:

Anouncement:

The word "pig(s)" used to describe the police is no longer allowed in thread titles.

The reason is that the use of the word conflicts with rabble's editorial policy and anti-oppression mandate.

The word "pig(s)" to describe the police will be allowed in the body of threads themselves.

 

So calling a cop a pig is OK on rabble.ca, just not in the thread title. LOL.

Look, if the word violates some anti-oppression mandate then it violates everywhere doesn't it? I can't see the logic. Please help.

It seems to me that "someone" feels the pigs are a group that needs extra protection from nasty words. I guess guns, tasers, body armor, clubs, pepper spray, horses, oh and the full backing of the state aren't enough.

Also, making this announcement on a Friday afternoon seems so, I don't know, governmenty... Like when the government announces on the Friday before a long weekend that SOW Canada will have its budget slashed, or something else distasteful.


Yiwah
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2006

Is there a similar policy in regards to profanity in titles, versus in the text?

Is this because the thread titles show up on the front page of Rabble site?

 

I ask, because I've seen similar policies on other forums re: titles versus thread text for these reasons.


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Yes, Yiwah, that's the reason that this rule is going to now be applied.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

I am in agreement with E.Tamaran.

"So calling a cop a pig is OK on rabble.ca, just not in the thread title. LOL.

Look, if the word violates some anti-oppression mandate then it violates everywhere doesn't it? I can't see the logic. Please help."

This seems a bit strange to me.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

I think the same threshold should apply in both the title or the text. I'm not sure this decision by the rabble.ca editors is defensible.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

I think it's entirely defensible and comprehensible. It's like the difference between having a book on a library shelf entitled "F**K THE P*GS!!!!" versus hanging a banner on the outside library wall. In the first case, it's the author's view. In the second, it's the library condoning and publicizing it. Actually, it seems strange to me that it should seem strange to anyone. It's just plain common sense.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

Au contraire, Unioinist. Both the act of advertisement and the act of owning, in your example, are signs of condoning and publicizing through circulation.

The epithet is either permiited or it is not permitted.  Rabble is attempting to have it both ways. If they are concerned about language on the rabble homepage, which is what I think is really driving this move, then I think they could stop having recent Babble threads listed on the Rabble homepage. Of note is the fact that some police officers are members of CUPE, though I know the local SJ Force is in the midest of disaffiliation.


oldgoat
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

The front page is the purvue of the editor of rabble, who is free, in consultation with the publisher to set policies for the front page and other areas of the magazine portion.

 

The babble mods in the normal course of events have little to do with the editor except with this area.  I recall having a discussion with the previous editor on the topic of the "F" word (that'd be FUCK for the more dense among you)  appearing in thread titles.  I did not entirely agree with the outcome of the discussion, but it was her decision to make and not mine.

 

Use of the word 'pig' does not contravene babble policy as it has evolved on babble, my personal views notwithstanding.  This has little to do with policies on rabble in general.  I would encourage people not to read too much into this, and please don't go putting the word 'pig' into thread titles just to make a point.  It just makes more work for the mods, because editing titles and opening posts is a pain in the ass.


E.Tamaran
Offline
Joined: Oct 17 2009

Ahhh the shoe drops, as they say. It's the rabble.ca Editor/Publisher who feel the pigs require a certain degree of respect. Gotcha!


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

As Oldgoat says the rabble has created the problem for themselves by having recent Babble threads listed on the rabble page. Simple solution is to cease doing that rather than creating extra work for the babble moderators. As much as I dislike the use of pigs to refer to police officers, the choice of the Rabble editor to have them scrubbed from thread titles along with "fuck" are genteel bourgeois affectations.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Maysie wrote:

Anouncement:

The word "pig(s)" used to describe the police is no longer allowed in thread titles.

The reason is that the use of the word conflicts with rabble's editorial policy and anti-oppression mandate.

The word "pig(s)" to describe the police will be allowed in the body of threads themselves.

This has got to be the dumbest thing rabble/babble has ever done. (I know, I know, but it really is that dumb).

Now they are protecting the feelings of the fucking PIG police and their knuckle-dragging fans.

Do these hypocrites not see that this is the functional equivalent of banning "Israeli apartheid" signs from the Pride parade?


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

Many police forces are unionize, I believe Saint John had the first police union in Canada. Is it proper to call unionized workers "pigs"?


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Next you're going to be arguing that it's not "proper" to carry a sign in the Pride parade denouncing Israeli apartheid, because many Israelis are nice people. 

Joining a union does not make one virtuous. And if it's not "proper" to call cops PIGS, then why does rabble allow it in posts at all?


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Remember what the cops said to Michael Moore when he was wrapping the bank in police crime scene tape. The one cop said to Moore to go ahead, they'd ripped off the NYC police pension fund for so much money. I think we'll eventually have to gain support of the cops and even woo members of the military if the pro-democracy movement is ever going to overthrow the stoogeaucracy arm-in-arm.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

I asked a question M. Spector i didn't make a statement in #12.  I think the rabble folks are being unprincipled. They either forbid the use of "pigs" as an epithet for police officers, period or they allow it, period. Having one rule for titles and one for thread content is unprincipled and indefensible. You note that nobody from the rabble editorial sector has come here to defend it.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Nor has there been one word of dissent from those here who have accepted the task of enforcing these unprincipled rules.

Meanwhile, rabble seems perfectly content to allow babble thread titles to appear on its front page extolling the virtues of notorious war criminals.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

That is a little tendentious, this is right on the mark however:

M. Spector wrote:

Maysie wrote:

Anouncement:

The word "pig(s)" used to describe the police is no longer allowed in thread titles.

The reason is that the use of the word conflicts with rabble's editorial policy and anti-oppression mandate.

The word "pig(s)" to describe the police will be allowed in the body of threads themselves.

This has got to be the dumbest thing rabble/babble has ever done. (I know, I know, but it really is that dumb).

Now they are protecting the feelings of the fucking PIG police and their knuckle-dragging fans.

Do these hypocrites not see that this is the functional equivalent of banning "Israeli apartheid" signs from the Pride parade?

Yes.


hsfreethinkers
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2009
I agree that thread titles containing expletives shouldn't be on the main rabble page - "pigs" I'm not so sure about. Perhaps a filter would work better than a ban though. Actually I'm confused. Expletives are allowed but filtered from the main page, whereas "pigs" is banned and would appear on the main page otherwise. Is that right?

E.Tamaran
Offline
Joined: Oct 17 2009

Definition of "irony" from rabble.ca main page. I like how the editor and publisher of rabble.ca have inserted a picture representing denial of freedom of expression, then go out of their way to deny it on rabble.ca (and yes I understand that rabble.ca is not 'public space', and constitutional guarantees don't apply here). Still though it's the thought that counts.

 


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

I would encourage anyone who disagrees with this editorial policy for whatever reason to write a letter to the editor: editor[at]rabble.ca, or use the "contact us" form at the top of the page.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007

And of course, banning the use of foul language has nothing to do with suppressing freedom of speech...more an invitation to develop a working vocabulary.

The bullying that took place in the now closed thread on "baiting" (a really excellent demonstration of baiting) does deserve a letter to the editor.  The "humour", long exhausted, had become simply a determined affirmation of another "freedom" exacerbated by a piling on that has no place hereabouts.  


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

Quote:

And of course, banning the use of foul language has nothing to do with suppressing freedom of speech...more an invitation to develop a working vocabulary.

 

I'm not sure if that's the intent here, but your suggestion is a noble goal nevertheless.


Ken Burch
Offline
Joined: Feb 26 2005

...Can I call him a "cop"?


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

I dunno, looks like a Landrace-Berskhire cross.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

Catchfire wrote: I would encourage anyone who disagrees with this editorial policy for whatever reason to write a letter to the editor: editor[at]rabble.ca, or use the "contact us" form at the top of the page.

Caissa thinks they should just come to babble and explain their unprincipled decision. He thinks it sucks that the editorial staff have left the moderators to deal with this unprincipled position.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

On the other hand people could just continue to post what they want to post until they are banned. After a while this would reduce the number of click thoughs that they can claim their advertizers get from the automatic web page redirects, which artificially inflate click though statistics.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

Do I see a few more Pig titles in the future? Just to be clear I dislike police officers being called pigs. My opposition is to the unprincipled stand taken by Rabble that some language can be permissible in threads but not in titles.

Wher are you today, Cue?


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

Yes, I totally see that you are completely closed to allowing the dissemination of expressions that represent a view of the world through the eyes of those who are most oppressed by the agents of the institutions that protects your privilege. Honestly, I am pretty much convinced that someone who donates a fair amount of cash to this site complained and tried to get them to change the policy, but partially failed. But what good is privilege if it doesn't enable someone to pull the purse strings of the media in the service of limiting the discourse so that it serves privilege?

What you really seek to do is remove the part of the "user policy" that gives any meaning to the term "Opressive language" and whitewash it.

Am I discouraged? Not at all, the reaction itself indicates progress, since it exhibits the flaws of the paradigm. Your objection is right on therefore. It shows a contradiction clearly. It can not live up to its own stated objective, in public and in full view. Instead it wants such ideas burried a deeply as possible, without appearing to repress the world view it pretends to serve.

Thus the Darcy Sheppards are merely roadkill in the eyes of the Michael Bryants of the world.

 


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

I clearly felt the police protecting my privilege when my life was threatened on a picket line and they stood by and did nothing.

I don't believe I have called for Rabble to outlaw pig in reference to police officers. I have asked people not to do it and stated I don't like it.

I have also said it is unprincipled for rabble to outlaw its usage in one place and allow it in another. A more principled stance is to permit or allow in all places.

I am no more of a fan of the use of "Fuck" indiscriminaterly but I think Rabble's stance on its usage is just asunprincipled.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

Caissa wrote:

I am no more of a fan of the use of "Fuck" indiscriminaterly but I think Rabble's stance on its usage is just asunprincipled.

Oh look, a spelling errors. A few.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments