Russia 3

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If we had a vote pass first reading in Canada in our parliament by 337-1  -- you would find that not a big deal?

I would say that would give a pretty good indication of where parliament was on the issue. If it was a question of outlook, I would consider that we had a pretty informative result -- even if it would still go through the remaining process to become law later.

So you decided to make this comparison -- so if a bill passes first reading 137-1 -- exactly what would you say its pronosis is for passage? A really long shot????

We have gone down a rabbit hole once more. Does anyone actually know what first reading in the Russian parliament means and whether this was at the state level or the federal level. I think I read somewhere that at least some laws go through a process that includes both.

I do know that in Canada first reading is a mere formality and if I am not mistaken it is not voted on. It is in effect the tabling of a bill and not up for debate only acceptance for debate.

The content of the law is repugnant and on that I think EVERYONE agrees. We seem to be arguing over the significance of this stage of the Russian process when it is clear no one really understands the process and indeed seem to be somewhat in the dark about the Canadian process as well. 

For this we have a fight?

And therein lies the problem -- you think we are "arguing over the significance of this stage of the Russian process" and we are not.

The significance is not the stage of the vote but the content and the lopsided result in their parliament. Dismissing a vote in favour of legalizing violence in the home, when it came as the entire body of parliament to 1, as being trivial -- no matter the legal process stage -- would be against the spirit of the existence of this very board. Yes I guess we might fight over that.

Which side of that fight do you really want to be on? Ask yourself how important the content and the lopsided expression of the will of the parliament means -- and then ask yourself hom much this is okay becuase it was not a final vote. The point is the result of the vote -- still coming -- is almost a foregone conclusion -- don't you think?

Should we ignore the issue of vioilence in order not to harm relations with a poster who needles us with constant propaganda and posts that say things like -- "you don't understand" and that he looks at reality (implying we don't).

I like peace and I appreciate that you want to help. How about you publicly ask the otherside in this mess to dial it back? how about you ask him not to provoke this place by minimizing issues that are absolutely essential to the people here and supposed to be a given as a condition of posting here. That might help as well. Then we can meet half way.

We all know there are huge problems in Russia From state sponsored massive Olympic doping scandals to now basically supporting domestic violence because that is what this proposed legislation is going to do. How sick can one society be!

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/world/2017/01/22/ru...

NorthReport wrote:

We all know there are huge problems in Russia From state sponsored massive Olympic doping scandals to now basically supporting domestic violence because that is what this proposed legislation is going to do. How sick can one society be! https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/world/2017/01/22/ru...

Wow -- I find it really hard to see state sonsored doping of athletes, as bad as it is, equated with proposed domestic violence laws in terms of impact and therefore importance. It seems to me that to combine them you are minimizing, I am sure not intentionally, one of the greatest problems in the world -- violence against women -- with a doping scandal involving cheating in a somewhat nationalistic enterprise. I do not dissmiss the doping problems -- and we have seen the probem here if not as organized -- but these problems are not on the same scale.

Meg, is this a suspension or a banning?  

Sean in Ottawa wrote: It is disturbing how violence against women is used not as a call to improve things but a marker brought up more conveniently to say how we are better than another country. 

I think we have seen a fair bit of that from right-wing spokespeople,  particularly with regards to why it is "necessary" to invade Muslim countries because of the abominable way they treat women. 

But I would like to think that on a progressive forum like Babble, the issue here is more one of expressing solidarity across borders for those groups who are oppressed and marginalised.  

And FWIW, I think your admonition to Babblers to engage ("ask and answer what you are doing here at home") before expounding on what others need to do is more broadly and generally true across all issues (environmental, poverty, racism, political, etc) and forums (national and international). I do not think that we need to be uniquely concerned about the sensibilities and sensitivities of the Russian authorities and their supporters.      

Thank You MegB 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let's also reflect on the "leadership" with respect to violence against women we are getting from BOTH the United States new leadership AND Russia. Place it in a context that includes social media and other reactions here and what we have seen happening to women who speak out about in in Canada.

Then we have a context for the problem. And yes, you can argue that it does not belong in the Russia thread because it is an international problem. It belongs everywhere.

It is disturbing how violence against women is used not as a call to improve things but a marker brought up more conveniently to say how we are better than another country. Seeing it as a global problem with things we can do about it in Canada is a better outlook with a greater chance of making change. I say this becuase the people expressing outrage about Russia are often the ones who are rather slow to address the issue here. I am not meaning this towards people here as each has their own responsibility in this regard. However, we should all agree that if you want to bring it up about another country ask and answer what you are doing here at home about it.

I agree. However, the context of this thread has been to celebrate Russia with a heaping helping of denigration for other countries, North Americans in particular. So within that context, I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that Russia's got some work to do, and that they're heading in the wrong direction on this issue.

I really dislike rah-rah nationalism in relation to any country, including Canada.

Timebandit wrote:

 

I really dislike rah-rah nationalism in relation to any country, including Canada.

I feel awkward thinking of the times I engaged in nationalistic expressions in my youth as this is one thing for me that has evolved quite a bit.

I think even if we think we are better than another country on a given issue, our first responsibility is to what we can do to make things better ourselves. There is a great deal of work Canada can do when it comes to violence against women and this is what I was thinking of as I see the comments on Russia. It is hypocritical to criticize Russia or anywhere if we are not doing our best here -- even if we might feel we are already better here on this.

Solidarity is essential as long as we make it clear that we are for our own part committed to improving things here as well -- this is a very constructive solidarity.

When I say people should ask what they are doing about violence against women here -- I should not have suggested that they have to declare this to bring up what is going on elsewhere or that they have to defend this to others necessarily. I am saying we face ourselves with the question as individuals and answer the question to ourselves. We can ask each other and we can say to each other what we are doing but we may not always want that question and answer to be public. Sometimes it can about our daily lives, being counted, standing up, and of course it is always most effective in our personal relationships  -- the things we see first hand and react to.

This is what I was trying to express. I did not mean it to be something to attack each other and hold each other to account for but more personally as an individual responsibility to the person we can never escape from when it comes to accountability -- ourselves.

In the context of this thread, though, it's not inappropriate in that the purpose of the thread in the first place was to sing Russia's praises and shit on every other nation. IMO, it's okay to say "Well, Russia's not all that great" and back it up with facts in that context. And now that ikosmos and his sticky keyboard are no longer here to pump it up, I vote we let the thread die a natural death. :)

ETA: I didn't take it as a response to NR because you quoted me.

Timebandit wrote:

In the context of this thread, though, it's not inappropriate in that the purpose of the thread in the first place was to sing Russia's praises and shit on every other nation. IMO, it's okay to say "Well, Russia's not all that great" and back it up with facts in that context. And now that ikosmos and his sticky keyboard are no longer here to pump it up, I vote we let the thread die a natural death. :)

ETA: I didn't take it as a response to NR because you quoted me.

I realized the quote was part of the problem when I checked afterward-- I was addressing multiple posts in one post and am sorry for that. The others I did not requote because I did not think I needed to. I edited my last post to add this.

My biggest reaction was dismay regarding the doping and violence against women being in the same breath.

Certainly I am not disagreeing with you. I just got that the impression this was less about the issue than the attack on Russia. I guess perhaps we read the first post by NR that started this quite differently. I would not have felt this way if the doping and violence against women comments had at least used two sentences instead of coming out looking like a list of example rather than something important. Again this reaction I thought was to another man not you.

Quote:

Yeah, same here. Banned because he has trouble controlling his language?

Do you feel that's an accurate statement?  Others complained that he used swearwords too often?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, same here. Banned because he has trouble controlling his language?

Do you feel that's an accurate statement?  Others complained that he used swearwords too often?

Not very good at interpreting words, are you, Magoo? I'm not going to debate this with you.

I will, however, recall that I enthusiastically and sincerely welcomed your return here - and I was in a distinct minority at the time. You could consider taking a similar broad view.

Timebandit wrote:

I'm trying very hard not to react negatively to the above, because I don't think you necessarily mean it in a didactic way. However, as someone who has been involved in feminism for over 30 years and who has volunteered at a women's shelter and on a sexual assault help line, I feel a little mansplained to.

If I want to criticise a foreign country for decriminalizing domestic assault or not stopping FGM or refusing to allow women to drive, I'll do so regardless what's happening in Canada, thank you very much.

I could have quoted from any number of posts on this issue. I chose this one for a reason.

To begin with, the issue of Russia decriminalizing domestic assault is not quite as is presented. What happened was there was an amendment to the existing law that criminalized domestic violence. The bill that was presented to the Duma is a response to that amendment.

The bill was presented as a private member's bill, and is a long way from being passed into law. It was presented by an arch-conservative who believes the amendment to the criminal code usurped the authority of the church.

The whole issue is being presented as a violence against women issue, but in fact the criminal code amendment applied to all domestic violence, including that of a parent to a child. It is that aspect of it that appears to have triggered this private members bill.

Quote:

“In Russian traditional family culture parent-child relationships are built on the authority of the parents’ power,” said MP Yelena Mizulina, who introduced the bill. “The laws should support that family tradition.”

The bill has not been passed, and it is pure speculation that indeed it will be passed. There is plenty of opposition,

Some of the news stories around this were opened with this (from CNN):

Quote:

There's an old Russian expression: "If he beats you it means he loves you." Now, in a chilling reminder of that sentiment, Russian legislators are moving toward decriminalizing some forms of domestic violence.

I don't want to minimize that saying, but it's also true that it is a sentiment that has been expressed countless times in western popular culture. So if it is a reflection of a 'sick society', our society is just a sick.

Now for the reason I chose TimeBandit's post. I would like a clear explanation of what 'mansplaining' is. In that you have used that word, you must know what it means. I don't know what it means, so please explain to me.

Timebandit wrote:

...Mansplaining is when a man lectures (usually with a sense of authority) a woman on a subject that she knows more about than he does...

Which means no such thing can happen here, because here know one knows for sure whether they are speaking to a man or a woman. Or indeed if they are speaking to someone who knows more than they do about any particular subject. We are all more or less anonymous here, and our particular expertise is anonymous as well.

If you read the article about 'mansplaining' that you posted, the first thing you see is that all of the examples given were of face to face type meetings, where gender was obvious from the beginning. That is not the case here.

Of course, even if someone tells me they are acquainted with issue A, that doesn't mean they actually are acquainted with issue A. Just as if they tell me they're an old man with rheumatism, or a young female college graduate. In fact, whatever anyone posts is accepted solely on the validity of the post, and has nothing to do with whatever they may reveal about themselves.

If we all got on our high horse here, and called out 'mansplaining' every time someone said something which we either already knew, or knew in greater detail than the poster, not much would ever get discussed.

And of course, 'womansplaining', given the parameters that you yourself present, could very well exist. Any woman who tried to explain somethingt to any man, when the man knew more than the woman, would be 'womansplaining'. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that woman can explain things to a man, but a man is not allowed to explain to a woman.

Just to  be clear, I don't know which of the Babble members who post here are woman and which are men. Nor do I care. My reaction to a post is absolutely based on whether I think the poster is correct or incorrect. If I think I have something to offer, I offer it without prejudice. Other Babblers are free to disagree with me, and point out the error of my ways. I may respond to them, but it has nothing at all to do with whether they are male or female (it couldn't, simply because I don't have that information).

There is a perfectly good word to characterise the phenomenon of which you speak, that is "patronizing". A word which fully reflects the situation without adding a gender component, which, as I say, is meaninless in this space.

I remember reading a story about Albert Einstein. Fairly well along in his career (when he was at Princeton), he submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed physics magazine. I don't remember the reason, but they returned it to him as not worthy of publication. He was very angry about that, and refused to submit any more papers to that magazine for the rest of his life. His thought was something like, 'how dare they lecture me on physics'.

Anyone on any of these threads who can convince me they are the Einstein of the subject they are speaking to, will probably make me think twice about replying to their posts. All others, prepare to repel boarders. 

Fair point, pookie. Thank you.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Whenever I've seen popular or long-term babblers suspended or banned, the backlash takes the form of "oh, he was banned for being outspoken" or "he was banned for telling it like it is" or "he was banned for not sticking his pinky out when he drinks tea".  There seems to be a deliberate exclusion of theories like "he was banned for repeatedly ignoring policy despite many warnings".  I'm not sure how a whitewash like that serves babblers, babble, or babble's mods.

I'm pretty sure that's why Snert was banned.

pookie wrote:

Bearing in mind the suggestion to let this thread die a natural death, just wanted to say I agree with this 1000%.  Mind you, I saw the original question as bait.  Which it clearly was.

Just unbelievable.

"How sick can one society be!"  I too found it provocative. It is that type of outrageous tar brushing of a whole society that caused Ikosmos to go off the deep end. It is a clear case of Russophobia and look we have a whole thread with people denying that it even exists while taking pokes at Ikosmos for the "absurd" idea that Russophobia is a real thing.  Of course the anti-Russian crusaders over the last few months have had great fun poking at Ikosmos at every opportunity.  Ikosmos was provoked into unacceptable behaviour. I guess it is the Canadian way to penalize the retaliator who slashed his opponent for the elbow to the back of the head he just received.

I don't think Russians or Russian society is any worse than most societies when to comes to misogyny and certainly not some epitome of sickness. For that you would have to look to the Saudi's or the terrorists who brutalized women in East Aleppo. That kind of misogyny should also be attacked so I that is why I mention it as well.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

pookie wrote:

Bearing in mind the suggestion to let this thread die a natural death, just wanted to say I agree with this 1000%.  Mind you, I saw the original question as bait.  Which it clearly was.

Just unbelievable.

"How sick can one society be!"  I too found it provocative. It is that type of outrageous tar brushing of a whole society that caused Ikosmos to go off the deep end. It is a clear case of Russophobia and look we have a whole thread with people denying that it even exists while taking pokes at Ikosmos for the "absurd" idea that Russophobia is a real thing.  Of course the anti-Russian crusaders over the last few months have had great fun poking at Ikosmos at every opportunity.  Ikosmos was provoked into unacceptable behaviour. I guess it is the Canadian way to penalize the retaliator who slashed his opponent for the elbow to the back of the head he just received.

I don't think Russians or Russian society is any worse than most societies when to comes to misogyny and certainly not some epitome of sickness. For that you would have to look to the Saudi's or the terrorists who brutalized women in East Aleppo. That kind of misogyny should also be attacked so I that is why I mention it as well.

I think the tarring was running both ways. Any critic was being called Russophobic as well. Gathering all who did not agree in one basket for response was not helpful either. 

But still a point of view is valuable and even if you fight with it - it does not mean you want it to go away.

kropotkin, I have a somewhat different view of those interactions, and I really don't think the accusations of russophobia were ever leveled fairly. I don't think anyone on this board qualifies as a Russia-hater. Now, there are those who don't like Russia's leader or government - and I think that's based in a leeriness of authoritarians, and that's not a bad thing. But there was significant spin that people reacted to.

Anyway, perfectly happy to agree to disagree on this one, but I maintain that ikosmos is the primary author of his own misfortune (as so many of us are).

Quote:

Anytime he got really pinned on something he would just stop talking about it and move on to something else.

Yes.

This silliness about how everyone gaslighted him into breaking the rules is, well... silly. 

And hardly a fitting tribute, either.  I don't care to taunt him when he can't respond, but if I were to then I could hardly imagine anything that would more taunting than the suggestion that all I had to do was needle him into digging his own grave, and there was nothing he could do about it.  I think that implying his powerlessness is 10x more offensive than anything I could possibly say.

You're wasting your time, krop. And I'm almost done with this board. Unbelievable ganging up and celebration of deportation. With so-called "moderation" in tow. There's also the issue of donating money to this enterprise. The main reason I've done so for years is my participation in babble. It's not as if anyone actually reads the "news" items much. I saw it as my contribution to keeping a progressive discussion forum in existence. But Jesus Christ, what is this place now? Liberals, gun-fetishists, provocateur-trolls... and step out of line and you're banned. Fuck.

Unionist wrote:

You're wasting your time, krop. And I'm almost done with this board. Unbelievable ganging up and celebration of deportation. With so-called "moderation" in tow. There's also the issue of donating money to this enterprise. The main reason I've done so for years is my participation in babble. It's not as if anyone actually reads the "news" items much. I saw it as my contribution to keeping a progressive discussion forum in existence. But Jesus Christ, what is this place now? Liberals, gun-fetishists, provocateur-trolls... and step out of line and you're banned. Fuck.

Different people feel this way at different times and disagree when someone else is feeling this way. Not that long ago I had this opinion and was reading many "I love babble" posts which led me to do the only thing I could -- go away. I do not ahve an answer but it is ironic to suck up misgivings, be told to calm down and not make waves when I had pretty good reasons -- just that others did not share them then. Now we see soemone else going through the process.

The answer is in the middle I guess -- there are not good replacement places to go and people are led back here for this kind of conversation. When here we want to be positive when we can, when we are not angry such that we can't, becuase there is nothing we can do about it.

The moderators are also stuck between the complaints and frustration and the need to defend some of the board policies (as people demand they do) and the feelings that happen when a person is pitched. The truth is the board is split on most actions and no matter what the mods do they will get attacked for it. At the moment of individual grievance -- nobody sees this.

The fact that there are no other good places to go raise the stakes for a banned person. Every answer is controversial and temprary bans were meant for people to think about things -- but if they still believe they are right then there is an impass. I think a warning is only fair -- in a union environment the principle is that a person has a right to be corrected, know what is expected and there is an escalation so there is no surprise. I cannot judge this case as I am not party to the communications but I certainly hope nobody is booted from here without knowing it is coming and given a specific warning. The exception would be a new arrival and there are reasons for that.

Timebandit wrote:

That is such a tone deaf, typically male (especially of a certain vintage) response - and yes, mansplaining is patronizing, and so was your last post. Most babblers have identified as either male or female, and have even been open about their sexuality if you've been paying attention. Maybe you should give it a try.

Bearing in mind the suggestion to let this thread die a natural death, just wanted to say I agree with this 1000%.  Mind you, I saw the original question as bait.  Which it clearly was.

Just unbelievable.

ETA: The "question" to which I refer is the following: "I would like a clear explanation of what 'mansplaining' is."

No problem, kropotkin.