Still waiting for an answer from the Managing Editor - Is it really anti-labour to call "police officers" pigs?

112 posts / 0 new
Last post

Unionist wrote:
I really think you should read and write carefully, because I can guarantee you will be challenged vociferously every single time you concoct untruths.

Ahhem! I must interject here to point out that this is also true, more or less half of the time when not discussing 9/11. And since we are not discussing 9/11 very much at all these days and for whatever perfectly good flimsy reasons, then we can only infer that the official babble line on 9/11 truth is to revert to the crazy George de la Yeyo Bush II version of recent history. Everyone knows that it's the victors in false flag warfare and their toadies being the ones to monopolize the historical record. In this case no one is challenged, because no one is actually allowed to express their opinions in an open and free assembly of two or more proletariats at a time on babble when it comes to that unmentionable day. We know you have no issues with public discussion of 9/11 Unionist. It's those people encouraging us to dwell in threads about pickled walnuts, cake decorating, origami and needlepoint who are suspicious of unAmerican activities and 9/11 heresy on babble.


Fidel wrote:
We know you have no issues with public discussion of 9/11 Unionist.

That's very correct, Fidel. I disagree with the "moratorium" on 9/11 discussions, as I disagree with the ban on "cops are pigs" in thread titles. But those who harass and bully our mods should really get the hell out of here, just as they would be invited to leave my workplace if they conducted themselves in that manner with fellow workers.



Well I agree, and there will come a time when I myself and I will respect the wishes of the inquistion on 9/11 half-truths, government sponsored deception and lies,  and simply move on to new and interesting topics of discussion. I think I might really go for a good thread on the intricacies of peeling rope with either hand sheethed in a pink boxing glove while reciting Haiku. Yyyeah baby!


I take your warnings, Unionist, and you should be equally concerned about vague statements like your comment about (and I paraphrase) "those who can't tolerate babble should go" in reference to using the word "suits".

I stand corrected though. You don't just go after people for illegitimate claims but suggest that people who don't take up your position are not "real" progressives.



Anyone involved in any real social movement would instantly recognize this squabble about calling cops "pigs" in thread titles as being the preoccupation of medieval theologians with fuck-all to do in life - or of provocateurs bent on attacking this progressive space we have carved out for ourselves.

I didn't recognize that, Unionist, and I think it is an issue. So, not only am I not part of a real social movement, I must be a medieval theologian or a provacateur.

Correct me if I am stating an untruth.


J.m., I'm not interested in having any squabble with you. You're not the one who has opened thread after thread and harassed the mods on this point. I have no clue what you're disagreeing with me on, anyway. I'm against the ban. So are you. I say it's irrelevant. You say it's an issue. I say people who are so stuck on this issue that they feel they need to harass the mods, or can't stomach babble any more, should get the fuck out - for their own wellbeing, and everyone else's. You think - what???? That we should keep debating this point???? Then I guess I'll have to class you with the theologians, with my apologies. I read and enjoy and appreciate your posts, but could you kindly explain where, exactly, this further discussion on PIGS can possibly go, and how many lifetimes we ought to devote to it???

I hope I'm being very clear. It's not my habit to be courteous and genteel when I think provocation is going on. And no, j.m., I am [b]NOT[/b] calling you a provocateur. Got it?



I got it, Unionist. I hope you can see the lines you draw in the sand, and how you use language to exclude and single out in multiple threads. Maybe it's just me that gets really pissed off by it.


You know, j.m., we're all different kinds of personalities. I tend to talk in a fairly unsubtle manner which pisses some people off. I'm always hoping, however, that progressive people involved in real struggles and real movements will look past my obnoxious exterior and try to figure out what I'm saying, before responding. I know my limitations in regards to style, but you know what? I sound like a positive pussycat next to the discussions that take place among my fellow workers. And we actually don't call each other names that much either, because we all have to work and play together at the very end of the day.


aka Mycroft

There may be an argument that calling cops "pigs" is inpolite or crude but I think it's silly to say it's "anti-labour". The Dutch army is unionized. Does that mean that if someone is using an epithet to describe this or that western military offensive in Iraq, for instance, it would be "anti-labour" if the Dutch army is included in the reference?

I think it's a bit crude and not very productive to refer to cops as "pigs" but I understand that those who use that term are often people who've been directly oppressed by police actions. When they call the police names it's not because the cops are in a union but because they are acting as the violent arm of the state. Police violence is an expression of state power, not of union or worker power.

In any case, the Toronto Police Association and other police associations are not affiliated with any labour federation so they are not technically part of the "labour movement". Nor does the TPA ever engage in labour solidarity with other unions on strike.


What aka Mycroft said. And as I have stated long before - even if some police association were admitted into some labour federation or if they were certified legally as a trade union (which some are) - that would change nothing about their nature, which is profoundly anti-labour.


j.m. wrote:

I disagree with the potshots and I disagree with your prescriptions to tell people to leave babble for dissenting, or disagreeing with your views (which you did - you didn't tell them to leave for being disrespectful exactly, did you). You did it before in the Ottawa firebombing thread and youv'e done it again here.

Unionist seems to think he's a moderator. Just remember he's got no real power, and the more he spews the more he digs a deeper hole for himself.

Maysie Maysie's picture

My views on the issues of 1. What to call the cops, 2. On the decision to change "pigs" and other words in thread titles, and 3. On the two-tiered system of decision making on rabble, have been expressed pretty clearly. Multiple times. I'm extremely upset by some of the characterizations of mine and Catchfire's positions, what we may or may not believe, and our capacity to be "bought". What the fuck. Shame on those who have done that. 

If anyone would like to know how many hours Catchfire and I are paid per week, and how many hours Catchfire and I actually work per week, send me a private message.




Topic locked