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.
Uncomfortable with the NDP Leadership Race threads here
February 27, 2012 - 12:28pm
;;
Since I got involved posting here at babble I don't think I have ever read such nonsense as I have read here concerning the NDP Leadership Race.
1 - Candidates are regularly smeared with no substance
2 - Threads are started to smear candidates
3 - Personal attacks are constant
4 - Some posters feel that have to post 20 or 30 posts a day to put down other candidates
5 - Moderators might want to consider sticking to moderating and be a bit more neutral as their choosing sides could be contributing to the tensions.
Agreed. 100%
Agreed. I am also concerned that rabble iteself is starting to be used as a surrogate to attack a particular candidate by one campaign. That's troubling.
I wonder which campaign that would be?
Since someone mentioned the moderators... I'm also worried that the moderators have their job wrong: ignoring incivility, slander, and personal attacks, but blocking people for their viewpoints. Admittedly, it's easier to indentify someone who is using anti-progressive language than it is to identify a pattern of passive aggressiveness. But it's getting just as ineffective as the drug war: ignoring the source of the problem, and cracking down on whoever is sloppy enough to cross the line.
Again, I think the moderators are doing the best job they can. But there might be a deeper systemic problem.
BA - thanks for mentioning this.
What a whinefest.
And rather puzzling since Mulcair himself doesn't seem to want to give babble the time of day.
This thread might fit better in Rabble Reactions.
People really should see what goes into the making of their sausages though.
i.e. 109 'official' NDP leadership threads... countless off-shoot leadership threads... the rest of babble... 2 paid mods
well I'm not going to read anything in to this beyond some indirect allegation.
Moved to rabble reactions.
This seems to represent the dominant feelilng behind the complaint mentioned in this thread. The problem comes when babblers take a negative comment about a candidate or party they support as personal criticism. What has happened in the past few days is that they respond as if it was a personal attack, with insults, attacks and hostility.
For example, I made perhaps my first ever major contribution in the 100-some odd threads about the NDP horserace--a comment about a topic in which I happen to know a great deal and work on daily--and I was called, variously, a liar, "more-righteous-than-thou," part of a conspiracy or inconsequential. This is not how debate happens.
In fact, I now regret entering the discussion at all--which should be the last thinig that happens when someone enters a debate for the first time. Perhaps those wishing the discussion would take a different tenor should take responsibility for their own actions and words. I was asked to take a closer look at the Leadership threads for exactly this reason--and when I did, I was shocked at the various tacks used to shut-down discussion: outright hostility, ridicule, pile-ons, insinuations, accusations...the list goes on. It's a depressing and exhausting task to address each infraction with a "attack the words, not the babbler," so take some responsibility for your own contributions to the nasty tone infecting the leadership threads.
The babblers who have been suspended lately, who feel chagrined, may not believe this, but they were suspended for personal attacks, not because they prefer a certain candidate. It would be nice if these babblers would consider the kind of space they take up ini these discussions, and try to make their words a positive influence on babble (hint: dropping in with a glib and meanigless truism about how great their candidate is does not fit this description). Think about what you're saying and why you want to say it. It might help make the the threads more readable too, and keep Rebecca or I from having to close them twice a day.
This is exactly why I've limited myself to very few cameo appearances within the NDP leadership contest threads.
Catchfire, with respect I think that what you have noticed is pretty much true, but for more than one group of supporters. As someone who is pretty much agnostic on who I will support for leader, (I know better whom I am not supporting than I do who I am supporting), I`ve seen that behaviour metted out to anyone who tries to have a rational discussion about these issues, or who might suggest that the constant attacks on one candidate or another are a bit much. I was called essentially rascist for instance for the crime of suggesting there might be other issues that would guide people`s decisions beyond Paul Dewar capacity in the French language.
What concerns me now is that rabble `officialdom` seems to be using rabble to support the Topp campaign explicitly, such as one of the more dubious threads about Mulcairs supposed Manchurian candidate status for a bunch of different things. That was started by a moderator using a rabble blog that was so thin on actual facts it would be laughable in any other context. Muclair is well down my list, but this tactic is troubling.
Again, I`m not supporting anyone at this point, but I see a pattern emerging I find distressing.
This is the second time you have not so subtly implied (accused) me of having some kind of hidden agenda. Stop it. It is deeply offensive.
It's no secret that I don't care for Mulcair, but I haven't seen evidence of what you describe, and I certainly haven't been getting any calls from my higher-ups to promote Topp or undermine Mulcair. I don't agree with your assessment of the blog post in question, but I will say that thin gruel often proves more than enough substance to justify another thread on the NDP, their imminent election victory or their tragic, catastrophic weaknesses. That said, perception is important and I take your observations seriously.
Thanks Catchfire like I said I am not supporting Mulcair, certainly not on ballot 1 or 2. I can`t absolutely say though I won`t support him because I don`t know the outcomes of the rounds of balloting. But it would take a fair bit of dropping off of other candidates for me to get there.
But I have been reading these threads. I think the attacks on Mulcair are so beyond reasonable in some cases, not the one you raised by the way, that ridiculous comments get made in return. I don`t know how you solve that though, I just see it happening. What I also see is a trend by rabble (not babble alone), and maybe it is easier if you are on the fence like me, that is not exactly inkeeping with a journalistic lack of bias.
Your mistake is in assuming this is supposed to be an unbiased site. rabble is quite open about its biases.
IMO, Rabble is doing piss poor on the anti-imperialist front.
I agree with SJ and BA thoughts on this thread.
What on earth makes you think this site is unbiased or has ever claimed to be such? Rabble.ca is proud of its stance as left-wing. You will not see a diversity of viewpoint in any other news organization as you do on rabble -- and in babble.
Is this site perfect? Of course not. It's run by real human beings with passionate views and opinions. That's what you want in a news organization, don't you? The rubbish about lack of bias is what the MSM puts out to deflect from the fact that they are fundamentally based on editorial policy written by their advertisers and those very few who form public opinion out of their own self-interest.
I don't know what my NDP leadership voting preference will be when it comes down to it. It matters less who I vote for than the fact that I vote. What I do know is that this is not a forum for nasty personal attacks. Those who repeatedly discharge their anger and frustration at others here will find themselves suspended and, if absolutely necessary, banned. That's how it works.
Perhaps you should focus on the log in your own eye.
I wholeheartedly agree that the obvious, and admitted, anti-Mulcair bias of the moderators is a serious problem here.
I wish we had a mechanism to ban them.
Talk about smearing.
What would you call attributing criticism of a candidate to being the surrogate actions of a campaign?
And can you think of a reason I should not take that as PERSONALLY including me? Presumably, most of all me?
And since I am the most vocal, who does that leave for being the Topp campaign operatives here? Catchfire and Rebecca West, those in the thick of it Dippers? The Rabble editorial staff in general? "Which blogger should we get to smear Mulcair, and what's a good topic?"
I know!
Its Brilliant Brian. He's doing it all from the sidelines. Pulling the strings, without any of the anti-Mulcair even knowing they are being manipulated.
I'm amused by the fact that most of the complaining we're hearing in this thread is by the Mulcair campaigners who have been dominating all of the NDP Leadership threads with thousands upon thousands of posts. Boo hoo hoo, you've been so silenced.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to Mulcair supporters that along with the advantage of being the frontrunner, you also have to put up with the scrutiny and criticism of his weaknesses that comes with that.
Edited to add: I just did a quick tally in the current NDP Leadership thread's 63 posts. 28 have been by declared Mulcair supporters. That would be almost HALF the posts in the thread. Yes, Mulcair never gets a fair shake on babble - no one can get their point of view in because of those biased moderators!