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
Want to comment on the content? I thought not.
That is what pedantry looks like, from the other side,
What you see is pednatry is my recognition of your unintended humour. Maybe an emoticon would have made this clearer. Have yoiu been up all night? It must beearly where you are.
Thanks for all your feedback -- (particularly from M. Spector who I thought had left the boards -- welcome back!) and the pig photo was a nice touch. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear you don't agree with our editorial policies. To reiterate what old goat, maysie and catchfire have already tried to explain, thread headlines do appear on our front page. If these contravene with our editorial policies the mods and/or editors do step in to change these headlines -- particularly if they are deemed to be oppressive. In this case the use of the word 'pig' to describe a police officer is a term we feel is anti-labour which is why it was changed. Thanks again for your understanding, Alex (managing editor, rabble.ca)
being rude/provocative is not revolutionary.
it is a distraction in fact, but I still side against banning words
Actually Alex this is the very first time anyone from management has put forward the claim that "pig" with respect to cops is anti-labour.
And that's really bizarre, 'cause the pigs absolutely are NOT on the side of labour. I will open a new thread to discuss this claim.
Pfffft. That is simply a bunch of crap. You simply don't understand that theory behind your own editorial policy. "Oppressive language" is language that targets marginalized sectors of society, a category to which the police do not belong. Also, "Labour" does not simply mean anyone who is paid to do a "job".
What next? We won't be able to use colourful language to describe corporate executives, because they are "labour".
Labour
Indeed, all common economic definitions of "Labour" define labour in relationship to production of something. The police produce nothing.
Please throw out your editorial policy, and just run the show as you see fit. That would be better than you mangaling "left" discourse, and pretending that you are acting in its name.
I seriously don't understand you. A library can have a copy of Mein Kampf in its shelves. Does that condone and publicize it? But if it posts excerpts on the outside wall, without comment... you don't see the difference?
How about a bookstore stocking a copy of Abbie Hoffman's classic "Steal This Book"? Is that functionally equivalent to putting "Steal This Book" up on the wall?
Again, I think it's perfectly obvious what policy rabble has adopted and perfectly sensible. It doesn't breach anyone's freedom of speech in any meaningful way.
And by the way, the argument that cops are unionized, and that that makes them somehow better, is pathetic. Cops are to be judged on what they do, not on how hard they fight for better wages. Please don't rise in consternation when I suggest that cops are not the allies of the workers, unionized or otherwise. They don't work for us.
Obviously, the editorial staff is just using the proposed "editorial policy" and trying to make it fit what they want to do. It would be far better if they just said: "We don't like it, so there!", as opposed to pretending they understand their own policy.
If it is really the case that such language is "opressive language" aimed "labour", the ban on identifying pigs as "pigs" would be comprehensive.
Thus Caissa's point highlights the fact that this is not a decision based in "principle", but merely an attempt to cover up the whim of the editorial board on the basis of the "editorial policy".
Here we go around the mulberry bush of obfuscation again. Books be damned, this is simply a bullying action that is not concerned with the feelings of others.
Cops are a necessary element in this society, as the boyos in black recently proved. They also apprehend robbers and rapists and other bad guys. Any force is made up of a variety of human types, from nasty bastards to those who give their lives in defence of others. I have had bad experiences with those deviant members of the constabulary who somehow find their way into an organization that suits their authoritarian personality. But I have very much appreciated the care and attention of the good cops who can take charge of a mental patient and gently bring them to a place of safety.
The use of "pigs" to describe them is unacceptable for many reasons, but one seldom mentioned is that it is resented by others in this supposedly socially concerned little grouping of do-good folks. The vicious putdown of those who disagree is symptomatic of the anti-social behaviour of those who rampaged in Toronto a few days back. It is a finger in the face of those who are more than uncomfortable with anarchistic behaviour and disdain for those who dare to protest at their behaviour.
Finally, it is simply bullying in the name of "freedom", the product of a lax management style that dows not work here or in an elementary schoolroom. Enough of the high-minded ratonale for bullying.
Actually, as Michael Nenonen pointed out, a bad barrel creates bad apples.
bad water in the barrel can also contribute to the baddening effect.
Just as I suspected: Not only does Rabble management collectively lack two brain cells to rub together, they assume we have even fewer.
According to the threads listed in the OP that have been changed to the satisfaction of Rabble management, Saskatoon police murder another FN is quite acceptable, whereas Saskatoon pigs murder another FN is not.
Fucking RCMP Murder ANOTHER FN! is not considered to be "oppressive language", whereas Fucking RCMPigs Murder ANOTHER FN! is.
Kenora police shoot another FN is not "anti-labour" but Kenora pigs shoot another FN is.
SIU probe OPP in FN death (Murder?) doesn't contravene Rabble's secret "editorial policies", but SIU probe OPPigs in FN death (Murder?) does.
Thanks for clearing that up, Alex. I'm sure your story makes a lot more sense than the real story would.
Interesting WHITEwashing. Bravo babble. /disgust
My apologies. This is so fucking wrong.
The only principled decision Rabble can make is to remove Babble titles from their homepage. Choosing new words to be forbidden in titles on the fly is problematic at best.
I especially appreciated George Victor's comments in paragraph 3 of #40.
Alex, "contravene" is a transitive verb -- thus, "contravene our editorial policies."
Excuse the pedantry, but you are an editor, after all, and one wielding authority here.
I think I agree. Why did they intrduce this feature in the first place???
An Angry Beaver killed a husky recently.
I think the use of pigs to describe cops is offensive. David Bratzer (cop) gave the very best speech I have ever heard advocating the legalization of drugs for adults. Until I heard him, I would only have accepted the legalization of mary jane. He used very clear powerful logic to explain why all drug prohibition must go for adults.
When the video of his 10 minutes comes out, it will do more to legalize drugs and cut back on crime than anything mark emery ever did.
Back in Ireland, hard working concrete workers used to be called "horses" by the other trades. They practically spat the word out! I think we might as well accept that smearing a person because of their job is not a whole lot different from smearing them because of their religion or race. If harper decides to abandon democracy completely, (so far he has only abandoned it for a few months at a time) we will need to get a few good cops on our side. It might be hard to get them to come over if you always call them pigs.
Brian
Ok. Pigs like pot too. Anything substantive to say to the sudden limitation of invective used to describe this particular class of employee. Personally, I only started using the term "pig" to describe cops now that Babble has decided that it is "offensive" based on various spurious justification, none of which hold water.
You of course are free to describe pigs however you want to, are you really saying that you believe your particular brand of moralism should be extended to one and all? My view is that this is simply an attempt to shut down discussion of police abuse in the terms chosen to describe it by those who are victims of it.
Are we so touchy feely now that we will chastise the victims of the Holocaust for calling SS soldiers "pigs" because the SS are people too... and because not all members of the SS were bad people.
Either Babble decides to ban the use of this language on any and all threads, and likewise bans any word that might be deemed offensive, or it should remove this ban. A sad thing about the left is that it is often a conduit for a certain brand of Protestant puritanism.
There might be some good people who are police officers but the institution they serve and protect are the reason why they are called PIGS.
Some of you talk of society? What society? Child poverty is close to 20% in this "rich" country.
As long as you're all fed, eh? They're cool then? What about those voices who weren't fed, aren't listened to? We should be silent. Follow your rules?
I'm aghast at the creeping slippage here at babble for anti-oppression. There's a disturbing feel about the comfortableness all the white folk and men strut about here.
Peacocks.
I would not agree that cops are a friend of labor, but they also aren't our enemy. And yes, they are workers. The use of some workers to oppress other workers is nothing new and I don't see why people think cops are in a special category. They are just as much workers and just as much implementing the demands of their boss as the bank employee who denies a family a second mortgage and causes them to live on the street. Don't blame the employees for the employers deeds.
The idea that since cops don't 'produce' anything they are not labour would mean we have to throw out all service employees who don't directly 'produce' things in the narrowest sense.
It was also claimed that the term oppressive language cannot be used on people who 'choose' their careers. But what about sex workers? Clearly there is oppressive language used all the time based on ones career 'choice'. It's all oppressive and it is falling into the obfuscation put in place by capitalists to shift the blame onto other workers.
Hey everyone, I really appreciate what everyone has said here. Thanks again for your input. There are discussions about language used on babble currently happening off the boards among rabble's editorial staff and we will be getting back to you with more about this within the next week or so.
It is indeed a rich country and here's what absolute poverty looks like:
So, four out of every 10 people in our world live on less than $2 per day.
It's good to keep that in mind, for a little perspective, when talking about the relative worth of Canadian "society".
The problem with police - for me, anyway - is the 'authority' conferred on them by their badges. That authority needs to be re-evaluated, I'd like to see police become more 'social workers' and less 'enforcers'. Society needs to look at the role of their police and make some changes.
Sven, $2/day for a mother with two children would mean about $180/month, yes? Precisely where in Canada do you propose such a family should be housed?
I don't mean to minimize the horrors of world poverty. But it is regressive to the point of absurdity to ignore the reality of relative poverty, especially in a country whose other name is Winter.
I didn't argue for "ignoring" relative poverty. My point is simply this: There is a common tendency to paint Canada as though it were in the inner circles of Dante's Hell and that the Canadian system is in urgent need of being torn down and replaced with something "new and wonderful". I think it's useful to keep in mind that the Canadian system is one of the best systems on the planet...even for those who are relatively poor (in Canadian terms).
I've long thought that North Americans (including progressive North Americans) are myopic about poverty because we focus, almost single-mindedly, on North American relative poverty when there are 2 billion people in the world who are in grinding, survival-threatening absolute poverty because they don't have clean water, basic sanitation, adequate food, clothing, or shelter (in Canada, there are very few in that dire condition).
And you know what's worse, Skdadl? The fetish with middle class entitlements in North America. "I want the government to pay for my college," "I want the government to pay for my retirement (and I want to retire when I'm 50)," "I want the government to pay for this and to pay for that."
Something rampant in the EU and people are rioting over it as we speak in France and Greece (as they raise the pension age)
If they focused more on FN poverty (close to the grinding poverty you describe elsewhere in the world) they would have more respect from me. Fighting the poverty that kill, then work on the rest
Working people should never concede what they have managed to win with so much blood and toil, never give an inch. That is what tptb want, but it is completely unnecessary to raising up others. Don't fall for that fallacy. We can walk and chew gum at the same time; life is not a zero-sum game; and all like that.