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
hahaha
rabble censors itself from being able to review such works as Ward Churchill's 'In a Pig's Eye', or at least to mention it's title in a title of the review
but i guess there are more important things in the eyes of those in authority here than being able to review accounts of what the police did to people (including murder and other forms of severe repression) because those same police were in a union and thus we don't want to be calling unionized workers anything disrespectful no matter what they do
In the interest of openness and transparency, I think it would be useful for the rabble big-wigs, once they are ready to address the issue that is the subject of this thread (i.e., whether "PIGS" can or cannot be used in thread titles), to tell babblers with honesty whether rabble was under any outside pressure to prohibit the use of "PIGS" in thread titles.
Let's see what happens if somebody starts a thread re-examining JFK's "Bay of P__s" invasion.
Over here is a thread title that has "pit bull' in it in respect to a human being, now I would like to know why "pit bull" is acceptable, in thread titles, whilst "pig(s)" is not?
If it is the "dehumanizing" aspect they object to, then there must be a blanket ban.
I wasn't using it in reference to police officers, of course.
[being helpful]
I believe pit bull was being applied to an individual - pigs was being applied as a label to a group.
[/being helpful]
That makes a difference how?
In actual fact...it does not.
Not that this is the official rabble position, but is pit bull pejorative? I would think that John Baird would be the first to boast about being a pit bull, whereas I can't imagine a police referring to himself as a pig.
And while I can't speak to some of the other issues raised in this thread yet, I can say with certainty that rabble was under no pressure whatsoever from any outside source to make this change. It was purely an editorial decision made in house.
And that is the nauseating part of what was already suspected. It's not surprising to find in a police state the desire to police oneself. The system begets the urge to create civilized spaces everywhere in order to be considered legitimate by the illegitimate, where their stamp of approval is more desirable than the utterly appropriate words that are used to describe them as an entity.
It would be more accurate to say that in Canada there are few non-Aboriginals in that dire condition.
I don't get it either. I come from a community that aspires to such things...why would I support taking it away from others so we could all be poorer for it?
I'd rather we all head upwards instead of pulling others down in the name of 'social justice'.
Education and basic social security should not be considered frivolous luxuries.
Blogged about this here:
Something is shit wrong with rabble.ca
Sooooo....you expropriate Baird's voice/notions, without really knowing if what you say is correct about him, do you even know him? And really does it matter if Baird would say so about himself, given that the editorial board of rabble does NOT want dehumanizing language on its front page.
It seems like this means that it is okay for an educated white man to dehumanize, but not okay for a First Nations man who has suffered under police and colonial tyranny?
And this is why there needs to be consistency at the very least...if only to pretend that white men do not have more privilege here than everyone else does.
Which white men are you talking about, remind? Alex, Kim and Cathryn are all women.
who posted the thread title with 'pit bull' in it catchfire?
Apparently, until further explanation and decisions arise on this, it is okay for caissa to dehumanize, and other white men to go along with it, such as yourself, but not etamaran. The smack of privilege is distinctly unpleasant.
this situation, at this point, has nothing to do with the editorial board, other making them appear to be hyprocrits, at best.
also, I recognize that you believe I have issues with caissa, which I do not, but that is for another day, as such you may think I am picking on this because it was caissa, however that is not valid nor accurate.
The reality is under the "dehumanizing" excuse used by Alex, caissa's thread title is also unacceptable. And if it is not acknowleged to be so, it is apparent there exists 1 rule for white men and another one for First Nations here.
Yah but we're so used to it everywhere else.
Closing for length.