Censorship
Why was "UAW sets unions back decades" thread locked? Keystone wasn't being disrespectful and his thread was relevant to the forum. Are threads that don't share the point of view of the rabble community normally locked?
While Keystone may have been misinformed in his original thread about what's happening with the Big 3 and the UAW, I don't see how his position justifies locking the thread. He wasn't disrespectful, trolling, or spamming. In fact, he wasn't really union bashing either.. he was criticizing the actions of the UAW, but only because he believed it was setting unions back.
Again, I'm not defending his position, I'm defending open discussion, even with those we may disagree with, as long as they're not being disrespectful, trolls, etc.
Reading some of his previous comments, I find this hard to believe. Besides, a troll doesn't write in paragraphs, they write 1-2 sentences for the sole purpose of annoying members of the community.
I only wish that was always the case.
Thread topics that condemn workers for refusing to slash their freely-negotiated compensation to match lower wages in the Deep South are anti-worker and anti-union. They are not allowed on babble - never have been.
Especially in the face of crippling concessions the UAW made last year, where new hires will earn one-half of current employees doing the same work. The CAW accepted wage freezes for 3 years, but thankfully did not follow that horrible example of the UAW. If anything sets back the cause of unions for decades, that may well be it.
It is perfectly legitimate to debate whether or not governments should bail out struggling auto manufacturers. But to blame the workers and their union for standing in the way of profitability? Take it to some site where people clip coupons and watch their investments grow - just stay the f*** away from babble.
What's next? "Uppity women's organizations set back cause of women for decades?" "Muslims don't realize how well-treated they are in this country?" Right.
@Unionist, I completely agree with what you're saying about the situation that's happening with the auto makers, but based on his post, it seems like his blaming UAW was based on ignorance. This doesn't mean it's anti-labour or anti-union. He felt that the UAW was acting against the interests of its workers and setting back unions. I don't see that as anti-labour or anti-union, I simply see it as a misunderstanding of the situation and mass propaganda the UAW is facing down south.
Why not simply correct him, then let him respond.. or just ignore? I don't see why the thread needed to be locked. I mean, it could have even turned into a very informative thread for those new to the site and have also heard the common belief Keystone was expressing. C'mon, based on the guys past posts, he's clearly not anti-labour.. he was simply misguided in this post, which itself wasn't anti-labour, and I think correcting him should have been enough. I don't see why locking the thread was necessary.
The thread title is offensive - isn't it? Good enough reason to lock it. Meanwhile, two other threads opened on exactly the same subject, and the discussion can carry on there.
Now that you mention it, here was his previous post before that. I can't quite figure out what he's saying, but it doesn't sound very healthy either. But I'm not judging him - just his thread title. If it was based on ignorance, that's cool. No one is stopping him from posting and finding out more.
Yes, it definitely DOESN'T mean that unions can't be criticized on babble. Unions do not censor or have any say in our editorial content, and unions and their leaders have been quite harshly criticized (from the left, and from a pro-labour point of view) on babble. Just look at all those Buzz Hargrove threads if you don't believe me. :)
Just where would we find those threads, Michelle, hm?
As René Magritte would say, "This is not a tag line". Only he'd say it in French. You may find it rather annoying to have to discipline yourself to ignore parts of certain other people's posts - but not everyone's. Wouldn't it be better to abolish them?
@Slumberjack: Although misinformed, he was criticizing their actions in this one instance, I don't see how his post was an attack on management practices, abysmal trade agreements, and corporate corruption. In fact, his only criticism appears to be that the UAW should be taking cuts now because the companies may go under which will effect all workers. Again, it's misinformed but it's still only criticizing their actions this one time. If someone criticizes the NDP party for joining the coalition, does that mean they're anti-NDP? No. So why is his one criticism of this one thing all of a sudden anti-labour, anti-unions, etc?
He even says right in his first paragraph "They've given the right wing all they need to make unions look like villains for the next fifty years". In otherwords, he doesn't think unions are villians, but he believes the UAW's action in this one instant will feed that perception. I mean, his whole first paragraph expresses fear that the unions may suffer... that sounds pro-union to me. Really, I don't see the "attack on labour, faulting them for poor management practices, abysmal trade agreements, and corporate corruption" tone at all. All I see is one critique on UAW's actions this month which he FEARS may hurt unions altogether in the long run. If he took this to a right wing forum, as Michelle suggested, they would probably tell him "you're making it sound like this is a bad thing that unions lose their protections".
@Michelle: My only concern is, why was a thread that was expressing a very common misconception about the UAW's latest position, but in no way offensive (unless criticizing the UAW's current position is offensive to some) locked?
Just to show the difference between what he said an what an anti-union person might say:
He wrote: "They've given the right wing all they need to make unions look like villains for the next fifty years"
Anti-Union guy: "They've given us all we need to expose unions for what they are for the next fifty years"
Big difference.
Anyways, I'll let him defend himself if he get a chance to see this thread. I'm just saying, maybe we should be a little lenient on the lock button.
Threads where posters support the use of capital punishment are anti-human rights and anti-progressive. They are allowed on babble. I wonder why...
I don't support the death penalty. I hope you die peacefully, in your sleep, of ripe old age.
I do, however, support the dumb penalty.
Excellent. Maybe you could say that in the thread about Cuban human rights. There are some people over there who do support the death penalty (for Cubans anyway). In the USA, no frikken way. But Cuba's cool for some reason.
Anyways, this wasn't at all the jist of the conversation, his post wasn't at all an attack on management, but on the workers, so I see that you're a little confused.
It's never a babble thread until someone brings up Cuba.
If you're reading this annoying tagline that's because I've become convinced M Spector has lost his marbles.
No one here has shown me anything in specific that he wrote that was an attack on all unions, all labour. On the contrary, I've shown how his first paragraph clearly indicates that he's not anti-labour, anti-union.
Perhaps you can't read coeus, so I will repost what cue said in the now closed thread.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Cue wrote a rebuttal to Keystone's original post. Good! That's called having a discussion. The topic of THIS thread is why did that discussion have to end by the powers of a moderator? If this is your example of someone showing me how the post is anti-labour and anti-union, I'm sorry but Cue only implies it. He starts off noting that Keystone is blaming unions, but this is not the same as being anti-union. As I said, nothing in Keystone's post suggests that he's against the existence of unions and it's clear from the very first sentence that Keystone feels the opposite about unions. If you choose to ignore his own words and rely on the judgements made by others, then I can't help you.
Once again, there's a big difference between being critical of unions and being anti-unions altogether. Keystone showed NO indication that he was anti-union and only showed the opposite in the very first paragraph he wrote.
I'll repeat:
Criticizing the UAW and the workers who support their current actions is not the same as being anti-union. Criticizing Jack Layton and those who support him in his latest actions with the coalition is not the same as being anti-NDP. Only the Sith deals in absolutes.
Anyways, I see my efforts are futiles.