Babble Finished?

Actually, these things are cyclical.  We do seem to go through periods of people compulsively picking at eachothers scabs, and it's a bit uncomfortable for everyone, not to mention draining.

We shall survive though, D.  I see you've only been here a year, so you've only seen the kind, soft edged, sepia tone Scout, she of the gentle smile and lace crinoline.  Why back in the day...

Yeah, plonking, I'd forgotten about that.  It's useful, but people kept "unplonking"

It's an informal shunning that often preceded a banning. A kind of self-moderation by babblers if you like, the purpose of which was to save babblers the annoyance of getting entangled with a troll-like creature.

Quote:

I have seen mods specifically stste that they will not tolerat criticism of Mulslims or Islam, and yet will tolerate just about anything thrown at Christians or Christianity.

Can you back that statement up with some evidence?

As I said I cannot recall specific threads due to pre-mature memory loss.

D: I am not advocating allowing Muslim bashing. I am advocating consistency: don't allow Christian bashing either.  Also, I do feel that right wing opinions should be allowed and debated. The Left and Right can learn from each other. If we can show defects in right-wing arguments we may educate some. What is the value in preaching to the choir?

In short I would like to see a more Anarchistic approach to debating.

Remind:  True what you say about right wing defects. But who have the left been showing them to? Maybe not the right people or maybe not in the right way? I dunno.

Anyone who wants to "debate" the right doesn't have very far to look IMO... Why eschew a space where ideas and testimony can go further just to accommodate the opposition...

I am interested in the discussion we're having, and as moderators we're obviously trying to figure out what would make this place a more positive experience for everyone (including us). 

I wonder if anyone else is noticing what I am, about the different visions people have for the forum itself, and the modertors' roles within it.  Because what I'm seeing are a lot of viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to each other, so we have a lot to think about.

Some of us want the moderating to be more strict when it comes to content, but less strict when it comes to personal attacks and civility.  Others of us want the opposite - much more lenient on content, much more strict on personal attacks and civility.  Some of us want to see much less banning and suspending of accounts - only in the most extreme circumstances.  Others of us want to see the moderators act much more quickly to ban or suspend accounts.  

And finally, I feel that many of us want to see much stricter moderating when it comes to people and arguments that disagree with them, and much more lenient moderating when it comes to people and viewpoints we agree with.   

So that's the moderating dilemma we're faced with, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.  My personal preference is leaning towards being more lenient on content (to a certain point - where the line is drawn is another debate, of course, since the line always has to be drawn somewhere, unless we want the site filled with spam, porn, and neo-nazis playing bait-the-lefty), and trying to encourage a much more civil tone when it comes to personal attacks and hostility.  

Ever since I can remember on babble, there has always been a debate between people who think that too much insistence on civility creates a less authentic environment where people can't be passionate and can't throw off bourgeois conventions, and those who think that insisting on civility makes this board a much more inviting place and less intimidating to newbies or people who might be a little more timid than those of us who bluster and bicker our way through our days on babble.

I lean towards the latter view now - I didn't always.  I think, for instance, that it would be very difficult for someone who, say, is a survivor of domestic abuse to feel comfortable in an environment where people are fighting and name-calling and being hostile all the time.  I think it might be pretty intimidating for someone whose first language isn't English to join in when they see people immediately assuming the worst about each other's posts instead of trying to clarify first and see whether there was a misunderstanding.  I think it also might be pretty intimidating for people who lean left but maybe haven't been exposed to ideas that we take for granted here to join in and ask questions, learn, and grow.  I think I would be fed to the wolves now if the me in 2001 were to jump forward in time and join babble now - I've learned an awful lot in 7 years, and accepted a lot of viewpoints I hadn't even considered before.

martin dufresne wrote:

Anyone who wants to "debate" the right doesn't have very far to look IMO... Why eschew a space where ideas and testimony can go further just to accommodate the opposition...

I would answer: because people learn from it and become allies.  No, it's not going to change the world.  Let's face it, nothing we write here is going to change the entire world (although I do think that babble, and places like it, are extremely important activist tools because it raises consciousness and creates a space where people can go beyond mainstream media spin).  But being respectful and putting forward our ideas and accepting questions (even challenging ones, even from people who disagree) could change a few minds.  As I said above, I've changed my mind on a lot of things just from what I've learned here at babble.  And that often happened through me asking ignorant questions, making occasionally ignorant arguments, and being challenged about my common-sense assumptions.

There are a whole lot of well-meaning people who don't agree with us on a lot of stuff, and they're even left-leaning.  Shouldn't we engage people in conversation if we want to convince them of the ideas that are important to us?

Or hey, a daily post limit for us old farts?

It might improve both debating and writin' skills, and put a high price on silly bickering.

Or maybe a demand that everyone must attempt to say something humourous at least in one out of every three posts.  I'm constantly guilty of attempted humour.

Agravated attempted humour.

But Michelle, what you say is in opposition, you say you have learned over 7 years in this very same "hostile" environment (see scout's and old goat's comments about not  much being different). But you now believe that others like you were, can't? You former thought processes were not accommodated, they were strongly challenged and you say you learned. 

There has bee a consistent shift rightwards at babble over the last 2 years that is now causing tensions for those who do not believe the right and right wing thinkig should be accommodated here. Many many have left because of this shift rightwards. It keeps up and this will be a right wingboard too.

I think frmrsoldier's word's should stand here:

"Read my quote from Harper above.

These clowns can't even see the logical conclusions at the end of their sentences, never mind any other higher order reasoning."

"But you now believe that others like you were, can't? You former thought processes were not accommodated, they were strongly challenged and you say you learned."

True, but one has to remember that back in 2001, everyone was pretty much on the same footing, and babble hadn't found it's culture at that time. It was much more condusive to the kind of sticking your neck out kind of learning Michelle's talking about than what things are today.

You should have seen me do that in the feminist forum.  But I learned a lot through doing that, untill you see the shell shocked, broken puddle of a man you see before you.

Most studies of learning would suggest it happens better in a relaxed environment than in a hostile one. That does beg the question though "Is Babble's purpose primarily as a place for people to learn?"

Very good question Caissa. And I would say both yes, and no. I have learned a great deal here about; the conflicts in the Middle East, historical happenings which appear to be still impacting politics and social underpinnings today, behind the scenes political happenings, news before it becomes news and how to make news happen and a myriad of other things. However, I think it is a by-product of participation and most often not a deliberate activity of setting out to learn, hostile environment, or no hostile environment.

When I joined back in 2004, I found it very classist, and very hostile to those who were determined not to be part of the class configuration. Today, I find this "class' component much less so. However, I find it to be more hostile in other areas. IMV, it has been just a matter of the hostile component changing parameters, or positions.

But yet like Michelle, and Tommy, I have learned,  a great deal, and perhaps would not have, if people were not so "emphatic" in their positions. And, I have even learned from some of those with whom I have had strong personality classes with.

As for the most studies of learning, I would have to see citings of that, as schools are really not the most relaxed environments in any level. Also, social change has not occured from "relaxed" environments, it has occured from tensions arising like a coiled spring, releasing its tension. And at the nub of this, is the fact that rabble/babble is the voice of those who are working towards social change and we as a people cannot afford to be relaxed about it, and perhaps that spills over here.

The one thing that I really learned on this web site was a completely different way to look at race and racism, in terms of the Holocaust in Europe and the ethnic cleansing of the Native people of the Americas and other aspects of the "colonial period" of imperialism. This largely due to Makwa and his insistance that this view be forwarded as a legitimate analysis, base in the idea that Hitler's imperial concept was essentially an attempt to reproduce the European imperial mode in Eastern Europe.

Previous to that point, I had always been convinced there was something unique about Hitler's project. I had always had a sense of this, and the evidence was there, obviously, but Makwa really put it together in a way that clarified this point.

Remind wrote: Isn't everything a bell curve? ;)

Nah, Calculus courses tend to be bimodal.

And caissa, isn't calculus something you get on your teeth? ;) :D

I've learned a lot on babble and it is often the threads where people disagree the most passionately that are the most educational. I know sometimes they can get ruined by personal bickering and grudges but generally, I don't think babble is terminally toxic and that a lot of that just comes with the medium, that said I could see how it is probably much more frustrating for moderators who have to sift and judge the parts which most of us have the luxury of scrolling past. But I would advise a bit of caution about going too heavy on enforcing civility, I think it becomes murky territory. Its just so easy to imagine slights on the internet and to take everything the worst possible way. By making this the primary criteria for banning and moderation risks making 'personal attacks' even more important and central to the discussion(meta-arguments about who started what, how this statement is more insulting than intended, the unfairness of sympathizing with one jilted party over another)instead of making them disappear, which I think is probably not likely to happen.

melovesproles wrote:

I've learned a lot on babble and it is often the threads where people disagree the most passionately that are the most educational. 

I completely agree with that.  Discussions where everyone basically agrees on something are insipid.

In my family, we have knock-down drag-out verbal discussions about politics, religion and all of the other subjects families should avoid.  But, we all enjoy it and, over the years, I have learned much from those argumen...er, "conversations"!

Same with babble.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

I've learned a lot from babble and there's some great people posting great stuff here. I wish certain things were moderated differently and it's frustrating at times, but I can't think of a board that isn't. I wouldn't wish the thankless job of moderating here on anyone.

Normally I'd avoid this sort of thread like a huge smelly plague. But just one thought.... The word "civility" strikes me as risky. I'd like to see people free to say fuck, that fuckin Harper is a fuckin louse, cuz he is. Not very civil. But "civility" is one of those words that gets used by those with power to shut up those without it who want to get passionate and express an honest feeling. It always makes me think of cops beating someone up, and then mainstream society going tut-tut when the victim gets angry and points out systemic oppression. Oh no, that's not civil! Maybe the word just pushes buttons for me. On the other hand, people here maybe could be kinder to one another, there sure seems to be a lot of anger that never gets disipated, and builds up til it explodes. 

--

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Or maybe a demand that everyone must attempt to say something humourous at least in one out of every three posts.  I'm constantly guilty of attempted humour.

Agravated attempted humour.