Current mess and addition of new forum under current events

Holy shit, not a gun advocate! Can you PM me his or her name? I'll get the pitch fork.

Sean, I don't think certain that certain babblers are necessary the cause of the lack of traffic on the forums.

Over the years there have been several issues that have driven babblers away that have caused greater wounds to the forums than some conservative members posting here. Think about the great schism, the firing of key staff and poor choices of moderators that banned outstanding members.

The downward spiral of the forums have been going on for years, even now discussions are limited to a few threads every day. I think the greatest shame of the forums is in most cases people didn't band together to solve issues or help people, people posted here to push their political or personal objectives.

I speak as outsider, someone that has watched from the outside of progressive circle. The "left" is just as responsible for the destruction of forum as the "right" is. 

I don't believe the debate should be about what is liberalism or progressivism. The debate should be about helping people, how to organize, how to create grass root solutions to local problems.

How many honest threads have we had on the forums about helping people? 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

  It is possible that some people would only go to the Leftist politics forum and maybe the Liberals would end up talking to themselves in the politics forum but I am guessing that there would be some who would engage the Liberals in the politics forum as well while others will choose not to and prefer to just stay in the leftist forum. 

I think it's more likely the general progressive politics forum would be active and the more exclusive one would die.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

  This is better than what is happening now where the people who do not want to engage at every turn with the Trudeau vision are just not coming back.

If you started a thread and put in a note saying it is only for pacifists or a thread that said no Liberal supporters, or only people who are familiar with mid East politics, or NDP supporters, or only men or only hockey enthusiasts or whatever other limitations you want to put on a thread I would respect that and I bet so would most other people.

I think it's the personal attacks that drive people away and I see the place lasting a lot longer without them.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The other thing is how do you define what is "left wing/progressive?" I think there is some truth to the idea that if you ask 100 socialists to define socialism, you will get 100 answers, so where is the line drawn? Is the progressive position always cut-and-dried?

Which leads me to how do we interact with and deal with other people who don't agree with us? I'm sure we have to encounter such people in our 3D lives. Do we put on bug spray and tell them to get away because they are evil and will contaminate us? I actually think that if more politically mainstream (or even right-of-centre) people swing by babble, that it's a testament to how successful we are at making our point. And over the years we have had regular members from across the political spectrum, and yet this didn't seem to threaten the left-wing character of this board. I do get the frustration that the site is declining in numbers, but I think that has much more to do with history between certain members, decisions made by moderators that some people disagreed with, and the general trend away from discussion boards to media like Facebook and Twitter rather than people coming in with non-left perspectives.

Bingo.

jjuares wrote:

I get Sean's frustration. It isn't so much that you are dealing with people of a different political viewpoint who are simply expressing a different set of beliefs but what you have looks to be endless posts and threads extolling the chances of a Liberal victory. There is no political or intellectual content beyond that. It is an attempt to demobilize and demoralize the left.

As opposed to the endless posts and threads extolling the NDP? Let's not pretend the NDP doesn't do more than its share to demobilize and demoralize the Left.

jjuares wrote:

I get Sean's frustration. It isn't so much that you are dealing with people of a different political viewpoint who are simply expressing a different set of beliefs but what you have looks to be endless posts and threads extolling the chances of a Liberal victory. There is no political or intellectual content beyond that. It is an attempt to demobilize and demoralize the left.

That's not true of either the thread on marijuana legalization or on the Liberal nominations.

Step away from the conspiracy theories. There is no attempt to demobilize or demoralize the left and if this is all it takes you are too weak to survive anyway.

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:

I get Sean's frustration. It isn't so much that you are dealing with people of a different political viewpoint who are simply expressing a different set of beliefs but what you have looks to be endless posts and threads extolling the chances of a Liberal victory. There is no political or intellectual content beyond that. It is an attempt to demobilize and demoralize the left.

That's not true of either the thread on marijuana legalization or on the Liberal nominations.

Step away from the conspiracy theories. There is no attempt to demobilize or demoralize the left and if this is all it takes you are too weak to survive anyway.

More unintentional hilarity from Pondering. The thread on Liberal nominations is a perfect illustration of my point. You do remember that you started that thread.? The first post, again by you was advertising some great pick up in nominations , the Liberals had achieved. No point to that thread but to act as an advertisement for that gang known as the Liberal Party of Canada. Whoops, are you going to use the same tactic you used with Sean and claim that isn't how you remembered it?

That was a howler for the ages.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic about it.

Frankness shouldn't be confused with pessimisism.  It is what it is.

Quote:

Liberalism and the left always have been multifaceted, and that's not a bad thing.

In our experience, liberalism's multifaceted nature includes conservatism and hawkishness, which is a bad thing.

Quote:

As for what is vital to the whole, this is a forum and news service, not a social action group or political party. I don't see how difference of opinion can cause any kind of deadlock unless people are shouting over one another.

Think beyond these our narrow confines here to the general picture.

Quote:

A forum only ceases to function when it is no longer a public space for the free exchange of ideas.

Some limitations are understandable, but generally speaking, people who argue on behalf of gated communities should be left alone within them.  The rest of humanity typically don't have that option available to them.

Quote:

And yeah, I do know there is specific mandate and slant to this space, which I support; but if that isn't balanced by open exchange it doesn't mean a damned thing. And sometimes that means listening to things you disagree with.

Agreed, and I'm quite familiar with that last bit.

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:

And sometimes that means listening to things you disagree with.

Agreed, and I'm quite familiar with that last bit.

Geez... and you think I'm not?

The difference is I generally only speak up when it turns to personal attack or things like open racism.

Sadly, we wind up there quite a lot.

There are plenty of things I don't agree with you or some other posters about, and as I said, a number of values and positions I find pretty offensive and not very progressive.

I rarely say anything beyond stating my opinion on it. If anything I defend your right to post, particularly opinions which might be unpopular.

I have no problem with you (pl) voicing your opinion, although there are some cases where it is ad nauseum. I have never said that any of you don't belong here, never accused you of coming here on false pretenses to raise trouble.

Yet we see those kinds of attacks all the time here.

So now that someone gets called on it  a couple of people have turned this completely around and are talking about flouncing? I do hope they change their minds, but if the price is giving some of this terrible behaviour and exclusive attitude a pass?  Forget it.

And the notion that this is about numbers is a complete red herring. In the first place people left for all kinds of reasons, and no one can wave that in the air like a flag for their cause. And secondly, would it be okay to put up with this if we really were just five or six people sitting in a room? I don't think so.

jjuares wrote:

More unintentional hilarity from Pondering. The thread on Liberal nominations is a perfect illustration of my point. You do remember that you started that thread.? The first post, again by you was advertising some great pick up in nominations , the Liberals had achieved. No point to that thread but to act as an advertisement for that gang known as the Liberal Party of Canada. Whoops, are you going to use the same tactic you used with Sean and claim that isn't how you remembered it?

The thread still stands so no need to use any tactics. People can form their own opinions, something some of you seem very uncomfortable with.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/federal-liberal-candidates

My last post criticizes the Liberals for their nomination process but overall yes I have been mainly positive. The thread was still about discussing the nominees, their credentials and political leanings both left and right as well as the process. There was and is plenty of room for criticism and there has been. You act as if I did something wrong by starting the thread. It's still standing and still active, one of the few threads on the board that is.

Because the Liberals have so few seats there are many more nominations to discuss but you could start a thread on NDP incumbants and new nominees. I'd even stay out of it if I am asked nicely rather than attacked, or the thread could be "NDP supporters only" or whatever else you like.

For people who claim to be pacifists you sure are hostile. Having a memory of events isn't a tactic it's a common human experience. I followed up with the research when challenged.

Huff Post Canada had no trouble building up a membership. Granted they are much higher profile and not as leftist as rabble but social media didn't stand in the way. Even now that they are demanding real names they still have a lot of activity. The Montreal Gazette and other publications link to rabble on occasion and apparently there are many more lurkers than participants here. New people do join but get driven off. Then there is your great schism and spin off boards. Were those people not leftist enough either? Is everyone happy they are gone? Is babble better off for it?

Common courtesy towards others is not a capituation. Refraining from personal attacks is not an unreasonable request.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Geez... and you think I'm not?

The difference is I generally only speak up when it turns to personal attack or things like open racism.

Well, people should be expected to take ownership of their positions, and political discussions generally should be open to a well of critical engagement.  The personal is political, because political opinions are formed through personal absorbtion.  Opinions regarding the Ukrainian crisis are an example of where personal opinions are being informed by one side of the geo-political dimension or the other, or somewhere in between perhaps, and it is these quantities that shouldn't expect to be harboured behind a teflon wall once they've been tossed into the ring.  When you don't hedge your bets with so much as a footnote on the destructiveness of western corporate imperialism, which as western citizens we should be critiquing first before anything else I would argue, then to me this is a shortcoming at the individual level in terms of what one is prepared to associate with to support their contentions.  This would apply to international issues and domiestic politics, like extolling the virtues of either one of the main political contenders in this country.

I discussed the point about racist commentary being introduced where it is contained in some of the links that are provided.  We will each have our own list, and particularly the ones who are feeling most racialized by it.  Mine would include much of the mainstream media and the comment sections. 

Quote:

Sadly, we wind up there quite a lot.

It's sad where people get their ideas from, but not so much to have them critically engaged on a discussion forum.  We should remind ourselves from time to time that critical analysis is almost entirely absent from mainstream journalism and its commentariat of readers.  CBC's recent analysis of the impending decline of the American Empire didn't engage the right or wrong of it to any degree, but instead it was taken up as an assessment that they were doing too much around the world at great expense.  No critique of a vicious empire there.  What's sad is that after 13 years what people like to discuss around here and the way it's discussed is still relatively unique, if not almost completely obscure.  It means there is a profound lack of critique in the public domain and consciousness.  People do what they can here, and when they encounter the stoogeocracy's pronounciations being repeated, this makes for much more sadness than assessing someone's personal qualities by what they introduce and associate with. 

Quote:

I rarely say anything beyond stating my opinion on it.

"Your" opinion?  What a laugh.  No one would have an opinion if it wasn't being fed to everyone.  It's how we react to all the spoonfeeding that makes all the difference between an honest attempt at a personally arrived at opinion, and one entirely informed by propaganda. 

Quote:

 have no problem with you (pl) voicing your opinion, although there are some cases where it is ad nauseum. I have never said that any of you don't belong here, never accused you of coming here on false pretenses to raise trouble.  Yet we see those kinds of attacks all the time here.

I don't always agree with those opinions either, notwithstanding that some in the past obvously demonstrated that they belong elsewhere.  In general, if you don't venture into socio-political discussions with a thick skin, it's probably best not to venture in at all.  But even then it's probably better for all concerned to not throw up the gates and call security.

And yes, I was wondering too when being a Liberal Party supporter suddenly made one the devil. I mean, to hear some talk,  NDP supporters are no different, but I guess some progressives just don't stick to their principles like others.

/joke

Seriously, I know staunch Liberal supporters who are allies on a number of issues, and who in some cases are more hard-line left than me.

If passing judgment on someone's presence here solely based on opinion is out of line, reducing this to team sports is completely reactionary.

Pondering wrote:

In the thread on guns someone mentioned the board had already had that discussion and it was concluded as though no one should be allowed to discuss it anymore because some of you are done with the topic.

That isn't what I said Pondering, and I explained that. But I take your general point, and agree.

...except for the "advanced activists" designation. They'd be completely insufferable then.

(um, joke)

Slumberjack wrote:

I don't always agree with those opinions either, notwithstanding that some in the past obvously demonstrated that they belong elsewhere.  In general, if you don't venture into socio-political discussions with a thick skin, it's probably best not to venture in at all.  

With respect, this comment is troubling me. What initially attracted me to this board was the strong feminist sensisbility (not in the feminist forum, which I've never rally taken part in, but over the entire board). Both Meg and Catchfire try to maintain this as best they can, I think, but the majority of activity here is political junkies talking politiucal games. To me the loss of the strong feminist voices that were once more present here is the biggest loss. Ther are still some of those voices, of course, but not as many, and that's sad. Saying women are just as able to participate as anyone esle is in my mind missing the underlying issue. If you require a thick skin to venture into a conversation, then the conversation is excluding some who might otherwise take part. 

I don't see slow threads as an issue, really. They can lie dormant and become valuable again even if theya re not on the TAT page.

Anyways, just a somehat off-topic thought. 

And not to imply that women aren't at least as capable as men of taking that abuse for a good cause, and have strong voices - they are.

But who wants to play that game, who is more likely to get sucked in by it, and what's the point? It is wearying to have to engage in debate at that level.

And swallow's comment is not off-topic at all.

For various reasons, I think we are dealing with a 'critical mass' issue ....there just more critics around here than mass.

In principle, I would have no problem with Babble threads having some sort of 'criteria' for joining and contributing. Those who want to build a thread around how to build a stronger NDP for the coming election should be able to have a useful and constructive conversation on that topic without having to respond to distractions from those who do not actually subscribe to the premise of that thread, be that from the left (The NDP is a sell-out!) or the right (Trudeau is the way!).

With similar threads available for the conversations of those other audiences - one on "Political alternatives to the NDP?" (unsullied by NDP believers) and another on "Making the Liberal Party a progressive option" (with AC banned from admission).

But to be honest, there just do not seem to be enough warm bodies around here these days to populate all those different conversations. So we keep bumping into one another with all our different premises and lenses.  Sometimes there is exchange and enlightenment (most often in the Cndn politics threads); other times just serial monologues and discourse of the deaf (most often in the International threads).  IMHO, that is.

And the attacks begin again 

Yes, well, Pondering's poor wounded bird routine is a kind of attack in itself. The constant refrain of "Why are you all picking on me?" implies that the people that take her to task on her disingenuous debating are being bullies, but it's perfectly obvious why people feel compelled to come after her. She keeps presenting the same arguments over and over, ignoring all the objections raised in the past; she redefines arguments when responding to them to avoid dealing with the real points of her opponents, and worst of all, she runs out of arguments and then just keeps going anyways, quoting passages from posters and then writing long screeds under them that have nothing to do with the quote and ignore all the points made in it. It's just an excuse to keep chattering and not admit that she has nothing left to say.

And this speaks to the purpose of this thread. The problem Sean identifies is real, but it's not because of incompatible ideologies or some lack of debating skill. it's a problem of intent. We've often had people here that were strongly opposed to the "babble consensus" but were still able to spend time here. Obviously they provoked a lot of fights, but they weren't despised or cast out, because we knew they were sincere in their convictions, even if those convictions were wrong. I have no problem with Alan Smithee, for instance, despite his loud support for the Liberal party, because he seems to mean what he says. The posters I have no respect for, on the other hand, I would still disrespect no matter what they professed to believe. It's the way they engage people that keeps me coming back to poke holes in their gibberish. Their every post reeks of calculated passive agressive provocation. People who come here to pimp for the Liberals will get their ideas attacked, but people who come here just to mess with the board will be called out for what they are. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Obviously they provoked a lot of fights, but they weren't despised or cast out, because we knew they were sincere in their convictions, even if those convictions were wrong.

I haven't been despised or cast out. I interact just fine with most posters and have rewarding conversations with them.

As to the "poor wounded bird" reference, the alternative is to not defend myself.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

The posters I have no respect for, on the other hand, I would still disrespect no matter what they professed to believe. It's the way they engage people that keeps me coming back to poke holes in their gibberish. Their every post reeks of calculated passive agressive provocation. People who come here to pimp for the Liberals will get their ideas attacked, but people who come here just to mess with the board will be called out for what they are.

You say this as if it is your job to police the boards, that you are entitled to pass judgement on other participants then call them out personally if they don't meet with your approval. As long as we are sharing, even though you are a jerk, I still wouldn't disrespect you in conversation unless you attacked me or someone else.

swallow wrote:

It's not my job to police the boards, Pondering, but i do think it would be helpful if you posted less in this thread, and others did not use this thread to argue with you. You've made your point on attacks and civility; now it would perhaps make a more productive thread if this one did not become about you - whether others attacking you or you defending. Just a suggestion.

Point taken. I don't mind a constructive comment.

Babble seems old and tired. It used to be a much more vibrant and active space for discussion. And, more and more people, it seems, are pulled towards "discussions" that are composed of 140-character missives. Writing relatively lengthy and substantive posts takes too much effort for most people.

Well I have a sure prediction:  that if we don't move beyond recriminations and bemoaning the alleged state of things,  these complaints might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Have we gone around this enough that everyone sees the lay of the land, even if it is clear we have some philosophical and political differences?

Yes there are hurt feelings on all sides. I think a better course than making that even worse might be thinking about what has happened and (for those who are willing) getting back to what still makes this a worthwhile place to be, and trying and make it better.

¨This is why I don't see traditional electoral politics as a path to radical change....

better stated would be representational democracy....does anyone out there really believe that the process hasn`t been totally coopted by the financial elites, their control of the elites of the parties through money, the parties which dictate to their membership, the corporate media acting as the gatekeepers of the game to legitimize who is politically correct etc. ad nauseum...

so why aren`t there discussions on how to proceed......(granted there was a thread on smashing the vote...which just leaves us voiceless and without alternative strategies)...we are in war, threats of nuclear war, looming collapse of the finance capitalist system....what with the downward spiral of global GDP inspite of the overwhelming money printing scams going on which no longer work, new ecologic disasters and greater and greater scacrifice zones....

It is only when people come to grips with the disaster we face, I suppose that we will get real about searching, exploring the alternatives...I`d love to participate in this.....but not just to myself