Input on thread title appropriateness for rabble

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical
Input on thread title appropriateness for rabble

guess the next post is it

quizzical

logged on this morn to find this ewey thread title:

North Carolina affirms marriage as a sacred union between a man and his sister

and i found it to be repulsive in the extreme on a bunch of levels.

fisrt off incest is no joking matter. second off i think it trivializes the fight that same sex partners are facing. thirdly relates to the first in its insensitivity towards girls and women who've experienced sexual assault by their brothers and other family members.

it is a duplicate thread can it be closed? 

Unionist

I agree. Not funny, not appropriate, on several counts.

Slumberjack

Y'all ever been to North Carolina?

6079_Smith_W

And inaccurate.

In North Carolina they have to at least be first cousins (though not double first cousins, in case anyone was wondering) and at least age 14.

 

 

Caissa

Shall we comb all of the titles for appropriateness?

Sven Sven's picture

Caissa wrote:

Shall we comb all of the titles for appropriateness?

Oh, let's!!!!  That would be fun!!!!

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Shall we comb all of the titles for appropriateness?

No, but "joking" about North Carolinans being incestuous probably crosses a line we could agree on here? What next - jokes about farmers and sheep in some rural riding because they don't like the LGR?

I dunno. Maybe there's more important issues to worry about. The thread title irked me when I saw it. I don't care that much whether it's censored or not, but the discussion isn't bad.

 

Caissa

I was irked by the "Dirty Zionist" one myself. Maybe we should have an ongoing thread where we can critique thread titles.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

Maybe we should have an ongoing thread where we can critique thread titles.

Wouldn't work. We'd never agree on its title.

 

Sven Sven's picture

Unionist wrote:

No, but "joking" about North Carolinans being incestuous probably crosses a line we could agree on here?

We could make all of babble an irony-free zone, much like at least one other thread already is. 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Sven wrote:

We could make all of babble an irony-free zone, much like at least one other thread already is.

I doubt that's even possible, unless you mean intentional-irony-free zone.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I protest offensive thread titles by not participating in them - unless I'm feeling piqued enough to have a look. Usually I just scroll past anything that offends me. I'm old, and just don't have the energy to get involved in arguments about this crap.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Caissa wrote:

Shall we comb all of the titles for appropriateness?

I thought that was your job.

6079_Smith_W

I'm considering starting a thread about raising swine. Any suggestions as to what I should call it? 

Caissa

M.Spector wrote:

I thought that was your job.

 

It appears that quizzical wants to work my corner.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I'm considering starting a thread about raising swine. Any suggestions as to what I should call it? 

Pigs that won't fly?

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I'm considering starting a thread about raising swine. Any suggestions as to what I should call it? 

Pigs that won't fly?

Hogs on a hill?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

The North Carolina thread title is clearly sarcasm, intended to imply that North Carolina voters are more upset about gay marriage than about incestuous marriage. If that were true, the thread title would be entirely appropriate and 100% acceptable to me.

But since it's not true, it's inappropriate.

In my opinion, truth is always a valid defence to charges of inappropriate sarcasm. Sarcasm is a powerful rhetorical device that, used appropriately, can have a brilliant effect on people's appreciation of the truth.

Unionist

Any reaction yet from South Carolina?

 

6079_Smith_W

Well I don't think any of them are pushing to get back together again, if that's what you are wondering. It has been almost 300 years.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

quizzical, in answer to your question, I think the thread is in bad taste, but, sadly, taste isn't policed on babble--at least not officially. I don't think it violates babble policy, except that it looks dupicate.

Caissa

How can you close a thread after using epiphenomenally in it? Wink

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Juxtapolitically.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Caissa wrote:

I was irked by the "Dirty Zionist" one myself.

Since you brought this up, this seems like the appropriate thread to discuss it.

I suspect your objection is fundamentally rooted in an assumption, whether conscious or not, that the word "Zionist" is a cryptonym for "Jew". That is certainly a false assumption. Not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists.

It is a false assumption closely related to another false assumption: that anti-Zionism is essentially anti-semitism under another name.

We have had many threads in the past discussing the meaning of the word Zionist. I don't propose to turn this into another one. I will just say that it has been well established for many years on babble that

• Zionist is an acceptable word to use;

• Zionists include non-Jews as well as Jews; there are probably more of the former in the world than the latter. Referring to someone as a Zionist is a political statement, and not an allusion to their race, religion, or any other personal characteristic.

• Zionist is not per se a term of abuse (like thug or scumbag), but rather an ideological label (like Conservative or libertarian)

• Zionism is akin to imperialism and colonialism, and in its modern connotation, includes support for Israeli expansionism and the persecution of Palestinians, in furtherance of the goal of creating a proxy state for western imperialist interests in the region. Opposition to Zionism is therefore entirely in keeping with rabble's policy of embracing "a pro-human rights...anti-racist...anti-imperialist....stance".

In the circumstances I think your objection to that thread title was ill-founded. I think Catchfire was off base in criticizing it as well.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

How can you close a thread after using epiphenomenally in it? Wink

I know you'll never believe this, but as a kid I used to piss off my teachers royally in situations like this:

Quote:
Teacher: Construct a proper English sentence containing the words "thread" and "epiphenomenally".

Unionist Junior: Thanks for giving away the answer!

 

quizzical

Catchfire wrote:
quizzical, in answer to your question, I think the thread is in bad taste, but, sadly, taste isn't policed on babble--at least not officially. I don't think it violates babble policy, except that it looks dupicate.

what d'ya think is the 'bad taste' about it? serious question

t'anks for closing it anyway.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Is "epiphenomenally" a real word?

Fidel

.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm considering starting a thread about raising swine. Any suggestions as to what I should call it?

1. Poststructuralist epiphenomenology of porcine animal husbandry

2. Off the Pigs!

3. NDP leadership race, #147

 

6079_Smith_W

M. Spector wrote:

2. Off the Pigs!

*ding ding ding*

And we have a winner!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Let me add an epigraph to M. Spector's suggestion #1 above:

"Toute l'écriture est de la cochonnerie." —Antonin Artaud

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

"Rubbish is rubbish, but the history of rubbish is scholarship." —Burton S. Dreben

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Caissa wrote:

I was irked by the "Dirty Zionist" one myself.

Since you brought this up, this seems like the appropriate thread to discuss it.

I suspect your objection is fundamentally rooted in an assumption, whether conscious or not, that the word "Zionist" is a cryptonym for "Jew". That is certainly a false assumption. Not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists.

It is a false assumption closely related to another false assumption: that anti-Zionism is essentially anti-semitism under another name.

We have had many threads in the past discussing the meaning of the word Zionist. I don't propose to turn this into another one. I will just say that it has been well established for many years on babble that

• Zionist is an acceptable word to use;

• Zionists include non-Jews as well as Jews; there are probably more of the former in the world than the latter. Referring to someone as a Zionist is a political statement, and not an allusion to their race, religion, or any other personal characteristic.

• Zionist is not per se a term of abuse (like thug or scumbag), but rather an ideological label (like Conservative or libertarian)

• Zionism is akin to imperialism and colonialism, and in its modern connotation, includes support for Israeli expansionism and the persecution of Palestinians, in furtherance of the goal of creating a proxy state for western imperialist interests in the region. Opposition to Zionism is therefore entirely in keeping with rabble's policy of embracing "a pro-human rights...anti-racist...anti-imperialist....stance".

In the circumstances I think your objection to that thread title was ill-founded. I think Catchfire was off base in criticizing it as well.

The issue here isn't primarily the word zionist (though it does cause a secondary issue when the "dirty" adjective is applied to it), the issue is primarily the inappropriateness of applying the term "dirty" (or synonyms such as "filthy") to any group of people.

The adjective dirty is most often applied to groups of poc such as arabs or natives. It falsely implies that these people are "dirty" (poor moral character) simply because of their skin color. Applying the term "dirty" to zionists implicitly references the racist pejorative use of "dirty". It then implies that there are some "dirty" zionists who are of as poor moral character as the arabs (Palestinians) are falsely implied to be; and that there are some zionists who are not "dirty" in this way -- false implication that some zionists are of a high enough moral character that they somehow should be let off the hook for their support of Israeli apartheid.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Left Turn, I apologize for not providing a link to the thread in question. [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/arrest-israels-n... it is.[/url] It provides the proper context for my remarks.

The adjective "dirty" was not applied in that thread title to a group of people, but to a single, particularly nasty, individual who has been named on a list of alleged Zionist war criminals entitled [url=http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/11/17/idf-cast-lead-di..."IDF Cast Lead Dirty 200"[/url].

In this particular case I don't see any of the implications that you have referred to in your post.

writer writer's picture

I am sorry that this crap thread was mentioned in bagkitty's amazing thread. I am sorry that I followed up on that mention.

I am stunned, dismayed and depressed that males once again choose to snigger away at women's suffering, here on babble. I apologize in advance for being a humourless survivor of abuse. I know, we're so annoying.

Anyway, back to the usual, great male domination of this discussion board. Sorry for the interruption.

Slumberjack

You don't have to go anywhere.  What you said has its own validity, which doesn't need to be seconded by anyone to be valid, but I'll do so anyway despite the fact.

writer writer's picture

There is no room to breathe here, Slumberjack. I'm choking.

quizzical

i'm with writer on this. am still waiting for the moderator to detail to me what's the "bad taste" he sees.

'cause it seems to me if the mod detailed out loud to us what's 'bad taste' about it he would get why it is against what i see written down as  rabble's rules.

i'm saddened writer you too had to see the frat bot crap most men here see a humour.

writer writer's picture

Rape culture! Can't get enough of it, quizzical! It is HILARIOUS! Especially when one is forced down on one's knees at the age of 5! Whoooo! Heh.

Goodness, it's great to know there are progressive boards like this one where guys can haw haw their guts out about it. There are so few safe places for them, you know?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Sorry, I missed the part where people in this thread thought the North Carolina thread, or the abuse of women, was humorous....

quizzical

writer wrote:
Rape culture! Can't get enough of it, quizzical! It is HILARIOUS! Especially when one is forced down on one's knees at the age of 5! Whoooo! Heh.

Goodness, it's great to know there are progressive boards like this one where guys can haw haw their guts out about it. There are so few safe places for them, you know?

i'm crying for you and my aunties right now. and i guess for myself 'cause i feel abused after the distain, ignoring, ill founded hilarity and lack of progressive understanding i found in this thread. sure wasn't what i expected but maybe should've.

 

writer writer's picture

It is just so funny!

Quote:

 

What are the effects of sibling sexual abuse? Sibling sexual abuse is often very harmful for the following reasons:

  • Because siblings live together, the victim can feel pressured and trapped by the abuser over a long period of time. This pressure may include bribes, threats, sexual stimulation or physical force. Physical abuse and threats are often used to make sure younger siblings keep the sexual abuse secret. This kind of pressure can break down the siblings’ self-esteem and isolate the abused children from other family members.
  • The victim usually begins by trusting the abuser because they are siblings. When this trust is violated, the victim feels betrayed by that brother or sister, because someone they expect to love and care for them is hurting them. In addition, your younger children would naturally trust you to choose a safe, kind person to take care of them. When the person you choose abuses them, the victims can feel betrayed again, this time by you. They may even believe that you think the abuse is acceptable.
  • The victims usually feel powerless to stop the abuse. They may feel they can’t stop the abuser, because he or she is bigger, older, stronger and may have threatened them. They may also feel powerless if you don’t believe them when they tell you they’re being abused. This feeling of being powerless can stay with them and affect their adult relationships
  • The victims may be made to feel responsible, bad or dirty. If you accuse your younger children of doing something to encourage the abuse, or blame them in some way for the abuse, they will believe you and feel ashamed. They may carry these feelings of shame into adulthood. If you are able to believe and support your child, it will improve their ability to heal.
  • Sibling sexual abuse (incest) often causes more damage than abuse by a stranger. This is because children are dependent on their families and parents to keep them safe. Studies of convicted teenage sexual abuse offenders show that the sibling offenders commit more serious abuse over a longer period of time than other teenage offenders. This is because the victims (brothers or sisters) are more readily available, they are available for a longer period of time and the abuse is protected by family secrecy. If you know or suspect that one of your children is being sexually abused by a sibling, do something. If you do nothing because you believe “they’ll grow out of it”, you are allowing the abuse and secrecy to continue.

Sibling Sexual Abuse

 

writer writer's picture

quizzical, I thank you for standing up to our psychopathic norms, and standing by those of us who have seen the belly of the beast, close up and personal.

Much love.

6079_Smith_W

I think Spector nailed it at #18. 

What is the point in making a very bad and inaccurate comment when the reality - that kids can be married off at age 14 to their first cousins - is itself a strong enough indictment of this ignorant decision? 

To turn that into a charicature, offensive or otherwise, just glosses over how bad things really are.

 

 

writer writer's picture

Nice that you think that, Smith. I have reached the conclusion that this board has degenerated to such a degree that it invites rape culture in, and heckles and browbeats those who voice an objection to it. And the moderators have been ground down to such a degree that they no longer point to the elephant in the room.

Oh well. So much for that idea. Carry on, fellows!

quizzical

writer t'anks. i hope i'll always be able to stand against it. my aunties in their 40's and 50's are still trying to survive what happened to them as children.

i saw nuttin nailed in 18 but a gloss over of "look over here not there".

Bacchus

The  age of consent in North Caroline is 16 (unless you are in a position of authority over the individual then it is 18 just like in Canada) The age for marriage is 18 unless Court approved and parental approved in which case it can be 14-17.

 

No one can just up and marry a 14yr old nor would it be legal for someone in a position of authority to do so.

 

The implication of the posters to the contrary is bullshit

 

This took 30 seconds of googling. And the age of consent in Canada just changed a few years ago from 14. The age of consent has been 16-18 in the US for a long time compared to that

 

Making 'redneck' jokes about incest and the like totally goes against the facts that it happens everywhere and isnt just a 'rural backcountry' thing. And encourages it to flourish everywhere. In your community cuz hey you aint rednecks and it doesnt happen here. And in rural areas cuz hey thats just what rednecks are like

6079_Smith_W

FYI:

http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/51-marriage/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

It does require a court order, and I didn't say that it did not.

My point is that it seems rather absurd to make claims about undermining the institution of marriage in a jurisdiction where it is legal to marry children of age 14, regardless of the hoop-jumping involved.

(edit)

As a matter of fact, the implication of the law - that the obvious solution to child pregnancy is marriage - is even more perverse than if there were no legal constraints.

 

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

writer wrote:
I have reached the conclusion that this board has degenerated to such a degree that it invites rape culture in, and heckles and browbeats those who voice an objection to it. And the moderators have been ground down to such a degree that they no longer point to the elephant in the room.

I more or less agree with this, except for the "degenerated" part. Other places on the internet--places who don't have a progressive mandate, let alone a feminist one--have all sorts of practices which at least signal the existence of rape culture and its victims. Trigger warnings on links and threads are a matter of course--and they're respected by people who don't even vote NDP. It's never even been suggested, to my knowledge, that babble adopt such a practice. Rape culture isn't named in our policy--naively, perhaps, we probably hoped the "feminism" bit would be enough.

I've said it before: I'm at a loss. It's clear that women don't feel safe on babble. Not even former moderators. This is proven to me again and again. My response nowadays is to agree with them. Moderators don't have the knoweldge, experience or resources to change the culture of this place singlehandedly, and I rarely, if ever, feel like there's an interest among babblers to change it.

It's astonishing to me that a long-standing babbler communicates genuine disgust and visceral horror at a triggering thread title and is told immediately by two men essentially to be more reasonable. I have honestly no idea how to moderate that. I post articles in the feminism forum that are ignored (since we have so few feminists who post here), and none of rabble.ca's feminist readers who see these threads on facebook dare to come here and discuss them. Why would they? They've seen it before, and they have safer networks on fb, twitter, feministing, jezebel (!) through which to have these discussions.

quizzical, I am grateful to you for raising this concern; and I'm always grateful for writer taking the time to offer her perspective, especially when it comes at so great a cost. I'm sorry I don't have more ideas on how to fix this.

writer writer's picture

Sven, you are in denial, and your equivalency is idiotic.

Pages

Topic locked