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
I get that he assaults women, but that hardly defines him. I certainly don't find him amusing, in the sense of happy laughter and all that, but I wouldn't mind the opportunity to discuss -- or poke fun at -- his rather bizarre ego without having to first and foremost acknowledge his violence against women.
Failing that, could we have the same sort of rule for all WikiLeaks/Julian Assange threads? Where EVERY Assange thread goes in FF, and any post that mentions Assange has to point out that he's accused of raping two women? Currently, discussion of Assange seems to be focusing on extraditions and depositions and Empire and not on what's important.
Snert, don't be an ass. In fact, several Julian Assange threads have gone into the FF. Surprisingly, however, I don't see Charlie Sheen threads exceeding the single thread already opened for him. I also don't see Charlie Sheen threads touching on as many interlocking and complex issues as Wikileaks--and I study culture.
Here's what I said about the Sheen thread in the FF:
Which is basically what should be in our heads as we post on babble anyway. Note that nowhere do I cite the kind of tyrannical and draconian governance you claim to fear. I don't see any discussion that could be had on babble that couldn't happen in the thread as it sits in the feminism forum. If you want to laugh at "crazy" people like Ghaddafi and Sheen, do it on your facebook page.
I find it interesting that although many of the trends posted in the now-closed thread had been out for weeks, they weren't posted in the other thread, even though the OP in both share a similar sentiment. Why are they ok in one place and not in the other? That's the question you should be asking yourself rather than coming here and complaining about...what? The right to thread proliferation? To continue mainstream media narratives about mental health, masculinity and domestic abuse? Please tell me what rights of yours I'm squashing.
Why not all? That seems to be the standard for Sheen threads.
Meanwhile, there's a thread titled "Julian Assange's rape allegations continued" that's in International News. How does it make more sense to discuss rape allegations outside of the FF?
Is it so people are free to speculate that he's being framed, and that the rape allegations are just a tool of Empire? Because looking at that thread, they are.
@Catchfire:
Actually, as I was not actively participating in either thread (I was following them but had not posted) I really don't need even a single one. I can, though, see a use for one in the media forum: specifically for a discussion of media sensationalism and media monomania. That the second thread devolved into sniggering about the quotes from Sheen and Gaddafi is indeed regretable - not least because it is deriving amusment value from statements by individuals who are, in the first instance, showing signs that the layperson is going to take as indicating mental health issues and, in the second instance, someone completely out of their depth in what is obviously not their mother tongue. The first is pretty much a throw-back to tours of Bedlam for the "entertainment" value they might provide, the latter an exhibition of the kind of chauvinism that would usually not be granted much consideration here.
The closing of the second Sheen-related thread was the first instance that I have noticed since I made my point here about abrupt closures of threads (in post #11), so I don't think it "suspect" that I returned here to comment on the closing. While the second Sheen-related thread is not the hill I would like to make any "final stand" on, I think there is enough going on it (most particularly the first half of the article linked to in the OP, which goes on at some length to question the appropriateness of both the volume of the media coverage and being "entertained" by what appears to be a mental health issue) that it serves as at least a semi-viable example of heavy-handedness in closing down parallel threads. At least part of its viability lies in recognizing that that the original thread already contained a request that, while in the FF, the focus should be on VAW and the not so subtle hint that discussion of anything else that may be going on with the story take place elsewhere.
Finally, I am a little perplexed by the wording of post #30. It seems, to me, excessively personal. While I frequently take up more than my fair share of space in threads that have devolved into frivolity I believe you will find I was most noticeable for my absence in the "laughing at his crazy antics". Based on personal experience, I find there is very little amusment value to be derived from yucking it up at individuals
dealing withrefusing to deal with mental health issues. Indeed, I consider it axiomatic that we frequently refer to mental health issues as "illnesses" or "diseases" based on the recognition that, like almost any physical counterpart, there is pain involved -- for the one experiencing them, and for the people around them.Snert, I have yet to move a single Charlie Sheen thread, of the two in babble history, to the feminism forum. Why are you trading straw?
ETA. Cross-posted with bagkitty. Thanks for that thoughtful post, bg. I don't find much I disagree with, and I apologize if I let my frustrations cross the line. I was miffed at the way the thread developed, but I closed it because of proliferation. I think NDPP's OP story could have easily fed into the original discussion without a pause.
Okay, my bad on that one. I thought the first had been moved.
It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that where there are obivously duplicate threads, there should be some pruning. Where the difference in issues is more nuanced in a single thread, we may open other threads to deal with those issues. Or, we can just do it all in one thread, each participant choosing the area they want to focus on.
Given the general reduction in traffic on Babble, is a proliferation of threads a problem?
For example Sheen can be approached froma VAW perspective, a mental health perspective, a Hollywood culture perspective and a merging of all 3.
Is anyone else reluctant to make a mental health diagnosis of a total stranger via Twitter?
If Charlie wants to say "I'm bipolar" then I'll view his utterings in that context, but until then I'm going to stick with the much safer diagnosis of "full of himself".
Diagnoses should be made by qualified healthcare professionals. The rest of us can say "That behaviour has the characteristics of x". YMMV
"scuse me for dragging this back, but Rebecca's response makes perfect sense to me, and I don't see it as having anything to do with any dogma. The purpose of any kind of protected space and any special rules that apply is so that people (in this case women) have the safety and freedom to say whatever is on their mind, and express their feelings without being shouted down.
I can see how that might cause some confusion, conflict and hurt, but if the main purpose is freedom, safety and protection, that is how it is. Dogma is kind of in the back seat. At least that is the way this old white guy sees those kind of spaces.
In theory anyway.... it's not my space, after all.
You're excused, 6079, even if it is cmpletely unrelated to the point I was making.
Actually Caissa, I was replying to a concern I assumed you were expressing at #18.
I didn't think it was necessary to repeat the whole conversation.
I couldn't tell that from the part you chose to quote.
"have the safety and freedom to say whatever is on their mind, and express their feelings without being shouted down."
i think the main point here is that does not include people simply disagreeing with you. Being shouted down is one thing (and is cause for intervention on babble in any topic, feminism or anything else) but no one has the right to say what they want on a public discussion forum and then react angrily if someone disagrees.
I think it's totally possible to have a space where women can say what they feel, people are free to agree or disagree and everyone can have a good debate about it.
my problem is when people get angry because someone doesn't agree with them and attempts to turn that into said poster being ridiculed, banned or chastised for doing the exact same thing--speaking their mind!
@ milo 204
It's a shield, not a sword. I agree with you there.
The "Deer Hunting For Jesus" thread was closed just as the author, Joe Bageant, died.
That's kinda harsh.
Thats because he's deer hunting WITH Jesus now
A guess Jesus won't be taking up the Vegan Challenge.
For you al Q:
Bageant Moves On
What exactly was the point of closing this thread?
A liitle banter can be good for the soul.
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/noone-ever-wants-talk-about-it
It sure got some existential angst out Caissa. I've been struggling as an existentialist my whole life and never understanding what it means. I read J.P. Sartre's "Waiting for Godot" on the recommendation of a teacher and still didn't get it? Could that be due to existentialist leanings? Does everything pass me by?
Or is it all too big?
RIP Joe Bageant, he brought something different to the discourse.
eta: Thanks 6079 for correcting me that Godot was written by Samuel Beckett. There was a lot of cross-comparison with Sartre and "No Exit" I believe. Like I said, it was all a bit much for me. But it resonated. I don't give in to conformism or absolutes.
Wasn't "waiting for Godot" supposed to be a play on waiting for god.? Bunch of guys waiting by a tree as much as I can remember. I really should have taken uni more seriously. I was a drop-out.
A life built on believing what the church purported to mean was sent spiralling out of control when the cold, hard, truth started to sink in. I gave up church but am I still hoping in god?
The quote that defines Beckett (well, one of them): "I can't go on. I must go on." It's not from Godot--it's from Molloy--but it resonated throughout all his works. I think it's pretty good for anyone concerned with changing the world too.
That helps Catchfire, thanks. My friends always try to to talk me off that ledge.
Them: "You can't change the world"
Me: "I'll die trying"
Subsequent conversation ensues where I convince a few of them that voting for change is worth it. Thanks to some gems from babble for my talking points.