Missing Babblers Continuation Thread, Hold The Hostility

Can't see the Perseids from Toronto.

Fifteen years ago I drove up to my parents' place in Medonte township in the middle of a nice dark forest.  Hubby and I and lay on the road in front of my parents' house and watched the meteors rain down upon us.  Perspective is good.

I read where Dion and Iggy have had to crack the party whip at times when their MP's have shown a desire to vote with the NDP against the Harpers. Independent thought in that party is discouraged for the most part. And independent candidates will never be a progressive political force in this last bastion of political conservatism in the world, or anywhere in the world for that matter

The day that partisan operatives of any party succeed in monopolizing the pablum, force feeding it with a ladle, while managing to have outlawed the involuntary gag reflex of dissent, will be a sorry-assed day indeed.  This is what is being attempted here of course, a concerted effort by a few to manipulate board policy changes and stymie legitimate criticism through complaints about being unfairly picked on by a few non-aligned malcontents.  The issue of a few missing babblers has been appropriated by those who would shut down any critique of the party being discussed, who would rejoice if short term or permanent vacations were handed to those who insist on pointing out to the oblivious, enough holes in the dish being served up that would make the Swiss envious.

Stephen Gordon wrote:

And I bet a NDP/Liberal/Bloc MP who broke ranks with her leader would be given a pat on the back by her party and encouraged to "Give Jack/Michael/Gilles hell!"

Right. They are all the same. But sadder still than an MP who won't break caucus ranks under any circumstances, is an anonymous internet poster who isn't even subject to such discipline, but voluntarily cedes their own soul for the [b]P[/b]arty and the [b]L[/b]eader. That would be fine, if they didn't debase, ridicule, and demonize those who prefer to maintain their freedom.

Unionist wrote:

Stephen Gordon wrote:

And I bet a NDP/Liberal/Bloc MP who broke ranks with her leader would be given a pat on the back by her party and encouraged to "Give Jack/Michael/Gilles hell!"

Right. They are all the same. But sadder still than an MP who won't break caucus ranks under any circumstances, is an anonymous internet poster who isn't even subject to such discipline, but voluntarily cedes their own soul for the [b]P[/b]arty and the [b]L[/b]eader. That would be fine, if they didn't debase, ridicule, and demonize those who prefer to maintain their freedom.

 

For which you constantly provide the mirror image.

Pot

Kettle

Black

I remember learning how to drive. I was always driving the speed limit and sometimes in excess of. One teenaged fun-filled night we were cruising down main street and whistling at friends and girls in other vehicles. I must have changed lanes one too many times in all the excitement,  because the cop asked me to: PICK A LANE AND DRIVE!

Fidel wrote:

 I must have changed lanes one too many times in all the excitement,  because the cop asked me to: PICK A LANE AND DRIVE!

Did she say what to do when the semi was approaching head on? Or when you had a flat?

Judging from this thread, the hardcore Nude Ems must need a big hug.

OK, hugs all around.

Quote:

I also think it would be great if people who say they're going to ignore each other actually ignore each other.  You know how dumb someone looks when they, in high dudgeon and righteous indignation, state they will no longer read the posts of another, then three posts down quote that person and underscore again how contemptable and ignore-worthy they are.

Is it possible that we could mark the change in the tone of babble when "plonking" ended? Granted, plonking is a tad childish, but what's wrong with being childish once in a while?

Again, in my view, it comes with actually showing each a little bit of respect. Assuming some honesty and integrity in one another.

On both sides. On all sides.

But getting the next good one is is more fun to some people, I guess.

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Anonymous monikers and without declared political party support. Those are absolutely vital for the m.o. of every self-respecting internet concern troll frequenting progressive forums

The above is precisely the type of Jim Jones Koolaid post which makes my technological suggestion to Michelle utterly essential. Either that, or we actually speak our minds about what people post here. Imagine that scenario!!

I believe I already did. And it put you over the edge apparently.

This merits repeating:

Michelle wrote:

I wonder if it would be possible for people who have fallen into a pattern of really not being able to stand each other and constantly bickering to try to ignore each other.

_______________________________________

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

Fidel, we get your point.

I would really like people to stop insulting each other in this thread, and needling each other like this.  It's getting really old, really fast.

Fidel, we used to have another poster around here who continually demanded to know the political affiliations of everyone else who disagreed with him. He was banned for repeated red-baiting.

Please don't repeat that mistake.

I find all this talk about forcing people to use their real names and identify their political affiliations revealing of the real political attitudes of some so called progressive people. Why is this kind of totalitarian measure even being discussed?

Givn that the NDP is currently the "best bet" for progressives, I find it normal that it be discussed (and challenged) a lot here.

It seems to me we are generally in agreement and that this discussion is going in circles.

Yet martin, many of the most virtiolic against the NDP rarely ever mention the Liberals or Greens. 

Personally I would argue that they aren't progressive, but I do find curious the regularity of drive by smears against the NDP and NDP activists by the same posters over and over and yet those parties are never mentioned.

And most of those posts are just smears - like I quoted above, they are not substantive criticisms of policy, or tactics, or anything- just silly little baiting smears.  However, when a few posters who identify as NDP members (although who really knows if they are or not)making similar sorts of comments they are chastized for it.  It just seems like an uncouncious double standard.  Sort of like the old story of the parent who ends up teaching a relative and bends over backwards to be doubly hard on them just to prove they aren't favouring them.

For me I look at it this way.  For my entire life I have been putting up with attacks (the kind of attacks you see on new websites) for being involved with the NDP.  So I come to a website that says it is for progressive Canadians and instead of disussing ways to defeat non-progressive forces at the polls or to discuss0-well just issues- a substantial amount of space and energy is taken up with attacking the NDP and attempting to link it to all that is bad in the world.  It makes it a very unwelcoming place for those of us who have decided to channel our activism- for good or ill through the NDP.  Their behavour is dismissed as okay simply because this is not an NDP board.  However, it is a progressive board and NDP activists should not be attacked simply for working within the NDP as part of our activism.  You see it happen in threads about all kinds of things where two or three regular posters will come in and make comments like 'well if you really did like potatoes you wouldn't support the NDP because Obama likes potatoes and so do thong wearers and don't get me started about what Bob Rae did to potatoes 2 decades ago in Ontario."  Well that might be an exageration, but the comments often are totally unrelated to the discussion or topic and they take things off in this other tension filled direction. 

I don't begrude those who choose to channel their activism through other vessels.  I do begrude those who do nothing but sit on the sidelines and piss and moan at others who choose electoral politics, or an NGO or an issue advocacy group though.  However, it often feels like those of us who do channel our activism through the NDP are treated like 2nd class progressives on babble.

I feel your pain, Bookish Agrarian. And I see things really have advanced for the NDP in the last  10 years or so. Before proliferation of internet forums, the public was exposed to a relentless onslaught of old line party propaganda and nil next to nothing about the NDP in mainstream news media. Like youve experience I'm sure, I can remember a time when we really were opening ourselves up for ridicule by declaring our political allegiance to the NDP. My home town in Northern Ontario was big red and big blue machine by and large. Today it's NDP federally and Liberals relying heavily on the local ethnic vote, and the local paper is contantly covering up for their shortcomings and lack of effectiveness in dealing with real issues affecting the community. The two old line parties have come down a peg or two in the public's eyes since the glory days.

These forums didnt exist at one time, and few old line party supporters knew anything other than what old line party bosses and party drones fed them. They are running scared now and fearful of losing their parties' strangleholds on power. And they know that day will arrive. They still have many advantages over the NDP wrt news media and funding from banks and the well-heeled. And I think that it is a fine tribute the NDP here with babble that there are very few self-described old line party supporters who will openly declare their political allegiance much less try to defend the status quo with the handful of openly NDP posters there are here. Gone are those days when the arrogant ones looked down on us enough to flaunt their old line party credentials. Today it's them who are so embarrassed to admit their political allegiance that they not only hide behind anonymity, they also shy away from being labelled Liberal and Tory as if those are dirty words. All we can really say about that is, good work NDPers! Because where ever there is one good NDPer, the old line partiers will always be outnumbered. cheers BA

Fidel wrote:

That's okay, because not for a moment did I believe that anyone should be forced to declare their political allegiance. That would represent a kind of Hitlerization of babble, or a bottom-up McCarthyization of things.

Well, let me put it to you this way then. I am hardly annonymous to all Babblers. I am actually know a few of them, past and present. I just don't choose to be know to all of them. Why should I? For one thing. most of you (you included) I would not mind having you know who I am. There are some people who read this site who I definitely do not want to know, or have them know me.

Is that clear?

The thing is, Fidel, lots of people don't HAVE political parties they're aligned with.  There are lots of people who have given up on electoral politics and channel their activism elsewhere.  Or people who vote NDP but are very critical of the party.  It happens.  Constantly accusing them of being Liberals, or telling them that they have to affiliate themselves with some fringe party (or assuming that they are affiliated with a fringe party or secretly a Conservative or Liberal operative, or whatever), is often inaccurate, and off-topic.

That said, I also agree with Bookish Agrarian, that it's possible that people who are involved with the NDP suffer a number of "cheap shots" from those who are critical of the NDP.  But I've seen enough cheap shots from some of the NDP true believers on the site towards those who are critical to know that it isn't just a one-way street.

This is one of the most civil political discussions we've had in awhile.

One of my favorite sites is StackOverflow.com

It's a Question/Answer site for programmers that harnesses the 'wisdom-of-the-crowd' model most beautifully.

The idea is that you can ask a question or answer a question. You must register (become a member) to ask or answer a question. This can be quite anonymous.

Every member has a reputation score.  You earn reputation points (or lose them) when other members vote your answer up or down.

Not all members are equal.  You have to earn reputation points before you can even vote the posts of others up or down (or even comment).

Reputation has its privileges. Earn enough reputation points and you can edit the question (to make it clearer),  or even delete the post (always with a comment).

A brilliant nuance is that if YOU vote someone down, it costs you a reputation point along with the loss in reputation the poster suffers. Praise is always more difficult to come by than scorn in forums like these, so putting a small price on scorn beside the premium on praise, and a very interesting model emerges.  Few are willing to sacrifice reputation except those that have enough and are willing to say "enough-is-enough".

People love praise and reputation.  The best answers are the ones that have the most thought, effort and insight attached. Posters fiercely compete for the most votes. Ask a stupid question, one that has been asked and answered many times before?  You find youself sinking.  Trash talking an innocent answer or opposing point of view?  Just ask Winnifred in Wonderland.

I would love to see some kind of similar voting/member reputation system implemented in in Babble.  It would change the dynamics entirely.

Caissa wrote:

I've just read the thread from top to bottom. Thank you to everyone for your contributions. Are we any closer to identifying what needs to be done to make Babble a more civil society?

A voting system thumbs-up/thumbs down.

A member reputation system, reputation earned or lost by other members voting.

Voting thumbs-up on a post or topic earns you nothing (0).

Voting a post down cost both you (-1) and the offending poster (-2). A reason must be given with a thumbs-down vote.

Privileges are conferred on members according to the reputation they have earned.

Reputation points are earned (+3) or lost (-2) by others voting on your contributions.

A minimum reputation must be earned before a member can vote.

The numbers in parentheses are point values for simplicity's sake.  They may not work in practise for maximum audience participation, which is one of the goals, but a variation of this works really well for StackOverflow.com.

-Looking for an honest man

I will criticize ideas and behaviours, but unless you continually post things anathemic to me, I will not make any assumptions about you as a person.  I can disagree with you and still respect you.

That is one poster- who has been taken to task, including by NDP babblers, for doing so.

Question someones obvious affliation, but unclaimed, to another party and you get chastized for doing so.  Dismiss someone as just an NDP partisan and that's okay.

I am not blaming anyone.  I think it is just human nature for the following to happen.  People act like this is some sort of NDP board, or I am an NDP supporter.  I will show we are not- knock it off ______(NDP babbler).  All of which I think is totally unconscious.  We are all human and it would be hard to check that at the door.

It doesn't help that some of the NDP posters - like some of the constant NDP bashers are sort of broken records.  But what happens is we all get tarred with their behaviour when they are only acting as individiuals.  And because they behave badly sometimes it is seen as permission to treat others poorly.

Personally I think short lock outs all around- regardless of who started it - would be an effective tool.

Yay Boom Boom! Good luck with how your garden grows.