The suits at rabble.ca (Alex, Kim, etc) have decreed that my calling cops "pigs" is no longer allowed because it dehumanizes them.
However, white male Caissa can call politicians "pit bulls" with full support of the white rabble.ca establishment (catchfire, old goat, alex, etc).
Disgusting!
I seriously doubt that hatred is at work here. I don't agree with the decision, but I also don't agree that they hate you.
Well, I'm not the establishment, but I'm opposed to slandering pit bulls.
E. Tamaran, it's hard for me to read your posts without thinking you are trying to pick a fight. I don't think calling someone a pit bull is the same as calling a cop a pig (there's a difference between metaphorization and dehumanization) , but I have always supported the right to do both on babble, in thread titles and in posts. Indeed, Caissa has also stated he disagrees with the editorial decision. It might serve your interests better if you found out who your allies were and treated them in kind.
I don't think even you believe the thread title is accurate.
Catchfire,
BS. Humans are not animals, so logically it shouldn't matter which animal we use as an insult. It's dehumanizing. And your statement that "pit bull" is less of an insult than "pig" doesn't pass muster. Ask someone who was attacked by a pit bull if they're a "better" class of animal.
No, what I see here is whites being allowed to use "dehumanizing" language whenever they please. FNs, not so much. If it wasn't so, you would have followed the spirit of the suits' decree and also changed Caissa's thread title from "pit bull" to "fighter" or somesuch.
The "policy", if one exists, should be as follows:
No one may refer to any human by use of animal metaphores, ever, in any context, because it's dehumanizing.
The "policy", if one exists, should be as follows:
No one may refer to any human by use of animal metaphores. Ever.
I would prefer a slight revision of emphasis:
No one may abuse innocent animals by using their species names as metaphors for Very Bad People.
Ok, chicks and pussycats?
Theres no question at all that calling cops pigs is in practice- in force of meaning- is much more of an epithet than calling people pit bulls.
Conext is eveything. For example, calling people pigs because you want to call them slovenly, that is much less of an epithet than calling cops pigs. Same animal even.
Subjective? Absolutely. Wide open to interpretation? Absolutely.
E. Tamaran, I agree with Catchfire that you seem to be just looking for a fight. Like I said in the other thread, words and word usage evolves in our language with certain emotive weight above and beyond any literal meaning. The English language doesn't always make objective sense, but it's what we've got. I believe you are a sufficiently articulate person to be able to understand that. Real pigs, if you get to know them outside of traumatizing factory farms can actually be rather endearing animals, and quite intelligent, yet I wouldn't like to be called a pig. Sarah Palin however wore the term 'pit bull' with pride. If you want to describe me as cute as a puppy, or wise as an owl, feel free, even though as birds go, owls are really kind of stupid.
As far as your policy suggestion goes, I think the mods are gonna say no on that one. In terms of the thread title you're wrong, but I have no control over what you're going to believe.
ETA: for the record, as far as the pigs policy goes, and potty mouth thread titles in general, I am of the same mind as Maysie and Catchfire. I don't hate vocal FN people. I don't hate, or for that matter even mildly dislike E. Tamaran.
They're carrying out the editorial policy of the suits here. Their choice is to continue doing so, or not, which would mean resignation. They've elected to enforce policy, perhaps out of a sense that there is a greater good consideration in doing so. I don't know. I do know that for those of us who do not agree with the decision, we could chose to protest in the manner that I suggested in the other thread, putting the word pig in all thread titles until they relent, or through some other expression. It appears that the babble community doesn't believe it is a worthwhile enough cause either. In effect, you get tossed under the bus twice for your efforts. You're not surprised...are you?
They've elected to enforce policy, perhaps out of a sense that there is a greater good consideration in doing so.
Sorta like when the Governor General Jean allowed Harper to porogue parliament - twice. She stuck around, and was called a traitor by unionist.
We cross posted with my edit before you just edited your post above. I still don't dislike you. 
Anyway, I'm outta here for the day.
Something like that, but entirely different in another sense. The mod staff here are part of the worker class, and they've received their marching orders on this issue just like anywhere else.
Yeah, we could resign, or in my case just stop moderating as I'm a volunteer. I guess in my case anyway, I'm a patient person, and maybe a bit more process focussed than some. These are also people I've known for some years and I have some faith the possibility of positive resolution without publicly dramatic gestures. As well, I do a lot of advocacy in my work and personal life, and as far as tactics goes I've learned to be an incrementalist. I've also been associated with babble for over nine years now, and seen a lot of issues arise and in time pass. You can't go for the nuclear option every time.
ok, now I'm really going. Off to Taste of the Danforth.
personally i could care less what people call cops or politicians. I don't see the big deal about "pig", although i don't use it, since it's been used for decades...but i guess the mods have a point in that if we don't use epiphets in regards to people it should be across the board.
but "pit bull" seems to be a little different, in that it refers specifically to baird's attitude (like hawk or dove, teddy bear, etc) , not a group he belongs to, whereas "pig" is a term used to describe any and every cop, so it's more of a traditional "slur".
Yeah, "pit bull" is used to slag one guy, while "pigs" is used to slag a group. That said, in an conversation with writer I maintained that a cop is a cop is a cop, so maybe the distinction doesn't matter.
whereas "pig" is a term used to describe any and every cop, so it's more of a traditional "slur".
Hi Milo,
I imagine pig came in vogue because all cops are corrupt and dirty, and since pigs have a reputation as being an "unclean" animal, both in religion and in practice due to wallowing in muck, it seemed like a suitable epithet.
So from that, we see it's no different than calling Baird a pit bull - pit bulls have a reputaion as a vicious attack animal, so it seems like a suitable thing to call him.
So in short, either both should be allowed, or both should be banned.
The suits at rabble.ca have simply made a series of decrees and they expect everyone to fall in line.
Power corrupts.
How does whatever epithets are allowed reflect on rabble.ca's attitude toward FNs?
That's the problem with rules.
As I said a long time ago, I don't think it's a good idea to dehumanize anyone by refering to them as a "pig" or "cockroach" or "oozing syphalitic sore on the body politic".
And, in the case of Pigs for cops, it's not cops I'm sticking up for, nor, in the case of the Senate, it's not senators I'm sticking up for.
Dehumanizing through language is a technique mastered and used against US, primarily. It's us, here, that I'm sticking up for.
But that's a realization that has to come from persuasion, not through rewels. There's no victory through regulation in this case. It's something that has to come from within.
But, if your going to have rules, then they have to be rules. Yes, pitbull may be somewhat different than pig, but not inarguably so, and if you are going to have a rule at babble, it is best not one that has arguing room.
Why's everyone so pissed with each other?
We're letting fascism slide in Toronto, surely we can cut each other some slack on these language issues.
They've elected to enforce policy, perhaps out of a sense that there is a greater good consideration in doing so.
Sorta like when the Governor General Jean allowed Harper to porogue parliament - twice. She stuck around, and was called a traitor by unionist.
Oh, I called her far worse than that. "Piece of shit" comes to mind.
