I love babble

MegB wrote:

So thank you to all of you who make babble a great place. To those who try to make it a highly disagreeable place, fuck you very much. I'd also like to thank my brilliant, warm and compassionate colleagues, our rabble staff, who make working for the organization both a privilege and a pleasure.

That is all.

♥

Yeah, that notification popped up on my Facebook. I miss her, too.

I think people's continued presence speaks for itself. Beyond that, it is an open playing field at this point. My opinion anyway. 

Obviously I haven't given up on it, but at this point it has the biggest nest of trolls and idealogues of any place I frequent. Not saying that to slag, because again, I have no intention of flouncing; I am well beyond that. But it sure is a hard place to have a straightforward discussion.

But again, like a lot of others, I am here. Probably doesn't sound like a compliment, but it is, when you consider it would be easy to fuck off.

Admittedly, babble is slightly "MySpace" era technology, but what's still cool about it is that it's like an interactive news site of a sort.  You don't just read an article, you can discuss and debate it too.  And that can be frustrating at times, and there are shortcomings, but I don't think we'd be better served with some kind of live chat model, or 3D avatars walking around a Minecraft world talking or whatever.  I've changed my own mind, even if only by a little, so much more often after discussing the issue here than I ever have after simply reading a story somewhere else.  It's still, overall, a good thing.

Maybe he was being facetious. Never can tell around here.

I guess that makes 0 and 2.

I was talking about Unionist's impromptu call.  I certainly consider it an important forum. Can't say as I like a lot of what is going down here at the moment. It's not like there isn't flak on facebook and other places, but it isn't constant like it seems to be here of late.

So "love" isn't the first word that springs to my mind.

I'm always happy to discuss ways of making everyone's babble experience better.

Unionist wrote:

*bump*

It is time for a quick dose of this thread, IMHO. And I'm re-reading my last post, and actually like it. I wonder if it's worth discussing.

 

It is a good idea.

I have found that posters often post to where they think the greatest number of people are rather than where the topic really should be. This is understandable but unfortunate. I am thinking of provincial things in federal politcs threads or news things in politics threads.  It may take a while to get the people who post articles only to post in dedicated threads and of course there will always be a judgment call as sometimes there is a discussion that really suits a link. Still I agree with your idea in place of all these threads opened just to post one article where the opening post does not even discuss.

I've noticed that the online Toronto Star now tags some of its articles as "Opinion".  Given that people turn to news sites for news first and foremost, I think that's a good idea.  Nothing wrong with columnists offering opinion or analysis, but there's a huge difference between a news story that tells you that churches in Sri Lanka were attacked on Easter and an opinion columnist who purports to analyze why on our behalf.

What's most disappointing about the proliferation of links in place of posts at babble is that the vast majority turn out to be links to some blog or tweet that offers nothing more than an opinion (typically in agreement with the poster).

If I really want to know what some other person on the internet thinks about things, I can follow their tweets or bookmark their blog, or I can even encourage them to post at babble.  But is it really necessary for a babbler to demonstrate that they've managed to find at least one person who agrees with them?  To what degree should I be more swayed by a babbler's opinion if that babbler found a Facebook page that repeats that opinion?

I think there's some crossover between this and the "Like button" topic in another thread.  I see both as dumbing down babble.  I find it hard to appreciate or endorse anything that explicitly minimizes actual discussion.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I've noticed that the online Toronto Star now tags some of its articles as "Opinion".  Given that people turn to news sites for news first and foremost, I think that's a good idea.  Nothing wrong with columnists offering opinion or analysis, but there's a huge difference between a news story that tells you that churches in Sri Lanka were attacked on Easter and an opinion columnist who purports to analyze why on our behalf.

What's most disappointing about the proliferation of links in place of posts at babble is that the vast majority turn out to be links to some blog or tweet that offers nothing more than an opinion (typically in agreement with the poster).

If I really want to know what some other person on the internet thinks about things, I can follow their tweets or bookmark their blog, or I can even encourage them to post at babble.  But is it really necessary for a babbler to demonstrate that they've managed to find at least one person who agrees with them?  To what degree should I be more swayed by a babbler's opinion if that babbler found a Facebook page that repeats that opinion?

I think there's some crossover between this and the "Like button" topic in another thread.  I see both as dumbing down babble.  I find it hard to appreciate or endorse anything that explicitly minimizes actual discussion.

I like the idea of finding ways to get more opinions and analyis -- perhaps by seperating posts that simply pass on news. I am not sure how to that.

We need the cooperation of the people who really like to read and post straight up news without adding much by way of opinion. Perhaps if we could convince north Report -- who is the one with the most news links to let us know what he could see as something that would allow him to be happy seperating the links maybe we can get that cooperation.

Maybe it is something like split screens where there is a column for analysis and a colum for news posts on that topic? Where would the interpersonal stuff go as there is lots of that as well?

I really like the idea of keeping both apart from analysis as that stops the analysis which si the purpose of this place from being derailed.

I am not going to say that people cannot get into fights becuae that is going to happen or that people are not going to respond, or that people are going even to agree on who is responding and who is instigating. It is about not having others go through messaging which will not happen when something is posted publicly.

One option is to have a thread start and have two collapseable threads within it -- one for the more individual exchanges (whatever we call it) and one for the news. When posting you hit a button analysis, individual exchange or comment and news which decides where it is posted. If you make a mistake the others could ask you to select the other button or a moderator coudl do it. It is still visible to those who want to see it but easier to skip and threads not derailed.

Of course this is a dream idea for some distant future when such changes can be afforded in time and money.

Quote:

I like the idea of finding ways to get more opinions and analyis -- perhaps by seperating posts that simply pass on news. I am not sure how to that.

If what you mean is more opinion and analysis by babblers, I would agree.  To me, an ideal thread would begin with a link to some actual news (what happened, where, who was involved) followed by some opinion or analysis of this ("Here's why I think he did that..."), followed in turn by some discussion (which could include more links to supporting facts).

What we get instead is a link to some non-babbler's podcast, which we're presumably supposed to spend an hour listening to with the promise of being woke.  Or a link to what some other website thinks about what happened.  Or a tweet from a washed-up entertainer and their thoughts.  That's what I think we could survive having less of.

I do not want to read a link where the poster is not willing to share and defend an opinion about the article's content. I almost never read links where the poster has not taken the trouble to say what they think and why they posted it.

Very often people are using the title or a quote to say something they cannot defend and do not want to so it is a free chance to post something without accountability that would be shredded if they posted it on their own name but now they can say just posting it for interest. I absolutely HATE it when people do it. I consider it dishonest. I don't call people out for it as I would be doing it with every second post but this is what I think.

I do not respect posters who post controversial statements over other people's names in the guise of quotes or links rather than their own.

I am not naming names here -- there are quite a few. It is sneaky and they think they get away with it but they damage their reputation here in my view. I do not know what others think so cannot tell if others feel the way I do..

WWWTT wrote:

Here’s a suggestion 

word count limits for a comment 

This is not twitter where you pack in all your snark into 144 characters or less.

I wish I could say that I love Babble. I love what it could be and what it was at times. I don't love what it has become. This is a problem as I have shown disrespect for the place becuase I no longer fully respect it. I am sorry. I should give up on trying to influence a different direction.

I also note that snide remark posts, partisan cheerleading without new ideas, and posts of articles without conversation are prefered. Longer original posts of substance that are thought out are either attacked or ignored. What is the point of working on something if the people here would rather not have it? Example, So a thread about what we can do to improve the environment -- I put up after a lot of thought something like ten possible ideas. No disagreement or conversation. It is like I didn't bother. There was a time a list of policy proposals would get someone interested. A fight, now -- oh yes, a pile on -- lots of interest there... Some people seem to not like fights but is is the truth that little else has any engagement here. The others are all gone becuase it is pointless posting anything else.

There was a time when you could have in depth policy discussions and ideas that were not just partisan attacks. Then  people were happy to read something thought out. People appreciated the thought and work at times. Now the only people here are just pissed because they have a few lines to scroll over.

There was also a time when this place was truly open to people across the left -- now it seems that there is little room between people with a very narrow agenda, mostly to police what other people think, show how bad imperialism is and how much they are better than that -- and party partisans.

The middle left -- the group that the NDP, for example, want to have support them are showed that they are not welcome here.  That is not to say anyone here wants to say imperialism is a good thing but surely there is something more we can do than come up with examples of why the US and the UK are imperial bastards? What if you know that already? What else is there for the left to come up with?

Here if you use a word someone else has decided to delete from the vocabulary you will be attacked and your words consigned to the trash. This is so serious that the words of an article written by an African  about his part of the world, who had a lot of interesting things to say, were completely blown away because the article dared use the words "Sub Saharan Africa" Becuase we don't like the word we are not interested in all the person had to say. What a pathetic place Babble has come where that is acceptable.

Language is something to learn from and to evolve. It is not something to beat people over the head with and to reduce conversation to ignore others. Not if you want an open place to bring people in rather than throw them out.

There are words we do not use here and principles -- we can educate rather than shut down when someone uses a word we don't like unless it is one of the small list of words only used by people who want and expect to offend. Other words are teaching moments not excuses to attack.

Here a defense of PEI being attacked becuase it is too small was shot down becuase of the Acadian expulsion of more than 250 years ago. Really? How many people living on PEI today are any more involved in the British imperialism of the 18th century than those in, say BC or Ontario? What a mockery we make of the principles many of us hold dear to use them as weapons to attack others even when the are not relevant.

This place has become an echo chamber where the only sound we hear is someone shouting another person down becuase they used the wrong word or did not have the most perfect opinion.

I don't really know what to do.

I do not want to leave -- I tried that before and I miss what this place could be. I don't know how to stay when I am so often so angry that there is no productive purpose being here. Certainly if I had felt this way when I was first here something like 16 years ago it would have been an easy decision. It is hard to accept that this place and what I was investing time in and the relationships that used to be here are not here any more.

In any case I will have to think about this. At this point the site is not good for me and I am not good for the site.

****

I posted the below in the PEI thread but moved it here:

It is pointless to have to continue to argue as to why it is not okay to say that a small province (in a thread for that province) is not worth the interest of people here.

It is not the idea that they should or should not exist as independent province (that was only offensive becuase it was tied to comments that we should not even give them any time here)-- The idea -- This site which discusses people all around the world and politics across Canada, including byelecitons, would spend any time interested in a provincial election becuase the place is too small -- is now controversial.

I won't continue to be the only one to argue this.

I won't continue to post my absolute disgust with this place given that the only people to come into the thread were defending this.

Keep up the excellent efforts, Sean. I do not waste any time on the spammers who have nothing original to say themselves but I always read what you and other original idea posters have to say. A platform like babble allows fellow minded Canadians to take the pulse of the nation on critical issues.

Sean, you don't improve the tone and quality of a message board by attacking people. That doesn't mean you can't be critical. For example, you can tell someone it's wrong to steal a chocolate bar but putting them in jail for it is an over-reaction. The manner in which you chastise people is excessive in relation to whatever crime it is you think they have committed. 

Now that's an interesting thought.  How did we decide which way is up? Who decided?

Pondering wrote:

Now that's an interesting thought.  How did we decide which way is up? Who decided?

You’re joking right? The people that decided rhymes with right by the way. 

WWWTT wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Now that's an interesting thought.  How did we decide which way is up? Who decided?

You’re joking right? The people that decided rhymes with right by the way. 

I think you might be mistaken about that. Mercator was not the first cartographer.

Given such a long history of human map-making, it is perhaps surprising that it is only within the last few hundred years that north has been consistently considered to be at the top. In fact, for much of human history, north almost never appeared at the top, according to Jerry Brotton, a map historian from Queen Mary University, London and author of A History of the World in Twelve Maps. “North was rarely put at the top for the simple fact that north is where darkness comes from,” he says. “West is also very unlikely to be put at the top because west is where the sun disappears.”

Confusingly, early Chinese maps seem to buck this trend. But, Brotton, says, even though they did have compasses at the time, that isn’t the reason that they placed north at the top. Early Chinese compasses were actually oriented to point south, which was considered to be more desirable than deepest darkest north. But in Chinese maps, the Emperor, who lived in the north of the country was always put at the top of the map, with everyone else, his loyal subjects, looking up towards him.  “In Chinese culture the Emperor looks south because it’s where the winds come from, it’s a good direction. North is not very good but you are in a position of subjection to the emperor, so you look up to him,” says Brotton.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-...

Looks like we got ourselves a good old fashioned thread drift debate going on now hey?  

https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/why-maps-point-north-on-top/

I shouldn’t do this because it’s thread drift but that last link I posted didn’t drive my message as intended. Let’s give it another go

http://sociologyinfocus.com/2014/03/your-map-is-racist-and-heres-how/

https://www.logosnow.org/7831-2/