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.
Input on thread title appropriateness for rabble
May 9, 2012 - 11:29am
guess the next post is it
logged on this morn to find this ewey thread title:
North Carolina affirms marriage as a sacred union between a man and his sister
and i found it to be repulsive in the extreme on a bunch of levels.
fisrt off incest is no joking matter. second off i think it trivializes the fight that same sex partners are facing. thirdly relates to the first in its insensitivity towards girls and women who've experienced sexual assault by their brothers and other family members.
it is a duplicate thread can it be closed?
I agree. Not funny, not appropriate, on several counts.
Y'all ever been to North Carolina?
And inaccurate.
In North Carolina they have to at least be first cousins (though not double first cousins, in case anyone was wondering) and at least age 14.
Shall we comb all of the titles for appropriateness?
Oh, let's!!!! That would be fun!!!!
No, but "joking" about North Carolinans being incestuous probably crosses a line we could agree on here? What next - jokes about farmers and sheep in some rural riding because they don't like the LGR?
I dunno. Maybe there's more important issues to worry about. The thread title irked me when I saw it. I don't care that much whether it's censored or not, but the discussion isn't bad.
I was irked by the "Dirty Zionist" one myself. Maybe we should have an ongoing thread where we can critique thread titles.
Wouldn't work. We'd never agree on its title.
We could make all of babble an irony-free zone, much like at least one other thread already is.
I doubt that's even possible, unless you mean intentional-irony-free zone.
I protest offensive thread titles by not participating in them - unless I'm feeling piqued enough to have a look. Usually I just scroll past anything that offends me. I'm old, and just don't have the energy to get involved in arguments about this crap.
I thought that was your job.
I'm considering starting a thread about raising swine. Any suggestions as to what I should call it?
It appears that quizzical wants to work my corner.
Pigs that won't fly?
Hogs on a hill?
The North Carolina thread title is clearly sarcasm, intended to imply that North Carolina voters are more upset about gay marriage than about incestuous marriage. If that were true, the thread title would be entirely appropriate and 100% acceptable to me.
But since it's not true, it's inappropriate.
In my opinion, truth is always a valid defence to charges of inappropriate sarcasm. Sarcasm is a powerful rhetorical device that, used appropriately, can have a brilliant effect on people's appreciation of the truth.
Any reaction yet from South Carolina?
Well I don't think any of them are pushing to get back together again, if that's what you are wondering. It has been almost 300 years.
quizzical, in answer to your question, I think the thread is in bad taste, but, sadly, taste isn't policed on babble--at least not officially. I don't think it violates babble policy, except that it looks dupicate.
How can you close a thread after using epiphenomenally in it?
Juxtapolitically.
Since you brought this up, this seems like the appropriate thread to discuss it.
I suspect your objection is fundamentally rooted in an assumption, whether conscious or not, that the word "Zionist" is a cryptonym for "Jew". That is certainly a false assumption. Not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists.
It is a false assumption closely related to another false assumption: that anti-Zionism is essentially anti-semitism under another name.
We have had many threads in the past discussing the meaning of the word Zionist. I don't propose to turn this into another one. I will just say that it has been well established for many years on babble that
• Zionist is an acceptable word to use;
• Zionists include non-Jews as well as Jews; there are probably more of the former in the world than the latter. Referring to someone as a Zionist is a political statement, and not an allusion to their race, religion, or any other personal characteristic.
• Zionist is not per se a term of abuse (like thug or scumbag), but rather an ideological label (like Conservative or libertarian)
• Zionism is akin to imperialism and colonialism, and in its modern connotation, includes support for Israeli expansionism and the persecution of Palestinians, in furtherance of the goal of creating a proxy state for western imperialist interests in the region. Opposition to Zionism is therefore entirely in keeping with rabble's policy of embracing "a pro-human rights...anti-racist...anti-imperialist....stance".
In the circumstances I think your objection to that thread title was ill-founded. I think Catchfire was off base in criticizing it as well.
I know you'll never believe this, but as a kid I used to piss off my teachers royally in situations like this:
what d'ya think is the 'bad taste' about it? serious question
t'anks for closing it anyway.
.
Is "epiphenomenally" a real word?
1. Poststructuralist epiphenomenology of porcine animal husbandry
2. Off the Pigs!
3. NDP leadership race, #147
*ding ding ding*
And we have a winner!