If you think a thread title minimizes the suffering of a whole group of people - don't call us we don't care

66 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2015-07-24 18:06

Sean in Ottawa

I have not been around this week -- I am disgusted by the context of a discussion about Canadian democracy in a thread comparing our situation to Greece -- a country that has been turned into a colony where the democratic expression of its people is now irrelevant to the process. They are on the edge of civil breakdown.

Canadians may be lazy voters but the blame for what happens in our elections is ours. Others influence us and big money is powerful but if voters wanted to elect a government that would take us in a different direction, we can still do so. Our elections are not completely fair in all respects but they are at least relevant to the decision-making process.

Comparisons to Greece like this thread minimize the situation and suffering there and the worry many here feel for those over there. This thread was created as I heard friends in Greece worry that their country could deteriorate into civil war, lose all hope of independence, or no longer hope to be a developed nation. Greece is not really sovereign now and it is in crisis. You can be sure if someone did this comparison on a right wing site we would be all over them.

I wrote the moderators about this thread. I complained right in the thread. Someone else proposed a thread title change that would resolve the problem—something like "what Canada could learn from Greece" rather than asking if we were the same. I said that would be fine.

I am part Greek but was told by a poster in that thread that because she had "Greek feet" she could speak for whether this was insulting to Greek people there or in Canada, including people who are part Greek who may be here on this site.

All this has been considered not even worthy of reply from the moderators as they ignored the complaint in the thread and declined to answer my message. I certainly left them long enough before coming back here to post a protest – a full week after I sent the DM. I stayed away from Rabble as well because I feel uncomfortable with a community whose moderators do not even think it is important enough to respond to such a concern.

This was also the first time I have written to the moderators in a long time. It was not much to expect a reply when I appealed both in the thread and by direct message. I don’t expect much from the moderators, but as this place pretends to be progressive, I thought they might have a little tiny bit of respect for a whole country in crisis and for the many Greek people in Canada who might just happen to see how a progressive site approaches their suffering.

I will also point out that when there is a problem we are told by the moderators that should approach them rather than stand up for ourselves. This illustrates why some of us choose to deal directly in a thread when there is a problem. Evenhandedness is unexpected -- so are manners. The message I sent deserved a reply even if it were to tell me to fuck myself.

What kind of a community is this where if you feel a whole group of people have been insulted or their experienced minimized, and you cannot get a response to your concern? How politically correct are we when only some people get to demand a community standard for manners when it comes to minimizing the suffering of others? Is it progressive to minimize through comparison the suffering of others?

So how about we open some new threads.

How about comparing the detaining of refugees coming to Canada with the Holocaust?

Why not compare homelessness in Ottawa to what is happening in Nepal?

Some people have drowned this summer in the river here in Ontario. Why don't we open a thread comparing the loss to the Asian Tsunami?

Or are these people we care about insulting but Greeks are okay?

Maybe I will try my own comparisons just to test the double standard here.

Let’s at least say that this thread can be the reason, when moderators tell you to contact them directly if there is a problem, why some might not take that seriously.

Fri, 2015-07-24 18:37

Pondering

When suggesting two things might be more alike than people realize it means that the two things are very different but that there may be some underlying parallels that are not evident on the surface. Nor was I comparing the two countries on every level, I specified democracy and referenced the secrecy with which deals are being made on behalf of both populations. So, even though we are much better off than Greece we still have some of the problems that led to Greece's current situation.

Just because you felt the thread was some sort of insult to the people of Greece doesn't mean that you are right.

People do make reference to the early moves that Hitler made that led up to the Holocaust. It serves as a cautionary tale to what can happen to a democratic society.

Many (not me) blame the people of Greece suggesting they are lazy and entitled and that is why they are in trouble. I was presenting the opposite argument. That the people of Greece are no different than us because we are not rising up against the corruption and secrecy in our own government. Because our country is so wealthy in resources it is unlikely we end up in Greece's situation but it is not because we are doing such a better job at holding our governments to account.

Ever heard the saying "there, but for the grace of God, I go"?

It means that luck not superiority has kept us from the same fate as another.

That is what I was saying in that thread, not that we are in as much economic trouble as Greece is or that we are being ruled by a troika. That is such a perposterous notion that the only appropriate response would be incredulous laughter.

You may have to consider the notion that you misinterpreted the thread including the title.

When the mods say to contact them directly they don't mean "and we will obey you".

Fri, 2015-07-24 19:10

6079_Smith_W

How about this as a substitute for all the blood and guts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhY9Zxv1-oo

Fri, 2015-07-24 19:16

jjuares

That whole thread is incoherent and has virtually nothing to do with Greece. Pondering started the thread by talking about, CETA , and quoting articles about pipelines, comparing the NDP to the LPC and telling us who her favourite superhero is. ( Okay I made that last one up but that would be more enlightening than some of her other analogies). Anyways it is an impossible thread to follow so I neither place any value on it nor is it something to be agitated about.

Fri, 2015-07-24 19:30

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
When suggesting two things might be more alike than people realize it means that the two things are very different but that there may be some underlying parallels that are not evident on the surface.

I somewhat agree. I've always thought it funny that our folksy homily about comparing "uncomparable" things is "comparing apples and oranges".

Are they both pretty close to round? Are they edible and sweet? Contain seeds? Grow on a tree? Have a skin? Appear in the summer? Are they perishable? Do they contain pectin? Do they come in different varieties?

I propose we switch to "comparing toilet plungers to microchips" or whatever.

Anyway, I don't think Canada is all that much like Greece at all, but the worst-case scenario of a comparison is that it comes up "not that much like Greece at all".

ed'd to add: here's one way they're the same -- each got the government(s) they voted for. Discuss.

Fri, 2015-07-24 20:49

Left Turn

I don't have an opinion on the specific issue that Sean raised, although I did find Pondering's thought process in that thread to be somewhat incoherent.

What I do have an opinion on is the non-response of the mods to Sean's pm. And not just to him personally, but publicly, in the thread.

My opinion is that issues raised by babblers need to be dealt with by the mods, publicly, in the threads in question. This thread, as do all threads in "rabble reactions", necessitates a response by the mods, in the thread. The way that the moderation on babble used to be done.

In my opinion, Catchfire and MegB are no longer "moderating" babble, but are merely "administering" it. They don't seem to do mmuch more than close threads for length, move threads, and change thread titles. These are administrative functions.

There are two reasons why I think this may be the case. The first is that the mods are only paid for 4 hours of babble moderation duties. 4 hours is not enough time to moderate babble, and if rabble cannot or will not pay more than four hours of moderation, then the mods need to be putting in extra time on a volunteer basis. And if Catchfire and MegB are not willing or able to do so, then I really think babble needs new moderators.

The other reason is that I think the mods have decided to follow the tactic of "calling in" babblers via pm, rather than "calling out" babblers publicly. I recall that there were a few articles making the rounds a while back saying that "calling out" activists was creating a "toxic" culture on the left, and that it would be better to use the tactic of "calling in" people one-on-one rather than calling them out in groups.

Now in the context of face to face interactions, I agree wholeheartedly with "calling in" rather than "calling out". "Calling out" individuals during organizing meetings or public meetings, where said person is present, can damage relationships among activists and destroy activist projects. Calling out people on our side in online articles can also be damaging to our ability to work together as activists and movements.

However, I think a discussion forum such as babble is different. Babble has a policy which we expect members of this community to follow, and different people will have different opinions about how that policy impacts various discussions taking place on the forums. Some people may want violations of the spirit/intent of the babble policy to be dealt with, while others may want only violations of the letter of the policy to be dealt with. When issues come up that the immediate participants in a thread can't resolve, the mods need to step in and mandate what, if anything, will be done to resolve these oustanding issues.

As it currently stands, the mods appear to have basically decided that, unless an issue has an administrative aspect, nothing will be done about it, because the mods don't want, or don't have the time, to deal with it.

Fri, 2015-07-24 22:24

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:

As it currently stands, the mods appear to have basically decided that, unless an issue has an administrative aspect, nothing will be done about it, because the mods don't want, or don't have the time, to deal with it.

I disagree. Meg stepped in very recently because of something objectional I said to quizzical.

I think what generally happens is that if they agree they intercede, if not they don't. I've been on quite a few message boards and from my experience they make a decision and that's that.

It seems as though Sean made his objections clearly and in full and the mods simply don't agree with him.

I think the thread is over now anyway so I don't have a problem with closing it but on the other hand it sets a bad precedent to lock a thread because someone considers it offensive even though the mods don't see it that way.

There are lots of threads I find offensive and other people probably find different offensive.

Fri, 2015-07-24 22:31

Unionist

Left Turn wrote:

In my opinion, Catchfire and MegB are no longer "moderating" babble, but are merely "administering" it. They don't seem to do mmuch more than close threads for length, move threads, and change thread titles. These are administrative functions.

Can you do a better job for their salary? Show us how it's done. Please.

What did you want them to do in reply to Sean's tantrum? Tell him he was "wrong"? or "right"?

Or - do you actually want them to read all the threads here? I wouldn't wish a worse curse on my worst enemy serving life in prison.

CF and MegB are doing just fine. The best way to deal with some tantrums is to ignore them. Of course, they could easily pop in and say, "Whatever you may think of Pondering's thread title, it does not constitute a violation of babble policy, so we won't intervene." That would be God's Own Truth. You want to hear that? I've just said it. For free. No, please, for goodness' sake, hold the applause, don't thank me.

Fri, 2015-07-24 22:32

Unionist

Oh great, another thread where we play out this Greek tragedy.

Get over it. [size=15]Identify a violation of babble policy, or leave it alone. [/size]Visit other threads that you find less disturbing, Sean. I stayed out of the Greece thread because I think the premise is not useful. I think I was right.

Mods - please close all open threads, and let's start from scratch. Clean.

Sat, 2015-07-25 02:25

#10

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist -- I refrain from calling your outbursts a tantrum when I disagree with them. You are not one to be known for avoiding strong language so without getting into talk of stones and glass houses I move on.

I expressed a concern respectfully in the way we are directed to. I did not expect to necessarily get my way but people ask for threads to be closed for less. And there was a compromise proposed by another in the thread --a change of title -- something easy. This has been done for much less. I admit I expected an answer other than screw you sous-entendu.

I know the mods are pressed for time. I sent my email which was not disrespectful and then I waited --Is a week not enough?

I was not aware that we had community consensus that some people's concerns ought to be dismissed without any reply at all.

I thought there was an effort to accommodate, where possible requests where offense existed. It is not really that out-there to say that it is a minimization when you compare first world conditions with a country that has become little more than a colony, the people have the banks closed and can't even get medications, unemployment is rampant and people are desperate. Our problems are all serious in our context but asking if we are the same as a country in crisis is disrespectful.

But if nobody here thinks a direct appeal to the mods deserves a reply -- then as you were.

Perhaps you could just identify the posters who are persona non gratta so that we can refrain from wasting time on messages that will never get a reply. We already have clarified that the rules re personal attacks apply only to some people. Now, I know there is no point ever writing the mods becuase they only respond to those they like. This is a private place so favoritism is fine.

So while I have gotten the message that there is no basic respect offered to me, I should be able to assume no expectation that I give any more than the minimum.

Sat, 2015-07-25 03:27

#11

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist -- I refrain from calling your outbursts a tantrum when I disagree with them. You are not one to be known for avoiding strong language so without getting into talk of stones and glass houses I move on.

I expressed a concern respectfully in the way we are directed to. I did not expect to necessarily get my way but people ask for threads to be closed for less. And there was a compromise proposed by another in the thread --a change of title -- something easy. This has been done for much less. I admit I expected an answer other than screw you sous-entendu.

I know the mods are pressed for time. I sent my email which was not disrespectful and then I waited --Is a week not enough?

I was not aware that we had community consensus that some people's concerns ought to be dismissed without any reply at all.

I thought there was an effort to accommodate, where possible requests where offense existed. It is not really that out-there to say that it is a minimization when you compare first world conditions with a country that has become little more than a colony, the people have the banks closed and can't even get medications, unemployment is rampant and people are desperate. Our problems are all serious in our context but asking if we are the same as a country in crisis is disrespectful.

But if nobody here thinks a direct appeal to the mods deserves a reply -- then as you were.

Perhaps you could just identify the posters who are persona non gratta so that we can refrain from wasting time on messages that will never get a reply. We already have clarified that the rules re personal attacks apply only to some people. Now, I know there is no point ever writing the mods becuase they only respond to those they like. This is a private place so favoritism is fine.

So while I have gotten the message that there is no basic respect offered to me, I should be able to assume no expectation that I give any more than the minimum.

And yes, Unionist's comment was nasty and personal. And yes, he will get away with it because, well, he is Unionist.

Sat, 2015-07-25 07:17

#12

Left Turn

Unionist wrote:
What did you want them to do in reply to Sean's tantrum? Tell him he was "wrong"? or "right"?

Like Sean, I disagree with calling Sean's comments in that thread a "tantrum". However, Sean and Pondering did get into an argument over whether Pondering's thread title was offensive or not. The mods needed to intervene in the thread to settle the argumen -- not by saying that Sean is "wrong" or "right", but by making a public decision about whether Pondering's thread title is appropriate for babble.

Unionist wrote:
Or - do you actually want them to read all the threads here? I wouldn't wish a worse curse on my worst enemy serving life in prison.

I don't expect the mods to read every post in every thread. What I would like the mods to do is paruse the threads for arguments that need to be dealt with. Sometimes they need to intervene to settle a disagreement with the appropriateness of content; other times they need to intervene to diffuse arguments that are devolving into personal attacks.

Babble used to have a policy of not tolerating trolling and personal attacks, along with the other violations of babble's policy. First offence was a warning; second offence a 24 hour suspension; and third offence got you banned. I supported this means of dealing with those who engage in trolling and personal attacks, and I've been very dissappointed with the decision not to allow these things on babble in more recent years.

I also support the old policy against thread proliferation. A policy that if it was still in place would have got all the redundant threads started by North Report in the Election 2015 forum closed.

Sat, 2015-07-25 08:00

#13

Left Turn

I've given the issue of Pondering's thread title some thought, and while I don't have a problem with the thread title per say, I still think the mods ought to have changed it, if for no other reason than to stop Sean from derailing the thread with his objections to the title.

Sat, 2015-07-25 09:52

#14

6079_Smith_W

Left Turn wrote:

What I would like the mods to do is paruse the threads for arguments that need to be dealt with.

And then get called out as fascists for doing that - fascists with a double standard because I'm sure someone else has a pet peeve they aren't sufficiently catering to.

I said something similar to Sean not that long ago about using people's misery as nothing but a foil for an agenda. But sorry, I don't see how that is the mods' fault when we turn around and attack them when they DO act on things. How is it that they are more responsible than the person who actually posted? Because we aren't mature enough to think for ourselves and act accordingly and need a babysitter to blame?

It seems they have taken a pretty hands-off approach of late - not surprising considering that is pretty much exactly what people here have been asking for. It always seems to come back to that, even if we sometimes ask for the opposite.

Sat, 2015-07-25 10:25

#15

6079_Smith_W

Points on the research U, but going through vivisection might not be quite as soothing as you say.

Sometimes we don't need to point at the elephant in the room.

Sat, 2015-07-25 10:58

#16

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Points on the research U, but going through vivisection might not be quite as soothing as you say.

Sometimes we don't need to point at the elephant in the room.

I did it reluctantly, Smith - and only because people are popping up here saying the mods aren't doing their job. Complaining about moderation may be a right, but I think there are some basic responsibilities that accompany it. Like... doing so in moderation.

And because I respect Sean and his contributions so much, I did this vivisection in a sincere effort to ask him to address: What tipped you over the edge at 4:40 pm on July 16 - and whatever it was, why is it important enough to warrant a broadside against the moderators?

Sat, 2015-07-25 11:00

#17

Unionist

So, for those of you who haven't had time to review the original thread, here's a reality check:

1. Pondering's thread title (even though I happen to disagree with her main thesis) makes it crystal clear that her comparison of two countries is about "Limitations on Democracy" - not the economic plight of the people. If that gives offence so some babblers who claim some Greek heritage, then colour me puzzled.

2. Sean seemed happy for three days to participate, very constructively and intelligently (as he always does), in this "offensive" thread:

On July 13, a long post dealing with various issues including:

Sean in Office wrote:
And parts of Canada are like Greece too. The level of need and desperation does not exist in any province, but Aboriginal communities could be compared to Greece. [...]

So, no, Canada is different than Greece, but parts of this country are comparable. Most of us are well of Southerners. Most of us are comparable to the Germans in this story and the Harper government is comparable to the Merkel government. some of the provinces might be comparable to France, somewhat sympathetic but not doing enough.

[my emphasis]

So far, so good.

Then, two days later (July 15), he posts not one, not two, not three , but four times - bringing forth little-known useful data which earns him thanks from other babblers. Great discussion so far, if from vastly different perspectives and little agreement on some points.

Sean then publishes twice more (here and here) on July 16, though now he's in a meta-dispute with Pondering (they've been there before). He's still engaged enough in the thread topic to respond as follows to mark_alfred's suggestion that the thread be relocated to the Activism forum:

Sean in Office wrote:

This is a thread drift not the purpose of the thread. I would not move threads to accomodate drift when people have participated and might want to come back.

Much as I appreciate the link between voting Liberal and giving up on political change from within the system. I have to agree voting Liberal is a very pessimistic outlook on our electoral system -- perhaps one step above not voting at all.

He's still saying that people might want to return to post in this thread - and might have trouble finding it if it's moved! He isn't offended yet by the thread title, apparently, or at least he hasn't mentioned that in 3 days.

3. Then - that very same afternoon - out of the blue - Sean disengages:

Sean in Office wrote:
I find this thread incredibly insulting to what the Greeks are facing. It minimizes their plight through comparison to ours. Happy to engage in a discussion about Canada elsewhere but I find this context offensive.

Duhhh?

Something happened, don't know what. I called it a "tantrum". I apologize for the connotations of that word. But something happened after three days of engagement and conversation.

So here it is. Sean should analyze why he got offended by the thread title after staring at it and engaging in the discussion for three days. If the mods actually spend their limited time dealing with an issue like that - I'd question their competence.

And again, if there's an issue of a babble policy being violated, I'd like to see it articulated, by anyone.

Sorry for the detailed analysis, but this is how urban legends get created. Sometimes you need to go back to basics to revive the truth.

Sean's voice here is essential. If there's a way to soothe feelings over misunderstandings, let's do it. If Sean just gets triggered by Pondering (as has unfortunately been the case before - and which seems to be the [b]real source[/b] of the problem here), then I sincerely hope he finds the ways to deal with that.

Sat, 2015-07-25 11:21

#18

mark_alfred

It's a shame Babble was set up as a flat forum rather than a threaded forum (IE, like Slashdot, reddit, or Disqus.) I notice that comments to articles in Rabble now use Disqus rather than Babble (which once was used for this purpose). Most news sites use threaded commenting now (IE, the CBC, the Star, etc.) I'm not sure why Babble remains in the stone ages.

Sat, 2015-07-25 12:25

#19

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

why is it important enough to warrant a broadside against the moderators?

Yup, agreed. And actually, I don't mind you pointing out the open secret. I just don't think it is going to be taken as soothing at all.

Sat, 2015-07-25 12:50

#20

Sean in Ottawa

I am not the first to object to a title on reflection as a thread progresses and I deny that this is illegitimate. I have never seen anyone asked to explain the thought process why they find something offensive, as a precondition to deserving a response, but okay. Usually it would be enough to just say what was offensive which I did in the thread before calling for closure. But I'll account for the thought process.

To address the defense that we are only talking specifically about democracy not desperation:

1) the thread included a statement to the effect that desperation here is comparable. I challenged that as desperation in Greece is both qualitavely and quantitavely not comparable as they even a monthly social assistance program -- no welfare -- and have much higher and more hopeless unemployment. It is not the first time that someone has pointed to a thread that has become offensive and might better to be closed. It is not unheard of to respond to something offensive in a thread AND call for the mess to be closed.

2) The issue of democracy was the focus of the problem. In Canada we can whine if we like but we get the policies we vote for (more or less) and as voters deserve to look at each other when we make a bad choice. In Greece this is no longer the case. More and more people from comfort here slam their government when the direction they choose has been proven to be irrelevant. This is where the specific suggestion that their democratic crisis could be comparable to ours is most offensive. Canadians have no business electing crappy governments, complaining and the comparing ourselves to where the democratic process has been destroyed when we do not manage ours. The fact is Canada does not have a social democratic government because Canadians vote in large part over greed. The Greeks did elect a left of centre government but that government found that the decisions were no longer made in Athens. Greeks are participating in their political process but to no avail. Canadians, for the most part, can't be bothered. Then some Canadians here decide to shit on the Greek government facing an obvious lack of choices, unprecedented by an apparently sovereign, democratically elected government openly comparing their lack of democratic options to ours. It is the very focus on democratic rights that made that thread so disgusting and offensive.

Compromise

The issue was not just the title it was also the content of the thread. But the thread title change suggestion from another person was something I accepted as a compromise as I think compromise is a good idea and it did reduce the offensiveness of the thread while allowing conversation to continue. I thought when a compromise was reached this would make it easier for the mods to act not realizing that I am disqualified from making a suggestion worthy of ANY response.

Bullying

Of course there was no compromise from Pondering directly. In her argument she named a whole list of babblers claiming they endorsed her position when they had not done so. I did not just feel bullied I felt mobbed. Mobbing is a specific form of bullying where you seek to engage a group to isolate and attack one person. Of course the mods could not care less. But it is particularly destructive when you have two people arguing and then one names many people as allies whether or not those people wanted to participate in the pile-on or not. I certainly can point to a thread where we had daily demands for closure through the whole thread but nobody called out the person who asked for that so viciously.

When a poster here enlists others into an argument that has already become personal like this "Slumberjack, NDPP, epaulo13, alan smithee, Rokossovsky, and probably a couple of others seem to understand what I am trying to get at." You have a problem when the community is just fine with that. I remember bullying through kids corralling allies to participate way back in elementary school. This felt no different. This happened after I asked for the thread to be closed so is not why I asked for that -- My reasons were stated in post 54 and earlier. Whether or not I have a right to feel the way I did can be a topic of debate but that I felt that way is not. And this is done in the context of the approval of the mods. The double standard with respect to exchanges with Pondering are very clear. I can take personal attacks by for days while I am focused on what is actually said but the moment I say anything that even remotely suggests something personal the mods come down on me while blessing Pondering. Her bullying feels different because it is blessed by the mods and there are absolutely no limits to what can be said to me on this site by anybody even as I am attacked for the slightest breach myself.

And let's not forget that this debate is not about whether I was right about wanting thread closure or a title change but it has come down to whether I was right to ask and whether I was right to complain when that request was ignored. this is the debate I am now responding to. It also became a debate where we seem to have agreement that the mods can legitimately completely ignore an appeal from someone complaining about something they find offensive -- apparently based on who is doing the asking.

I'll next post why I came to this over time.

Sat, 2015-07-25 13:34

#21

NorthReport

m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

How many times now have we seen people come here professing to be one thing while their words say otherwise.

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples (go back and read their initial posts here), and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

The problem as I see it on these discussion boards is some people come here wishing to have sincere discussions while others don't. The ones that don't lie, deceive, harass, and basically drive most of the decent posters away.

mark_alfred wrote:

It's a shame Babble was set up as a flat forum rather than a threaded forum (IE, like Slashdot, reddit, or Disqus.) I notice that comments to articles in Rabble now use Disqus rather than Babble (which once was used for this purpose). Most news sites use threaded commenting now (IE, the CBC, the Star, etc.) I'm not sure why Babble remains in the stone ages.

Sat, 2015-07-25 13:36

#22

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

How many times now have we seen people come here professing to be one thing while their words say otherwise.

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples, and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

I've been ignoring the childish, timorous, disgusting personal attacks in this thread so far.

And I plan to carry on in the same vein.

Sat, 2015-07-25 13:37

#23

Sean in Ottawa

So I must account for my evolving thought process as the thread progressed to make me call for closure, then compromise for a thread title change. It is not enough to say that I found it offensive and explain why as I did in post 54 of the thread. I must say why I dared to have such an opinion, dared to say it (when others are free to) and dared to send a note to the mods and dared to expect a reply.

1) the situation in Greece deteriorated making the thread more and more offensive as it was clear that the direction, ideology and choices of their elected government were irrelevant. Greece's democracy is more like an occupied country than a country with first world problems like Canada. As this story developed the comparison became more disgusting. Canada earned the right to responsible government in 1848, before even confederation. Greece has lost theirs right before our eyes and this evolved as this horrible thread progressed.

2) the content of the thread started as an awful comparison but then went from there into a thread about activism here. In the meantime Greeks risked bodily harm in clashes with police while citizens wondered if they might avoid another civil war or social collapse. It was also clear that the population was largely confused between protesting the decision of an elected government or protesting that the government actually had no decision to make. The thread compared their democracy to ours.

3) I became more engaged with people outside Canada including friends in Greece and in the rest of Europe. I was aware that they could see this thread I became more sensitive to how this would be received.

4) The “Greek feet” comment I found rather disgusting. As if being sensitive to the misery of others could be mocked in this way – as if to say – “nobody is Greek here – the most we have is Greek shaped feet so who gives a fuck?” (BTW the Greek diaspora in Canada is ¾ of a million – about 2% of our population -- while I have a Greek connection, my grandfather being born there and his mother being Greek, I am not included in this number)

5) Increasingly the thread became nothing to do with Greece- except that this was the entire frame of the conversation. To me that suggested that after this crappy comparison to an evolving crisis in another country we would now turn to what was really important. I felt that a thread on Canadian activism would be interesting but I did not want to debate about what to do in Canada in the context of this being part of a one-up comparison of our importance with a country in crisis. Check out this thread saying how people are actually dying in Greece due to the crisis: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/greek-crisis-matter-life-death/

Then tell me again how the thread was not offensive. I wanted to respond to the Canadian specific comments but I felt unable to participate without minimizing the situation in Greece. I personally (selfishly if you insist) wanted that thread closed or renamed so I could participate in the discussion – about purely Canadian real issues with activism and democracy -- without participating in minimizing the crisis in Greece.

An option was presented to just change the thread title to lessons that could be learned from Greece. This was so much better and changed the frame enough that I said – sure this would be fine. But even that minor compromise was too much I guess since I was asking. But thread titles get changed for those the mods like for very little.

There was a nice joke thread not that long ago where I was mocked for leaving and then coming back. The fact that I obviously do not belong here is something I struggle with. I participate here not because I feel comfortable with all that goes on here but because there are not many alternatives to this -- that I have found. Twitter works to a degree but I still come crawling back here even after humiliation. Yes, I admit that says something bad about me. And I realize the desire from a few to react to any feedback or criticism I might share with a “well fuck off then.”

So I try not to address personal slights in this reactions section now. I do not appeal to others if someone says something I do not like toward me personally – I reply in place in the thread to that person unless I am told I am not allowed. I expect my personal opinion on any of this does not matter. But I chose to take a stand on something I feel is widely offensive and an injustice not directed at me but the misery of a country. I do not write to the mods when someone says something nasty to me – I reserved appealing to them for this. As we have covered -- that's pointless.

Sat, 2015-07-25 13:38

#24

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

How many times now have we seen people come here professing to be one thing while their words say otherwise.

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples, and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

I've been ignoring the childish, timorous, disgusting personal attacks in this thread so far.

And I plan to carry on in the same vein.

You have been writing some of them. Check yourself.

Sat, 2015-07-25 13:50

#25

Sean in Ottawa

And by the way -- my appeal to the mods by direct message does not follow a habit of sending them direct messages. The previous DM I sent was July 2012 and only to give them background on a labour dispute that I was not in a position to post publicly.

Otherwise we have to go back to before 2010 to find an example of when I used the DM tool to contact the mods.

It is not as if I often send requests for closures or thread title changes. My message was not long either -- for full disclosure there is nothing personal in it. Here it is in full

*****

Please close that stupid thread comparing Canada and Greece.

This type of crap is being done in right wing press comparing Ontario's economy to Greece. It is not progressive. It is a minimization of the misery and fear that millions are living in.

The thread is now, after discussing Greece, on to what to do to restore democracy here -- after comparison to a country that is broke and effectively now a colony. This is incredible insensitive to any Greeks who might see it. There are many Canadians very worried about their families and friends.

In Greece things are so bad some are worried about civil collapse and civil war. Not the place to sip our lattés and chat about Canada's problems. It is revolting.

I almost never appeal to you. Now I am.

*****

But not worthy of even a fuck you.

ETA: Yes there was an exchange with Catchfire when I was banned several months ago by email. You can include that. But there is no volume to my appeals to the mods to justify being ignored. And this was not a pissing match -- it was a legitimate concern I had no reason to think they would not support. I even said please.

Sat, 2015-07-25 13:54

#26

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

How many times now have we seen people come here professing to be one thing while their words say otherwise.

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples, and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

I've been ignoring the childish, timorous, disgusting personal attacks in this thread so far.

And I plan to carry on in the same vein.

You have been writing some of them. Check yourself.

Quote them, please. Quote my "personal" attacks. You mean, like saying publicly how I feel about you and your contributions here? Or when I disagree with your attack on the mods, that's a "personal" attack?

Quote them, please. Tell me and everyone what you're talking about. Or else, retract. Seems like a fair demand to me.

Sat, 2015-07-25 14:01

#27

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

How many times now have we seen people come here professing to be one thing while their words say otherwise.

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples, and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

I've been ignoring the childish, timorous, disgusting personal attacks in this thread so far.

And I plan to carry on in the same vein.

You have been writing some of them. Check yourself.

Quote them, please. Quote my "personal" attacks. You mean, like saying publicly how I feel about you and your contributions here? Or when I disagree with your attack on the mods, that's a "personal" attack?

Quote them, please. Tell me and everyone what you're talking about. Or else, retract. Seems like a fair demand to me.

I consider calling a reaction that has a cause behind it "a tantrum" to be a personal attack. First it is infantalising, second, it implies that there is no thought process. And third it sidesteps and minimizes the issue and legitimacy of what a person is saying. And yes you better believe it is taken personally. If you really were not aware that such comment is taken as an attack then consider this a favour.

You get your explanation and no retraction. I appreaciate support from people who are not saying my concern is a tantrum. It wasn't. And coming from you -- a person who uses langauge no harsher than mine -- it seemed hypocritical. And why after you said this would you expect me to bite my tongue in response?

Sat, 2015-07-25 14:05

#28

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I consider calling a reaction that has a cause behind it "a tantrum" to be a personal attack. First it is infantalising, second, it implies that there is no thought process. And third it sidesteps and minimizes the issue and legitimacy of what a person is saying. And yes you better believe it is taken personally. If you really were not aware that such comment is taken as an attack then consider this a favour.

You get your explanation and no retraction. I appreaciate support from people who are not saying my concern is a tantrum. It wasn't. And coming from you -- a person who uses langauge no harsher than mine -- it seemed hypocritical. And why after you said this would you expect me to bite my tongue in response?

You haven't even noticed that I apologized upthread for the connotations of that word - after everyone was attacking me for using it?

Really?

And that's the sum total of what you call "personal attacks"?

Someone calls me a "Liberal troll" - that doesn't garner a comment from you? Really?

And if you say something stupid, and I reply: "That comment is stupid." - that's your definition of a "personal" attack?

And others (including you) repeat your innuendo that I am privileged, can say whatever I want without fear of mod intervention, while the rest of you have to walk on eggshells - that's not a "personal" attack?

I beg to disagree. And I'm still trying to dislodge this one answer: What in that thread violated babble policy?

Sat, 2015-07-25 14:13

#29

NorthReport

The only person you are foolin' Unionist is yourself.

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

How many times now have we seen people come here professing to be one thing while their words say otherwise.

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples, and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

I've been ignoring the childish, timorous, disgusting personal attacks in this thread so far.

And I plan to carry on in the same vein.

Sat, 2015-07-25 14:31

#30

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I consider calling a reaction that has a cause behind it "a tantrum" to be a personal attack. First it is infantalising, second, it implies that there is no thought process. And third it sidesteps and minimizes the issue and legitimacy of what a person is saying. And yes you better believe it is taken personally. If you really were not aware that such comment is taken as an attack then consider this a favour.

You get your explanation and no retraction. I appreaciate support from people who are not saying my concern is a tantrum. It wasn't. And coming from you -- a person who uses langauge no harsher than mine -- it seemed hypocritical. And why after you said this would you expect me to bite my tongue in response?

You haven't even noticed that I apologized upthread for the connotations of that word - after everyone was attacking me for using it?

Really?

And that's the sum total of what you call "personal attacks"?

Someone calls me a "Liberal troll" - that doesn't garner a comment from you? Really?

And if you say something stupid, and I reply: "That comment is stupid." - that's your definition of a "personal" attack?

And others (including you) repeat your innuendo that I am privileged, can say whatever I want without fear of mod intervention, while the rest of you have to walk on eggshells - that's not a "personal" attack?

I beg to disagree. And I'm still trying to dislodge this one answer: What in that thread violated babble policy?

Sorry but your complaint about personal attack was too close to one of your own -- -- the issue was not connotation of one word but in the meaning itself. Your first post in this thread was a sarcastic comment suggesting I was wrong to expect the mods would read the thread. In my first DM since 2012 I brought it to their attention. I expected them to read their direct messages.

Let me see if I got this right: You have not been called a Liberal troll in this thread -- at least I cannot see a reference. Someone said that you defended them -- is that a Liberal troll? Or maybe you were called a Liberal troll in another thread that I was supposed to read to comment in but you defend the moderators here for not reading or responding to a direct message sent to them even though they are moderators and I am not. Is that about right? Now I am not a Liberal but when I see soeone called a Liberal troll I have defended them. I did with Terry Towel. I would have with you if I had seen it.

I do not equate saying someone said somethign stupid as a personal attack -- where do you see that?

Where do you get off saying that I ever suggested you were priveleged? I have made that comment about Canadians generally in the context of a thread about Greece but not specific to you.

As for what you can get away with or not -- this is the wrong thread to ask me to defend what you can get away with -- don'tcha think? I do think that the moderators are not evenhanded. That is my opinion and I have backed it up.

As for your focus on rabble policy -- when has that been the exclusive standard for the right to make a complaint and expect a reply? I can frame the context of comparing Greece to Canada in saying that is not consistant with being respectful or not being anti-imperialist or even human rights. Since this minimizes issues related to all of these -- but why should I? People make requests to the mods far more often than I do and expect response.

If you find something offensive and you write to the mods to ask if they will consider something and they do not respond to you, then you are attacked for expecting a response -- and if you are then told that it is wrong to expect that the mods would read the first DM you sent them since 2012 and give an answer over your report that you are finding something offensive. Is that respectful? How about being told your reaction is a tantrum then. Still no lack of respect here? No problem with rabble policy in any of this?

Sat, 2015-07-25 14:42

#31

Sean in Ottawa

North Report -- you gotta be kidding. I think the two of you each have written the book on personal attacks towards each other. I like you both but this is not where I want to start taking a side between you. I reacted to Unionist becuase of the context of his comment towards me as I felt bruised by what he said in the same thread -- but... You are not in a position -- neither of you -- to comment on personal attacks to each other. That ship sailed and sank a century ago.

I started this thread to indicate frustration that a DM to the mods about something I found offense would not get a reply. It went from there into why I should expect a reply, the legitimacy of my contention that it was offensive and a demand for me to explain not just why I thought it was offensive (which I did in the thread itself) but my thought process that led me to think I had a right to complain and even expect a response and even if my participation in the thread disqualified me from complaining about it.

Now we are at personal attacks -- between the two of you. Not sure how that relates. Nobody, honestly wants to get in between the two of you when you are in conflict with each other.

Sat, 2015-07-25 15:25

#32

takeitslowly

insert random comment

Sean in ottawa is one of my favorite posters here :D

Sat, 2015-07-25 18:21

#33

MegB

NorthReport wrote:

m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

How many times now have we seen people come here professing to be one thing while their words say otherwise.

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples (go back and read their initial posts here), and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

The problem as I see it on these discussion boards is some people come here wishing to have sincere discussions while others don't. The ones that don't lie, deceive, harass, and basically drive most of the decent posters away.

C'mon, no personal attacks, k?

Sat, 2015-07-25 19:56

#34

Left Turn

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
2) The issue of democracy was the focus of the problem. In Canada we can whine if we like but we get the policies we vote for (more or less) and as voters deserve to look at each other when we make a bad choice. In Greece this is no longer the case. More and more people from comfort here slam their government when the direction they choose has been proven to be irrelevant. This is where the specific suggestion that their democratic crisis could be comparable to ours is most offensive. Canadians have no business electing crappy governments, complaining and the comparing ourselves to where the democratic process has been destroyed when we do not manage ours. The fact is Canada does not have a social democratic government because Canadians vote in large part over greed. The Greeks did elect a left of centre government but that government found that the decisions were no longer made in Athens. Greeks are participating in their political process but to no avail. Canadians, for the most part, can't be bothered. Then some Canadians here decide to shit on the Greek government facing an obvious lack of choices, unprecedented by an apparently sovereign, democratically elected government openly comparing their lack of democratic options to ours. It is the very focus on democratic rights that made that thread so disgusting and offensive.

I get where you're going with this, but the fact is that Canada is a member of the WTO, and a signatory to NAFTA. The WTO can force Canada to change its law if a foreign company successfully argues that Canadian law favors Canadian companies, and NAFTA allows U.S. and Mexican companies to sue the Canadian government over future lost profits stemming from any Canadian law. Both the NAFTA and WTO dispute resolution panels keep the evidnce against Canada secret, and don't allow Canada to argue in its own defence.

The Canadian government could get out of NAFTA in six months, but it takes five years to get out of the WTO. And none of the major political parties in this country advocate withdrawing from either. Not to mention that both NAFTA and the WTO are held up as economic orthodoxy in the MSM. Withdrwaing from the WTO is never even talked about, and withdrawing from NAFTA is treated as economic suicide.

So as long as Canada remains in NAFTA and the WTO, I'd say we don't really have full democracy in this country.

Sat, 2015-07-25 20:18

#35

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
So as long as Canada remains in NAFTA and the WTO, I'd say we don't really have full democracy in this country.

There are parties that are explicitly anti-NAFTA and anti-WTO. Are you predicting a landslide for them, based on popular sentiment against NAFTA and the WTO? Or, if people don't even bother to vote for the parties that are against what they're against. what does that mean for "democracy"? If I don't vote for what I want, in a secret ballot, how is that someone else's fault?

Sat, 2015-07-25 22:31

#36

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
1) the thread included a statement to the effect that desperation here is comparable.

A poster mentioned that to someone living on welfare in Ontario, 600 a month, the desperation and helplessness they feel is the same. Even with the vote they are disenfranchised. Some aboriginal communities are experiencing 3rd world problems. Even though that wasn't where I was going it was still insightful. Easy for us to say Canada is in better shape than Greece. For us it is but that isn't true for everyone. While it is on a much smaller scale we do have some of the same ills as Greece and it is arrogant to dismiss the suffering of people as unimportant because they don't form as large a proportion of the population.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In Canada we can whine if we like but we get the policies we vote for (more or less) and as voters deserve to look at each other when we make a bad choice. In Greece this is no longer the case.

Left Turn just answered better so I deleted most of my response on the limits trade deals are placing on sovereignty but I have this to add.

You say the will of the Greek people has been thwarted but that isn't true. When it became clear that Germany was going to force them out of the Euro Tsipras folded because the Greek people do not want to leave the Euro. Between austerity and leaving the Euro, they choose austerity. Leaving the Euro would not have been more democractic even if it would be better for their future (so we claim).

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The issue was not just the title it was also the content of the thread. But the thread title change suggestion from another person was something I accepted as a compromise as I think compromise is a good idea and it did reduce the offensiveness of the thread while allowing conversation to continue..... I thought when a compromise was reached this would make it easier for the mods to act not realizing that I am disqualified from making a suggestion worthy of ANY response........Of course there was no compromise from Pondering directly.

Thread titles are not decided by consensus or through compromise. I considered accepting your demand but decided humouring you would send the wrong message. There was nothing wrong with the title or thread. You misinterpreted what I was saying then took offence to the misinterpretation. I tried to correct your misinterpretation but you weren't having it and you still aren't.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
BullyingIn her argument she named a whole list of babblers claiming they endorsed her position when they had not done so. I did not just feel bullied I felt mobbed...I remember bullying through kids corralling allies to participate way back in elementary school.

You quoted me directly:

"Slumberjack, NDPP, epaulo13, alan smithee, Rokossovsky, and probably a couple of others seem to understand what I am trying to get at."

Understanding does not denote agreement. I was simply pointing out that a bunch of people understood what I was getting at because it was evident in their responses regardless of whether or not they agreed with my train of thought. You misunderstood the meaning of what I was saying and took offence based on the misinterpretation. Maybe that was not unreasonable on your part, but now that the meaning has been clarified over and over again you are clinging to your own interpretation insisting that Greeks are being disrespected.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I certainly can point to a thread where we had daily demands for closure through the whole thread but nobody called out the person who asked for that so viciously.

No one has said anything vicious to you in that thread nor any other.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I can take personal attacks by for days while I am focused on what is actually said but the moment I say anything that even remotely suggests something personal the mods come down on me while blessing Pondering. Her bullying feels different because it is blessed by the mods and there are absolutely no limits to what can be said to me on this site by anybody even as I am attacked for the slightest breach myself.

That isn't true. I complained about one of your posts in the JT thread, waited a few days without response, so then responded to it myself calling you out. It was some post talking about me as if I were not there to another poster in a manner that was guaranteed to insult me. You probably reported my response and got no reply because you asked for it.

Even if you stay within the letter of the rules if it is obvious that you are intentionally insulting someone else they will not step in and save you when your target recognizes the insult and calls you out on it directly.

Meg publically rebuked me for what I said to quizzical that quizzical did not invite. Another time Meg rebuked me for using the phrase "drank the koolaid" because she misinterpreted it thinking it was a drug reference or a reference to mental illness. I saw it used the same way not a week later in an article by a political commentator on a mainstream site. It has come to reference someone who thinks everything a person or organization does is right. I didn't argue with her about it because I am just not that important and neither was the incident.

I wouldn't pay her even minimum wage to spend an hour debating anything with me so why should rabble use donations to pay her to debate an infraction with me? Even if she only spent 3 hours moderating that week her time could still be better spent on other aspects of her job that contribute more value to rabble.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
And let's not forget that this debate is not about whether I was right about wanting thread closure or a title change but it has come down to whether I was right to ask and whether I was right to complain when that request was ignored. It also became a debate where we seem to have agreement that the mods can legitimately completely ignore an appeal from someone complaining about something they find offensive -- apparently based on who is doing the asking.

There was nothing wrong with your making the request. We report. They make a call and move on. It's not about being right. They are paid to keep order on the board. How they manage that seems to be entirely up to them.

I agree it would be better if they acknowledge reception of the complaint and confirm whether or not they consider it valid but no response is a pretty clear indication that they don't agree with the complaint.

You are convinced the mods favor me. They don't. I have been publically rebuked multiple times. I have have been given time-outs. I have been barred from certain forums. On the other hand I accept their judgement and move on. I also volunteered to refrain from most NDP threads which I did on your behalf. Since then my motivation has changed but I still mostly stay out of them. As miscreants go I am fairly managable now although there is still room for improvement.

Our relationship is unlikely to ever change. The moderators are not going to waste time playing referree between us. They are not paid enough for that. It is up to us to get along or not and when either of us breaks policy or if we disrupt too many threads they step in briefly and settle it. It doesn't matter to them who started it. Their job is to end it.

It seems to pretty much be a like it or lump it situation.

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:04

#37

Mr. Magoo

Might I suggest settling this
with a dance-off?

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:04

#38

Mr. Magoo

Might I suggest settling this
with a dance-off?

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:04

#39

Mr. Magoo

Might I suggest settling this
with a dance-off?

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:04

#40

Mr. Magoo

Might I suggest settling this
with a dance-off?

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:06

#41

Mr. Magoo

Oops. iPod stuffs.

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:07

#42

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Pondering and Debater are two prime examples (go back and read their initial posts here), and Unionist is always the first one to jump to their defense.

Unionist got no shit very pissed off at me for calling unions a necessary evil. He often disagrees with things that I say. I don't get the idea that he likes me. He hasn't carried a grudge over our disagreements. Beyond that I don't know what he thinks of me. I hold no grudge either. Whenever we interact he treats it as fresh conversation and deals with whatever is being said in that thread.

He just calls it as he sees it without regard to whether or not it is someone he respects or agrees with and he has expressed admiration for Sean's contributions and immediately apologized for having caused offence with his tantrum remark.

If we all did the same the board would be far more peaceful. I for one will use it as an example of how to behave whether or not my perceptions of Unionist are accurate.

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:37

#43

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

It's a shame Babble was set up as a flat forum rather than a threaded forum (IE, like Slashdot, reddit, or Disqus.) I notice that comments to articles in Rabble now use Disqus rather than Babble (which once was used for this purpose). Most news sites use threaded commenting now (IE, the CBC, the Star, etc.) I'm not sure why Babble remains in the stone ages.

NorthReport wrote:
m_a,

Does this help to minimize the impact of the trolls?

Yes it does. When people are responding to a particular post the conversation takes place on sub-thread. People who aren't interested can comment on the main topic or just continue reading the main topic instead of being taken off track by drama that doesn't interest them.

NorthReport wrote:
The problem as I see it on these discussion boards is some people come here wishing to have sincere discussions while others don't.

I see the problem differently. The problem that I see is that those "sincere" people won't just get on with their sincere discussions instead of trying to police the board for opinions they don't like so they can shout them down. When they don't like a poster they take it upon themselves to warn all other posters of the individual's nefarious behavior. They also pass judgement on what other people should or shouldn't get to discuss, like gun laws, sometimes even declaring that the conversation has been had as if that means others can't discuss it again. The discussion on the Pinas-Mulcair affair was declared invalid multiple times even though reasoned arguments were being made from multiple points of view so clearly some posters did think it worthy of discussion.

Personal scuffles, not the original sin if there was one, is what disrupts threads.

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:51

#44

Left Turn

Pondering wrote:
You are convinced the mods favor me. They don't. I have been publically rebuked multiple times. I have have been given time-outs. I have been barred from certain forums. On the other hand I accept their judgement and move on. I also volunteered to refrain from most NDP threads which I did on your behalf. Since then my motivation has changed but I still mostly stay out of them. As miscreants go I am fairly managable now although there is still room for improvement.

Pondering, consider yourself lucky you didn't join babble prior to November 2006. Back then the Moderator was a woman named Audra, and we had a "three strikes" rule that applied to trolling and personal attacks, as well as the other aspects of rabble's policy (which has evolved since then). First offcence was a warning; second offence was a 24 hour suspension; and the third offence would get you banned. If that standard was still applied on babble, your fight with Susan Davis on the prostitution issue would have gotten both of you banned.

I don't agree with the ongoing vendetta against you by some babblers (mostly Sean at this point), but I also happen to think that the mods were far too lenient on you during the prostitution debate in December 2013 to March 2014, as well as the subsequent Lib-NDP fights (which have thankfully now mostly died down). Many babblers stopped posting here because they couldn't stand your presence, and I don't get the sense that you fully understand the damage this did to babble.

Sun, 2015-07-26 00:46

#45

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
So I must account for my evolving thought process as the thread progressed to make me call for closure, then compromise for a thread title change.

I interpreted his point to be that he hoped you would reflect and realize that the thread was not inherently offensive or you would have objected immediately and not participated in discussion.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
4) The “Greek feet” comment I found rather disgusting. As if being sensitive to the misery of others could be mocked in this way – as if to say – “nobody is Greek here – the most we have is Greek shaped feet so who gives a fuck?” (BTW the Greek diaspora in Canada is ¾ of a million – about 2% of our population -- while I have a Greek connection, my grandfather being born there and his mother being Greek, I am not included in this number)

I recently started a thread that was about an article that determines someone's genetic background by the type of feet that they have. The comment was tongue in cheek and in reference to you setting yourself up as spokesperson for the people of Greece. Even after sharing your connections to Greece it still doesn't follow that you can simply declare something offensive and everyone must agree with you because you are part Greek.

Your insinuation is that we don't understand or respect what the people of Greece are enduring when nothing could be farther than the truth. I believe the people of Greece would want us to learn from what is happening there and open our eyes to what is going on in Canada.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
An option was presented to just change the thread title to lessons that could be learned from Greece. This was so much better and changed the frame enough that I said – sure this would be fine. But even that minor compromise was too much I guess since I was asking. But thread titles get changed for those the mods like for very little.

They get changed because something is wrong with the title or because the author of the thread makes the request. They can't change titles every time any poster thinks a title should be changed.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The fact that I obviously do not belong here is something I struggle with. I participate here not because I feel comfortable with all that goes on here but because there are not many alternatives to this -- that I have found. Twitter works to a degree but I still come crawling back here even after humiliation. Yes, I admit that says something bad about me.

No it doesn't, or at least not something that isn't a common human failing. Who can claim they don't fall into the "needs improvement" line-up in any category? Often people who fall foul of the rules are also among the most passionate and dedicated. I don't see how you can possibly claim that you don't belong here. It is literally a ludicrous claim. If you don't belong here no one does.

Many posters express admiration for you and your posts and say they would miss your contributions to the board. When our feud started the reason I was so upset with you is because I percieved you as a highly respected board member therefore your opinion of me would carry a lot of weight. You are still a highly respected and valued board member. That you can't percieve that is a character flaw to work on.

We don't like each other, I don't expect that to change, but I sincerely believe that you are misinterpreting how you are perceived here and the value placed on your participation.

Just lay down your grievances and participate in the discussions you find productive or interesting or amusing. I really don't participate in that many threads these days. I am easy to avoid. I saw articles on Mulcair getting the percentage of corporate tax wrong and his latest fund raising gambit but I didn't bring either to the board. If Trudeau had done either I would never hear the end of it. Try to see things from my perspective a bit.

People do not judge you nearly as hard as you judge yourself and most don't judge me as harshly as you do. Consider that you may be taking what happens on this board too much to heart.

I take periodic breaks short and long if I feel my experience is getting more negative than positive. I expect others do the same. It's not a big deal.

Sun, 2015-07-26 01:26

#46

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:

Pondering wrote:
You are convinced the mods favor me. They don't. I have been publically rebuked multiple times. I have have been given time-outs. I have been barred from certain forums. On the other hand I accept their judgement and move on. I also volunteered to refrain from most NDP threads which I did on your behalf. Since then my motivation has changed but I still mostly stay out of them. As miscreants go I am fairly managable now although there is still room for improvement.

Pondering, consider yourself lucky you didn't join babble prior to November 2006. Back then the Moderator was a woman named Audra, and we had a "three strikes" rule that applied to trolling and personal attacks, as well as the other aspects of rabble's policy (which has evolved since then). First offcence was a warning; second offence was a 24 hour suspension; and the third offence would get you banned. If that standard was still applied on babble, your fight with Susan Davis on the prostitution issue would have gotten both of you banned.

I don't agree with the ongoing vendetta against you by some babblers (mostly Sean at this point), but I also happen to think that the mods were far too lenient on you during the prostitution debate in December 2013 to March 2014, as well as the subsequent Lib-NDP fights (which have thankfully now mostly died down). Many babblers stopped posting here because they couldn't stand your presence, and I don't get the sense that you fully understand the damage this did to babble.

I am not responsible for a single person leaving babble other than myself when I take breaks. Posters who have been here far longer than myself set the tone for the board. I took my cue from the way I was treated including being accused of not caring whether prostitutes lived or died. In my first Liberal thread in which I was sincere I was swamped with tactics like straw man arguments putting me on the defensive right away. Maybe if someone had defended me I wouldn't have felt the need to defend myself so vigorously. I entered into an existing dynamic that placed me in a category that can be poked at. I poked back. It takes two to tango and in this case I was defending against multiple opponents. Now I am very prickly and too quick to take and give offence although I am working on that.

Multiple posters have suggested that while Liberals should be allowed to post they shouldn't have the same status as NDP supporters. I suggest that attitude is behind some of the trouble.

The reason some of the Lib/NDP stuff has died down is because I backed off for the most part. There are still a couple of things that make me see red but I haven't said much recently and I haven't defended the Liberals as much. I've congratulated NDP supporters and agreed they have good reason to feel confident and even to rub it in. If (when) the Liberal numbers start to rise the attacks will multiply and if I defend Trudeau I will be treated with distain and obvious insults. I will again defend myself probably the same way I did in the thread that Sean is objecting to.

Sun, 2015-07-26 01:49

#47

takeitslowly

I wish there is an ignore button. I am tired of the wall of texts. :(

Sun, 2015-07-26 10:06

#48

6079_Smith_W

I find walls of text are their own ignore button. That is my cue to scroll right over, especially if it is something which has been said 50 times already.

Sun, 2015-07-26 10:20

#49

6079_Smith_W

Sun, 2015-07-26 10:29

#50

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
When suggesting two things might be more alike than people realize it means that the two things are very different but that there may be some underlying parallels that are not evident on the surface.

I somewhat agree. I've always thought it funny that our folksy homily about comparing "uncomparable" things is "comparing apples and oranges".

Are they both pretty close to round? Are they edible and sweet? Contain seeds? Grow on a tree? Have a skin? Appear in the summer? Are they perishable? Do they contain pectin? Do they come in different varieties?

I propose we switch to "comparing toilet plungers to microchips" or whatever.

I think the metaphor is with comparing a particular apple with a particular orange, or at least, a particular group of apples with a particular group of oranges.

For example, somone holds up an apple in one hand and an orange in the other(to indicate that he's talking about the particular specimens in his hands) and says "Which one is better?" I can't really answer the question, because apples and oranges both have different standards for judging quality.

Sun, 2015-07-26 10:47

#51

Pondering

takeitslowly wrote:

I wish there is an ignore button. I am tired of the wall of texts. :(

Any thread involving a difference of opinion between myself and Sean is guaranteed to have walls of text. It is the nature of the beast.

If you think a thread title minimizes the suffering of a whole group of people - don't call us we don't care

Pages