Current mess and addition of new forum under current events

@ iryaste1313

Actually I didn't have to look too far. Here's one:

http://rabble.ca/babble/babble-banter/what-if-black-bloc-have-right-idea

I'm sure you can open another if it isn't what you had in mind. It is an open forum.

 

@ sherpa-finn

Okay, that made me laugh.

And perhaps a bit more in order than these equally true, but less diplomatic words of wisdom:

Pondering wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

I am so annoyed with the NDP right now that a discussion of alternatives would be interesting....

Yes music to my ears.....calling the NDP leftist? When they enthusiastically support imperialism and military adventures and support fascists islamic movements, in Syria, Libya etc? and neo nazi movements as in Ukraine, and support corporate globalization? finance capitalism? O sure there may be differences over trivia...

yes we need a site for discussing real alternatives for building  peoples political social cultural movements....thanks for your comment!

This is why I don't see traditional electoral politics as a path to radical change. The debate between whether we would be better off under the NDP or the Liberals is over trivia. Whether one votes Liberal or NDP therefore is not the defining factor of whether or not one is progressive.

This site could easily be where "a site for discussing real alternatives for building peoples political social cultural movements" happens if that's what you want to do. Use it for that, and that is what it will be. That electoral politics is discussed doesn't prevent more radical discussion.

That is one of my primary concerns. How to reach average people to undo the neoliberal brainwashing. The NDP isn't doing it so I don't see what's so shit hot about them that voting for Mulcair is be all and end all of being progressive and voting for Trudeau some sort of betrayal.

Any discussion on how neoliberalism won so much support turns into attacking me for supporting Trudeau and blaming the Liberals as though they rule the world or Canada exists in isolation..

After calling another poster a jerk you have no ethical standing to play the victim. It just reeks of hypocrisy.

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:

After calling another poster a jerk you have no ethical standing to play the victim. It just reeks of hypocrisy.

I can handle the juvenile bullying. Some aspects of it have even been flattering. My concern is not that it impacts me but that it impacts the board. The argument gets repetitive as I feel called upon to defend my support for Trudeau or myself in threads intended to focus on other topics. People visiting the board see some of the most active topics are the ones challenging me and my views.

If you want to continue discussing me I have my own thread now:

http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering

 

Juvenile bullying would also be name calling which of course is what you did when you called another poster a "jerk". But of course when you say these comments it's justified. Right?

Unionist wrote:

Stop this.

Yup. I second that request.

[warning: thread drift]

I went to the eye doctor a few months ago and was told, for the first time, that I now need "progressive" lenses.

You should have seen the horror on my face.

Then, when I realized she didn't mean that kind of progressive, the real weeping began.

[/warning: thread drift]

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harper-joins-us-iraq-support-l... post 188

eastnoireast wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

And the drums of war continue to be beat by self-identifying "progressives", at Rabble, Canda's, "Progressive" website.

Right.

isn't there something we all agree to when we sign up to rabble that says the parameters include some basic starting points - like not supporting warism, racism, sexism, etc?   

there is a lot of that bullshit here now, dragging the conversation down to "should we or should we not support harper's warmongering". 

no, no we should not.

I don't think rabble or babble is officially pacifist. There is really a lot of passing judgement over who should or shouldn't be allowed to stay in threads all over the board. That conversation belongs in rabble reactions not every single thread someone participates in that you don't consider sufficiently progressive.

Maybe that should be considered disruptive and grounds for warnings or 24 hour bans.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

A small problem: how one defines leftist/progressive, beyond what is laid out in the statement of policy, that is.

That is to say, I know there are some of us who take a more laissez faire approach, but I do object to the claims by some here that they are the real lefties, and others are not.

Frankly, I have always found the repeated claims about alleged deterioration, questioning of motive, and who belongs here and who does not to be pretty offensive, and itself not very progressive.

I obviously agree with that. Any such accusations are bound to destroy the thread interfering with the ability of others to discuss the topic of the thread. Such complaints about individual posters should be here in rabble reactions.

Webgear wrote:

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.

Posters do need to band together and speak up when inappropriate personal attacks occur regardless of target. Some have spoken up for me a few times but it is too few people who do.

 

 

Slumberjack wrote:

Whether this influence is essential to the core of who they really are, or not, no one likes to have this essence critiqued.  In the wider context though, I believe this type of engagement is an important one to try and reduce the artificially constructed barricades between people that this society has always dedicated itself to installing.

If this is meant to justify what I think it is, I completely disagree. In fact, I'd say it is the opposite of engagement. It side-steps any rational discussion by dismissing others' ideas as spoon-fed.

I certainly don't agree with you on all issues, SJ. But I do work from a premise that you have thought things through and that your opinions are honestly-held. I don't think you are brainwashed.

This tactic of going after people's "essence" - and I'd say that applies to any case where one is accused of being fooled, brainwashed, or just here to troll - isn't engagement at all. And I don't consider it valid at all to go after the person whose opinion may be honestly held and as considered as yours - especially not if it is the only argument that winds up being used, as is often the case.

What kind of discussion do you think we would have here if all we did was yell "fool" and "patsy" at each other? I can appreciate you might think you know what is going on in other peoples' heads, but really it is no one's business.

And as for challenging the policies of political parties, no one has suggested that should not be done. Some of the labelling of people and guilt by association goes far beyond that, and has no rational foundation at all.

 

 

 

iyraste1313 wrote:

pacifism?

Surely a people have the right to defend themselves from foreign agression in whatever form possible, given that non violent effective startegy to avoid bloodshed and destruction must be highest priority.

Then you are not a pacifist.

Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

If only pacifists should be allowed to post that rules you out because you agree with self-defence which brings us back to who should be allowed to post. Are you in favor of completely shutting down our miltary, not having one at all anymore?

People can be progressive in one area but not another. Some members draw stricter lines than others over who should be allowed to post. The problen arises when some posters decide it is their right to drive posters out of a conversation or off the board. That's when the personal attacks start and continue in just about every thread the individual tries to participate in.

This is why I have begun to collect the attacks against me into a single thread, to try to prevent the disruption of threads by defending myself elsewhere.

I have already discovered that some attackers don't give a shit about the members who would like to discuss the topic of the thread without wading through personal attacks and responses to them.

I have no control over the attackers but I will never again defend myself within a thread on another topic.

Slumberjack wrote:

Well, if I've managed to convince you, how about doing me a favour and put a cork in the latest 'red' scare you've been going on about.  Those damn Ruskies. 

... Where warranted, i'm not adverse to laying down descriptions of that nature.

You have missed my point. It isn't that you have convinced me of anything. My point is that even when I disagree I give you the respect of treating you as an intelligent person whose values are based on serious thought.

You aren't averse to calling people "patsy" or "fool"?  Sorry, but that is a major part of why we are having this discussion. Especially when, as is often the case, it is based on vague claims about media bias and so-called right wing narratives rather than actual argument.

Do you honestly think media bias is some sort of revelation that none of us have ever heard of before you mentioned it, and that none of us would think to take it into consideration when forming our opinions? That's the "artificially constructed barricade" you think none of us are aware of, you need to wake us up about, right?

And of course, there is the question of how the existence of that bias makes you right, and others fools. It is a handy way to avoid actually talking about issues, I admit, but it is a poor substitute.

 

 

*sigh*

That's the same argument, SJ.

And blaming people because you call them fools, and putting the onus on them to change their opinions so you will stop insulting them is absurd. Are you not in control of your own actions, or do you think this is respectful behaviour?

I think you are skirting around what you really mean - the only way to "avoid these designations" is to put a hatpin through my forehead and say you are right even though you provide no evidence at all.

I'm pretty used to being on the receiving end of these personal insults, though I don't like them at all, and I don't expect they will end anytime soon; I'm just calling them for what they are.

Never mind that you talk as if the only sources I and others cite are so-called western (which is not true) and talk as if that is the problem (unfounded), you avoid dealing in any way with the substance. As I have said a couple of times, it is a frustratingly poor substitute for any kind of rational discussion.

To be honest, at this point on certain issues I am just talking over your head to any who might be interested.

 

Pondering wrote:

I think if you want to make sure babble is properly progressive it will have to be limited to Slumberjack.

I don't know what is properly progressive, and so it shouldn't be left to me to decide because I fear a heap of injustice would ensue.

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.

All my very best,

Jack Layton

Pondering wrote:

Slumberjack, say for the sake of argument you are right, you are still wrong to be insulting Smith.

He doesn't get to shirk ownership of his positions.  He should claim them as earnestly as they've been introduced.  Its a good way to try and avoid being hurt when they're taken to task.

Quote:

If you are so politically sophisticated you should realize that attacking other people whom you consider less enlightened is counter productive.

Politically sophisticated?  What are you talking about?  How much sophistication does it take to question the stuff we're always being told in the lead up to the latest war?  Not very much.

Quote:

I don't know who but someone once said the best writers or communicators are those who are able to able to express complex thoughts simply.  When I am reading your posts I get the opposite impression. Although that could be due to the limitations of my education you seem to aim to express the most simple thoughts in the most complex way using the most sophisticated language.

Why is this all about me?  What about the charge that we can't rely upon the veracity of the corporate media stenography pools for our geopolitical analysis?  Isn't that a more important problem confronting us?  Personal attacks might work fine for liberal politics, in lieu of substantive policies that are different from the trajecory we're currently on, but not being a liberal, I find its a complete wash in terms of political debate.

Quote:

Someone else said something in the same vein in this thread but I will echo it. The combative and hostile tone is in conflict with the goal of promoting progressive thought and discussion.

As opposed to the hostile intent around the world of mainstream's version of journalism, that some of us object to in our critique?  Mountains of bodies piled even higher by western journalism's neglect of its responsibilities and its outright drum beating doesn't quite measure up to the slaying of grammar and the odd dust up over points of view?

And you of all people going on about combative tones.  It's so ridiculous and funny all at once.

Slumberjack wrote:

He doesn't get to shirk ownership of his positions.

Cross posted with you.

I agree with you completely, and I am curious how you think I may have done that.

You want to talk about specific points, and not this repetition? That would be a breath of fresh air. Feel free to go back and state your case; I look forward to having an actual discussion.

 

Slumberjack wrote:

He doesn't get to shirk ownership of his positions.  He should claim them as earnestly as they've been introduced.

What difference does it make? If the content of his posts is weak then they are easy to demolish. There is no need to get personal.

Slumberjack wrote:

Why is this all about me?

Because you made it all about W.

Slumberjack wrote:

Politically sophisticated?  What are you talking about?  How much sophistication does it take to question the stuff we're always being told in the lead up to the latest war?  Not very much.

Are you serious? Do you live in the Western World? Questioning may be easy but understanding is not. I don't think I'm a stupid person. Knowing many of my thoughts and values are shaped by the mass media doesn't make it easy to shed. It doesn't make it easy to know who to believe. Activists and radicals have their own agenda too.

Slumberjack wrote:

As opposed to the hostile intent around the world of mainstream's version of journalism, that some of us object to in our critique.  Mountains of bodies piled even higher by western journalism's neglect of its responsibilities and its outright drum beating doesn't quite measure up to the slaying of grammar and the odd dust up over points of view?

I don't see how flame wars between progressives helps and I do see the damage it has done at the very least to this site. I believe Smith W is a good and intelligent person who does want to further social justice regardless of his position on individual issues. I have not followed his posts specifically so I don't know if he has exhibited the character flaw that so offends you.

Several other people have made the point that people can be progressive yet not fall in with the mainstream progressive position on some topics for various reasons.

Slumberjack wrote:

And you of all people going on about combative tones.  It's so ridiculous and funny all at once.

Thank-you, to be amusing in one's flaws is not a bad thing. I think it was JJ, but maybe someone else, who called my writing ponderous. That was quite clever don't you think? Obvious, but one of those things where people think "why didn't I think of that!"

 

Slumberjack wrote:

How about, let us be nihilists and we'll change the world?

Now that made me laugh out loud after Caissa's post. I would have sputtered had I been drinking something, and that's before I looked up what nihilist means.  I can see you are attracted to dark humour. Are you or have you ever really been a lumberjack?

Slumberjack wrote:

This is used in the same vein as Pondering's ill-founded charge of 'cough' 'elitist' language games, likely in response to the crime of not being a liberal.

I'm flattered you remembered!

Anyway, Sean from Ottawa....what I would suggest is to avoid being deterred, and to dig in and continue to drag the absurdity of the opposing side, whatever that is for you, into the light of day.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Truth be told, I think I disagree with your philosophical ideas more than your politics, but that doesn't upset me.

They can't be easily separated.  Believe me, I've tried.  So I'm afraid it has to be the whole hog if you're in disagreement with it.

Quote:

More to the point is that yes, I do find your approach to others insulting and needlessly personal, and not dealing with the issues. I'm surprised you say you do not remember. Do you want me to make a list and PM it to you?

If you post a link to one of the chief liars and drum beaters for corporate warfare, such as the WSJ or NY Times, and hold it out as evidence that our 'enemies' are on the move again, this is insulting, and in a way needlessly personal.  You think posting that stuff constitutes 'dealing with the issues.'  This insults our intelligence.  Now, if you were posting it to contribute to the balance of opinion, instead of doing what you normally do, which is to say, 'lookit here,' to repeat the familiar refrain that everything is Putin's fault and what the west is saying is gospel, then it would be less problematic, because who could argue with the presentation of a balance of views?  But that is not what you're up to now, is it?

Quote:

And yes, I have made some accusations of anti-Semitism. One I asked for moderation on (the second time I have done that in my time here, and said so openly rather than doing it in secret). You think some of the other points I raised were not crystal clear  or that any anti-Semitism in western media (though I'm interested in your examples) cancels it out and makes it not discrimination? Perhaps we should go back and talk about that.

You seem to have a variety of standards as to what constitutes racism, but apparently only one when it comes to anti-Semitism.  Racism is so deeply and historically imbedded into the western view of Slavic intentions on their own lands, and where racism concerns the Middle East, the entire region is populated with Semitic people.  If you want to subscribe to the common view that anti-Semitism only implies Jews, then what could be said about Jewish settler migration to the region from all over Europe, that in addition to the appropriation of land, exclusively appropriates a description that corresponds to entire peoples across three continents, Africa, Europe, and Asia, for their own use.  Before you start throwing around charges about people's intent, I suggest you need to get a grip on a few things yourself, such as; all of the regions in question will have good and bad Semites, just like the Caucasians in North America and Europe.  Indiscriminately slaughtering any particular subset is absolutely wrong, and racist.  But the slaughter passes by the pages of our corporate media like the wind, which is to say largely without notice.  This is racist.

Quote:

And if you are assuming some ulterior motive, have I ever pointed out discriminatory comments in order to undermine someone's argument? Sorry, not once. I might disagree with the Saker, but that's not why I object to his racism.

I don't read much of anything from that site, but as I keep saying to no apparent effect, if there is racist material and reader comments on there, it wouldn't be the only one by far.  To me, being selective about it is a problem.  Lets open up a thread and draw up our lists accordingly.  I really think the place would be better for it once we're done and our suggestions put into effect.

Quote:

Though I must say, it does make me scratch my head a bit over some of the concerns about keeping this space untainted by alleged non-progressive thought (not that Saker is the only example IMO).

As I said, post away all you want without interference or quips from me if your aim is to introduce whatever balance the corporate MSM is capable of.  As soon as you use that material as a way of informing us as to who did what and when, then you will have to anticipate some 'blowback' if you expect us to absorb that propaganda as the truth.

Quote:

Sorry kids, but if the door is open, and some of us are expected to hold our noses, my sympathy for other complaints has limits.

Ditto.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not your opinion? If you say so, but here's what you said when I mentioned my opinion upthread:

It was meant to say that this belief - that by and large popular opinions are not original to the persons holding them - didn't originate with me.  Nietzsche had a hand in it, and Wittgenstein of course, along with many others throughout the 20th century.  Against all of that I ask myself 'who am I, there must be something to it after all?'  But here you are objecting to over a century's worth of inquiry and analysis in one fell swoop.  I would call it pretentious of you if it didn't risk being referred to as name calling.

Quote:

  If it isn't being dismissed as an imperialist tool it is those on the right who assume that anyone interested in social justice must be fooled by communist propaganda. Same kind of thinking as far as I can see.

And where would this idea come from, that social responsibility equates to outright communism?  I've critiqued english RT material before, and of course the western versions, because it mostly has the western population in mind as the target audience.

Quote:

Calling someone a terrorist may be inaccurate in some cases, but it is not racist. Again, there is some jingoism in media, if you can come up with something here which is as overtly racist as I have mentioned, I would be interested to see it. I have seen plenty of crying about Russophobia and genocide; nohting to back it up.

All of the media warmongering that has been produced in recent decades is attached to an abominable legacy that involves the destruction of countless lives, who are of little to no account in the estimation of many a western mindset, including Madeline Albright's.  What it amounts to is the racist notion that geo-political disagreements between various regimes and economic imperatives can be prosecuted at the expense of those who's existences are not even considered.  There were the Slavs in Serbia and now in Eastern Ukraine, Arabs, Asians, Africans, South Americans, First Nations, its just endless.

Quote:

But it begs the question of what you can base your arguments on, or what kind of discussion you hope to have  if you consider it all lies.

We are having a discussion, about certain types of material, and the opinions that are formed from it.  Its a timely one in the context of the MSM barrage regarding the latest evil to spawn in the East

Quote:

And I'll say it again: if you want to challenge facts, I would welcome it. Unfortunately you usually make a vague swipe about media bias and leave it at that. It is that, and the implication that the rest of us are fools which I find annoying.

I've already said that I don't buy the story about 'terrorist' controlled BUK missiles bringing down civilian airliners, which was the one released by Kiev in the hours after the incident, which was the same one rushed out by the western MSM without much in the way of evidence, and the same one being run up the flag pole in the Ukrainian thread.  I took issue with the story about Russian tank columns appearing here and there from out of the ether.  But who really has the time to prove or disprove everything we hear when it seems like the existing and ill-founded contentions just keeps getting added to by the hour on our 24/7 newz monitors?

Right.  So it should be placed out of bounds of the Proletariat then.  Is there a preferred reading list, or is it just the NY Times, the WSJ, and CBC News?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And you say I present stuff as fact. No, I present it as a media report. And while I try to avoid posting articles I consider outright nonsense, I don't assume all of it is the absolute truth, and have said so. But it begs the question of what you can base your arguments on, or what kind of discussion you hope to have  if you consider it all lies.

And I'll say it again: if you want to challenge facts, I would welcome it. Unfortunately you usually make a vague swipe about media bias and leave it at that. It is that, and the implication that the rest of us are fools which I find annoying.

I'm a bit confused by the juxtapsotion of the two bolded statements.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No, I'm talking about the belief you seem to have that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, and that any values we have are just put there by government and media. That doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with anarchism; it could just as easily be held by an advocate of totalitarianism. And you seem to have a double standard in when you haul out that trope.

It’s not my belief, but it is one that has been around since at least the late 19th century.  I can't help but notice certain elements of truth in that regard because examples keep cropping up.  All it suggests is that we should carefully consider where we're getting our cues from, which in a way does relate to anarchism.  I don't see a double standard in that, particularly when it is not being suggested that since some people in the West at least can't seem to put two clues of their own together into a coherent thought, that someone else in charge should be doing it for them.  Something like that would imply a double standard.

Quote:

Yes, of course. All media has a bias. I think we have established that. I'm curious as to what you think SHOULD be allowed, if CBC, BBC, Reuters, Guardian, WSJ, NYT are all so offensive that you feel the only valid response is to launch an attack. Near as I can tell you don't want to talk about anything at all that we can nail down to specifics.

As I have said, feel free to post whatever you want.  It’s not my place to allow or disallow.  Just don't hold it out to me as fact if you would, and when you do, try to understand a little about the place from whence it might be critiqued.

Quote:

Do you honestly think there is no one here who knows about critical reading already?

I don't survey these things.  I sometimes render an observation where this ability is a little suspect, based on the evidence at hand.

Quote:

And I did invite you to have this conversation elsewhere, but here goes:  I just asked you how you think racism on one side justifies it on another. You haven't answered me.

Because it isn't either or, or pick and choose, and so the question is a non-sequitor.  I'm saying if you're going to hold something out as an egregious example from one side of a debate, but post questionable material of another sort, then the original contention becomes a little peculiar, and it begs the question of why that is.

Quote:

Can you find one example to show me? One?

This request implies that you have already scanned the MSM for examples of racial bias and commentary, and have found scant little to call into question.  I would just like to know what kind of work is involved here.

Quote:

There's a difference between that and articles making clear anti-semitic slurs, claiming that anyone who is Jewish is going to run away to Israel (even those who aren't Israeli) implying that they don't really belong in the country they were born, articles targetting someone as a member of "the world Jewish movement". And comment sections that are so full of comments about Jews controlling the media that there is even a letter (from a supporter) saying they are better suited to Stormfront.

Well of course.  All of that is nonsense.  On the other hand; when people are referred to as terrorists and rebels, and their entire history in their own lands is erased and of no account, with ancesters who were destined for extermination or slavery by the fascism that came out of western Europe, and then the implications and associations are being denied or minimized; then complaints about racism do not seem to be on as solid a footing as you would like.  Its more like race baiting to score political points.

Quote:

And I have no "list", SJ. That's the point. I don't care that the Saker blog is being posted, other than the fact he insists on writing racist slurs. Likewise, I might disagree with some of the material in RT and  PressTV, but I have no problem with them being here, nor do I think it is my job to tell anyone not to read them.  You think you have a job to do that? 

This is an example of what gives rise to my repetitiveness.  I'll repeat it again.  I don't care what you post, but present it as fact at your own risk in the overall debate.

Quote:

And yes, I think anyone who is thinking of leaving should reconsider - not so they can join anyone's great struggle against the forces of darkness, but because their opinions are valued, even when I happen to disagree with them.

I agree, even if it involves disagreement with what a moderator has said.  If that were the litmus test for staying or going, I would have been gone long ago, and stayed gone.  CF called all of my contributions over the years essentially nonsense, but it has had no deterrent effect here, as people may attest to.

This site could easily be where "a site for discussing real alternatives for building peoples political social cultural movements"

.....Accompanying my friends of the CPT, we arrived at the junction, 2 of the main highways in the country, a little before 6 am, the first to arrive....then the pick up loads of standees started arriving, 10`s 20`s 50`s, so we could make a quick decision as to where to set up the blockades...the campesinos started climbing the hills, throwing down boulders and rotting stumps and trees, covering the highways maybe 50 metres in length. The barricades completed, the posters began going up...as truckloads continued to arrive, food trucks to provide ongoing food and drink for the blockaders....in a flash, the highways were taken...

this scene reproduced itself all over the country, every 50 klics or so, in every direction...the country was effectively shut down!
Congress was on order, the delegations would be arriving at 9am in the city, to flesh out the demands; repeal of the Monsanto law on privatization of seed, elimination of the free trade agreement with the USA, repeal of the mining concessions Act, the Hydro Concessions Act, release of all political prisoners, liberalization of media licences Act....the blockade would be in effect, til the results came in. The police? The country was effectively shut down. They continued patrolling a few bare patches for speeders, but not a sign of them anywhere near the blockades. The People had spoken, and no one would move til Congress negotiated the demands!