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.

Laissez-faire moderating

160 replies [Last post]

Comments

kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Martin N. wrote:

The issue is Russia, not "all countries" and Russia's proven record of indiscriminate bombing and mayhem in Chechnya, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc certainly puts it at the top of the list of "most brutal empires".

At the top of the list, hmm.


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

It is interesting discussing the most brutal emperors and I would have to say that Leopold and Victoria are definitely in the running. However when discussing the current world situation the UK and Belgium aren't even in the running being merely middle level players in the NATO criminal organization.


Sean in Ottawa
Online
Joined: Jun 3 2003

This is an interesting drift.

I guess we can say that the moderating on babble is much better than the Nato moderating of the world.

 


oldgoat
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is an interesting drift.

I guess we can say that the moderating on babble is much better than the Nato moderating of the world.

 

 

thanks, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

 


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

But it is another one of those great oxymorons that you often see around matters of so-called defense and so-called security.


Sean in Ottawa
Online
Joined: Jun 3 2003

oldgoat wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is an interesting drift.

I guess we can say that the moderating on babble is much better than the Nato moderating of the world.

 

 

thanks, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

 

I am so sorry, I did not mean the insult. Was just trying to connect the drift to the snowbank as it were.

 

 


oldgoat
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

No insult taken Sean, being somewhat facecious

 


Sean in Ottawa
Online
Joined: Jun 3 2003

oldgoat wrote:

No insult taken Sean, being somewhat facecious

 

Me too. I guess my joke bombed unlike recent moderation.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Didn't bomb like NATO though...

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

I love you folks. True confession. Ok, back to the fray.

 


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Just popping in because I'm bored. No mod hat on here, but aren't there enough Russia threads? I started this thread to get some genuine feedback on how you feel about the moderation of this board.


Sean in Ottawa
Online
Joined: Jun 3 2003

MegB wrote:

Just popping in because I'm bored. No mod hat on here, but aren't there enough Russia threads? I started this thread to get some genuine feedback on how you feel about the moderation of this board.

I think you have your answer -- people seem to feel pretty good about how things are going now.


Mr. Magoo
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2002

Quote:
aren't there enough Russia threads?

You could definitely step in with a firm paddle when the faux-leftists -- we know who we are! -- let our pathological Russophobia get out of hand.


oldgoat
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

I just like to rmember the good old days.


Misfit
Offline
Joined: Jun 27 2014
That czar looks just like King George V of England. They look like twins.

kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Misfit wrote:

That czar looks just like King George V of England. They look like twins.

First cousins.

Tsar Nicholas II is in the uniform of the Westphalian Hussars and King George V in the uniform of the Rhenish Cuirassiers – their respective German regiments. It was pretty common for European royalty to promote each other into each other’s militaries. King George V was appointed Colonel-in-Chief of the 8th (Rhenish) Cuirassiers in January 1902, during a visit to Berlin when he was still Prince of Wales. He served as such until the two countries declared war in 1914.

George and Nicky’s mothers, Alexandra and Dagmar, were sisters, which explains why they looked so alike. They were the daughters of King Christian of Denmark and his wife Queen Louise, who was of German heritage. Princess Alexandra married Queen Victoria’s eldest son, Edward. George was their son. Princess Dagmar married Tsar Alexander’s son, another Alexander. Nicky was their son.

http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/king-george-tsar-nicholas-1913/

 


swallow
Offline
Joined: May 16 2002

MegB wrote:

No mod hat on here, but aren't there enough Russia threads? 

There are still threads that are not about Russia. Can't have that! 


Sean in Ottawa
Online
Joined: Jun 3 2003

Pictures do work to humanize distant people. It is one reason why the sympathies of masses of people flow to these royals and other celebrities when little thought goes to the masses of other deaths of people much more like the viewers.


swallow
Offline
Joined: May 16 2002

Do ther powers that be in this place feel that Trump is someone who should be normalized? That pro-Trump and anti-Trump posts are both equally acceptable? 


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

swallow wrote:

Do ther powers that be in this place feel that Trump is someone who should be normalized? That pro-Trump and anti-Trump posts are both equally acceptable? 

Is everything that Trump might possibly do evil by definition? 


bagkitty
Offline
Joined: Aug 27 2008

kropotkin1951 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Do ther powers that be in this place feel that Trump is someone who should be normalized? That pro-Trump and anti-Trump posts are both equally acceptable? 

Is everything that Trump might possibly do evil by definition? 

Well, normally I would say his dying wouldn't be evil by definition... then I stop and think about the "never encountered a piece of homophobic legislation I wouldn't defend" potential successor and I am not sure I even want to grant that exception.


Mr. Magoo
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2002

Quote:
Do ther powers that be in this place feel that Trump is someone who should be normalized? That pro-Trump and anti-Trump posts are both equally acceptable?

Perhaps there could be a compromise, where posters are permitted to mention him by name, but must immediately spit on the ground, like Dog River residents mentioning Wullerton.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

kropotkin1951 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Do ther powers that be in this place feel that Trump is someone who should be normalized? That pro-Trump and anti-Trump posts are both equally acceptable? 

Is everything that Trump might possibly do evil by definition? 

That would be my objection too. Reminds me too much of other similar lazy ad hominems.

If you can't do the small bit of work required to point out why, probably best to just stick to facebook memes.

Besides, it is kind of amusing watching them try. I don't mind at all so long as I am free to mock them roundly for doing to.

 

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

swallow wrote:

Do ther powers that be in this place feel that Trump is someone who should be normalized? That pro-Trump and anti-Trump posts are both equally acceptable? 

I am reminded some time ago, this 'progressive site' decreed that questioning the 'Arab Spring' was anything but a spontaneous upsurge of local and popular democratic efflorescence was not permitted. It was decreed by the PTB here,  that any suggestion, even evidence of outside intereference by USAID or CIA instigation was a thought-crime and a denigration of agency against what was considered a purely authentic uprising. People  were sanctioned and even banned for doing so, even though it was patently obvious that those in authority hadn't a clue about any of it beyond what they read in The Guardian or saw on The National.

Given the obvious errors that can be committed when those in authority presume to know when they don't and then attempt to suppress or stifle those that do, perhaps the same mistake shouldn't be repeated. During the last round of this sort of thing, we lost several good knowledgeable posters, which impoverished the board considerably, and left the reactionary right-wing types considerably stronger.

After all, given this board's experience with Libya, Ukraine and Syria, and the almost automatic support of the mainstream establishment narrative - the suppression of dissident voices, despite this being a rather well-known, long-standing and widely acceptable hallmark of the contemporary Canadian left, especially with NDP types,  should perhaps be discouraged here. After all, we mustn't forget 'Je suis Charlie', and the right to be freely and openly offensive and disgusting, which was fought for so fiercely by some here.

Oh and just curious, can you provide me with a sample of what you refer to as "pro-Trump" posts?  


Mr. Magoo
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2002

Quote:
People  were sanctioned and even banned for doing so

Which specific people were banned for this?


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Are you kidding, NDPP? On Syria and Ukraine and Charlie Hebdo, I mean.There is a range of opinion here, and I don't think I need to point out which are the dominant ones.

As for Libya, I got flak too for pointing out there were some rebels who wanted air support, whether we agree with them or not. Same for pointing out that there were some people hwo didn't want to see their neighbourhoods torched in the British riots. And it is a question of whether one is portraying those parties like Arab Spring as nothing but dupes and and imperialist front.

So yeah, I agree that this should not be a matter of supporting and condemning specific parties, and rather focusing on the issues (it would be nice to follow that rule when evaluating media reports, as a matter of fact) . Also part of the reason I question the narrow focus some want on tying anti-imperialism to specific nations.

 

 

 


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

NDPP wrote:

I am reminded some time ago, this 'progressive site' decreed that questioning the 'Arab Spring' was anything but a spontaneous upsurge of local and popular democratic efflorescence was not permitted. It was decreed by the PTB here,  that any suggestion, even evidence of outside intereference by USAID or CIA instigation was a thought-crime and a denigration of agency against what was considered a purely authentic uprising.

Your recollection is exactly the same as mine on this score. That was a shameful moment in suppression of democratic and legitimate debate in this important venue.

Quote:
People  were sanctioned and even banned for doing so, even though it was patently obvious that those in authority hadn't a clue about any of it beyond what they read in The Guardian or saw on The National.

No one was actually banned on this specific ground, but rather than quibble, I still want to agree with your main point.

Quote:
After all, given this board's experience with Libya, Ukraine and Syria, and the almost automatic support of the mainstream establishment narrative - the suppression of dissident voices, despite this being a rather well-known, long-standing and widely acceptable hallmark of the contemporary Canadian left, especially with NDP types,  should perhaps be discouraged here.

I'm sure you mean the "almost automatic support of the mainstream establishment narrative", not by babble or babblers, but by (for an infamous example) the NDP party establishment - most notoriously Hélène Laverdière, filling in for Paul Dewar (and Dewar himself), Nycole Turmel (on Libya), DiNovo and Peggy Nash and many others on Ukraine - and of course the party inner circle on all these matters. This is an enormous challenge for the left in Canada, and the debate here is essential - and indeed, there was no lining up here, in any way, behind the mainstream narrative on those fronts.

What I find disturbing is an effort now, by some, to peddle just about any pro-U.S. imperialist position by portraying the opposition as pro-Russia. And those few who sing the most puerile fantasies in praise of Russia - today, during the Soviet era, and under the Tsars - simply facilitate that diversionary and provocative offensive. That's why I try to stay personally far away from these threads, which get ruined the moment the word "Putin" appears. But we can't escape the reality of this offensive. The phoney dichotomy of "Trump or Clinton", like the "Russia or NATO" one, needs to be smashed. I hate fucking Trump and Clinton and Obama and all they stand for. Likewise with the ruling cliques in Moscow and Washington. But good people are being tricked into taking "sides", instead of always questioning, never following, and always being guided by the interests of the people.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Unionist wrote:

But good people are being tricked into taking "sides", instead of always questioning, never following, and always being guided by the interests of the people.

Yup. I'd agree with that. Except it isn't always just a matter of being tricked. Plenty do it with their eyes open.

But to reel it back, this is a  moderating issue only insofar as some people try to use it falsely, to railroad or shut down discussion.\


Mr. Magoo
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2002

Quote:
But good people are being tricked into taking "sides", instead of always questioning

"These aren't the droids you're looking for."


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Unionist wrote:

 I hate fucking Trump and Clinton and Obama and all they stand for. Likewise with the ruling cliques in Moscow and Washington. But good people are being tricked into taking "sides", instead of always questioning, never following, and always being guided by the interests of the people.

I agree.


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