About not calling "police officers" pigs - Has the rabble.ca editorial staff released its reasoning yet?

It doesn't have anything to do with that milo, not for me anyways. It has to do with the fact that we are even debating whether or not the police are "friends of labour" and therefore shouldn't be branded as "pigs".

Whoa.  

Who is floating that load of codswallop that Police are "friends of labour" ?

I can't read as many threads as I used to, nor can I always sink my teeth into many like I was once able to.  Clearly I missed something here.

Someone pinch me, please, and tell me that this whole "debate" about using a term in the thread title vs. in the thread body itself has just been an elaborate caricature of sectarian leftists beating each other up over the number of angels dancing on a pin.

Please?

What a farce, and what an embarrassment.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Who is floating that load of codswallop that Police are "friends of labour" ?

I can't read as many threads as I used to, nor can I always sink my teeth into many like I was once able to.  Clearly I missed something here.

Stargazer raised that point in this thread - and I think maybe she's mistaken?? Who on babble (other than maybe some short-term troll visitor) ever characterized police as "friends of labour"?? I missed it too. I think maybe it's time to link to it, or retract it. If I'm mistaken, I'll definitely eat crow - and shout a bit at whoever described cops as my friends.

Thanks E. Tamaran, remind, cueball and others for picking up on the marginalization.

That's good U.  I had this gut instinct you were going to play semantics.  Carry on if you must.

Isn't the opposite of anti-labour, friends of labour?  Just not sure how you've adopted your convoluted position Unionist?  Are you going to ignore context for the written word?  It's not like you.  You're usually much more logical.  Is everything okay?

Unionist wrote:

It's not enough for you, RP, that I oppose the editorial decision, is it? I have to rant against it and misquote it and mischaracterize it in order to prove... what? That I really really hate those pigs more than anybody in the world?

As I said, these discussions are no place for any serious activist who gives a damn about changing the world. And the accusations against rabble of being "racist" are just beyond the people. Some people need to get out a bit more.

 

Sorry, I cross-posted but this brings it in much better perspective.  It's not for you to say what any serious activist should be doing.  I agree when you call out things but fuck man, can't we let non-white people speak?  Why do I have to use my privilege?  Why can't we listen?  If I'm this pissed, imagine how others are... 

Pardon my agression Unionist, you make a lot of sense but sometimes I feel the need to rebut some of it.

Quote:

Feeling anxious over police charges you wish would just disappear? Better cross your fingers for a mix-up in the mailroom.

That's what got Dave Vasey off the hook, it would seem. On June 24, the 31-year-old was exploring the G20 security perimeter when he was arrested and charged under the controversial Public Works Protection Act, a 1939 law that was amended for the international summit.

But when Vasey attended his scheduled court date July 28, he was told they had no record of his charge. According to the attorney general's office, it was never filed with the courts.

At the time, Toronto police said they were looking into the missing charge but believed an administrative error was likely to blame.

Police have now concluded that paperwork for Vasey's charge was "delayed in the mail" and failed to arrive at the provincial prosecutor's office until July 29 - one day after Vasey's scheduled court appearance.

Toronto police spokesperson Meaghan Gray said it is unclear what might have caused the delay.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/846331--mail-mi...

Just popping in on West Coast time to say that I was the big doofus who imagined that the rabble staff who have been talking about this (me, Catchfire, Alex and Kim) could get together within a week of the original announcement and work something out around this policy so that Alex and/or Kim could present something to babblers. Saying "one week" was clearly setting up unrealistic expectations, and I'm sorry about that.

Forgive me for my optimism.

Back to my vacay.

I'm sure some of you know how I feel about this one.

I can wait for the mods to get together on this, and besides, I don't feel I really need an explanation. If I felt strongly enough that I needed to say something my freedom of speech doesn't begin and end with someone else's website policy.

What I would be more interested to see is people's personal lists of whom they think is off limits for abuse and who is fair game. Clearly the much simpler notion that it's just not nice to call people insulting names applies to only some of us.

(edit)

The labour issue is beside the point, IMO, though for me the fact that the cops are bound to uphold and enforce the law is central to this question (even though it likely has no bearing on Babble's decision).

Unionist wrote:

As I said, these discussions are no place for any serious activist who gives a damn about changing the world. And the accusations against rabble of being "racist" are just beyond the people. Some people need to get out a bit more. 

At the moment it seems we're down to one active thread on the entire board with which to discuss an editorial decision that effectively places limits on how marginalized communities may represent their oppressors on this website.  Perhaps whispering the concerns at the back of the bus would avoid disrupting the normal flow of things, or would that be taking up too much space as well?

Hardly idle chatter Unionist. Did you miss the entire thread on whether ther police were "friends of labour" and I'm sorry but the way you interpret what Alex stated and the way I do are entirely different, and I resent the fact that somehow discussing this makes me "no serious activist".

AS i said before, stand in my shoes for my life and my experiences with the pigs and then get back to me on this issue.

Cloaking this decision in some anti-labour BS is just that bullshit. There is NOTHING pro-labour about the police. NOTHING.

Caissa wrote:

Police may not be "friends of labour' but they are workers.

They are henchmen for a criminally destructive economic order which continues to exist by treading upon the necks of those who do not please it with obedience.

And what do you intend to replace police officers with slumberjack?

That's begging the question, Cassia.

Anyway, it should hardly be surprising that we are having this discussion.   The general "leadership"  of the left, whether it's the NDP, or labour leaders or publishers or editors of a place like Rabble.ca are not revolutionaries.  They are Bourgeois lefties that have as much a stake in keep the status quo as, say, Kevin O'Leary or Conrad Black, or Bill Blair. 

Fight the patriarchy indeed.

That's why left leadership dropped a class analysis and continually foments identity politics-- it keeps those of a revolutionary mind-- those who would want to *gasp*  do something, fighting each other along gender lines and race lines and, well, nicely segregated instead of united in our common interests.

And, don't believe the bourgeois lefties, we do indeed have common interests.  But for all that, I appreciate the NDP and Rabble for what they are, and we're much better off for having them than if we didn't.

But don't expect them to be something they are not.  And what they are not are revolutionaries.

Caissa wrote:

And what do you intend to replace police officers with slumberjack?

If we're of the mind to replace things, gutting out the rotting structures at the top to make way for something other than what we exist under now would in my mind resolve many follow on questions.  For instance, there'd be no need for suppression to protect the greedy interests of a select cabal of elitists.  Thugs looking for a badge to hide behind needn't apply to communal service.  During the labour strife in France during 2005, picketing firemen who were surrounded by riot police subsequently attacked them with hammers.  A clear example where inclinations of wanting to protect and serve the public should never be taken as an excuse for joining the police as they are currently constituted.

rabble reactions threads do not show up on the front page.

I don't know exactly, because it's been like that since long before I was a moderator, but I imagine it's because the list on the front page is meant to attract front-page visitors to discussion on babble. rabble reaction threads are more in house, community-centred topics, and wouldn't serve that purpose.

Unionist wrote:

Stargazer wrote:

Hardly idle chatter Unionist. Did you miss the entire thread on whether ther police were "friends of labour" ...

SG, yes, I obviously must have missed it, where is it?? Who on babble said that police were "friends of labour"?? I honestly can't believe that - unless it's just someone's "interpretation" of what Alex said.

Stargazer wrote:

... and I'm sorry but the way you interpret what Alex stated and the way I do are entirely different,

I think the statement that calling police pigs is "anti-labour" is about as stupid and nonsensical as saying that it's "anti-Catholic". Does someone think that functionaries of any kind who happen to join a union are immune from being called names when their actions merit it? Can we call the RCMP "pigs" because they don't have a certified trade union, but not the Montréal police!? If that's what the rabble editorial board are saying, then let me state clearly my view: If a member of a union acts like a saint or a murderous fascist, they should be called a saint or a murderous fascist, accordingly.

And if Alex meant that cops as a group are "friends of labour", then Alex is an idiot and one would have to wonder what planet she is living on. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on that one until I hear the editorial response.

Quote:

and I resent the fact that somehow discussing this makes me "no serious activist".

Did you read the thread titles I quoted above?

Are you calling rabble.ca "racist"?

Do you think their stupid decision about calling police "pigs" in thread topics is a sign that "rabble hates vocal FNs"?

If so, then my respect for your seriousness takes a dip accordingly. But I don't believe I heard you say those foolish things.

Quote:

AS i said before, stand in my shoes for my life and my experiences with the pigs and then get back to me on this issue.

Quote:

Cloaking this decision in some anti-labour BS is just that bullshit. There is NOTHING pro-labour about the police. NOTHING.

I fully agree. In which case... why are you and I arguing? What are we disagreeing about? Or better yet: What do [b]you[/b] think is behind this decision? Did some union complain which gives money to rabble? If that's the case, let us know who that was, so we can kindly tell them our opinion (mine would be: "Fuck off"), and let them justify their stand if they wish.

But calling rabble "racist" and "hating FN" is ... non-serious. In fact, it guarantees that no sensible discussion on the issue can take place.

 

 

[/quote]

Of course you are right U, and I've been thinking about this all day. I do not like to think you and I argue, as I really do care what you think of me and I respect you. Okay back to the topic - yes there was a thread started on here about the police being "fiends of labour - debate" - it as clearly a no-brainer - because we all know they are no friends of labour even on their best days.And no, I do not necessarily think it is racist but it certainly is not progressive and I think that vanning the word pigs shuts down some very loud and upset voices from being heard. Too bad if caissa or Will seem upset about this word. I'd rather them just stop whining about the poor police then  shut down the justifiable anger from people like ET and others (myself included).

I think what upsets me most is this whole "don't call them pigs because it is somehow anti-labour", which is bullshit, and I think the SS analogy above is spot on. There is absolutely no need for the left to cuddle up to a fascist organization such as the police. What do they do for us short of the very rare and occasional assistance (i.e. doing their jobs!)? Compare that with their racial profiling, their lack of interest in sex crimes against marginalized groups of people, their participation in anti-labour activities - hell, their whole entire raison' d'etre is against everything the left stands for.

What is incredibly offensive is couching the ban in terms of some non-existent pro-labour BS we are supposed to share with these fascist thugs. Someone should really do a good job of explaining how the fuck the police are a part of the general struggle, because I have studied them for years and my experience and studies lead me to believe the truth - the police are NOT on our side and never will be. I am disappointed that Rabble somehow feels it must protect the oppressors. From what? There is nothing shorty of some people getting their anger off their chest by ranting and throwing the occasional "pig" word around. So what, exactly, is the reason for protecting the very people who arrested over 1,000 people during the G20? The organization that ALWAYS gets funding, regardless of crime rates. The same organization that thinks nothing of bashing in the heads of peaceful protesters. They beed to be protected from the word "pig".

Is this serious!

Stargazer, thanks for your last post - it confirms what I thought, that we have no disagreement.

Likewise, Tommy.

@ jrootham #90

If you mean not thinking that it is a good idea to call cops pigs, I agree with that personally.

And although I think people have the right to make that decision for themselves, I don't think anyone's free speech hangs on the policy of one web domain. I also don't think a ban on derogatory references in any way prevents someone from expressing ideas on that website. So I don't have any opposition to the new policy, just as I respected rabble's decision to allow calling cops pigs in the past.

But then I am a relative newcomer here. I wouldn't consider myself a regular.

George, no one is telling you you have to call a cop or cops pigs if you are not inclined to do so.  Management and the Editorial side is telling people they are forbidden to use the term, as well as swearing, in thread titles.  That's really rather different.  A few months ago I said I personally didn't care for the use of the term.  That's my choice.  I was not speaking as a moderator and I would never dream of telling others that they couldn't.  That is because I am aware that my own choice is enmeshed with my own race and class privlige. 

Burn! Good catch R.T.

Thanks for that info E.Tam and yes, jrootham, there are many that disagree with the substance of this issue. 

6079 makes a good point about it just being a website but this isn't supposed to be your plain jane website.  It's supposed to be about being different from the MSM.  Welcoming voices that aren't heard.  I used to think that of the NDP too. 

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me...

ETA:  Here's a link for E.Tam's catch:

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/846418--belleville-s-abuzz-over-police-chief-as-victim-of-domestic-violence

Quote:

Her husband David McMullan, a 53-year-old retired police officer, has been charged with assault and released on a promise to appear in court Sept. 30

RevolutionPlease wrote:

6079 makes a good point about it just being a website but this isn't supposed to be your plain jane website.  It's supposed to be about being different from the MSM.  Welcoming voices that aren't heard.

For the record, I wasn't implying that this was just like any other space (and I don't think you're necessarily accusing me of that).