Why Was This Person Banned? Part 2

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik Redburn

skeiseid wrote:

However, although one might expect "human rights" to be inclusive of gender, race, class and religion, rabble yanks out three of these for special status. Since we've been discussing transgressions that have religious overtones, I'm wondering if rabble/babble might consider either making commensurate note of "freedom of religion" (and how about "freedom of thought") or folding the special cases back into human rights so that there's some recognition of equality amongst the rights.

 

Um, no.  Writing "freedom of religion" into the rabble rules, would only be an open invitation to rightwing trolls everywhere to waste most our time fending off bigotted idiocy.  We have learned the hard way, they only want to agitate not communicate.  There may be a couple overzealous net nannies here at times, but this is a private message board where posting is a privilege and those who are on the left (what progressive originally meant, give or take) should naturally be favoured, if only because that was the original intent of this whole site -to provide some counter weight to our increasingly rightwing media oligarchy and allow progressives some outlet for our own views.  Even if the term "progressive" has become progressively more empty by overuse and cooption, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand the shared underlying values -if you in fact share most those values.  Rightwingers have every other venue to monopolize now.

skeiseid

...then why mention "anti-racism"? Just saying "human rights" would have done it all.

If this is a "private" message board, how are we supposed to communicate with "the world"?

But that does answer my question to babble about measuring the watchers -- babble evidently doesn't want onlookers (or doesn't want to point out the fact that it doesn't have any).

Hint: we should pull down the blinds if we want a private chat in this particular living room.

Caissa

So if there is a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the current atmosphere at Babble, how do we move forward?

 

skeiseid

That would depend on whose board this is.

Is it, as has been represented here, a members' board?

Is rabble/babble a democracy? I have no idea.

Anyone else know?

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Sven wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Uh, so peaceful protest is anarchy. That explains a lot.  I've always known you're not a free speech absolutist, Sven. That's what defines hyprocrisy, though, when you demand it from others.

Rabble.ca can publish or not publish (including posters' writings) whatever rabble.ca decides to publish or not publish.

 

Precisley. So then what's your point?

skeiseid wrote:

FM: you wanted context. You never got back to me on that "background: thing...

There is lots of background being offered in this thread. One of the tactics that leads to derailied discussion is obtuseness.

M. Spector wrote:

The Canadian left is bitter, fractious, resentful, and suspicious.

And at a time when it ought to emboldened and gainining strength.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I'm wondering if rabble/babble might consider either making commensurate note of "freedom of religion" (and how about "freedom of thought") or folding the special cases back into human rights so that there's some recognition of equality amongst the rights.

 

babble already supports freedom of religion. A babbler is free to believe in any God, many Gods, or none.

 

Or did you mean some kind of protection from criticism for religions, [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52P60220090326]such as has been ratified at the United Nations[/url]?

skeiseid

But you claimed I was posting without "background". If background was "being offered" anyway what was your point?

You didn't mean "backup" -- i.e. substantiation -- did you?

One of the obstacles in communication is lack of precision and clarity.

skeiseid

Sorry, yes I could have been clearer I guess.

I said freedom of religion when I should have said the equivalent of "anti-anti-religion-ism" -- the correspondent to "anti-racism" -- is there a word for that? The double negative seemed awkward.

It just seemed that there were religious overtones in this incident and observed the disparity in the policy statement and wondered if this was a contributing factor.

Michelle

I think there's probably a lot of truth to M. Spector's last post in this thread.

Anyhow, closing this for length, but I'm sure the thread will go on, if not today, then some time in the near future.

Pages

Topic locked