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.
Leash Length
March 31, 2012 - 3:43pm
<first post>
Having been asked to take this to Rabble Reactions, I hear and obey.
*******
Understand that:
a) I have no interest in getting anyone banned.
b) I've never been a mod.
c) I think free speech is a value worth defending, even if the person talking has a different opinion than I do.
Having said that, I do not understand why Gaian is kept on a shorter leash than say {rolls dice} Maysie, RevolutionPlease, and Fidel. Can anyone clarify?
*******
I agree and support ygtbk's abc's!
ygbtk: I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to explain why Gaian has been censured because it would be akin to singling him out for further public flogging which I have no desire to take part in. Suffice it to say that I emphatically disagree with the equation you've presented. And I would appreciate it if you would avoid equations to other babblers whom you feel are offensive--or that you imply are offensive by such haphazard comparisons. It reads like a personal attack. I'll only add that it is my opinion that no babbler in recent memory who incites as much conflict as Gaian has been given a longer leash than him.
As for the general point of your post, this may come as a surprise, but I intensely dislike suspending babblers, let alone banning them. I have taken such measures an extraordinarily few times. I agree with "a," can't join you in "b" and disagree with "c." babble is not about free speech. Apart from the fact that free speech per se is a myth, babble is defined precisely as a non-free speech zone. It's for leftist and progressive speech. If you want to entertain free speech fantasies, you are welcome to head to reddit or some equivalent.
I noticed the term the last few times it was used because I know it is not allowed because of its pejorative nature. The term it is a play on - the Great Unwashed - is just as bad.
Of course there are forces of deception at work in our society. I don't think we will defeat them by using terms which treat people with the same contempt as those who employ those forces.
Until I read this thread I don't think I could have told you who was the one who used it most recently, so near as I can tell the only thing being targetted was the term, and rightly so.
From the title I thought this topic was going to be related to dogs....... wow, was I ever wrong!
I thought the same. I used to have a beagle, alternated between a short and longer leash when out for a walk on the town.
I thought this was a thread about the telescoping leash controversy.
Thanks for the very clear explanation, Catchfire.
I disagree with you 100% on the issue of free speech. I view the statement "babble is defined precisely as a non-free speech zone" as functionally equivalent to "babble concedes upfront that some of the ideas held dear here cannot be rationally defended", which I think is an odd position for a progressive board to take.
Historically, progressives have invoked the idea of free speech to justify discussing and spreading their views: in fact, it's hard to see how the Enlightenment could have got off the ground otherwise. For you to dismiss it as a myth is troubling.
I don't think that's the case. More like; "rather than have every thread potentially derailed - deliberately, or otherwise - by constantly having to re-explain and justify first principles, the mods are occasionally going to intervene in threads in an attempt to keep babble serving its intended purpose".
It's true that that argument is often made. However, I think it's a bit dodgy because:
1) It can be made regardless of whether a position has ever actually been justified from first principles,
2) It can be invoked to justify a flat-out refusal to reason from first principles, and
3) It can be used as a rationale for aggressive moderation.
So overall, I'm happier with the approach that positions should be capable of being rationally supported, rather than simply declared as being immune to requests for rational support.
As to "numerically challenged," it doesn't sound to me like a breach of babble policy:
http://rabble.ca/about/babblepolicy
That's partly because I couldn't tell what or who it referred to. Maybe even me? I wouldn't object, because I have known Gaian since 1960, and we seniors give each other long leashes. But if I were to refer to a poster as apparently numerically challenged, is that really "personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling")"? Depending on the context, I'd likely call it fair comment. Toxic???
As to "the Great Misled" I don't see any parallel to "The Great Unwashed." It sounds like a perfectly accurate description of the general state of public opinion on many issues. It surely isn't "racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist (e.g. poor-bashing) and other oppressive language that degrades marginalized communities" since it does not refer to any marginalized community. How is it contrary to babble policy? Toxic??? What am I missing?
As for "your last warning . . . for your toxic behaviour" I strongly disagree. The post in itself was quite harmless. It incited no conflict except with you. It invites the inference that Gaian is on a shorter leash than the rest of us, which you then confirmed below.
I can think of many babblers who have provoked or incited more conflict than Gaian and are still here. I won't attack or name them. Conflict is not bad in itself, nor is inciting conflict. Every moderator's intervention potentially incites conflict, in a good cause, without being provocative of disruption.
Babble policy says "If a babbler is disruptive; repeatedly attempts to provoke conflict, bait or taunt, they may be warned, have their accounts suspended, or be banned altogether." (I'm going to assume this refers to taunting other babblers, not taunting Stephen Harper.) That sentence is grammatically challenged, as to the semi-colon and the second clause; does it mean "attempts to bait" and "attempts to taunt?" Is being disruptive a discrete offence, or is it part of the overall offence? I suspect the intent was "If a babbler is disruptive, in that the babbler repeatedly baits, taunts or attempts to provoke conflict . . . "
So, has Gaian been disruptive by repeatedly attempting to provoke conflict within babble? That's a judgment call, and I haven't read all his posts, but it's not my impression of him.
Be that as it may, Wilf, there have been orders to not use that term enough times that I took notice of it when I saw it.
If some think the term is in fact allowable, perhaps that should have been brought up for discussion here some time ago. Failing that, the rules concerning an order from a moderator is pretty clear. I may not agree with all the rules here, but I think we are all aware of them, especially that most basic one.
Unless I missed something we aren't talking about a banning or even a time out, right? And I think most of us have a list of calls we think are unfair. I don't see the point in hauling them all out, especially if it involves the sticky and difficult question of who presumably gets better treatment and who doesn't.
I was not focussing on the term "the Great Misled" which was not the major issue. But if we want to discuss that term, I'm sorry, I never saw previous discussions of it. I still want to know how it constitutes "racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist (e.g. poor-bashing) and other oppressive language that degrades marginalized communities."
The majority of workers in Canada are not unionized. If I refer to "the Great Unorganized" is that oppressive language?
Someone else just posted "I also hope for a better future for all the sheeple." I have seen "sheeple" used before. Is it worth a warning?
I'm fairly certain there have been numerous warnings around the use of the word "sheeple".
There are some terms that are not allowed here because they are extremely offensive. I won't list examples as I think they are obvious. The fact that they are obvious to everyone, everywhere, as offensive terms justifies a more extreme corrective response including warnings or removal of the person using the term.
Then there are much less obvious terms which we could use as opportunities for learning but should be careful about treating the same as obvious words. The difference between the two is accidental vs deliberate offense. It is arguable that offense that looks accidental is barely offense. In those cases the community can educate through responses and people will learn more than just get their backs up.
The problem is that if we add to the site culture more and more terms that are not allowed and they are less obvious ones, then we are creating an elite language that leaves only the people familiar with it safe. And then the policing takes on a tone more oppressive than the terms could ever be. Some people have been here a lot longer than others so if we create a code of minefields to correct people then the place is less welcoming. (Gaian, for example, has been here less than a year.) Again I distinguish between the more obvious terms everyone would know and those that require more knowledge of the specific practice here.
In this case, we are talking not only about use of a term but just reference to one in the creation of another. The reference was obviously ironic and a reminder of the social oppression of a class society in turning the language around. I thought it was a use of irony that was somehow empowering and yet I am a person quite sensitive to poor-bashing language.
Now of course the concern would be where the line is now being drawn-- is any twisting of language in our favour referencing class struggle risky? Is it worth calling out a person for this? Who was hurt by the statement since it was so obviously not meant to attack but rather to turn a term from disempowerment to an expression of resistance? The use of the term was obviously not used in a way meant to hurt, bait or provoke -- just to get an idea across. That is what worries me about the correction.
If the term was used in its original form it is one that would merit a learning moment. But it was not used that way it was an ironic attempt to reclaim the construction "The great..." If people who have been here a long while cannot even recognize the problem with this particular ironic use then what? Then the correction takes on a tone of the arbitrary.
There are enough problems with real conflict here to not extend the reasons for punitive corrections into the accidental and obscure.
Freedoms and rights are about conflicts and priorities and are seldom absolutes. We gain nothing if going to such an extreme makes the place less accessible and feels more oppressive.
I would appreciate it if this thread does not become about Gaian. I thank Wilf for his defence of him, but I have no interest in defending the moderator position, which is quite firm and well-discussed amid all three of the current mods. The warning was not based on a single post. Also, in case there is any confusion, Gaian is former babbler George Victor, who has been here for several years (and was never banned).
As for language, I'm frequently accused of being some sort of language cop (rather ironic given my day job), which is not what I consider what I do at all. If I was, I would provide a blacklist of verboten terms and be done with it. I don't have time to explain what I mean right now, but I'll be back a bit later if it would help.
So you have no clue as to why we babblers would feel uncomfortable, nay hostile, to someone who kept posting on and on stuff like (pardon me for making things explict by exaggerating):
That's what "the Great Misled" and "the Great Unread", repeated over and over ad nauseam, say to me.
Now, you could never get away with ridiculing other marginalized groups for tolerating their own enslavement and subjugation and immiseration and denial of education, etc. But with workers, everything goes.
Right. It's not a "marginalized community". It's just the 99%. If babble policy doesn't explicitly say that you can't waltz in here like a pompous aristocrat and spend all your time vaunting your superior progressive intellect and ridiculing the 99% - and blaming them for tolerating their oppression - well maybe it should.
I'll reiterate what Catchfire has said: we do not want threads that discuss particular babblers because that unfairly singles out individuals and rarely results in a productive discussion.
Since it's highly unlikely that any one person can know what is going on on the board in all the threads -- both currently and historically -- and impossible for a babbler to be aware of all the babble activity that is not made public (some discussions occur and decisions are made via PM and email), I ask that people who believe they are superior judges of what constitutes fair and just treatment on babble consider that they may be misinformed or underinformed of the facts.
ETA: "underinformed of the facts" ... geez, where do I get these 'zingers' ...
Coming fresh off the NDP leadership threads and debates, it's no wonder as to why some people are in such bad temper over the use of the phrase 'the great misled.' I don't think it's an intentional pomposity when such terms are laid out there as they frequently are. It's just that for some, it seems that political elaboration or opinion for example must appear with footnotes identifying an approved authorship or authority on such things that are normally discussed around here, in order to be taken seriously. It comes down to being self hoisted by methodology, experience, and routine as a result. I don't find it particularly offensive considering everything else that offends. In this medium sometimes you have to take people and the perceived sum of their experiences as they are, at least to a certain extent, by attributing a measure of good will despite the use of a contentious phrase or two. Everyone brings a frustration or two here.
Maybe it actually would be helpful to have a sticky thread of the less obvious terms that have been discussed and found to be offensive.
BTW- I don't find "the Great unwashed" to be in the grey area but variants created out of irony I do. I'm fine with the idea of avoiding those but it would be great if this can be put in a positive way.
That actually might make the site more accessible and would provide a degree of learning.
So why not have a thread that is used just for that? Perhaps the Mods could reserve it and be the ones to post to it so that it remains short, free of debate and be a place that we could look to as the result of discussion so that we don't have to go over everythign multiple times and we don't have to presume everyone caught it the first time.
I was not aware that Gaian was George. Still there are new people and this might be useful for them.
Not everyone is sophisticated and aware of the language they use and access is important.
More reading can help here too.
I don't see what's wrong with "stupid workers"? Or maybe, "inferior minds"?
Tell it like it is! We're advanced, class-conscious, enlightened - we always vote NDP no fucking matter what!!
So on a less sarcastic note, for the benefit of Sean and everyone else, the problem is not the terminology - it's the superiority. That's what our policy should address.
I can't recall Marx and Engels ever ridiculing the working masses for their unenlightened state in the 19th century, so I'm not sure why we would need a 21st century equivalent.
Does "false consciousness" ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness
I'm pretty sure it's meant descriptively, not pejoratively. I don't subscribe to the thesis myself, but I'm pretty sure that's what Gaian and Sean are driving at.
More like a buzzer.
Sorry, I read that article, but I can't find where Marx or Engels said that working people were victims of "false consciousness". Can you? Seems Marx never used the term, and in the excerpt from Engels, he seems to be applying it not to working people, but to what he calls "so-called thinkers". Prophetic, wasn't he?
You see, I don't recall Marx or Engels complaining that workers were brainwashed by their exploiters into supporting the conditions of their exploitation. That's what the "Great Unread" claptrap is all about.
Oh, I doubt it. I think some people genuinely believe that "we" know something that the Great Misled or the Great Unread don't know. That if only they read the right books and came to the right meetings, they'd vote the right way, and a glorious new era of Socialism (er, Social Democracy) would be ushered in. I find that thesis to be abhorrent and anti-worker. If "false consciousness" means anything - there it is.
On a lighter (and at the same time, heavier) note, I was gong to offer this little tangent this morning, but I was off on some foolish busines of my own.
Concerning Wilf's comment about seniors getting special treatment, the grandfather of my good friend got just such an excemption during the second world war. He had been in the first one, sent to the front because of his politics, and he was head-injured and spent the balance of the war in a prison camp.
By the time of the second war he was older, and the general opinion in his town was that he was brain damaged. On a number of occasions he walked down the street yelling about what an evil fucker Adolph Hitler was. I wouldn't assume this would happen in most places, and it is even more surprising considering mental illness was itself a death sentence for many. But for whatever reason, he lived through the war.
Sounds like your standard "good german" story, except that the source was a relative who never said a bad word about Hitler. Also, my friend didn't know if her grandfather was actually not in control of his actions, or if he was completely aware, and just figured it was worth the risk.
Back on topic (sort of) I don't really care which terms are allowed and which are forbidden. For one thing, the internet is a big place, and secondly, anyone should be able to talk around a term, and when it comes to intent, sooner or later the truth will out.
But to look at these pejorative terms some, like this one, are forbidden, while others, like "useful idiots" seem to squeak by. Of course the latter isn't directed at a class as a whole, but personally I think that is splitting hairs. I'd say the term is quite dismissive about why some people decide to support certain causes. Many of them - even some conservatives who we might think are voting against their own best interest, or even people who vote at all - are not idiots at all.