A Rabble Reaction

Yes, well we can always dream.

The Rape in Syria Thread

Just wanted to voice an objection to Fidel's latest suspension.  By all indications, speech is difficult enough among the female posters in that forum, let alone for anyone else.  But this hair trigger sport where Fidel and others are concerned is unseemly.

Fidel is a repeat-offender and has been told not to post in the Feminist Forum because he does not respect its mandate - yet he posted again and practically begged to be suspended.

He, once again, insulted the forum, calling it "code for pro-imperialism, anti-communism" and suggested that it was full of man-haters, violating both the FF mandate and babble policy. All of the above - taken singly or on the whole - are grounds for suspension.

Apart from that Slumberjack, your defense of Fidel doesn't hold much water since you yourself have been asked not to post in that forum.

We're not talking about other forums. We're talking about a forum with a very simple rule - discuss issues from a pro-feminist perspective. Anyone who does not understand what pro-feminist means is invited to educate themselves and participate. Those who are unwilling to do so and persist in posting in violation of this mandate are told to leave. Keep coming back and the poster is suspended.

There are only a few forums that have this kind of rule. The FF is one of them. The overwhelming majority of babble is pretty much a free-for-all.

Complaining about these few mandated forums, this tiny fraction of the board with a few simple rules designed to keep the worst excesses of babble's dominant culture in check, speaks to an enormous sense of privilege and entitlement.

(I could just cut and paste the above, as I post it several times a year. )

Well, I think we have to disagree that the rest of Babble is a free for all.  It's governed elsewhere in much the same way, except that certain zones are set aside for occasional and arbitrary exercises of power that serve as general reminders to all.

I've been making similar observations here for over a decade as well.  The go-to solution of superimposing one form of domination over another continues to endure practically everywhere.  My suggestion is that this should change.

What happened to Debater?

Thank you Unionist.

Debater was re-instated several days ago. By saying that women will vote according to who is the most attractive male candidate he not only insulted women's political intellect, but also assumed that all women voters are heterosexual. That in and of itself isn't a suspendible post, but having the offensiveness of the remark explained to him, refused to acknowledge that it could be offensive to anyone. Repeatedly refused. That's what earned him his timeout.

I think it's touching that babbelrs are defending Fidel's tendency to assert anti-imperialist politics with anti-feminist rhetoric and conspiracy-theory paranoia. I think it would be nice if people would defend the anti-oppression politics that we all pretend to espouse with equal vigour and determination.

NDPP wrote:

The chilly climate being cultured here sees progressive discussions shut down while bourgeois, pro-imperialist, authoritarian collaborationist views are allowed to proliferate. This is far more toxic and stultifying than allegedly bad 'behaviour' or anything else in my view.

Bourgeois pro-imperialist authoritarian collaborationist views? Yeah, I can see that, if Solzhenitsyn wrote an episode of The Simpsons parodying Stalinist Russia. Otherwise, not so much.

Slumberjack, your objection has been noted. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I disagree with your characterization of the feminism forum that it is "set aside for occasional and arbitrary exercises of power that serve as general reminders to all." And of course I disagree with your metaphor which suggests that moderation on this board is akin to oppressive geopolitics generally ("The go-to solution of superimposing one form of domination over another continues to endure practically everywhere"); in fact, I think that kind of heightened rhetoric (exemplified par excellence by NDPP's absurdity above) makes actual discussion with moderators difficult.

The moderation of the feminism forum isn't arbitrary, but it is more direct. Even Fidel knew he was being offensive, and prefaced his post accordingly. I'm not sure why others would fail to notice what Fidel did. Part of the problem is that we don't have as strong a feminist presence here as we once did to remind us simply through its being and voice what it means to be feminist and to have feminist conversations. As a result, I feel the feminist discourse is mostly instrumentalized here: about this or that policy, not saying this or that word. Not, for example, actually talking about things, discursively speaking, in a feminist mode of speech which respects feminist views and speaking positions like a fish swims in salt water.

I would argue that making a fuss about every small move a moderator makes to try to guide us in a different direction (moves which are getting smaller and les and less frequent) is not helpful in this sense. That defending hostility to the idea of a feminist forum because it comes from babble's favourite eccentric is hostile to the board's mandate itself. I would argue that if you're worried about board politics or whatever, picking fights with moderators might be a fun way to get one's rocks off when conversation about Julian Assange drags, but it's a pretty shitty way to improve site culture, which, presumably, is the ultimate end goal of a thread like this.

Catchfire: I mostly agree with you. And I don't much appreciate posts ridiculing or harassing the mods. It's destructive in countless ways to what we're about here.

But I'd like to make a couple of comments, recognizing my take may be right or wrong.

1. Mods, I think, should look at the whole picture. In what you said above, you ignored Michelle's contribution to the Syria thread in the FF.

2. As we all know, all of babble must be women-friendly. Not just the FF. I think the FF is where male posters must consciously stand back and let women's voices predominate and be heard, without having to outshout the boys.

3. All of babble must be anti-imperialist. That includes the FF. While opinions may, do, and will vary as to what that means, it is (IMHO) unacceptable that pro-imperialist (or racist or homophobic or anti-worker) opinions be given a simple pass in the FF. The critique needs to be sensitive to the nature of the forum - but it must not be simply prohibited. I think that was Michelle's point in different words, and I think it's fundamental. If we don't agree on that, let's talk about it some more.

4. When mods intervene to uphold babble policy, they should (I think) be very specific - who they're talking about, what the problem is. Making general blanket exaggerated statements can be unhelpful. This happens rarely - but when it does, it causes nothing but damage. I'm not going to post examples here from recent days, because I don't want to start a fight. All I want to say is that it's called "moderator" with good reason.

Catchfire wrote:

I would argue that making a fuss about every small move a moderator makes to try to guide us in a different direction (moves which are getting smaller and les and less frequent) is not helpful in this sense. That defending hostility to the idea of a feminist forum because it comes from babble's favourite eccentric is hostile to the board's mandate itself. I would argue that if you're worried about board politics or whatever, picking fights with moderators might be a fun way to get one's rocks off when conversation about Julian Assange drags, but it's a pretty shitty way to improve site culture, which, presumably, is the ultimate end goal of a thread like this.

A simple objection was raised, not a fight, and certainly not a revolt.  I and others felt that Fidel had otherwise made some valid points in the offending post concerning the varying uses of western propaganda with respect to violence against women.  There was an attempt at least to consider the scope of the issue, and of course hackles get raised because that's the way we're wired to respond, and what we tend to do in fact.

Slumberjack wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

 Are you arguing that feminists, aboriginal people or sex trade workers shouldn't have a space where they can be relatively free of the forces that attempt to dominate them? That this somehow infringes on your sense of fairness?

Of course.  That's what I really want to turn Babble into, a manly man's dick swinging parlour.  Why is it that every conversation needs to take this route?

I think if you had to come in here to work 6-7 days a week and had to deal with the abuse queue, with all it's pleas for moderation, you'd see that it's already a "manly man's dick-swinging parlor." Mercifully, you're spared that.

Enough to have that type of language deployed constantly to describe speech.

I'll never understand why posters who report other posters feel the need to tell everyone in the thread about it.

Seems like  naaah naaah I'm telling.

OathofStone wrote:

I'll never understand why posters who report other posters feel the need to tell everyone in the thread about it.

Seems like  naaah naaah I'm telling.

^^^ nodding, vigorously, in agreement. The only exception being a little "the above has already been reported as spam" entry... I have written a few of those myself thinking it might save the mods from multiple alerts about exactly the same thing.

What I find even less understandable are the "threats" to report something.... "if you do that again I'm telling your mum". Either someone has crossed the line, or they haven't - if they have, take the appropriate action - otherwise engage them on the substance or ignore them.

I called your mom bagkitty, your in for it now

sherpa-finn wrote:

on the international pages, nothing less than a hard-core old-school leftist line (I couldn't tell you which faction we're talking about - the IS?) seems tolerated. The views of mainstream socialists / social democrats are not. Just to illustrate with a couple of egs,- a few days back I cited a report from a progressive think tank affiliated to the British Labour Party - so a group effectively located several paces to the left of the NDP - and I was basically called out as an apologist of the Iraqi War. Not helpful for deepening a discussion.  A few days earlier I had cited Ed Broadbent's work on human rights and was denounced again as a toad or lackey.

As I have said elsewhere, I am a big boy, so can and will give as good as I get.  And I'm happy to match my anti-imperialist credentials up against those of any of my critics. Hear that Catchfire? (Oops, - was that lapsing into dick-swinging? Sorry!)  Anyhow, I  personally find such efforts to silence divergent views wholly unhelpful for cultivating a conversation.  Which possibly confirms impressions that I am a bourgeois liberal, but so be it.

First of all, let me declare my admiration that someone who has been with babbler for so short a time can levy such a withering, comprehensive critique that we have in no way heard countless times before. Might I suggest that instead of taunting the moderator (again), you might spend some time here to learn the board culture before speaking ex cathedra.

The point you seem to be missing is that babble is not here to listen to a diversity of voices as you describe it. Indeed, this is written into babble policy which you agreed to when you signed up last year: babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought.

We have no interest in hearing Tony Blair defend the Iraq war, because we choose a different starting point in our discussion in the interests of developing the conversation on the left side of the spectrum. I should also say that you seem decidedly unable to see the differences inherent in what you contemptuously call the "hard-core old-school leftist line." I think that all those you group under that title (which is against babble policy, incidentally) would be amused to think of themselves as politically homogeneous. I can think of a few who would not be amused.

But all this is silly, since, of course, you are still here, and you have been permitted to write your opinions on this board without fetters -- censured only when you choose to ridicule those who disagree with your position. That's what isn't allowed here. You've been encouraged, but not forced, to consider a real, robust anti-imperialist position, and you've refused. Yet Lo! You are still here!

sherpa-finn wrote:

 But on the international pages, nothing less than a hard-core old-school leftist line (I couldn't tell you which faction we're talking about - the IS?) seems tolerated. The views of mainstream socialists / social democrats are not. Just to illustrate with a couple of egs,- a few days back I cited a report from a progressive think tank affiliated to the British Labour Party - so a group effectively located several paces to the left of the NDP - and I was basically called out as an apologist of the Iraqi War. Not helpful for deepening a discussion.  A few days earlier I had cited Ed Broadbent's work on human rights and was denounced again as a toad or lackey.

Sounds like you've encountered what some refer to as the politics of refusal, meaning the refusal of common cause with anything announcing common cause with deadly imperialism, to wit the NDP and the British Labour Party.  For some, merely introducing these two entities in particular to a discussion with the expectation that their policies and actions be received from a leftist perspective, is to invite critique, justifiable in whichever form it will take imo.  Mainstream socialism simply doesn't exist where it's been thoroughly compromised.  The NDP will benefit from finally realizing this soon enough, by steamrolling the word socialism into the pavement they're driving over.

ETA:

Quote:

A few days earlier I had cited Ed Broadbent's work on human rights and was denounced again as a toad or lackey.

Rebecca West wrote:

Fidel is a repeat-offender and has been told not to post in the Feminist Forum because he does not respect its mandate - yet he posted again and practically begged to be suspended. He, once again, insulted the forum, calling it "code for pro-imperialism, anti-communism" and suggested that it was full of man-haters, violating both the FF mandate and babble policy.

Yes that was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. And I admit to being a serial poster in the FF -after posting just last week and the time before that...last JUNE! But I did say that "I sometimes think that" it is code for bla bla and knee-jerk reference to man haters. But then I wrote "I mean..." which was meant to clarify what I was actually concerned about, and that was being told off about posting 'drivel and conspiracy theory.' U.S.-backed war crimes from last century to this one are not conspiracy theory - it's part of the historical record, pattern and precedent etcetera. There are truth and reconcilation commission reports on those war crimes for everyone interested to gaze upon at their leisure. However, I refuse to debate that with you or anyone else here. Socialists and human rights advocates martyred during the dirty war years will not go gently into that goodnight on your say so.

The following comment by Catchfire illustrates exactly what I meant, and more specifically about being ridiculed, browbeat and mocked by moderators for what are not just my beliefs about a modern day invisible army of darkness, or that one which no mortal human bean has actually verified to exist in actuality,  as in an actual court of law with witnesses and testimonies and all the legit evidenciary proceedings recognized by countries not politically affiliated with the UsSA in this time of colder war military aggressions by the empire of good and enlightenment for humanity known as the U.S.-led NATO which now finds its "defensive" nuclear-armed military forces wandering well beyond the North Atlantic region.

Catchfire wrote:

I think it's touching that babbelrs are defending Fidel's tendency to assert anti-imperialist politics with anti-feminist rhetoric and conspiracy-theory paranoia.

Leslie Hughes anyone? Are you sure you're not a Liberal Party plant sent to monitor unAmerican activities on babble? Wink

It's not just me who posts "conspiracy" theory concerning the modern day imperialist empire peddling trumped-up pretexts for military aggressions. Other babblers have expressed similar opinions. Apparently you disagree with not just me but a number of other babblers as well. And I think when you browbeat and make derogatory references about me, you are spreading that unlove to your other clients here namely other babblers concerned about imperialist military aggressions based on false and phoney pretexts in the style and manner of fascist dictatorships of recent history. You should think more of the people depending on you to facilitate discussions and not shepherding us into conforming to your narrow frame of political thought.

And now I must return to reading Paulo Freire and Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It's a very good read.

ETA: Michelle, Julie Levesque, Slumberjack, NDPP, bagkitty, Kropotkin,  Unionist, Ken Burch and some more of you,  what more can I say? You ARE the truth! The truth is right here on babble!

Sineed wrote:

It's not a discussion in a political context that's the problem. It's the higher burden of proof some babblers seem to require to believe allegations of rape when the perpetrators are perceived to be on the left. So if, say, American soldiers in Afghanistan are accused of rape, everyone here presumes guilt without question. But if Hugo Chavez was accused of rape, then the level of skepticism is high.

This was posted in the thread about rape in Syria. I had to respond to this outrageous statement but that thread is not the place to have that discussion.

American soldiers have been implicated in rape in many wars, going back to the Indian Wars (or Indian Genocide ) and the Mexican American war and those crimes are well documented. The evidence from Vietnam is clear that some American forces rapes women in that country as well. The pictures from American soldiers themselves in Afghanistan show gross examples of rape and sexual assault. So if one accuses some of the soldiers it is natural to think well its happened before so it might have happened again. It has nothing to do with political views but merely a reaction to past crimes.

The idea of comparing that to Hugo Chavez should have no place on babble. He has never been accused of rape and given that he has been accused of every other crime under the sun how can this gross statement fit under the mandate of this board. What the fuck is it with vilifying this man who lead a democratic socialist party to electoral victory after electoral victory?

Now if you wanted to compare it to say the response of some people on this board to allegations of rape against Julian Assange then it might be a valid point.  One could even compare it to allegations that Jack Layton hired hookers while married to Olivia. At least those have a factual basis for suspicion unlike the nasty innuendo against Chavez that was posted on this board.

Fidel wrote:

Yes that was an unfortunate choice of words on my part.

Welcome back Fidel. The bad news about it is that I'm beginning to confuse your two day suspensions with weekends. Many of us who complain about this or that act of moderating are not taking swipes for fun, or taunting, as it was compared to. We're saying something was done in the community that we're part of that we didn't agree with. Now we know from past and recent experience that Rabble has often wielded an authoritarian glove in the context of the Babble community. We're under no illusion that this is a collective or a democracy when it comes down to it. But people are compelled to speak out no matter what, whether it's miniaturized situations like this or the full blown monty of a dictatorship, the globular economy. In our entire history of social imbalance, the committee was also always present. I'd consider it an improvement if the moderators understood these exchanges and our position within them as well as Empire does, so that they can better understand from whence we speak, so as to not conflate it with workplace harassment, or having a dig at someone's expense.