Leash Length

Its implicit in what you say and ask Life that this would be a wide open judgement call for anyone- no matter what.

It would appear that you dont think 'poster in question' has a track record of frequently showing contempt of the ideas of individual babblers. And/or that he is no worse than the run of the mill behaviour around here.

If so, that is a substantially different assesment than I would make. That isnt news. But what do we do about that difference?

Where is this concious balance?

Yes.  And no I don't think the most egregious violators are the ones who are always called out.  Some of them get a complete and utter pass on everything they post, over and over and over again.

As far as I know moderators are human and have not yet been replaced by our coming robot overlords.  So I expect them to make mistakes and to have a bias.  That's human nature.  But what has developed on babble is almost a kind of machoism culture of my way or the highway.  I see no evidence of self-examination.  When questioned I have yet to see a occassion where moderators have said -hmmmnn, maybe we/I over-reacted or were wrong.  Not once.  This kind of insistence on rightness is neither progressive or helpful.  For all of us but our robot overlords bias occurs.  It is clear if you follow along and aren't as prolific posters as some.  So some egregious violators get nailed every time they put a toe over the line, and others are left to their own devices.  Point out the differences and you are attacked, not the catalyst for self-analysis.

I'd be down with 'The Great Subjectification.'

Ken is making some very important points about the impact of comments that dismiss people in a place that is supposed to be inclusive.

What makes his point important, for me, is that he is speaking about a bias that is a prevalent world view elsewhere. This is judgment based on who you are and what education you have rather than what you are trying to say and the merit of your ideas.

It is something that places like this need to address in order to hear each other. It is fundamental to why we are here.

Our treatment of the topic does not have to be limited to banning and punishment-- it should be also about trying to find alternate ways of getting this point across than pitched battles over punishment.

This offering had such a salutary effect over in politics as the Great Unread thread that I thought I'd repeat it here: A quote from the creator of the thread: "I've never heard it explicitly explained who The Unread are." --------------------- May I say, as the one being pilloried, how glad I am to see that admission by the thrower of rotten cabbages. And before I'm hit with another egg from the outraged gallery, let me make my case in some depth. Clearly, my explanation of my beginnings and pursuit of analytical correctness does not overcome the perceived crime of political incorrectness. I came on board in October, 2007 as George Victor,and during the following four years contributed fairly steadily to the Book Lounge. I had depended on reading a wide variety of non-fiction works since retirement in 2003, and continued to pursue the slothful habit as a member of the board of Cambridge Libraries and Galleries. When the late Joe Bageant came to my attention,I understood that this fellow out of the hills of Virginia had found the language and style that would begin to explain to liberal America what the about-to-emerge Tea Party was on about. His Deer Hunting With Jesus was advanced to babble, but brought a cautionary note from Farmpunk that it likely would offend sensibilities. And the reaction was indeed mixed. Looking around his fellow hill folk, Joe pronounced the backward as dumb as a bag of hair. Fortunately, there was not a policy of burning the books of someone so obviously a progressive - pronouncing on the worst of Republican Conservative sins - while writing in a delicious down-home style, not given over to niceties. (By the way, his newest posthumous work, a collection of his e-essays found on his website, Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball, has just become available. ..$21 and change at your local independent bookstore. I know...groan.) Anyway, I knew that the language and descriptors of Joe Bageant would not fill the analytical bill in circumspect old Canada, but I could see what what the liberal (small l) crowd were missing. An honest attempt to explain/understand the apolitical/extraterrestial expectations of folk who were struggling to understand the takeover by finance capital and the conflict arising (cultural war seen by Bageant in the U.S.) around them. For a reader, swha could be a more natural term to turn to than "unread." But let me make sure that the reader here understands that the "unread" on my block are all of those denizens of Silver Heights' semi-detached who, toiling at a variety of jobs, tend to watch TV (often American) and who, in conversation, do not understand what is behind the pronouncements of der leaders. And it's not just the residents of the semis on Poplar Dr. The "unreadness" extends into the more exclusive real estate and - Gaia help us - the students. Another New Democrat and I sat near a student nurse hitting the books at a coffee shop where a few of us prepared to meet Tom Mulcair. The name meant nothing, of course, but one could immediately forgive the 19-something because from conversation, one could see that she would someday become a very competent nurse and perhaps help save your butt in some OR. No, the Great Unread, like the Great Misled, was an attempt to partly counter the idea of a homogenous electorate, developed hereabouts, one ready to leap to the barricades, en masse. It was in such an exchange that my existence here was threatened. It was carried on last night by others - while this contrite board member - who has sworn not to use the terms again, and is committed/reduced to lengthy explanations to the "numerically challenged," also "verboten" - of the political makeup of the real world. How lucky we are that this is not Virgina, where a large part of the pupulation is no longer talking. No, the term never was meant as a putdown of any social group, but as a means of explaining -in the face of MSM dominance of thought and the exchange of ideas - why not all are able to resist the now daily propaganda of the shills who define our situation for the Cons who are moulding our world to fit their objecdtives. Probably this won't satisfy all, but if I'm called a liar - and the comments out there, in their usual, hinting, innuendo form have come close - I will have some names in return. And I await any questions, because I feel that if this group of intelligent folk known as babble cannot overcome the strictures on this one,after this explanation - and to hell with what those outside our circle think - telling it like it is will remain a laborious, painful process."

That isn't exactly what I said, although I do think that if someone sees something as totally adversarial and dictatorial there is a point at which one has to re-evaluate the situation. 

Of course we should all try to make this a better place, and I think some of my comments here make it clear I don't think one should just accept things or leave.

But obviously for some it is not the right fit, and there is nothing wrong with that. And sorry, the internet IS a big place. Rabble is a good one, and it serves its purpose. But it cannot be all things to all people, and it is certainly not all things to me - no slight intended, because it is a good place that is worth working for.

(edit)

I guess my gut feeling is that if the constructive work starts to get eclipsed by hair-pulling and finger-pointing and hurt feelings it becomes less and less worth it, since that original purpose is lost.

 

 

 

Both of us have apologized for bad calls.  Most recently it was me, apologizing to NDPP -- both publicly and privately -- about a bad call I made.  And and yes, it is the most aggregious of offenders who get called out.  Everyone loses it once in a while, but some babblers make it a regular habit to lose it on someone else.

And, as I pointed out earlier, not everyone gets raked over the coals publicly -- When something is of a more sensitive nature, or privacy issues are at stake, we take it to PM.

Babble, like everywhere in life, isn't fair.  But it's the best we can collectively do, and we Mods are always trying to find ways to make it better. Either way, I think it's pretty damned special as online discussion forums go.

I think it's a polite way of referring to someone who does not understand numbers very well. And there are plenty of intelligent people who are numerically challenged. I've met people with university degrees who are not very good with numbers or mathematical concepts in general. It does not mean that they are stupid.