Dumb, as in can't speak

15 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2014-09-28 17:21

zerocarbs

Perhaps NR's thread would have fared better if he'd phrased the subject differently. Say, "Are some union leaders acting in a counter-productive manner?"

I just mention this because by sheer coincidence, just before reading the threads here, an old friend who's worked at the highest levels in the NDP was griping that certain unions are throwing their support behind the Liberals. Seems like a topic worth discussing, but apparently not here.

Not clear on why a certain moderator seems to enjoy shutting down debate - in a discussion board.

>> Re-entering lurk mode (I've banned myself from here because I get so pissed off.)<<

Regions:

Sun, 2014-09-28 18:03

Paladin1

"Dumb, as in can't speak"

It's probably neither here nor there but I found this title along with your name kinda humourous. I'm into weight lifting and have done some zero carb diets. When you research it a bit you see a lot of people indicating they feel like their brain is foggy and they feel dumber.

Sun, 2014-09-28 18:25

onlinediscountanvils

http://stillmyrevolution.org/what-you-said-what-you-meant-to-say/

Sun, 2014-09-28 19:48

Catchfire

zerocarbs wrote:
Not clear on why a certain moderator seems to enjoy shutting down debate - in a discussion board.

An interesting take on the thread in question. Are you suggesting that I should permit a discussion on a pro-labour website on which union leader is the dumbest? What makes you think babble is the place for that discussion? This is a serious question because I am baffled that anyone, let alone at least two people, think that that is appropriate for this website.

And if you think that I care whether or not babblers criticize Buzz Hargrove's love child on its decision to maybe support the Liberals, you are hilariously mistaken. But I do care about enforcing babble policy, at the very least.

Sorry, that's all the time I have on this question. I'm off to start a thread on "which Canadian union boss is most corrupt?"

ETA. And moving to rabble reactions because here we go.

Sun, 2014-09-28 20:57

sherpa-finn

Sorry, Catchfire, but I am not following your argument. And am not trying to be unduly argumentative - just seeking clarity!

Which element of the Babble policy does the thread in question contravene?

I am sure most Babblers have no problem distinguishing between support for the labour movement in general / on principle - and criticism of specific union leaders (and maybe even specific unions and/or locals!) for particular decisions, actions, statements or behaviours. Indeed, I seem to remember a fair bit of that going on recently around both the CLC elections and the Ontario provincial campaign.

So if there is a line to be drawn in the sand, why not clarify where it is - and why!

Thanks!

Sun, 2014-09-28 21:05

6079_Smith_W

Frankly, I'd find a thread on which Harperite MP is the dumbest to be pretty offensive, not because I don't think they shouldn't be open to criticism (I'm quite willing to lay into Paul Calandra's professional reputation, but not because I think he is stupid), but because really, gossip mongering like this is just embarrassing, and shows the biggest idiots as those of us who would engage in that level of discussion.

This is the kind of issue on which you want to take your stand and fight the Great Fight for free speech and anti-censorship?

Sun, 2014-09-28 21:09

6079_Smith_W

Cross- posted with you sherpa-finn

Having a serious analysis is quite a bit different than framing it as the gong show.

Sun, 2014-09-28 21:35

Unionist

zerocarbs wrote:

I just mention this because by sheer coincidence, just before reading the threads here, an old friend who's worked at the highest levels in the NDP was griping that certain unions are throwing their support behind the Liberals. Seems like a topic worth discussing, but apparently not here.

There are many such threads on babble, in fact.

What makes you think that because Catchfire shuts down a thread with a vicious anti-union typical scornful capitalist title, that this subject is banned here? Oh wait - 1. you never checked or asked before drawing your conclusion; and 2. you've banned yourself from here, so you can throw out a little projectile like this and not be responsible for explaining yourself when questioned.

If you're actually interested in discussing alleged union support for the Liberals and are having trouble finding the threads, let me know. I'll be happy to provide a recent sampling for your choice.

Now, perhaps some threads on which Jewish or Muslim or Indigenous or Queer or Feminist or Socialist or African-Canadian activist or leader is the dumbest in Canada? Oooooooo, sounds like fun!

Sun, 2014-09-28 21:52

Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:

So if there is a line to be drawn in the sand, why not clarify where it is - and why!

Thanks!

I think Catchfire clarified his stand amply by his "which union boss is the most corrupt" analogy.

And I chimed in by suggesting that "Which Jewish leader is the dumbest?" would be inappropriate as a thread title here - although obviously criticism of "leaders" in the Jewish community is quite acceptable (I would say necessary).

Replace "Jewish" by any other category which can be or has been unfairly marginalized, persecuted, oppressed, attacked in our world, and you'll get an appreciation for where the line is drawn. It is drawn at not being a jerk (referring to the thread title which provoked this idle thread).

And you know very well, as you've just admitted yourself, that this place is awash in discussion and severe criticism on the content of political stands by unions and their leaders.

Sun, 2014-09-28 22:20

#10

sherpa-finn

OK, I guess. FWIW, I would be fine with threads that address as a central theme or issue the leaders, leadership and misleadership of progressive organizations .... indeed, it seems pretty central to Babble's role and aspiration. So iI am going to presume that it was the 'gong-show' tone of the thread title that was deemed unacceptable.

And FWIW, I also do not view leaders of Canadian unions through quite the same lens of marginalisation and oppression as I do leaders of those more vulnerable organizations representing the interests of women, first nations, LGBTI, ethnic minorities, etc. But maybe that's just me.

Mon, 2014-09-29 00:46

#11

Catchfire

Hi sherpa-finn! Yes, your guess is right: it's not the criticism of union leadership that I took issue with -- this site is full of such criticisms, from babble to blogs, and we have absolutely zero qualms about pblishing them or hosting relevant conversations about them. To the point of losing funding, in fact -- contrary to NorthReport's ludicrous claim that I closed his thread because I thought Jerry Dias would read it and call our President tomorrow to complain about it.

But yes, babble is not the place where we have conversations and their starting-points borrowed from right-wing capitalist media. Broadly speaking, this means that we're not interested in starting bottomfeeding polls about which union boss sucks the most, but it also means that all conversations about labour have to have a pro-labour tenor. I didn't see any of that in NR thread -- which was largely superfluous anyway since that discussion about Unifor and its ungoing beef with the NDP has been discussed in many different places already.

And in case it's not clear, NR was suspended not for starting the anti-union thread, but for his subsequent temper tantrum and personal attack on tender-hearted me.

Mon, 2014-09-29 01:19

#12

cco

Unionist wrote:

Replace "Jewish" by any other category which can be or has been unfairly marginalized, persecuted, oppressed, attacked in our world, and you'll get an appreciation for where the line is drawn. It is drawn at not being a jerk (referring to the thread title which provoked this idle thread).

The "What's up with atheists?" thread seemed to slip through critical review, however.

Mon, 2014-09-29 02:22

#13

6079_Smith_W

well fair enough if you slighted about it.

Though from my perspective that that conflation got cleared up in the first page. It was posed by an atheist with a clear caveat, and the way in which some of those prominent gentlemen display their bad behaviour has often comes down to sexist, arrogant, and racist judgments about others.

Speaking of dumb, someone saying any woman who refuses to abort a fetus with Down syndrom is immoral rightly deserves a smack.

Our minority status as atheists, and their good work in challenging oppression doesn't change the blinders they have as very privileged white guys who lean a bit too much on their booklearning..

/drift

Mon, 2014-09-29 08:06

#14

Slumberjack

I don't care to see that word used to describe anyone either. 'Astute as a sack of hammers' seems like a pretty good alternative.

Mon, 2014-09-29 08:23

#15

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
There are many such threads on babble, in fact.

Its true. In the past I've gone on about union bureaucracies at length. I'm probably overdue for another one.