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
Have you ever met a guy named Magoo, Sven?
ETA: The issue is one of respectful listening. An art I am not always as good at as I should strive to be.
If people are serious about not having trigger words used on babble, then, as a practical matter, there is really only one way of dealing with that: Putting a list of the specific trigger words directly into the babble policy. Otherwise, unless a person was reading this specific thread, no one would have a clue that "dirty," for example, is a trigger word that should be avoided.
Yes, this. This exactly. Thank you, Caissa.
Adjectives that attempt to dehumanize a person or group of people. It's not really that difficult.
Thanks Dostoyevsky.
One would think so if one didn't know better.
And thanks, Caissa. Yes.
I would actually support a policy that prohibited language that dehumanized individuals or groups. But, as a rhetorical tool, dehumanizing opponents is highly effective and, as such, it is used all of the time, including on babble (if calling a person "dirty" is dehumanizing, which I think it is, then calling someone an "asshole" is no less dehumanizing - yet I bet I could find fifty examples of that on babble very quickly).
People are routinely called "assholes," "pigs," "fuckers, "terrorists," "extremists," "rich," "welfare queens," as a way to dehumanize individuals and groups. And babble is no different.
So, is there really support here for stopping the use of dehumanizing language? If there is, then it really would be "that difficult" to implement such a change because the practice of dehumanizing people is pervasive.
We don't use 'pig' in thread titles anymore. It's a hold over from when thread titles appeared on the rabble home page. I think some people were offended on behalf of pigs when we were discussing the police, and it seemed we were able to arrive at a concensus based on extending respect toward their concerns.
I'll tell you what, Sven: I'll draw up a list of words and their commensurate offence value (COV) optimized to a maximum offence value quotient (OVQ Max) so that you know how many times you can use each word in a post before you go over the limit. It's a complicated table, since the OVQ varies depending on weather and proximity to statuatory and religious holidays. It also varies depending on the income, ethnicity and gender of the speaker. Still, it's easily quantifiable and I'll do anything to help you out.
By the way, my last paragraph hoped to demonstrate that you are not a productive member of this conversation. Sadly, no one thinks your questions are asked in good faith. Those of us who are here in good faith are trying to navigate a complicated and hostile world order which seeks to divide and immiserate us. We are trying to find a way that doesn't happen. It's a tough slog, though, and we don't need jackasses gumming up the works.
You see, Dostoevsky? It really is "that difficult"!
I'm triggered by the word "Sven".
You know we don't often hear that kind of talk from the mods. I like it! In general though Sven.
FTR: I was using the word "jackasses" in general and not directed toward any particular individual. Any assumptions to the contrary are purely voluntary and in no way sanctioned by the moderator.
Well, keep up the good work anyway.
LOL @ Maysie.
dammit i don't wanna feel empathetic towards Israeli aggressors. i know better. yet my inner self rebels at the use of 'dirty" towards them coming from settler's mouths. then i find myself going places i don't wanna go.
i don't understand what's so hard to get 'bout speaking from an empty place and people rejecting it? is there no self-reflection possible in those settlers who make a point of calling themselves "progressives"?
years of exploitation and dehumanizing of others by the use of the word "dirty' have made it into a destructive word. let's try to be better than those who came before us.
I know from being around children recently that some people certainly like to make things difficult but I tend to expect more from adults. For someone always going on about choice - I thought you would realize that you can simply choose not to dehumanize anyone with the language you use.
So, is that the advice you'd give to quizzical, too? In other words, she should forget about other people using "dirty" and just focus on not using it herself.
Wow. this is a sad thread.
The opening post was polite and laid out a problem with a simple solution.
It is not a lot to ask to have people listen to what is being said and respond appropriately-- the idea that we would need a formula for that is sad too.
If you step on someone's foot and they say ouch-- do you really need a formula to know that the response is sorry and not to do it again rather than gee your foot is too long-- or why should it hurt you, everyone else has steel-toed boots? No you apologize and stop doing it. This one seems fairly straight forward. When someone is hurt you don't evaluate why or question if they should be-- you, acknowledge it, stop it, then look for insight.
I realize it is possible that in we might at some point forget or have not read something and make a mistake but that is different than being hostile to the request and inflexible in response.
Sven please don't continue this -- it is not a debate question or a sport or a challenge to you. Someone is sharing that they felt hurt and is asking for a little respect. Are we so far gone as to be unable to give it without fighting it?
Are you really this obtuse? Why does the fact that the word upsets Quizzical bother you? It has nothing to do with you.
So, if someone uses the word "fuck" (or any other word of your choosing) and another babbler is genuinely offended by the use of that word, then, according to your standard, we'd all have to refrain from using that word.
Is that really the standard you are advocating?
Actually, I agreed with quizzical that using dehumanizing language should be avoided. But that type of rhetoric is pervasive here (although it is not peculiar to babble).
It doesn't bother me. My point is: If we are going to stop using "dirty" to describe an individual or group (because it is dehumanizing), then why would be stop there?
Sven, I don't find your contributions helpful in this thread. Please stay out of it from now on.
That means that other babblers should stop addressing Sven's posts (or calling him obtuse) since he can't respond any more. Thanks.
It seems apparently in my case quite difficult, so I will again explain - there was no 'attempt by my adjective' - there was a simple, common, universal term widely used and understood by most people as being an apt and suitable description for any reprehensible war criminal, group of, act by, or president of, as in 'dirty' or fouled by their crimes. We have perhaps seen it also with 'dirty' politicians, 'dirty' lawyers, 'dirty liars' 'dirty' rats, 'dirty cops', 'dirty' capitalists, 'dirty' bankers,'dirty old men', 'dirty rapists', 'dirty child molesters' 'dirty f***ers' 'dirty' thieves, 'dirty' sneaks, 'dirty' snakes', 'dirt landlords', 'dirty bosses', 'dirty pigs', 'dirty dogs', dirty' sellouts, 'dirty'Cons, 'dirty' Commies,'dirty Reds' 'dirty Nazis''dirty' butchers, 'dirty hustlers', etc ad infinitum. And yes, 'dirty Jews' 'dirty Arabs, 'dirty Hajis', 'dirty Gooks' 'dirty talibs', 'dirty Indians, 'dirty hippies', 'dirty immigrants', 'dirty welfare types' 'dirty niggers'','dirty Krauts', 'dirty Wops' 'dirty Chinks', 'dirty Honkeys' 'Dirty Japs' 'dirty' yankees, 'dirty bitches', 'dirty pricks' 'dirty' Canucks etc. etc. In this case it was clearly describing a 'dirty' Zionist warcriminal on a 'dirty' Gaza warcriminals list. As for these persons being human, obviously - undisputed so no 'dehumanization' involved. However, what about a 'dirty' war by a 'dirty' state or its dirty Zionist war criminal kid-killing military attache that DOES 'dehumanize' with complete impunity by legislation, ideology or outright mass murder and ongoing ethnic cleansing against Indigenous Palestinians, the true owners of that land and then attempts to discredit and demonize critics as 'dirty' anti-semites'? Or 'dirty terrorists' , or 'dirty terrorist supporters' etc? It was NAKBA after all yesterday in case anybody here noticed amidst all the concern and imputations to the oh so problematic 'adjective', There sure as shit wasn't much criticism of the dirty Zionist war criminal or others here or in the media - in truth there hardly ever is in Canada - even by NDP leaders and some other self-styled 'progressives.' These could also be described as 'dirty'. It should have been duly noted that that there was not a word of recognition from any of our 'dirty' politicians. No concerns or criticism expressed of barbaric Palestinian human rights conditions inside 'dirty' Zionist prisons or in the 'dirty' Zionist entity itself, referred to by itself as 'the only democracy in the Middle East'. In short, and to conclude my 'defence' against these 'dirty', self-evident truths. Truth is an absolute Defence and as Emerson said, 'it is the privilege of truth to make itself believed'.
fk it nm. how can ya dialogue with someone who thinks e1 can be dehumanized and labelled 'cause e1 has.
Nice self congratulatory rant. Yr utter lack of humility is very off putting. I'm done.
And thus we lose more voices here
Hi quizzical, if you're still reading this, I read what you first wrote and thought it was bang on. I've been really enjoying your perspective so I hope your leave is only temporary. If not, peace, and thanks for dropping by.
I wasn't sure where to post this amaaaaazing blog post and figured this thread needs it the most.
The Revolution Will Not Be Polite: The Issue of Nice versus Good
Important distinction- a must read for sure.
I think you could say part of it this way:
Having people be nice to you and being nice to others is a privilege. It is pleasant. It may or may not get things done. It is not essential although certainly enjoyed. Sometimes it is confused or combined with social order which is what keeps things the way they are-- injustices and all. Nice is a tool used to prevent conflict when sometimes conflict is required in order to create change.
Unfair advantage through privilege is not a right. It is often enjoyed with or without recognition. And it is not deserved.
Human rights, respect for equality, having opportunity and social justice. These are not privileges -- these are rights.
This is why it is so frustrating when some people get in to conversations and act as if they are arguing two sides of the same coin. often it comes down to one side arguing for "niceness," social order, privilege, status quo -- all things that are not necessary even if some of them are pleasant to some people. The other side is arguing for human rights, equality, opportunity and justice-- all essentials. There we pit convenience, pleasantness on one side and survival on the other. No wonder so many simply don't get the battle at all -- in part because they have nothing more than the superficial invested in it and nothing more to lose than convenience and pleasantness. The other side has everything to lose.
When there is a disagreement it is worth noting the differences between what is apparently at stake for each side.
Then we have irony: the reality is that justice is not something that only one side has a stake in -- it is the integrity of our relationships, what we are, our humanity. But for many in the conversation they only see what they have superficially at stake and, without recognizing what others are saying or why, assume there is nothing to the conversation other than how nicely we get along today. Unfortunately, there are those who promote "peace" in the same way. This is why we say "no justice -- no peace."
Nice can be an oppressive chill over what needs to be done.
We are considering the impact of nice (peer-pressure to shut up and maintain the status quo) on racialized power but it also applies to more general economic "class" injustice and sexism. Asking people to be nice is frequently about saying to them shut up about the problem and pretend it is not there so one group can continue with all the benefits, advantages, privileges they had before.
Maysie thanks for posting this.