*** DISCUSSION ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Life, the unive...

This proposal might be taken more seriously if it wasn't started by one of the masters of personal attacks masquraded as 'aw gee shucks I was just pointing to errors in thought" and then goes crying to the mods the moment someone returns in kind.

West Coast Greeny

Caissa wrote:

To what?

The resolution.

I support the idea of banning personal attacks, say, by giving a member a warning to just stay out of the thread. Mods will have a lot more work than they used to.

I really don't like the idea of ending the practice of suspending members. I think its the most useful way to keep the board under control. How do you ultimately enforce a rule without suspending someone for breaking it? 

 

Unionist

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

This proposal might be taken more seriously if it wasn't started by one of the masters of personal attacks masquraded as 'aw gee shucks I was just pointing to errors in thought" and then goes crying to the mods the moment someone returns in kind.

The proposal was started by Michelle.

But I find it interesting that you judge proposals by who proposes them rather than by what they say. That's what also how unquestioning partisans of political parties or sports teams or nationalities or religions view the world. Not saying you do, of course. Just noticing a similarity.

 

Unionist

West Coast Greeny wrote:
How do you ultimately enforce a rule without suspending someone for breaking it? 

By encouraging people to follow the rule; by mobilizing the community to support that behaviour; by reasoning with the individual who has problems with the rule; and by trying out reason and persuasion for three months rather than suppression. Who knows - you may be surprised. But when you reject the idea out of hand, your life will be comfortably devoid of surprises.

 

George Victor

I still think that "banning" someone from a THREAD after two cockups would make like easier for Mods AND posters.

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

I still think that "banning" someone from a THREAD after two cockups would make like easier for Mods AND posters.

I have no problem with that notion, and it's entirely consistent with the resolution above. We give individuals a time out if they can't act in cooperative fashion in a discussion. We don't exile them from the island. I think it's worth trying for three months. If it fails, we can try something else. If it works, we'll all be the better for it.

 

Life, the unive...

Unionist wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

This proposal might be taken more seriously if it wasn't started by one of the masters of personal attacks masquraded as 'aw gee shucks I was just pointing to errors in thought" and then goes crying to the mods the moment someone returns in kind.

The proposal was started by Michelle.

But I find it interesting that you judge proposals by who proposes them rather than by what they say. That's what also how unquestioning partisans of political parties or sports teams or nationalities or religions view the world. Not saying you do, of course. Just noticing a similarity.

 

Nice try.  But reading this thread and your contribution is a bit like listening to Don Cherry complaining about someone's clothes being too loud

Unionist

You know, I tried to make peace with you in another thread, but it just can't happen, can it?

polly bee

Life, The Universe.....did you know that if someone tries to pm you, you don't exist?  Babble breaks your name after the commas, and apparently we don't have a babbler named life, or one named the universe....

Unionist

Yeah, I mentioned that to Life... I tried to send a PM to make friends after he confessed that he actually paid attention in stats class. When it wouldn't allow the PM, I had to embarrass myself by cuddling up publicly... But it's ok, it was short-lived apparently.

ETA: [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/topp-cherry-and-ford-plus#comm... it is![/url] Maybe some mod could fix your account, but of course only if you want to receive PMs...

siamdave

The idea of some kind of limits on language is a good one, I think - people who try to intimidate through aggressive language just drive people away, not necessarily from fear, but through simply not being willing to lower themselves to that kind of level. But PC 'let's all play nice, now children, or mommy will spank!' notions should be kept at long arm's length from any such rules - a little barbed sarcasm ("You seem to be reading too quickly..' or something) shouldn't get mods all in a huff, while things like 'You fucking moron!' and etc should be curbed very quickly. IMO. Sure there's going to be fuzzy stuff, but if we could at least stop the worst of the aggressive intimidation language, that would be a good start.

Alt idea - put a top level division into the threads - maybe a DIS preface for people doing an opening post who actually want to talk about ideas, and an SF preface for people who just want a street fight of some kind, where the only rule is whoever is left standing at the end of the day, where ideas are laughed at as loser talk and s/he with the cleverest putdown insult rules baby!! Those of us who find such things an adolescent waste of time could avoid them - and those who prefer this style of 'talk' could keep away from the DIS threads, or keep a lid on their language if they want to participate. Or quickly get the boot from a mod. (nothing to stop someone from starting a parallel thread on any topic, but with 'their' preferred debating style..)

johnpauljones

what was the result of the original review of the rules in three months part of the proposal? This thread was started over 13 months ago so we should have had at least 2 or 3 reviews. status update please

Slumberjack

I don't subscribe to the notion that the left needs to soft pedal its language or its actions.  The mainstream left in Canada has been doing just that for years, only to arrive at a standstill where they are not even left alone in that condition, but bullied and strong armed like skinny whimps at a muscle beach.  Intensity of thought and a willingness to deploy whatever that may materialize from the process shouldn't be frowned upon and condemned, but seen as a useful part of the overall momentum towards progressive change.  If a few crossed words from fellow leftists is all it takes to sound the retreat, there's not a snowball's chance against the real threats, which pretty much sums up where the left is now.

Unionist

johnpauljones wrote:

what was the result of the original review of the rules in three months part of the proposal? This thread was started over 13 months ago so we should have had at least 2 or 3 reviews. status update please

The trial period was never implemented. That's why I revived it for discussion here.

 

George Victor

Just finished listening to CBC's "The Current" (Radio 1, Toronto).  Got me all worked up, as you'll see from my posing in CBC Nerds.

Question....is there anything in the new formula for democratizing this site...so that whole categories of thought are not immediately categorized? Dismissed? And of course, the pattern of marginalization is happening all over Canada.

 

 

"CBC Radio 1 Toronto "the Current" panel is discussing the death of middle class Toronto, the disappearance of a "middle", the growing impoverishment of the burbs. Sociologists. Political scientists, authors.

All explaining why Ford is in the catbird's seat. Leaving us open to further "opportunistic, facile populism."  People have "lost hope" that following generations will be better off.  The sociologists don't get to the reality of the economic change, of course...nothing like Reich and the new capitalism...particularly the investment capital variety. (Sounds a bit like babble, in that regard..Wink  Heck, someone even said that if a country adds 1 per cent to its population each year through immigration, it has to also be more concerned with education and health etc.

But, of course, one must not touch the category immigration.  Gets you suspended , if not banned.

For anyone interested in Canadian political reality. Hear how its about more than the political leaders, U.S. or Canadian."

 

Slumberjack

George Victor wrote:
But, of course, one must not touch the category immigration.  Gets you suspended , if not banned. 

It's tough to find an audience here that would become enchanted by a discussion surrounding the ebbs and flows of human migration patterns, especially when presented with trace elements of a reactionary framework hammered together with obfuscation. It isn't at all to do with where people choose to live. It's about the exigencies of capitalist profit margins and its woeful track record of environmental stewardship around the world, along with an artificially created political and economic refugee class which has no other choice but to scurry to safety before a machine which chops and destroys everything in its path.

George Victor

In Toronto's case, it's about a building marginalized class...now at 50 per cent and voting for populist, conservative demagogs...The incomers are here for a better life.  Can we provide it?

That (without further destruction of this thread) is what it would be about.  How to provide a better life for a working/middle class that is disapearing into impoverishment.

But carry on with your  own populist ""it's tough to find and audience here" stage direction, jack.

Ripple

I guess I think of the board differently.  I would neither read nor post here if the 'first principles' basis was scrapped. (I know no one is arguing for that, but it would be affected by a 'no banning' policy.) I would like babble to be more supportive.  Because I actually do "street fight".  On the streets.  With people who don't agree with me - I mean, really don't agree with me.  I sometimes get yelled at and called terrible things.  And I don't cower or walk away - as I have sometimes done here - because I expect it to be confrontational. I hold my ground and discuss as far as possible.  I don't want to have to fight all the time here.  Discuss, sure.  Hone arguments, ok.  But I want to feel that I'm among allies. (And for the record, I am not heavy on the "flag as offensive" button and in all but one case have indicated when I've done so.)

 So, I don't know.  I think the mods do a great job.  I think of a roommate I had in Montreal.  We were talking about the distribution of the household chores and she relayed a bit of her mother's wisdom.  "If you think you're doing about 75% of the work, you're probably doing your share." 

Quote:
The idea of some kind of limits on language is a good one, I think - people who try to intimidate through aggressive language just drive people away, not necessarily from fear, but through simply not being willing to lower themselves to that kind of level.

siamdave, "aggressive" language isn't the only way to intimidate.

siamdave

Ripple wrote:

.....

Quote:
The idea of some kind of limits on language is a good one, I think - people who try to intimidate through aggressive language just drive people away, not necessarily from fear, but through simply not being willing to lower themselves to that kind of level.

siamdave, "aggressive" language isn't the only way to intimidate.

- agreed - you have a point?

Unionist

Ripple wrote:

I would neither read nor post here if the 'first principles' basis was scrapped. (I know no one is arguing for that, but it would be affected by a 'no banning' policy.)

Thanks for dragging the discussion back to the topic, Ripple!

To your point: The "no banning" proposal is of course absolutely not intended to give a green light to violation of babble policy. On the contrary, the purpose is to use other means to enforce that policy - community and peer consensus and pressure, moderatorial guidance, moderatorial instruction.

Canada has shown that it can do without capital punishment - and without banishing and exiling evildoers - and many on the left feel it could do with a lot less incarceration and a lot more prevention and other measures. And we don't even, as Canadians, share as "narrow" a set of values as babblers are supposed to share.

A huge part (the hugest part IMO) of this proposal is individual babblers putting their name down and pledging they won't engage in personal attacks. Sure, there will be slip-ups and grey areas. But personal pledges and mutual support can be very salutary.

So, the idea is to just try it out. If it fails, it fails. But you'll never know.

 

Stargazer

siamdave wrote:

The idea of some kind of limits on language is a good one, I think - people who try to intimidate through aggressive language just drive people away, not necessarily from fear, but through simply not being willing to lower themselves to that kind of level. But PC 'let's all play nice, now children, or mommy will spank!' notions should be kept at long arm's length from any such rules - a little barbed sarcasm ("You seem to be reading too quickly..' or something) shouldn't get mods all in a huff, while things like 'You fucking moron!' and etc should be curbed very quickly. IMO. Sure there's going to be fuzzy stuff, but if we could at least stop the worst of the aggressive intimidation language, that would be a good start.

Alt idea - put a top level division into the threads - maybe a DIS preface for people doing an opening post who actually want to talk about ideas, and an SF preface for people who just want a street fight of some kind, where the only rule is whoever is left standing at the end of the day, where ideas are laughed at as loser talk and s/he with the cleverest putdown insult rules baby!! Those of us who find such things an adolescent waste of time could avoid them - and those who prefer this style of 'talk' could keep away from the DIS threads, or keep a lid on their language if they want to participate. Or quickly get the boot from a mod. (nothing to stop someone from starting a parallel thread on any topic, but with 'their' preferred debating style..)

 

This is unnecessary and divisive. Who decides what is "aggressive"? You? because you certainly do that. You also have no problems with personal attacks and the "beneath your level" stance you have is elitist and stinks.

You can't deal with the justified anger, then stay out of the thread (you being the proverbial you).

There are reasons there are barely any FN posters on this board. Because some people get all offended at words and completely and willingly skip the entire message. Not just skip it, but decide that it isn't a message they approve of and damn it, it you are angry no call to act aggressive and piss off the law and order types or the hypersensitive me me me types. These people assume they know best, and then they try to re-frame, control or ensure the anger/message is co-opted by their own dominate one. That's what happens, and that is exactly what you are calling for more of. In the end the truth is uncomfortable, and comes in a big ass package of swear words and hurt. No one has the right to jump all over that and then decide not only is it bad bad bad, it offends the white people and is oh so beneath you.. This board has to find a safe place for people to spew.

 

Think of it this way - a feminist woman poster starts a thread about rape, where she freaks out and says these men who rape are scum. Then that entire thread gets hijacked by men who are outraged, outraged I tell you, that men should be equated with scum. These people want to control the message and thereby they control the person, the emotions and any hope of relief for the wounded party. Hint white dudes: this is NOT always about you and your need to protect cops, whoever from "aggressive" out pourings of emotion.

 

 

Slumberjack

It barely registers as a surprising point to consider that those who are left with little recourse but to emphasize dissent against oppression with impolite wording, are often seen by those who have the least reason to display such irreverence as dwelling on some lower plain of existence.

Stargazer

Exactly.

 

Oh you swore! You used a bad word to describe a powerful group of people! You must be put in your place immediately. Your anger makes me uncomfortable, so I'll hijack your rage and put a pretty white coat of paint on it. Then I'll call you stupid and crass when you can't understand why I'm telling you to shut up and god damn you if you can't control that rage, because the big picture is your rage doesn't matter, but my voice telling you to calm the fuck down - well that does matter. 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Absolutely, Stargazer. It's the same condescending, elitist attitude that can't understand why protesters don't all want to walk nicely between the lines on the road and smile at the nice policemen as they walk by - and then rats to the cops on the ones who don't behave. 

Unionist

If you folks wouldn't mind taking your comments elsewhere? I'd like to see some polite, calm, on-topic discussion here. Thanks ever so much.

 

Stargazer

Hahaha @ U. Kiss

 

 

siamdave

Stargazer wrote:

You can't deal with the justified anger, then stay out of the thread (you being the proverbial you).

...

- or - if you can't manage to control your fucking temper for five minutes, and have to start screaming at people who dare to have opinions or say things you don't like - YOU keep the fuck out of threads where others are trying to talk ....

- the message to babbler mods being - if you want to encourage intelliegent talk here, you have a choice to make - somehow control those who want to try to dominate and exclude any opinion they don't like through the use of aggressive, LCD street0fighting lanaguage - or lose the rest of us

siamdave

Stargazer wrote:

You can't deal with the justified anger, then stay out of the thread (you being the proverbial you).

...

- or - if you can't manage to control your fucking temper for five minutes, and have to start screaming at people who dare to have opinions or say things you don't like - YOU keep the fuck out of threads where others are trying to talk ....

- the message to babbler mods being - if you want to encourage intelliegent talk here (on babble), you have a choice to make - somehow control those who want to try to dominate and exclude any opinion they don't like through the use of aggressive, LCD street fighting lanaguage - or lose the rest of us

- the white man, it should be obvious from any awareness of history, is not afraid of a street fight - but those of us who are a bit more civilized, a stage or two beyond the 'let's get the 2x4s out and settle this outside' frame of mind,  prefer to work out differences through more inclusive means - obviously a lot of people are not capable of understanding this yet and want to drag things back to the Big Man Rules!! stage of civilisaion.... one had thought that rabble/babble would be somewhat more inclined to the 'talk it out' end of the spectruem - but one could be mistaken - some clarification might be in order ....

Ripple

Pulla (Finnish Bread)

 

1 pkg. yeast

1/2 c. warm water

2 c. milk

1 c. sugar

1 tsp. salt

7-8 cardamom pods, seeded and crushed (about 1 tsp.)

4 eggs, beaten

8-9 c. sifted flour

1/2 c. melted butter

 

Glaze

1 egg, beaten

1/2 c. sliced almonds

1/2 c. sugar

 

Dissolve yeast in warm water with 1 tsp. sugar.  Stir in milk, sugar, salt, cardamom, eggs and enough flour to make a batter (about 2 c.). Beat until smooth and elastic (don't worry about small lumps!).  Add about 3 c. flour and beat. 

Add the melted butter and stir in well.  Beat again untill the dough looks glossy.  Stir until stiff dough forms.

Turn out onto a lightly floured board and cover with an inverted mixing bowl.  Let dough rest 15 minutes.  Knead until smooth.

Place in a lightly greased mixing bowl, turn the dough to grease the top, cover lightly and let rise in a warm place until almost doubled in bulk (about 1 hour).

Punch down and let rise again until almost doubled (30 minutes).

Turn out onto floured board and divide into 3 parts.  Divide these parts into three parts.  Roll into strips about 16 inches. Braid the 3 strips in a straight loaf.  Put on lightly greased baking sheet. Let rise for 20 minutes.  Glaze with egg and sugar and almonds.  Bake for 25 minutes at 400.

 

Delicious with coffee, and there's therapy in the making!

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

siamdave, I think you misconstrue use of language with fighting.  If you're somehow conflating using perjoratives for opposing the oppressors you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

And yeah, the white man isn't afraid of any street fight eh?  They sure seem to be when the government speaks. 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Here's White America for you:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZIzD0ZfTFg

 

And pay attention to Eminem's lyrics here vis-a-vis Mr. Bush:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6WY6FvdDA

 

And the real video for better effect:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox0Q4YIdnGI&feature=fvw

 

 

You think we're going to reach more people through civil discourse? I don't. You sure have a strange sense of more "inclusive" means, siamdave, especially when what you're saying implies the opposite of "inclusive".

 

The counter-culture will remain, ignore it at your peril.

 

 

siamdave

M. Spector wrote:

Absolutely, Stargazer. It's the same condescending, elitist attitude that can't understand why protesters don't all want to walk nicely between the lines on the road and smile at the nice policemen as they walk by - and then rats to the cops on the ones who don't behave. 

Suggesting we might have a civilized conversation, with the goal of actually trying to sort something out besides who can curse the loudest, is considered 'elitist and condescending'? I guess that's the same mindset that thinks the 'freedom' to make everybody call cops PIG SCUM!!!! is a worthy goal in the pursuit of a better society. Or even the idea that putting on really scary black masks and throwing rocks through the windows of innocent small store owners and turning over the vehicles of people who never did a fucking thing to you and setting them on fire is a good way to win hearts and influence people. I suppose it would be considered beyond the limits to suggest that attitudes like this go some way towards explaining the current power structure - but then quite a few of your references to things I have written have been beyond what I would consider the limits of how you deal with potential friends in a big struggle. Y'all carry on your streetfights without me. Have fun. But a word of advice, unwelcome though I know it is - don't expect much in the way of results. The 'freedom' to short-sightedly and stupidly drive away all potential allies because you're angry and BY FUCK you're going to lash out at everyone, when you face a very powerful enemy, is not what is called in evolutionary genetics a 'dominant' trait. Don't believe me - just take a look around at who's running things and who's not.

siamdave

RevolutionPlease wrote:

siamdave, I think you misconstrue use of language with fighting.  If you're somehow conflating using perjoratives for opposing the oppressors you're barking up the wrong tree.

And yeah, the white man isn't afraid of any street fight eh?  They sure seem to be when the government speaks. 

- you seem to misconstrue fighting the real enemy with abusing your potential friends. As for the white man and street fights - geezus bud, who's running the fucking world? White guys who've won ALL the street fights. Wake up.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Yep, I'm obssessing because this is very important to me.  Unionist, you need to step down from your high horse because it's not very welcoming to conversation.  We can't all communicate in verbose language.  We don't have a grasp of history like you do.  Or like others around here.  But when we participate, we are open to hear.  And I listen.  Trust me, I listen a lot.  But when this place is turned into a battle of sophistry, I lose it.

 

Like you like to remind me, we're allies.  Is this how allies work together?  I always note the threads that our allies are active in.  They sure aren't the ones that represent helping our neighbour.  Maybe, our close friend, but not our neighbour.  Maybe, I'm just down, maybe not.  We need to expand our world folks.  There's people out there that this site speaks to, I've seen it.   And then, they're let down.  It's good sometimes, to try and live like you're on welfare.  As much as some would like to make believe here sometimes, they're not logging onto babbble.  I'd get $534 / month.  Is that really how you think your fellow brothers and sisters should live?  I'm ashamed of my neighbours and babblers.

 

I'm a socialist and a PROUD left-wing commie pinko.

 

[img]http://spacingmedia.com/products/button-pinko-stick-300.jpg[/img]

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

siamdave wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

siamdave, I think you misconstrue use of language with fighting.  If you're somehow conflating using perjoratives for opposing the oppressors you're barking up the wrong tree.

And yeah, the white man isn't afraid of any street fight eh?  They sure seem to be when the government speaks. 

- you seem to misconstrue fighting the real enemy with abusing your potential friends. As for the white man and street fights - geezus bud, who's running the fucking world? White guys who've won ALL the street fights. Wake up.

 

Pot, kettle.  We need to find some hard ground here friend.  The lament of the left.  Here we are fighting with each other.  I'll try to dial it back.  Your speaking to some of us like our dissertation has no place.  I'm just trying to respond.  Have you been the victim of police violence?  Racism, sexism, etc?  I've been on the police violence end and witness to much else. 

 

Are you my potential friend?   Yes, the white man has won the street fights.  But it wasn't the white man, it was THE MAN.  Yes, we need to hear each other.  Yes, it's great there's so many intelligent babbler's getting the word out there.  I appreciate it all, I really do.  But there's something lacking.  And it's lacking because we can't get past the notion of ourselves.  We can't look at the big picture of the good.  Like, I've said, I have much time for your thesis siamdave.  More people should.  We need to "WORK" common ground to fertilize it.

Stargazer

siamdave wrote:

Stargazer wrote:

You can't deal with the justified anger, then stay out of the thread (you being the proverbial you).

...

- or - if you can't manage to control your fucking temper for five minutes, and have to start screaming at people who dare to have opinions or say things you don't like - YOU keep the fuck out of threads where others are trying to talk ....

- the message to babbler mods being - if you want to encourage intelliegent talk here, you have a choice to make - somehow control those who want to try to dominate and exclude any opinion they don't like through the use of aggressive, LCD street0fighting lanaguage - or lose the rest of us

 

Fuck you, you pompous fucking windbag. You're not my ally. Dare to have opinions I don't like? Did you read my fucking post asshole? You and your fucking divisive bullshit. When the day comes that you are ever miraculously changed into a woman or an FN or both, then you have all the FUCKING RIGHT IN THE WORLD to be pissed. Until that day, you pompous fucking windbag, fuck you.

 

I should stay out of threads that get me rightfully fucking pissed. FUCK YOU AGAIN. You slimly fucking elitist white bread asshole.

 

And use the fucking spell check - Mr I control the fucking discourse.

 

Shall I wait for you to tell me when I can get angry and what fucking words I can say? Would not want to feel the wrath of the over zealous white dominant discourse. I feel really fucking sorry for you. You chose, yes actively CHOSE, to not show any solidarity with those of us who have been on the massive shitty fucking end of police abuse, then you have the fucking gall to tell me, and the others who were rightfully pissed, feeling powerless, looking for allies - to shut up?

 

Again FUCK YOU.

Eric Damaran

Hi Stargazer.

I had to create this new account because once they ban you you can't email to say farewell from your old account. We don't have much time...

I guess this is really goodbye. I know at the beginning of my time on Rabble you and I had some moments, but I have come to greatly respect you. Keep up the good fight. If you want you and I can meet up on bebo.com. I have a pretty good profile there.

For everyone one who expressed support for my attempts to get a FN voice in a mainly white environment, thanks. Maybe I'll see you as well on bebo.

For the record, the mods do a great job, but are sometimes forced to follow orders they don't like.

C Ya!

Eric Damaran AKA e.tamaran

Stargazer

siamdave wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Absolutely, Stargazer. It's the same condescending, elitist attitude that can't understand why protesters don't all want to walk nicely between the lines on the road and smile at the nice policemen as they walk by - and then rats to the cops on the ones who don't behave. 

Suggesting we might have a civilized conversation, with the goal of actually trying to sort something out besides who can curse the loudest, is considered 'elitist and condescending'? I guess that's the same mindset that thinks the 'freedom' to make everybody call cops PIG SCUM!!!! is a worthy goal in the pursuit of a better society. Or even the idea that putting on really scary black masks and throwing rocks through the windows of innocent small store owners and turning over the vehicles of people who never did a fucking thing to you and setting them on fire is a good way to win hearts and influence people. I suppose it would be considered beyond the limits to suggest that attitudes like this go some way towards explaining the current power structure - but then quite a few of your references to things I have written have been beyond what I would consider the limits of how you deal with potential friends in a big struggle. Y'all carry on your streetfights without me. Have fun. But a word of advice, unwelcome though I know it is - don't expect much in the way of results. The 'freedom' to short-sightedly and stupidly drive away all potential allies because you're angry and BY FUCK you're going to lash out at everyone, when you face a very powerful enemy, is not what is called in evolutionary genetics a 'dominant' trait. Don't believe me - just take a look around at who's running things and who's not.

 

And before I get banned for calling a spade a spade (or in his case a rookie an rookie), I'll highlight his personal attacks above. Not only does this jackass accuse me of supporting violence and overturning cars, this same jackass then goes further and paints them as victims in his fantasies.

 

The last bold line is very very telling. Seems siamdave not only thinks lashing out is stupid and shortsighted, but he cn't possibly be a part of that, because us women and 'Nish people getting angry is what turns allies away.

Dude, you were never my ally, and you never ever will be. You don't even have the ability to reflect upon what you said, and for all your talk of cohesiveness you are anything but a uniter. You are a divider. But you did tell me I was far too stupid to participate in discussions, and anger is just oh so not white. I must be unemotional, have no anger, because that pisses off our dear little white boy.

 

Here is what I know for a fact - people yelling at FN people, or women, for being angry, are themselves the ones framing the debates, controlling that nasty women/POC/FN anger. Have a look in the mirror. YOU ARE THE DOMINANT VOICE. You don't get to siamdave control me, or my anger.  If I get suspended for this then it is well fucking worth it. Then you won eh Davie boy. All the women shut up and all displays of justified anger shut out of babble. Then all you will have left is you and your fellow white buddies, who can stick to those stupid FN people next time they dare get angry and call the police, or politicians SCUM. Because we are just stupid like that.

 

Again, what I learn about people like you - is you are not an ally unless we conform to your discourse.

Stargazer

Hit me up ET (PM me!!!)

siamdave

Stargazer wrote:

siamdave wrote:

Stargazer wrote:

You can't deal with the justified anger, then stay out of the thread (you being the proverbial you).

...

- or - if you can't manage to control your fucking temper for five minutes, and have to start screaming at people who dare to have opinions or say things you don't like - YOU keep the fuck out of threads where others are trying to talk ....

- the message to babbler mods being - if you want to encourage intelliegent talk here, you have a choice to make - somehow control those who want to try to dominate and exclude any opinion they don't like through the use of aggressive, LCD street0fighting lanaguage - or lose the rest of us

 

Fuck you, you pompous fucking windbag. You're not my ally. Dare to have opinions I don't like? Did you read my fucking post asshole? You and your fucking divisive bullshit. When the day comes that you are ever miraculously changed into a woman or an FN or both, then you have all the FUCKING RIGHT IN THE WORLD to be pissed. Until that day, you pompous fucking windbag, fuck you.

 

I should stay out of threads that get me rightfully fucking pissed. FUCK YOU AGAIN. You slimly fucking elitist white bread asshole.

 

And use the fucking spell check - Mr I control the fucking discourse.

 

Shall I wait for you to tell me when I can get angry and what fucking words I can say? Would not want to feel the wrath of the over zealous white dominant discourse. I feel really fucking sorry for you. You chose, yes actively CHOSE, to not show any solidarity with those of us who have been on the massive shitty fucking end of police abuse, then you have the fucking gall to tell me, and the others who were rightfully pissed, feeling powerless, looking for allies - to shut up?

 

Again FUCK YOU.

- man, once again, I just fucking LOVE the intelligent, calm and reasoned discourse we find on rabble here ....

fuck you too asshole

Stargazer

You're just so sweet when your inherent white dominance, and manliness is not respected. Really.

Unionist

Referring back to the proposal which is the topic of this thread:

I suspected, right from the start, that the really controversial aspect of the proposal was not the brief moratorium on suspensions and bans. I thought it was the prohibition on personal attacks.

Of course, no one could actually come right out and say: "I disagree with stopping personal attacks." Could they? So instead, they found other things to disagree with.

The reason for banning personal attacks goes way beyond the survival of a discussion board. It's about the ability to live in society - to have friends and neighbours - to build alliances and coalitions with people you can't really stand on a personal level - to spend one's working life in workplaces with people you think are assholes and who think the same of you - but with whom one shares common aims in life and common enemies that need to be defeated.

Slumberjack

You know, I'm starting to come around to May's suggestion that the objection thread I started was indeed a stupid idea.

siamdave

Stargazer wrote:

You're just so sweet when your inherent white dominance, and manliness is not respected. Really.

Why would I give a shit about your 'respect'? We won .... you don't like it? Tough shit, bud.

RosaL

This is what happens: Some portion of the population (define it how you will, by class or race or nationality or gender or orientation or whatever) is excluded from something. At one time, that part of the population would go to great lengths to get what they'd been excluded from. So, for example, there used to be publishers of low-cost books and working people would put in a full day's work and then sit up at night reading. People who never got an education learned what they weren't supposed to learn: they learned to debate and argue and reason. 

Now, that kind of thing doesn't happen very much. If something has been kept from you, you pour contempt on it! I will certainly grant that there's much in bourgeois culture to despise. But there are plenty of good things we've been excluded from. It's as if we weren't allowed to eat anything but McDonald's (heh) and our response was to glorify fries and burgers, rather than steal some recipe books, requisition some food, and learn to cook something that's good for body and soul. That kind of thing - taking what's valuable and what you're not supposed to have - is a revolutionary act. Despising what we're not allowed to have and glorying in the garbage they feed us is capitulation dressed up in revolutionary garb.

Of course, I'm not talking primarily about food here. I'm talking about reason and debate. It's true that the ability to reason and debate is largely the purview of the elite. (And guess whose interests that serves?) So let's learn to reason! 

p.s. I'm not saying, "Don't be angry".

Stargazer

You won? Basking in your white privilege? Isn't that just fucking lovely. Yes you are the dominant forces who won the whole system asshole. We'll see who wins here.

 

Your contempt speaks volumes about your integrity - hint - you don't have any.

siamdave

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Pot, kettle.  We need to find some hard ground here friend.

- believe it or not, that is what I am looking for. But 'hard ground' means, to me, equals talking things out civilly and intelligently with a view to coming to some mutually acceptable course of action against a common enemy - dancing around screaming at one another in preparation for battle amongst ourselves is just stupid, and does not qualify. To me. That's another game - one I am not interested in. (It is, however, a mistake to assume I am afraid of this game. Note the comment in last post about who is running the world at this time ... It's just stupid for potential allies to be doing childish dominance games amongst themselves ... our enemy loves it though ... )

Quote:

  The lament of the left.  Here we are fighting with each other.

- we need to at least be aware that *our* enemy is very powerful, and very smart, and very practiced in all arts of war, which certainly includes infiltrating the enemy camp and sewing dissension - that we are continually fighting amongst ourselves may not be entirely coincidental - the young bloods yipping incessantly here are probably not enemy agents directly - just stupid enough to be witlessly manipulated in their service ....

Quote:

  I'll try to dial it back.  Your speaking to some of us like our dissertation has no place.  I'm just trying to respond.  Have you been the victim of police violence?  Racism, sexism, etc?  I've been on the police violence end and witness to much else.

- I shall accept the peace pipe (and don't consider that, please, patronising, it's just reaching out, trying to make some common ground - there is a great deal about what (little) I know of native American cultures that I admire and would see as part of "my" society, insofar as I had a voice in shaping that society)
- I am not aware of ever speaking as if 'your dissertation' had no place - I think I am as open to your situation as anyone, and your dissertation. For example, I have not tried to deny any 'right' some among you have to call cops SCUM PIGS - I have simply said I do not consider that a useful way forward - this is not denying anything, simply disagreeing with how we prioritize things. To mischaracterize that as 'denying your dissertation' is not honest. Any other examples you might have of my attempting to marginalize or otherwise deny your dissertation, well, tell me. We can talk.

- you obviously know nothing of my history, and given earlier responses to my opening up even a little bit by others will, I am sure you understand, make me disinclined to say much right now - but briefly, I was one of the original 'hippies' in 1964 or so, in small town Ontario, and at the very tender age (for a white kid of previous middle-class small privilege) suddenly found myself, at the age of 14, completely ostracized from almost all of my society - offers to beat the shit out of me, or questions about 'are you a girl' snicker snicker, and etc were my life for a lot of years. As were confrontations with the cops - I also liked my beer, and was very much a cop target for a lot of years - believe me, longhairs were just another indian to them back then. I am sure the average life of an FN person was (and is) much more difficult - but I was certainly not one of the oppressors. I did not give in to the demands to become a robot of some kind, and have been exploring things outside that box ever since.

And that's probably enough for now - those here who have decided I am 'the enemy' will just mock anything I say anyway. But for you, RP. In return for your reaching out, for your dialing back - I offer something in return. The journey is long, give and take, see where it goes.

Quote:

 Are you my potential friend?   Yes, the white man has won the street fights.  But it wasn't the white man, it was THE MAN.

- and 'The Man' oppresses lower class white folk just as much as anyone else - we were the original oppressees, back in the Dickensian mills and 19th century American robber-baron mill towns, and still are, to a very large extent - there is a great deal more in common between thou and I than between me and our common oppressors as 'whities' - if more of you could just understand this ....

Quote:

  Yes, we need to hear each other.  Yes, it's great there's so many intelligent babbler's getting the word out there.  I appreciate it all, I really do.  But there's something lacking.  And it's lacking because we can't get past the notion of ourselves.  We can't look at the big picture of the good.  

- I'm just going, with respect, to remove myself from those last couple of  'we's there - I have been trying to understand the big picture for quite awhile now, and I think I understand a lot of it - but it's like trying to shoot down the moon with arrows to try and get most people here to see the bigger picture ....

Quote:

Like, I've said, I have much time for your thesis siamdave.  More people should.  We need to "WORK" common ground to fertilize it.

- that would be a fuck of a good new years' resolution - trying to work together here to get rid of our common enemy ... you have given me one tiny ray of hope, RP - can we do something with it?

 

siamdave

forget it

siamdave

RosaL wrote:

......

Of course, I'm not talking primarily about food here. I'm talking about reason and debate. It's true that the ability to reason and debate is largely the purview of the elite. (And guess whose interests that serves?) So let's learn to reason! 

p.s. I'm not saying, "Don't be angry".

- nice, Rosa - more please.

(although I think I would disagree with you about 'reason' being the purview of the elite - it is usually the elite who are locked into 'beliefs' that support a worldview, however obviously false, that supports their 'right' to rule - and the 'common people' who think honestly and see what BS that kind of thing is - the 'wisdom of the common man' (or woman!) is usually much closer to reality .... )

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Preserved for posterity:

siamdave wrote:

Stargazer wrote:

You're just so sweet when your inherent white dominance, and manliness is not respected. Really.

Why would I give a shit about your 'respect'? We won .... you don't like it? Tough shit, bud.

Pages

Topic locked