Whatever you want to call it, I have just seen enough times where people have been repeatedly warned for serious things and finally get canned, and from the response you'd think we were trying to get some freedom fighter out of prison.These situations are difficult enough without that, and conspiracy theories complicating them.
A shout out for all of your non-assistance btw. We can always count on you.
At the current moment, Fidel has made it clear he doesn't want to return.
He leaves on a dignified note then because you've done all you could to strip it away with your handling of the situation. We said we preferred civility, not narcissism.
I think Fidel should be reinstated.
A shout out for all of your non-assistance btw. We can always count on you.
Come on, SJ.
First you imply that some of us here are to blame for others' actions, and that we're "gladio-imperialist-al-CIAduh sympathizers" if we don't fall in line and enable them. And now you're trying to guilt trip me?
I don't want anyone to go, and the fact is a lot of people have left here for a lot of varied reasons. I just find it annoying and a real joke that everytime this happens and a difficult decision is made somehow it is everyone else's fault, and the dear departed becomes some martyr for free speech.
There are a number of people here who manage to share unpopular and difficult ideas without throwing a stink bomb into the room in the process.
When I post it is a fairly civil thing, non?
There are a number of people here who manage to share unpopular and difficult ideas without throwing a stink bomb into the room in the process.
less and less 'unpopular and difficult ideas', or those who share them...
I think Fidel should be reinstated also.
Well you seem to manage just fine, NDPP, even on occasion posting material which technically may cross a line, but is allowed. And I think that is a good thing. I want to see a wider, not narrower range of opinion, within the progressive umbrella of this site.
But as I said above, I think that some of the assumptions that are being made here are baseless, and would actually serve to limit that range.
According to NDPP: Fidel joins a too long list of those run off, mostly people who took an interest in international affairs and whose views were considered unconventional and sometimes controversial by some . Too bad for Babble which will be poorer for the loss. And yes, I would consider him and at least several of those chopped to be 'freedom fighters'. And their chopping not unrelated to that either.
Well, last time I checked the international pages, 95% of the posts were media links by NDPP him/herself. The simple fact of the matter is there is damned little discussion (civil or otherwise) on the international pages these days.
And from where I sit, the underlying cause is not the loss of "freedom fighters" as NDPP suggests. But the quick resort of those so-called "fighters" to accuse more 'mainstream' Babblers of the usual "gladio-imperialist-al-CIAduh sympathizer" clap-trap. And then to bury any conversation in a flood of media links of often suspect sources.
It is clear to all of us that there are a number of different (sometimes overlapping but often quite exclusive) streams of progressive thought and action represented amongst Babblers. Sometimes the discussion benefits from the cross-fertilization, - but sometimes it really doesn't.
Maybe we just need to move to more dedicated or 'secure' spaces: the NDPers should have their own space to discuss and debate amongst themselves how best to strengthen the progressive elements of the party without being diverted by trotskyists arguing that all electoral politics is a fraud on the working class. And perhaps the International Socialists amongst us could have their secure pages and spaces on international affairs where they can share their links and freedom fights without fear of contradiction by social democrat lackeys.
The concern of course might be that there are simply not enough Babblers left in the mix to support the parallel tracks. But as someone now who only checks in on the site on a weekly basis, - I must say, I do not feel like I am missing much. Which is a shame.
Strange musings.
Anyway, I oppose suspensions/bannings of babblers for reasons of disagreement or some human "failings". Fidel is one of us. That's just the way it is.
As for trotskyites and international socialists, well, WTF sherpa-finn??? Red-bait much?
And if you don't feel as if you're missing much by not participating in babble, I have a rather revolutionary suggestion for you:
Don't.
As for trotskyites and international socialists, well, WTF sherpa-finn???
That's where it fell apart for me too. Not the red-baiting, but the juxtaposition of Trotskyists and International Socialists as being at odds.
Anyway, I oppose suspensions/bannings of babblers for reasons of disagreement or some human "failings". Fidel is one of us. That's just the way it is.
I agree with the first part of that in principle. In practice, I can see how it might be a bit difficult. And speaking generally, some of the things for which people have been canned go beyond "failings".
This latest departure is unfortunate, though having around this block a few times, my money is on it not being final; seems to work every time for getting people in a dramatic mood though.
The "one of us" thing? Yes, I get it that longstanding posters do probably get a bit more slack, and we are also inclined to get sentimental. But really, that same consideration should apply, even moreso, to newbies who may not know the ropes.
And while we're talking about "one of us", that's actually the bigger issue for me. We're all concerned about one of us, but somehow it's okay to accuse others of "us" (again, speaking generally) of conspiracy and leave them open to attack simply because they hold different opinions and dared to voice them. How is it that one person is Joe McCarthy and another is Joan of Arc for doing exactly the same thing?
And while we're talking about "one of us", that's actually the bigger issue for me. We're all concerned about one of us, but somehow it's okay to accuse others of "us" (again, speaking generally) of conspiracy and leave them open to attack simply because they hold different opinions and dared to voice them. How is it that one person is Joe McCarthy and another is Joan of Arc for doing exactly the same thing?
Although I know it's frowned upon, I'd probably need you to provide a specific example or two to illustrate your point.
With some exceptions (and those can be painful), I think the "discipline" policy is administered fairly here. I'm not the best judge, because I have long advocated for a moratorium on both bannings and suspensions (except for obvious trolls) on a trial basis, and using moderatorial skills and community pressure to enforce babbly policy.
But if someone comes on here with a (say) offensive comment about women in their second or third post - gets called on it - then responds by sarcastically or earnestly defending their "right" to free speech and makes derogatory comments about babble in the process - I'd cut them a lot less slack than a long-term babbler whose views are well-known and may get caught up in a bad mood, tough time, etc.
Wouldn't you?
Unionist: As for trotskyites and international socialists, well, WTF sherpa-finn??? Red-bait much?
Geez, talk about overly sensitive .... in my note I refer to NDPers, social democrats, trotskyists and International Socialists - simply enumeraing diverse parts of the rich pantheon that is the 'progressive community" in Canada.
My point reflects my lived experience as a fellow-traveller: sometimes the conversations between and across these groups are generative, - but quite often they are not. My own brother - a long standing member of the CPC (when that first C did not stand for Conservative) often closed our late-night debates with the fraternal promise that "Come the revolution, the anarcho-syndicalists and independent socialists [yrst truly] will be the first up against the wall, right after the bankers and captains of industry."
I have a general sense that the ill-humour and unwelcoming tone of much of the Babble conversation (conveniently exemplified by Unionists suggestion above that I simply take a hike) is a function of this continued talking at cross-purposes. Babblers seem to be bumping up roughly and repeatedly against one other in the different corridors of the Babble forums, resenting that we have to justify basic assumptions of our individual world views that we hold to be fundamental, - yet to which other Babblers simply do not ascribe. (I presume this sort of unhappy experience was what prompted the specific set of rules applied to the Feminist Forum discussions.)
Sumberjack: That's where it fell apart for me too. Not the red-baiting, but the juxtaposition of Trotskyists and International Socialists as being at odds.
I did not imply Trotskyists and IS were at odds. The intent was to distinguish between one (a political paradigm) and the other (a formal political organization).
No, actually.
Not when that sort of behaviour is the equivalent of god-botherers who aren't content to give you their pitch and then accept a "no thank you", but instead force you to call the cops to get them off your doorstep.
Sorry, but that is not someone having a bad day.
And was my example not clear enough? I'm talking about the accusations upthread of capitalist interference and conspiracy. And I guess you missed the irony that the attack undermines the very same principle it is being made in defense of
Or if you want, the perennial complaints that this board targets non-NDPers, that it's open season on posters if they happen to be American, or that a poster gets undermined as too pushy when offering race analysis that some people don't want to hear, or when moderators actually defend people from attack, or if someone happens to deviate from what some think is the script on any number of issues.
All examples from across the spectrum. You can't put that together and still want names and links? PM me.
All kinds of people get told to shut up here, and many have left for all number of reasons. Most don't get this song and dance and pointing of blame every time.
Actually, Sherpa-Finn, we got tired of explaining the basic precepts of feminism and it's history to males who would not listen. Really, we had the same interruptions of debate - and this was women, sometimes men, of varying points of view, not some monolithic groupthink echo chamber - to explain the bleeding obvious. It got boring and tired.
It is clear to all of us that there are a number of different (sometimes overlapping but often quite exclusive) streams of progressive thought and action represented amongst Babblers. Sometimes the discussion benefits from the cross-fertilization, - but sometimes it really doesn't.
It depends on the interpretation of 'benefits from.'
Wherever the classical conception of politics prevails, prevails the same impotence in front of the disaster. That this impotence is widely distributed between a variety of eventually reconcilable identities does not make the slightest difference. The anarchist from the FA, the council communist, the Trotskyist from ATTAC and the Republican Congressman start from the same amputation, propagate the same desert. Tiqqun.
Maybe we just need to move to more dedicated or 'secure' spaces: the NDPers should have their own space to discuss and debate amongst themselves how best to strengthen the progressive elements of the party without being diverted by trotskyists arguing that all electoral politics is a fraud on the working class.
For us all electoral politics is experienced within a fraudulent FPTP system. What I find curious, and laughable to a point, is that in the last few days we've gone from permanently banning undesirables the way it was done in the old penal colony days, to a suggestion that the place would better function as a supermax.
as above so below
more 'dominion' than 'democracy'...
Fidel has fetched up at EnMasse.
Always sad when you lose the breadth of ideas.
In some cases ideas don't need to be fought over-- sometimes you accept not to agree and accept that ideas you really don't like are there as a price of having diversity.
But at the same time the bargain requires some civility that often goes missing -- a little less personal attack and a little less personal offense at what is just someone else's ideas.
An example is when you have people suggesting that you are not really progressive unless you are in favour of Senate abolition rather than reform. This is the kind of thing that drives people away. So if I don't support the party line on Senate reform I have no right to come here and call myself a progressive person -- or even debate what could be done to make the Senate better. (The point is not to debate the specific merits of that policy question but whether it merits rising it to the point of slandering people as being less than progressive simply for having the discussion. Then we had someone likening the Senate issue to questioning matters that are human rights issues-- hardly a fair or equal comparison.
There are some basic principles that we have to agree on so as not to refight all the same battles and this is why challenging those things becomes such a problem. I have suggested before rather than an outright ban stopping people from posting in certain places could be done although I'd rather this be seen as extreme and require several people in the community to agree. This could help avoid some of the things some men seem to want to revisit in the Feminism spaces.
Of course I can't finish this without saying why I am in reactions today: I can't create any new threads due to validation errors. That surely is a way to limit this place. The technology has to work better or you will lose people for that reason as well. I spent an hour crafting something I can't share. And yes I'm a little annoyed about that.
Ok got my thread to post on recall legislation...
I just want to say I've never seen such thread drift in my life! It's cool though.
Is Fidel really banned?
Fidel should be reinstated, IMHO, even if he isn't interested in posting here.
Fidel should be reinstated, IMHO, even if he isn't interested in posting here.
As I understand it, he has declined the invitation to repent of his grievous sins in the customary manner on all fours. May god have mercy on his soul for that at least.
Repentance should not be necessary although if I remeber correctly Fidel is an RC.
Well, I had in mind to dig around for a suitable prayer in Latin to compliment the occasion, but holy things shouldn't really be spoken alongside the sort of thoughts I've been maintaining about this decision. Even for an a-theist some fates shouldn't be tempted.
Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei (X) Patris omnipotentis, et in noimine Jesu (X) Christi Filii ejus, Domini et Judicis nostri, et in virtute Spiritus (X) Sancti, ut descedas ab hoc plasmate Dei (name), quod Dominus noster ad templum sanctum suum vocare dignatus est, ut fiat templum Dei vivi, et Spiritus Sanctus habitet in eo. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum, qui venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos, et saeculum per ignem.
Adeste Fideles laeti triumphantes; Venite, venite in Babbleland.
ETA: Cross-prayered with Caissa.
I was hoping you could provide the Hebrew.
Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei (X) Patris omnipotentis, et in noimine Jesu (X) Christi Filii ejus, Domini et Judicis nostri, et in virtute Spiritus (X) Sancti, ut descedas ab hoc plasmate Dei (name), quod Dominus noster ad templum sanctum suum vocare dignatus est, ut fiat templum Dei vivi, et Spiritus Sanctus habitet in eo. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum, qui venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos, et saeculum per ignem.
Are you refering to what has happened already, or are you saying that Babble is possessed by demons?
I was hoping you could provide the Hebrew.
Why didn't you say so?
Here's the prayer said on Rosh Hashanah, confessing in general form all the types of sins committed during the previous year (and asking forgiveness) - and on Yom Kippur nine days later, by which time the jury is in and it's too late for supplication:
אשמנו. בגדנו. גזלנו. דיברנו דופי.
העוינו. והרשענו. זדנו. חמסנו.
טפלנו שקר. יעצנו רע. כיזבנו. לצנו.
מרדנו. ניאצנו. סררנו. עווינו.
פשענו. צררנו. קישינו עורף. רשענו.
שיחתנו. תיעבנו. תעינו. תעתענו.
What's that one about nullifying for all the promises we're forced into making but don't really believe? Kol Nidrei?
without being diverted by trotskyists arguing that all electoral politics is a fraud on the working class.
I'm not familiar with any Trotskyist group that has that exact position, actually. Wouldn't that be more an anarchist or anarcho-communist (communiste libertaire) position?
Though both of those currents would certainly say that social movement is more fundamental.
I'm certainly not happy to see Fidel go, but I think antifeminist comments are as unacceptable on a progressive site like this as racist or homophobic ones are. Left feminism is a big component of the genetic code of rabble. As for its spinoffs, that is also true of Bread and Roses; not so sure about En Masse these days as I haven't looked at it for a while, though I'm still a member.
What's that one about nullifying for all the promises we're forced into making but don't really believe? Kol Nidrei?
Yeah, pretty close. I used to recite it while playing soccer.
Kol Nidrei is beautiful. I have variations on the theme by Ben Zebelman-- Violin Cello and Piano. This is healing music.
Fidel should be reinstated, IMHO, even if he isn't interested in posting here.
I agree. The place is dying the death of a thousand cuts. When you look at the older threads and notice those missing due to 'death by mods', it is shocking...
Bring Fidel back. The place is poorer without him..
Am I the only one here who expects that our dear departed will return, as has happened several times in the past?
From what CF said the door is open after all, and the decision was mutual.
But (speaking of promises) there are conditions to be met that we all try more or less to adhere to; unless the suggestion is that one person should get a special dispensation.
"without being diverted by trotskyists arguing that all electoral politics is a fraud on the working class."I'm not familiar with any Trotskyist group that has that exact position, actually. Wouldn't that be more an anarchist or anarcho-communist (communiste libertaire) position? Though both of those currents would certainly say that social movement is more fundamental.
In their turn, Negri, Chomsky and Žižek are likely to put it that way, which is to define movement in terms of classic subjectivity within institutionalized processes.
I'm certainly not happy to see Fidel go, but I think antifeminist comments are as unacceptable on a progressive site like this as racist or homophobic ones are. Left feminism is a big component of the genetic code of rabble. As for its spinoffs, that is also true of Bread and Roses; not so sure about En Masse these days as I haven't looked at it for a while, though I'm still a member.
Except for the worst cases, I'm not convinced that continuing to react against individuals for betraying the effects of their conditioning is a viable approach anymore. The designation of safe spaces, except in dire circumstances, is to invoke a privilege that barely exists anywhere else. Rights, speech and action are best exercised and defended from where you are, as opposed to being placed for safekeeping behind barricades as a form of self-exile like monks striving toward some muted sense of purity.
So it's okay (as an example) if I choose to devote my time and efforts here to trolling, making personal attacks, telling people to fuck off, and railroading and sidetracking debate.
Anyone who expects that the community, or a moderator might step in and stop that behaviour is just living in an ivory tower, and should learn to deal with the real world.
(edit)
Believe it or not, I agree with you about free speech; but I also don't think obstructionism is as rare as you imply. As well, if I understood your comment upthread correctly you say that we should modify what we say so that we don't cause others to react . How is that any different than the cloister you are talking about?
as opposed to being placed for safekeeping behind barricades as a form of self-exile like monks striving toward some muted sense of purity.
I think it's very sad that this is how objecting to repeated and flagrant use of anti-feminist language -- actually, full-on attacks against feminist and women -- is getting represented by SJ here. What's sadder, of course, is that there are no women posters here anymore to object to this representation, because they've all decided, for one reason or another, to either leave for good or post increasingly sparingly. Of course, I've repeated this dilemma again and again, and I'm rewarded with redoubled accusations of capitalist coercion or tyrranical censorship. And that's just here on babble. Ok, I guess.
I am sorry to see Fidel go, but he has made it quite clear via email, his posts and other avenues that he has no interest in returning and given the tenor and content of his recent email, posts and other avenues it is not in babble or the mods' best interests to let him post in the frail hope that he will stop trolling or attacking women.
Suffice it to say that the objections raised here have been heard, and seeing nothing else productive coming from a thread that is supposed to limit itself to announcing mod vacations, I'm closing it.
