Leash Length
Comments
I think everything has been said that can usefully be said about the problems of saying the public has been misled without being superior about it. Useful discussion.
No one has picked up on my second point: the ruling "Do not call other babblers "numerically challenged." If I were to refer to a poster as apparently numerically challenged, is that really "personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling")"?
And who ever said, or even it could be reasonably construed said, that they dont think people are being misled?
There is people being misled; and there is people being too stupid or their brains too solely dedicated to the protection of their personal well being.
And to me what was being said is always loud and clear both of those. The second part is extremely offense, so who gives a fuck that the first part is also there- as a mere statement or indication no less?
There is something deeply funny in an ironic way to read posts attacking people for the language they choose to use when in reality it seems what they really don't like is some challenging them.
You entirely miss the boat there. It sure as hell isnt the content of the disagreement that gets me to blow a gasket, let alone I'm being disagreed with [Oh dear, I'm getting disagreement on babble.]
And there are a number of other people it seems to evince the same dynamic.
I can talk about the 'mechanics' of how people are misled till I'm blue in the face. I've done it in quite a number of conversations here. But I'm not going to be able to do it with someone can only do it while sneering at "the great unwashed". And I guess unlike a lot of other people around here, nor can I always just let it go by.
No one has picked up on my second point: the ruling "Do not call other babblers "numerically challenged." If I were to refer to a poster as apparently numerically challenged, is that really "personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism
This is a good illustration of how it cannot be a clear cut, or even close, list of labels that are offensive.
In most peoples hands, it would look like a puzzling comment, possibly made in passing. But coming from someone who regulary belittles the intellectual credentials of babblers, both personal and pointed and generally, that same label is not the same thing.
I really don't want to close this thread, so for the last time, please do not single out individuals.
...but have not called out those failing to do so. That's what I am talking about, but I have made similar points a number of times before, so I'll desist.
What would you have us do? Name names and haul everyone out for a public flogging?
It's not about age or perspective or a rigid set of rules that must be dogmatically enforced. It's about how we treat each other. If an individual finds it too difficult to communicate here without sneering condescention or barbed attacks of a personal nature, we warn, we remind of policy, warn again and then, for good measure, remind and warn again. Eventually the individual will get the boot.
Babble is a place for the exchange of ideas. It is not a crucible for bitter vitriol, unresolved anger issues or contempt for the ideas of others.
Was it worth going back that far to play gotcha?
That may be a very good treatise on observing the spirit over the rule of the law, and I agree with it, in spirit. But all that notwithstanding, it is still not okay to say the word "fire" loudly in a theatre, or "bomb" in an airport. And although I have my own set of rules about words, I probably don't need to repeat what I feel about the rules there are here.
Bottom line for me is most of us have the $10 it costs to ante up for a website.
I wasn't playing "gotcha". I agree with what Catchfire said in 2010. You obviously don't.
So do I. And I remember that mostly awful thread. It was characterized by baiting and provocation and anti-worker animus. I stayed out, for the sake of self-preservation.
My apologies M. Spector. It's just that without any commentary regarding your position, and the obvious work that went into your research I just assumed it was a gotcha.
And I said I agreed with it - in spirit. That is to say, most of the time, most of the people are going to comply with the rules based on the spirit. It is only now and then that it has to come down to hard proscriptions. I think anyone who has ever had to apply a set of rules understands that distinction.
Again, it's the bomb in the airport thing, or a couple of choice words I could toss out right here if I wanted to pretend it was an issue of free speech.
Yeah, those workers are just a bunch of dumb fucks, aren't they? They'd all vote for the Ontario Liberals or Conservatives even if those parties wanted to freeze their salaries and degrade their pension plans, rather than vote for an NDP that stood up for collective bargaining rights and decent pensions.
So we might as well be content with an NDP that does no such thing, and instead participates in the Great Misleading along with Dalton, Steve, and the rest.
I interpreted "misled" to not be a blaming it on the masses thing so much as the people doing the misleading. I see a lot of difference in misled and unread-- in spite of how they nicely rhyme.
I totally agree that the context should be the issue not the term or reference as Unionist suggests. Then it remains the message more than the words and that also avoids accidental offense. We judge what people say by what they are saying and not how they are saying it.
And this is the message:
The terms used grated with me the first time I heard them. I oput up with it quite a few times until I blew a gasket. Probably when I was directly involved in the discussion... and it was something like"but tyou afrent taking into account [the stupidy] of the Great Misled.
I think it is interesting that people whose judgement I trust see it as referring to 'the misleading' rather than about the [stupid] misled. They dont come much more sociologically and 'structuarly' inclined than me, and I've always been that way. And I think saying that he is talking about the misleading is horeshit. But I frankly do not know how to account for the difference in opinion.
Maybe its the fact that I've been working class my whole life. Thats where I grew up. Thats where I work. That is the people I live among. If I wasnt a lifetime activist I probably wouldnt rub shoulders outside my class. [Instead, its that schitzy thing that my activist life is predominately with people who are not working class. That's a dynamic/story in its own right, but something I'verarely had personal difficulty with... even the pervasive low level classism, and sheer ignorance of a lot of people I work with as an activist.]
By and large there is a sensitivity to classism here. But maybe the difference that Unionist and I find this SO offensive is that its just a little too close the bone. I've never worn my class on my sleeve. I rarely get 'charged' over that from something that someone has said in a group dynamic. Considerably more so over racism. There is SO much I just let go by. You have to.
But I guess that means when the threshold of what I can and always do tolerate is crossed, thats it.
Something like that.
One thing most of you would never run into.
I've had more than a few occassions in my life, where I've been thrown into a situation with some professional or some top management person, who does not know anything about me. For whatever reason in particular the conversation comes around to things that would generally be seen as beyond the ken of the 'hardcore working class'.... but I happen to know at least as much about the subject, and able to articulate that, as the formally educated person in question.
But I look, dress, and to a casual observer 'talk' hardcore working class. And because of that, sometimes individuals literally do not hear me. I actually get a big kick out of this. I cant remember that I have ever pushed someone's nose in it like they deserve. I just get my private enjoyment and laughs, and walk on.
G. has got more restrained of late. Back when he was unrestrained it didnt stop at the Great Unread, there would be sneering and not at all oblique comments that I did not know what I ws talking about because I didnt have the same overweaning adulation for the authored and referenced word. [Come to think of it there have been recent instances of that- during the leadership races that I know nothing about economics... "couldnt possibly read the business pages" and other horseshit no one should be subjected to, let alone the pigheaded irony of subjecting me to it.]
Anyay, as shamelessly personal as those attacks were, they never bothered me like the refereneces to the Great Unread and the Great Misled. In fact, I laughed to myeslf the first few times and that was it. Bt unlike those peacocks that quickly pass through my real life, this one keeps coming back for more offense.
I am certainly not arguing about what was intended -- just saying that is how I read it. Like everyone, I read through the lens of my own biases, interests, personal family history and concerns.
I do think that public deception is a huge part of what makes our society function in a way so prejudicial to the bulk of people in it.
Much as people used to say religion was the tool of the deceivers, old ideas of religion have been replaced with state religions of economic theory designed to benefit a small minority. Without mass deception bordering on brain-washing, I don't think our society would be like it is.
While we may have essentially the same core conclusions it may be that we are coming at them from very different bases.
And not everyone that is seeking social justice comes from a working class background. The sensitivity to it is not universal. And even where that sensitivity exists, actual experience is not universal. Some grew up in a working class background and that is how they are informed of social justice. Others have arrived, or are still arriving from a different perspective. Some seek to reject any notion of class and are opposed to recognizing it because they think that is a dividing line that is unhelpful.
I grew up in a family affected by chronic illness and we became poor. My father was an artist and my mother a social worker-- both came from families that in previous generations had been well off. Both were socialists but not working class background. I look back recognizing some biases and no doubt I am oblivious to others. My knowledge and sensitivity is somewhat limited by my experience although I remain a learning being.
I say all this in the hope of trying to explain some differences and allow for bridges between people who may be closer to each other than they might appear in some respects but held back by experience, bias, and other cultural constructs that we all have to admit exist. These barriers are part of my understanding as is the feeling that deception is part of the process -- along with the power of money, inequality and lack of opportunity. I wish I could offer more unifying words but all I can do is to say that many people have come to approach the reality that most here believe in from different directions. We see different things and are touched off by different realities. None of us are perfect, and none of us are fully aware of the sensitive spots of others because we cannot help but project a little of our understanding and experience on each other even though it is often not there. Many people who insult other people do not do so out of malice but rather blindness. This is why teaching moments are preferable to punishment wherever possible. When someone is difficult to reach that still offers opportunity to reach observers while we try to reach them. Sometimes we end up reaching ourselves when we are trying to convince others.
I am not going to get in to the history of a single experience or past disputes with an individual person because the Mods are quite right in saying that should not be what this conversation is about.
We should just remember the value of diverse opinions even when we find them abrasive, or offensive. This is especially true when we find that there is a lot we can agree on.
I hear you Sean, but (and believe me, I am in part playing devil's advocate here) there are limits to that. I am sure you don't need me to provide an example because we have all provided enough in real life.
The thing is, we all have our hard and soft limits around that, and obviously not everyone here is going to feel their interests are met by the standards of this site. It is, at best a compromise. But it is the best we can hope for.
I feel exactly the same way, Ken, and I know what you mean. At bottom, it's the precept that "we" should be teaching the workers, rather than learning from them. It's an attack on everything that we stand for, live for, fight for.
And we know this because it is impossible for Canadians to be deliberately misled.
Politicians and their friends in finance and industry never lie, and Canadians always have the advantage of possessing perfect information through our fourth estate who, in turn, always relay facts and absolute truths to the public. And if not the lapdog news media and their distortions and omissions, then by rumor, hearsay, and family tradition for voting the way they do.[/HELlo?] Let's insult Canadians no further.
Thanks for finding that quote at post #30, M. Spector. This is still how I try to operate, both as a speaker and as a moderator. With varying, always, degrees of success.
I support what was in the quote.
I don't think we should be working from a list of terms that should never be used-- however if we are to which is what it looked like where the argument was going, then the list should be available to all.
I do prefer a test of context, meaning and how it is understood.
It is very important that the last part of this be the priority-- so if people feel oppressed by words used then they can ask the speaker to re-frame -- if the speaker refuses then it is an indication that the speaker is oppressing them on purpose.
I would not assume that most expressions will do this automatically but if there are words regardless of context that will cause this reaction and they are not widely known then have a list of those-- however most will be the context.
But there is also a question of goodwill and I assume it to be like this:
We should assume that we are all learning and changing and that we can reach and change the opinions of others. For this reason when someone expresses something, past ignorance on their part and past mistakes should be very carefully considered so that we do not hold a person who is here learning and changing in their own past. A good rule of thumb is to presume good intentions and good will in every statement regardless of history unless there is present evidence to the contrary.
There is something deeply funny in an ironic way to read posts attacking people for the language they choose to use when in reality it seems what they really don't like is some challenging them. The term pompous and ancillery terms have come up several times. Surely these posters aren't trying to mislead themselves and others as to their real objections.
As I have stated a number of times, the real problem with moderation and why it creates problems on babble is because it is enormously selective. Gaian has been personally attacked several times in this thread alone, in a thread both moderators are participating in, yet nothing. (Look at the terms used in serveral posts describing Gaian, not his ideas or point of view). It is human nature to see the best in those we like and the worst in those we don't. I really don't blame anyone for that. But please, please quit pretending there is some grand defense of certain values in it. There just isn't, not in these kinds of things. If you think people aren't misled by the MSM, then you must never watched a newcast. There is no blame in being misled, but it is a reality we need to recognize or we will never, ever get anywhere.
In fairness the Mods have specifically in this thread reminded people not to make it about a single poster.
...but have not called out those failing to do so. That's what I am talking about, but I have made similar points a number of times before, so I'll desist. Like the other seniors in this thread I guess I see the world a little differently. I have seen ebbs and flows in public engagement and understanding of issues. We are at a particularly low point for the great majority of people. People are afraid. They fear the loss of what they have. Simplistic answers appeal to them. We are just beginning to see a change coming. It is on the horizon, but it isn't here yet. I fear it is going to have to get a little worse yet before we reach a tipping point. Hate that it is so, but I fear it is. If you aren't sure ask yourself who the average person blamed for the economic collapse. Was it the international financiers and their greed and rigging of the system. Some did, but a lot more blamed the poor, the unionized and the vulnerable.
I didn't think it needed to be explained, but I guess I was wrong. The issue is not whether people are misled by the mass media. Of course they are. The issue is whether one then goes on to dismiss the vast majority of the population as unthinking, uncaring, selfish thugs because they have been misled — and then uses this "misled" meme as a way of denying the possibility of meaningful social change every time someone proposes such change.
It's cynical and elitist. It's anti-worker classism. And it's against what babble is supposed to stand for.
M. Spector if that is what Gaian did then fine but it is important not to put words or intentions into those of others. If you want to engage with others it is better to moderate their viewpoint rather than characterize it in the most extreme way possible. We are having exactly this discussion in the Ontario budget threads right now. Find what you have in common and bring the person to it but to push them away with extreme caricature's of what they have said won't move them.
In her autobiography, "The Rebel Girl", Elizabeth Girly Flynn(the early 20th Century U.S IWW orator-and inspiration for the song of the same name by Joe Hill) pointed out that, in the working-class immigrant tenements of New York City at that time, people could generally afford to feed their kids, OR to buy soap so they could wash, but not both(Flynn herself, an Irish immigrant, had been raised in those tenements). This observation puts that expression in an entirely different light.
[quote=M. Spector
... The issue is not whether people are misled by the mass media. Of course they are. The issue is whether one then goes on to dismiss the vast majority of the population as unthinking, uncaring, selfish thugs because they have been misled ....
where the hell did that come from? the use of the term "tgml" does not imply any of that. it simply implies that, well, they're misled. and, they're GREAT!
selfish thugs?? it's sneaky spin that should be banned. or disfavoured anyways.
i get the "rabble is not a free speech zone", that's partly why i'm here.
i get that language is very important, that words can oppress or free. many times on this board i've seen outrage at a perceived or real slight or ism, which is responded to with more vitriol and innuendo and slights than the original slight.
it's noted, and it's a big part of how i judge people's true character. that and "how people treat those in positions of less perceived power than themselves". sorta like ken was saying.