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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Mundane? I just thought someone else here should say it, thats all.
Good one.
If I remember correctly, one of the NDP supporters was suspended for calling other babblers "heroin junkies" and the other was suspended for constant gratuitous personal attacks.
And, as we aren't an official organ of any party, the NDP should be fair game, just like any other party. The only difference is that the NDP likes to style itself as the party which would represent people like us (when they're not busy distancing themselves from the left), so we're going to get a lot of people who are members, supporters, or critics still hopeful that the NDP can change and be a vehicle for some truly left-wing poltiics. And no, criticizing the NDP isn't baiting. In fact, I would say that most of the critics on here see the NDP as a vehicle for change and want to see it both reviatlized and take up a real vision for change, or go back to what they see as its roots in documents such as the Regina Manifesto, but get incredibly frustrated when the NDP doesn't and winds up trying to be just another Liberal Party.
And I've seen just as much, if not more stuff like what the NDPers are complaining about in this thread coming from NDPers directed at non-NDPers - comments like "so-called Greens" or "non-voters are politically ignorant or reside in poltical looney toon land". Should we treat the NDP with kid gloves just because we have a lot of NDPers on here who think they are entitled to some sort of "sanctuary" from criticism of their party? I don't think so, and I think to do so would transform babble from a place where Canadian "progressives" (as defined in the babble policy) can discuss politics to an unofficial NDP organ. If you want a place where the NDP isn't debated and fought over, rabble.ca is probably not for you. Try ndp.ca. That doesn't mean that NDP babblers aren't welcome, it just means that we have both sides (the NDP and left of the NDP) in our little community.
I think the NDPers are complaining now because the NDP is in the news, and a lot of things coming out of convention are viewed as negative to a lot of the babble type - the name change, the lame attempts to link to Obama, Larsen-gate, and certain general trends in the party highlighted by convention - which means that these are going to be discussed on babble in a critical way. But don't worry, come election season there will be plenty of "rah rah go team" posts to go around.
Regarding "disguised Liberals", I say this as someone who has been on the receiving end of these accusations or implications countless times, I think some people here are either paranoid or think they can score politcal points with these accusations in some grand game of forum wars, regardless of whether the accusation makes sense or not. Maybe there are a couple Liberals posting here, but so what? That doesn't mean we should suspect everyone who is critical of the NDP of being some sort of Liberal secret agent, especially when their criticisms aren't from a Liberal perspective.
Also, a left-wing critique of the NDP can be easily distinguished from the kind of criticism that a Liberal would make. A perfect example is how some babblers discussed David Goutor's recent article in the Toronto Star, I think it was in the "shoult the left split" thread - smearing and dismissing him as a Liberal, when anyone who has ever picked up a socialist magazine can clearly see that that is actually a fairly run of the mill non-anarchist, left-wing, relatively constructive critique of the NDP. And he's a professor of labour studies, for crying out loud! The chances of him being a Liberal are so ridiculously miniscule that it shouldn't even be worth mentioning, and yet he is accused of being one.
In short, anyone who says "Damn NDP are a bunch of warmongering capitalists" isn't a Liberal. If they say "Damn NDP are a bunch of peacenik commies", they might be, but I don't know how much of a big deal it is if they act in accordance with babble policy.
I agree with all that.
But to fair- I know exactly how if I was a Liberal who wanted to make trouble for the NDP I could come here and make arguments from the left- even ones I considered substantively sincere [enough].
But the fact that can [easily] be done, and even if it IS occassionaly done, does not change anything: its simply not OK make it a common practice to referr to people as 'disguised Liberals'. Unlike Maysie, not being a mod I don't have to think about doing something about it, but I still wince when I see it.
[Though I must say that I make an exception for Fidel. He has elevated it to art.]
Would you call yourself "Stockholm"?
GS: "Also, a left-wing critique of the NDP can be easily distinguished from the kind of criticism that a Liberal would make. A perfect example is how some babblers discussed David Goutor's recent article in the Toronto Star, I think it was in the "shoult the left split" thread - smearing and dismissing him as a Liberal, when anyone who has ever picked up a socialist magazine can clearly see that that is actually a fairly run of the mill non-anarchist, left-wing, relatively constructive critique of the NDP. And he's a professor of labour studies, for crying out loud! The chances of him being a Liberal are so ridiculously miniscule that it shouldn't even be worth mentioning, and yet he is accused of being one."
Still going on about that? Look, Fidel was suspended, I softened my position but the fact that certain profs study certain things doesn't necessarily make them X, Y or Z, as my examples of Laxer also indicated. I have repeatedly said that I didn't think A, B or C should be called "liberal" whatevers either, but Fidel is just Fidel, once youve been here awhile you know what to expect. You should learn to handle some jibes too. I've seen youve make a few borderline statements yourself, but you seem to be a poster who has something to interesting to say so I step over it too.
You have anything to offer but oneline putdowns?
Now this is a male addressing a female here from another thread.
As I've mentioned in the past, you shouldn't respond so quickly out of emotion and condescension as you often do before you understand the discussion taking place.
And this is the moderator's response.
Also, a word to the wise: telling women to stop being so emotional during a debate is like waving a red flag in front of a bull - even if some of us do have a tendency to do that (just as many men do), it's been a sexist trope used to silence women in the past, and it can be a real trigger for a lot of us. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but to a lot of us, that's how it comes across. So just don't.
As one poster above stated "The moderators focus on safety is for feminists and POC", which is how it should be. Now I want to repeat being unequivical about this, 99.9% of the time the mods do a superb job, frequently under very trying circumstances, but this kid gloves treatment here is a bit bewildering. I'm sure there are reasons but nevertheless..........I know you softened your position, I was just commenting on the gut reaction by the first couple posts after, such as the first post after the article (not yours) was posted beginning with "Yeah, for card-carrying Liberals like Goutor..."
I agree that in most cases studying certain things doesn't make you a certain way politically, although I think the critical studies like LS and Womyn's studies are a bit of an exception because of their nature - if you are a professor of Womyn's studies, chances are you aren't a strident anti-feminist. Maybe business management is an exception the other way around - I don't think we're going to see a lot of business professors who are also Wobblies. But I don't really want to get into this again.
As to "Fidel is just Fidel", I don't particularly want to comment on specific cases, but I think if someone is being a problem and what they're doing warrants attention, we shouldn't just go "____ is just ____," ignore it, and just tell everyone that they "know what to expect"
And yeah, I haven't been perfect, and maybe I have made a snarky comment or two, but I've always tried to keep things political and not personal.
How do you propose that I "handle jibes"? I'm sick of getting into these big fights which derail threads, and I'm sure the rest of babble feels the same way.
I get tired of some it too, I really do. Hence my own impatience again, which of course rarely helps...so Unionist's high paying position is probably safe from my grasp for another day. Jibes happen on all sides though, I just recieved two for a perfectly innocent appeal.
So it's all a bit subjective, don't you think? On an open political site where only a few specific groups get extra attention (thanks largely to earlier waves of Free Dominion trolls) if someone starts going at anothers favourite then the other responds in what they see as kind who's to say who's right? Was the original criticism fair game or not, is the Re an appropriate reply, or is someone just not as quick on their heels? In the end it's up to the mods, whose decision may or may not be accepted. I can't speak for other NDPers except I see very little agreement or coordination among most here (outside a few more around convention time perhaps) and probably almost as much disagreement within ranks as without. I don't know, maybe someone else can sort it out to everyones satisfaction, but to me that would be the seventh sign.
Because, North Report, sometimes problems can be resolved by just telling someone that they've done something out of line. There doesn't always have to be a stick.
This is the thing about moderating - for some people, it's like this great spectator sport, and they get disappointed when they don't see a banning, or a total obliteration of someone by the moderator. I didn't think that incident called for it. If I noticed Debator doing that all the time, and I had been warning him for weeks, or months, about the same thing over and over, then yeah, I'd probably have been a bit more harsh about it.
Finally, it's all about two things:
1 The psychology of the individual - in Fidel's case an individual devoted to the welfare of himankind, but unable to look after his own welfare in debate. He rates a cooling out, but that's it. You can't call for passion and then expunge the passionate.
2 The moderators understanding of their role. It is clearest in the case of Bookish Agrarian, that all is not well. If this discussion, apparently taking place in his now-permanent absence, is not sensitive to his passionate and controlled arguments about the culture here, then a sorting/culling will continue to take place. At the present rate of change, it can be predicted that babble will ultimately be a board remarkable for its purity of purpose, but politically irrelevant. Which would be a shame, given it's much-vaunted role as an alternative to the main stream.
Although I'm further left of the NDP, I was expecting this forum to be a pro-NDP forum (specifically, the more social-democratic and not liberal elements).
BA reminds me of that phenomena of endless posting of 'criticisms' by a handful of people... who I always have to wonder what the hell is really in it for them. But no point to that query.
Anyway, I had kind of forgotten about that dynamic. And now that I remember, I realize why. While I haven't left Babble, I have over time gradually done a huge amount of semi-deliberate self censorship of what I read on Babble, let alone where I might post.
International issues: forget it, with some rare exceptions where my curiousity is highest. Ditto, even more so for other hot button litmus tests of the left: poor people, racism, etc. I have a lifetime interest in inernational issues and activism, and know that I'm broadly well informed... not to mention knowing phenomenal cutlural and geographic trivia. But I haven't a fraction of the patience required to particpate on babble on those issues. Race and racism is similarly close to heart through my whole life. The usual suspects are not by any means the only problem there, but if its racism and the NDP, they'll be there and as endlessly as ever. So thats a no-go too.
When it comes down to it there are more no-gos than not.
I'm not by any means only interested in electoral politics and parties. But other than labour issues thats about the only place I don't think is hopeless. Thankfully, the usual suspects are habitually bored by the nitty gritty details of how electoral politics are work and are organized. So a casual observer of what is posted on Babble would think thats my only interest.
Reading the responses in this thread it sometimes makes one wonder if the rules here are if you are "polite" about it, you can say the most obnoxious things, but if you are progressive and get upset, you get the boot. Some of the responses have been constructive, butI am not buying into some of the comments here, including from some of the mods, for whom I have nothing but respect. I am extremely disappointed to see BA leave here as well.
BA, I'm sorry you've felt unwelcome here because of your support for the NDP. And I appreciate what you've written. I will read it over a few more times, discuss it with the other mods, and try to see what can be done about it. I definitely don't want people leaving because they're being hurt by sarcasm being aimed at them and a harsh tone overall.
It's hard to know what to do about it, because sarcasm here and there is difficult to "moderate" without feeling like we're stepping in all the time, or trying to make the site pollyannaish. But I also know that once people start using a nasty tone (even if it's not specifically breaking a rule), then the thread generally goes downhill from there.
P.S. I've unlocked Fidel's account.
Thanks for your comments BA, and I would add that is is an accumulative thing, moving across several threads, at any given time, from a variety of attack methods.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/bloc-legitimate-party
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-convention-thread-3
It seems we are supposed to be ashamed that we support the NDP, and are partisan. In fact, our partisanship is continually used against us, to dismiss our positions. And not the validity, or non-validity of our observations and points. We have every right to be affliated with a party, and our affliation should not be used against us.
And in my case, upon occassion, outright sexist and personal attack methods are used. And the reason why I say sexist is because if one notes said person's attacking responses to me, and then compare them to other posters who are male, to which they respond, one can quite clearly see said person does not speak that way to males that they are in disagreement with.
I would also add, that labelling the NDP, meaning all of us, as white supremists, and how that whole ugly thread played out, with the attacks against the NDP partisans as being equivalent to the KKK, from those who are just as white and whom never ever make any commentary on anti-racist and FN's issues, and initiatives, was beyond belief, and even moreso, was the acceptance of their words and actions against us.
They pretend sterling progressive creditials, in order to attack us, but they no more walk the talk, than what they were accusing the NDP, and NDP partisans, of. Hyporcrisy in actions of this type leads to bitterness and angst, and people leaving.
Anyone can checkout the names of the usual attackers in that thread, and then look at the postings in the Aboriginal and anti-racist forums, to see if any of them have ever shown any interest in solidarity of cause. I have, and you will find almost none.
Bravo - thanks.
Well they must be welcome, because I'm here
You and I should squabble a lot less, U. I'm crazy but not nuts and harbour no ill will toward anyone. My bark is bigger than bite always. I have big arguments with my own family members, and we've all realized that grudges have a net negative worth for everyone involved.
I dunno if anyone has addressed it but I think there is a world of difference between critiquing the NDP from the left and critiquing it from the right. Plenty of us on the left of the NDP see it as a mixed bag ... whereas I get the impression that those on the right would like to see the NDP curl up and die. Perhaps some NDPers here would be better able to deal with the dung thrown in their general direction if they made this distinction which seems so obvious to some of us outside the party.
It's very simple. The only reason the other parties don't come under close scrutiny on this board is because they don't come here to engage serious internal discussion, or chat about politica with the expectation they will meet with like minded individuals who they feel they are allied with. When they do come they come to troll, or to engage in an arguementative fashion. Therefore, NDP related threads proliferate, and those of us who don't particularly think much of the NDP in comparison to the other parties don't feel the need to engage whatever tripe they are pedalling. This whole personalization of your feelings to the party to which you belong is your thing and your thing only. That said, I personally feel a certain amount of antagonism toward the NDP because the position in the political spectrum it pretends to inhabit, and because its betrayal is personal. My experience of the NDP is that it is completely other than what it represents iteself to be, and that it uses the good name of the left to forward the personal agendas of a few indivduals.
To Belotov's point, I could care less if it curled up and died. I don't see it as being in anyway being meaningfully different from any of the other "parties".
No doubt there are many persons of good faith in the NDP who truly believe in their politics, and believe that those politics are the best way forward. That said it is not as if the Liberals and the Tories, even, have many well intentioned persons who believe in what they support. It makes no difference to me, really. Make no mistake, if they appeared frequently enough on this board to pedal their belief in the party they represent, there would be no end of harsh criticism of their views. But they don't come in any large numbers, and so the focus seems to be on the problems of the NDP. It is not. It is nothing personal. Don't take it that way.
Furthermore, no one from the NDP on this board makes me feel particularly "welcome" as a member of the NDP, though a few of them I have considerable respect for as individual. But their NDP'ishness is as irrelevant to that, as it is to wether or not non-NDP'ers like the politics that your party supports.
And I am of the opinion that of all the thread sagas we've ever had on babble, the ones discussing electoral reform have the most practical value for progressives of all political stripes. I place electoral reform very high on my own list of wishes for Canada. ER is certainly no guarantee that my party would form even a minority government first election round. But it would change things significantly for leftwing parties of all brands. The NDP, from a purely logical and practical point of view represents the best opportunity for progressive change in Ottawa. Otoh, without more support for the NDP I can see little hope for progressive change in Ottawa unless there is a political will for electoral reform. And the NDP can't do it alone. That is why I was hopeful for a Dion-Layton-Duceppe coalition, and that if anything else they might have agreed with the NDP to hold a national referendum on electoral reform. This government is just not open to input from anybody but the think tanks and their US controllers.
I've been in and out of the party myself a couple of times. I've been a rabid rabble reader for many years, but don't post much as, generally, I find that compared to the great discussion my opinions are pretty rote. Therefore I haven't experienced the problems that some people are complaining about first-hand. And as someone who once moderated a different board I totally understand how difficult moderating is...so I don't really have any suggestions.
Generally, I come here for analysis and critique of the party. But as I've read more and more over the years, even the critical discussions of the party get messed up with scrutiny so intense or vendettas so personal or standards so unachievable, ones that others (posters and parties) are not subject to. It's getting to the point where you can't have a reasonable critique or discussion, for more than 20 or so posts without it going off the rails.
Where I specifically agree with Bookish Agrarian is in terms of the silent bullying. The implicit put downs when supporters of the party bring up issues or respond to critiques. The suggestions that those who channel their energy through the party and the electoral process are to be less respected. The personal attacks masqued as critiques of the party, rife with personal insinuations about a poster's values or progressivity (sp?). The snarky, snide, dark side, the bob and weave in and out of critiques of the party that are truly directed at the poster.
I don't think the board should be pro-NDP. I don't think it is anti-NDP.
But it's definitely become less and less friendly to posters inclined to identify or vocalize their involvement or support of the party, or those that have advocated this support as a means of working toward their progressive values.
Some of that is likely due to the party and it's directions and values and choices with regard to the left. But some of that is the culture of bullying that has developed over the past years.
Funny - in that lengthy post, he never once mentioned sarcasm. He said, over and over, that some people are only pretending to attack the NDP, but their real target is individual babblers. That's frankly the most outlandish notion I've ever heard.
Why?
Because all this basically goes back to a thread where someone noticed that the NDP speakers list was entirely made of up white people, and I guess some others pointed out that the NDP was a white supremacist organization, and BA took it personally. It's funny you know because if someone were to say the NDP was essentially patriarchal, no one would be outraged at all, but rather probably agree and then make noises about "working on the problem". But when it comes to "whitefest" in Halifax, people start screaming.
Either they don't take sexism seriously and just pawn it off with some glib appologetics, or some people can't handle the truth about systemic racism in the NDP with good grace, and take the challenge personally.