I'm working on a strategy paper that will hopefully suggest tactics to get more diverse contribution on babble. Not just political diversity (within babble's mandate of course) but gender diversity, racial diversity, cultural diversity, etc. It would be great to get new people in so that a two-way learning experience can occur through the exchange of ideas. Hopefully we can come up with ways to make babble better.
Any input you'd like to make, feel free to do so here.
Not crickets, thinking.
I mean, I know many of us can think of all sorts of ways to invite more people, If we are talkign real diversity, that's harder to do.
Of course the real work is not so much putting the word out to others, but in preparing ourselves to receive them in a welcoming fashion.
I'm working on a strategy paper that will hopefully suggest tactics to get more diverse contribution on babble. Not just political diversity (within babble's mandate of course) but gender diversity, racial diversity, cultural diversity, etc. It would be great to get new people in so that a two-way learning experience can occur through the exchange of ideas. Hopefully we can come up with ways to make babble better.
Any input you'd like to make, feel free to do so here.
This is certainly a very worthy and important discussion.
The tribal partisanship coming from posts designed only to promote one political team over another is certainly a major part of the problem. These conversations are exclusive quite often. Containing the number of partisan "advertisements" in an impartial manner I think is essential. I suggest an attempt to encourage more analysis over party promotion.
One option that is simple could be to move the political threads down the main page of babble instead of where they are now giving more importance symbolically to the "Walking the Talk" section. Promoting this place as more than party politics is hard to do but it might be possible.
Not to add to the problem at hand but an additional challenge is the need for self-identification in order to see progress in terms of the diversity of participants when many people may want to not self identify. This is not unique to here of course.
Babble community is largely self correcting in that usually any statements that are overtly sexist/racist will get flagged. But alone that does not make a place welcoming of diversity or devoid of sexism, racism etc.
Babble lives apart from rabble in spite of sharing a platform. One option might be to have a more organized attempt to begin threads on certain issues. Perhaps some opening posts could be created or highlighted as guest editorials trying to create more threads on important topics that are not getting as much attention.
I wonder if the format of the threads could be a problem combatting racism and feminism are central to the community but these forums are separated and often unread. Maybe there could be a highlight forum bringing some of the best of what we want more of brought out encouraging more people to read them than those who go straight there.
I think the nature of what can be described as a debating place is unlikely to be representative -- but it is not enough just to accept that.
No doubt you have already come up with many ideas that while interesting require more work than is possible. Perhaps some of that work might be found from volunteers who are currently only commentators. Hard to do though.
Answers won't come easily but certainly this thread could attract some ideas that may help. Capacity for work and capacity for outreach unfortunately will keep coming up as challenges.
Anyway I expect that there will be some ideas that will show up in this thread.
Children call each other names then run to a parent screaming "I'm telling!". That's never happened here? Not that my opinion goes far 'round here but come on. There's been some very childish behavior from everyone. (myself included)
Meg said "your veteran status does not allow you to decide what is and isn't acceptable." That's exactly what some people have tried to do. Members telling other members what is acceptable matter of factly and at times even try and run them off the board like they're the progressive-police.
maybe it's just where I'm sitting but it looks like there's a big double standard. Members get upset and tell mods to fuck off and nothing gets said but when a mod uses the same kind of language it's a whole different story.
Some of you said this place is going to the dogs (or comments to that effect). I've seen more new names (old members who I haven't seen post before) comment in the last two weeks than I have in the last year. That seems like a good thing to me.
I noticed the same thing but I am not here all the time so I wasn't sure. I just new I was seeing names I hadn't seen before.
One could way to diversify would be to forbid personal attacks/challenges on the right of posters to be here or their right to an opinion. Accusing posters of baiting for having a different opinion is another one. Stereotyping people, (If you support A then you must also be a supporter of XYZ so defend those!)
I wrote this for the other thread:
In my opinion babble has it's own slightly bizarre culture that members don't seem to realize is bizarre. I have had a lot of WTF? moments. Maybe it's me and not you (in the general sense), but I don't think so.
There is a casualness and exclusivity to the board of a small number of people who have been here forever. I think the members have been allowed a lot of latitute for a long time.
In Meg's cautionary posts she did not pick anyone out by name and she actually showed members respect by not itemizing the objectionable behaviors or officially warning anyone other than to make it clear that multiple viewpoints are tolerated. Her anedote was just a funny story to illustrate her point not an insult. She was just saying don't make me start handing out warnings and bannings. So don't make her go there.
A bunch of you have been personally insulting other posters and telling them they/we don't belong here and you are offended that she is likening you to children?
You think this is acceptable message board behavior anywhere else? I don't know of any message board that would tolerate any posters trying to drive other posters off boards by repeatedly denigrating them. Many boards would instantly ban any members who tried it.
Folks were so offended at Meg's language in the gun thread but the message was ignored anyway. Some posters continued behaving as though it is their right to publically judge other posters worthy or unworthy of this site. Earlier in another thread one poster publically requested that another poster not respond to my question. What adult does that? "you're my friend don't talk to her". Seriously? Posters have publically discussed with each other "not feeding the troll".
In the "mess" thread multiple posters expressed that they did not want strict limitations, to be in an echo chamber. They noted that people can be allies on some issues without be allies on all issues.
A minority of you don't seem to care what other posters want. It's not that you want a thread to be from a particular perspective, pascifist for example, you don't want to allow any discussions that you don't approve of between other people in any threads.
I did not and have not asked for Mods to intervene on my behalf so when she commented in the gun thread I thanked her. Just said thank you, that's all, and it was an affront to someone even though Meg's comment had not singled anyone out.
It really does come across as comedic that posters express such personal sensitivity given what they feel free to dish out.
Diversity requires tolerance that some vets are apparently not willing to practice. If they refuse to stop policing the board and passing judgement over other posters they may have to experience a series of bans to figure out the difference between poltical commentary and personal attack.
Please see my answer in the other reaction thread devoted to your topic.
Please see my answer in the other reaction thread devoted to your topic.
Not interested. My topic of interest is diversifying babble.
The tribal partisanship coming from posts designed only to promote one political team over another is certainly a major part of the problem. These conversations are exclusive quite often. Containing the number of partisan "advertisements" in an impartial manner I think is essential. I suggest an attempt to encourage more analysis over party promotion.
I certainly have witnessed a lot of partisanship but I don't see it as a problem. Sometimes I choose to engage them, sometimes not.
Who would you have judge whether a post is sufficiently non-partisan or which are "advertisments"? I would say this notion is at the heart of the problem. The insistence on trying to police what people can and can't post or discuss. Who judges what is analysis and what isn't?
This is a progressive site, but if someone thinks that someone else is presenting a non-progressive viewpoint the most acceptable response would be for a member to ask a moderator if the viewpoint falls within acceptable limits or not and allow the moderator to decide. Failing that a thread could be opened in rabble reactions to discuss whether or not the viewpoint should be permitted on rabble.
Diversity cannot be sustained when posters feel free to launch personal attacks.
I don't what the board can do to discourage it, but it was the constant devil's advocacy and 'able-splaining' that made me lose any interest in trying to discuss disability or poverty on this board. I know for a fact that people from other marginalized and oppressed groups have had similar experiences with this board. I don't know how that can be addressed apart from a more proactive approach to moderation, but I know that wouldn't go over well with the majority of babblers.
I used the word encourage rather than impose or judge becuase I think encouragement would have greater effect with less resistance than imposition.
I think politely asking people to provide more analysis would be helpful and perhaps open a couple thread for people who want to just report news links.
One of the most important ways of encouraging less partisan political advertising would be to encourage more threads that are not along divided political lines.
Good will is essential of course but I think there can be if some positive directions are suggested.
Not suggesting this would be easy but I don't think Meg was either.
All right Pondering please do not engage me. What I asked was reasonable. I don't want an argument with you in this thread. Please respect that. Say whatever but please leave my name out of it. I'll ignore any post you make that does not have my name in it.
I don't what the board can do to discourage it, but it was the constant devil's advocacy and 'able-splaining' that made me lose any interest in trying to discuss disability or poverty on this board. I know for a fact that people from other marginalized and oppressed groups have had similar experiences with this board. I don't know how that can be addressed apart from a more proactive approach to moderation, but I know that wouldn't go over well with the majority of babblers.
Depending on how it were done it might work. So important that it is worth trying.
My interest is fighting capitalism. To be specific fighting for ecosocialism, and fighting capitalist patriarchy, though I don't mean imposing that or anything else as a "party line".
However, there are some things we have won on the left over the years; overt racists, sexists, homophobes and deniers of self-determination (for Québec or indigenous nations) seem at odds with rabble's mandate. Idem people who put down poor people and insinuate that their situation is their fault somehow.
Sean, there is nothing personal in my comments or in my responses to the content of your posts. You can't control the conversation through limiting who can respond to your comments.
When you say "I think politely asking people to provide more analysis would be helpful and perhaps open a couple thread for people who want to just report news links."
Who would be judging if a post contains sufficient analysis? One poster "suggesting nicely" to another poster that their posts don't contain sufficient analysis may not be interpreted as helpful if the poster thinks their posts are just fine as is.
"One of the most important ways of encouraging less partisan political advertising would be to encourage more threads that are not along divided political lines."
This is a political website and we are heading into an election year with the campaigns taking shape. Realistically I would expect that we will see many more threads that are divided along political lines.
Perhaps we could have some "supporters only" threads with others open to debate. This would require voluntary cooperation as mods can't police the board but I believe that could be achieved. A thread could be defined as for "disability activists".
Diversity requires tolerance. Kind. generous and compassionate people will post who are not all up on the latest in what is and isn't considered ablist etc. It is situationally dependent to some extent but any kind of attack on someone sincere will alienate them. Providing a link to a "101" site or essay that explains the point would be less aggressive as would be simply conversing back and forth with someone more sophisticated and just ignoring the person that is insufficiently informed.
By attack, I mean any form of insult not just name calling.
Stop this Pondering please.
Good points Pondering
Some good points - some very good ones, actually - though I don't see any lasting solution coming from formulaic solutions like certain threads or asking for a ruling on what we can talk about (one guess as to how that is going to turn out).
One thing that caught my attention though: this mention of veterans
I think it would be a mistake to single out those who have been here longer as a problem. In the first place, the mod who made that comment has been here longer than most and I don't see that as the intent of the comment, and secondly. those who have been here awhile care deeply about this place and I think we disregard their feelings and concerns and their hard work and experience at our peril. It's not a matter of superiority, but the fact that they have gone through a lot here is something that needs to be considered.
It pains me to see this divide particularly because some who have been here a long time feel it the hardest, and I know there really is no solution; we just have to figure out how to deal with it with a bit more consideration for each other (and I am certainly guilty of getting snarky about it myself).That's not to say we'll wind up some day with no differences and no bad attitude, but there has to be a better way of dealing with it.
I know this sounds like off-topic navel gazing, but I really don't think there is any hope of being more inclusive and inviting of diverse perspectives if we can't manage to balance the differences we have here right now, as narrow and not-at-all diverse as we are. A lot of people seeing this lack of trust would probably be inclined to run screaming. Rules can only go so far, and moderator interventions can only go so far. If we don't personally try to do better than we have done, it is not going to happen.
I don't what the board can do to discourage it, but it was the constant devil's advocacy and 'able-splaining' that made me lose any interest in trying to discuss disability or poverty on this board. I know for a fact that people from other marginalized and oppressed groups have had similar experiences with this board. I don't know how that can be addressed apart from a more proactive approach to moderation, but I know that wouldn't go over well with the majority of babblers.
well, it might go over well with me, for one, depending on details of course.
a major reason i read and then began posting a bit to babble is because it was a "safe space" to discuss important stuff with other interesting people. there were (are) ground rules, certain understood starting points - arguing against general or certain finer principals of human equality, or for the wonders of wall street is not tolerated for long. good. cuts out a lot of the noise.
three types of noise remain, it seems to me:
one, arguing for things like bombing other peoples countries is just "part of the legitimate conversation" now. bzzzt crack#le bzzz...
two, the ascendency of personal axe-grinding and use of the space for partisan promotion.
three, the general dysfunctionalness of group process and communication in "the larger society we live amidst". it can be difficult for that larger/our society to grasp something as simple as a speaking circle - oh right i wasn't supposed to interrupt, but...
speaking circle rules start pretty basic - everyone gets to speak in turn; listen, don't reply, just listen, and speak when your turn comes around, and then everyone will actually listen to you, and you won't be interupted. don't talk forever.
it's about groundedness, it's about respect for other peoples voices, and other people's ears.
i'm not, like, suggesting a speakers list for every thread.. but i am suggesting that groundedness and respect are good things that would be helpful here in higher concentrations than are at times apparent.
what are you bringing to the discussion? why? how does it effect the discussion? how does it effect your fellow discussioners?
and, respect doesn't have to be milquetoast.
-
two, the ascendency of personal axe-grinding and use of the space for partisan promotion.
That's interesting, because I was going to respond to lagatta's comment (about how things have improved) by saying that the axe-grinding is not nearly as bad as I remember it being at times in the past. And I have heard that it was at certain points even worse before my time - including more genuine trolling.
Not to say there isn't axe-grinding and partisanship anymore, I have seen a bit. But perhaps I am just hanging out in the wrong threads.
/drift
Some good points - some very good ones, actually - though I don't see any lasting solution coming from formulaic solutions like certain threads or asking for a ruling on what we can talk about (one guess as to how that is going to turn out).
some rulings exist, just mostly hidden, accepted. we're swimming in them!
One thing that caught my attention though: this mention of veterans
I think it would be a mistake to single out those who have been here longer as a problem. In the first place, the mod who made that comment has been here longer than most and I don't see that as the intent of the comment, and secondly. those who have been here awhile care deeply about this place and I think we disregard their feelings and concerns and their hard work and experience at our peril. It's not a matter of superiority, but the fact that they have gone through a lot here is something that needs to be considered.
It pains me to see this divide particularly because some who have been here a long time feel it the hardest, and I know there really is no solution; we just have to figure out how to deal with it with a bit more consideration for each other (and I am certainly guilty of getting snarky about it myself).That's not to say we'll wind up some day with no differences and no bad attitude, but there has to be a better way of dealing with it.
I know this sounds like off-topic navel gazing, but I really don't think there is any hope of being more inclusive and inviting of diverse perspectives if we can't manage to balance the differences we have here right now, as narrow and not-at-all diverse as we are. A lot of people seeing this lack of trust would probably be inclined to run screaming. Rules can only go so far, and moderator interventions can only go so far. If we don't personally try to do better than we have done, it is not going to happen.
agree with all of that. on the last point, exactly - having ones's own house in order is always great outreach.
-
I know a lot of businesses like to enhance their profile with diversity and recruitment initiatives. It sets a good tone overall and helps to draw in customers who might otherwise not feel particularly attached to what is being sold. The army likes to do up recruiting posters with at least one representative from a visible minority community to show that things are "A-ok" for anyone thinking about signing up.
Very good ideas people, I'll be sure to include them all in my draft.
The reason I'm putting this forward in a thread instead of working more or less in isolation is that babble is a community. I'm a small part of that community whether moderating or simply babbling, and my views don't always reflect the broader babble community. Also, since we are all individually and collectively are responsible for this community culture, we are all responsible for making change. Yes, we will come up with proposed tactics, some which will work, some which will be less effective, but it is important that we not only have more or less common values, but are willing to act upon them in a positive manner.
While it's natural for partisan political discussion to get heated, more tolerance is required. Some people interpret babble's mandate and policy very rigidly and that was one concern that came up when considering writing up a policy. How to enforce it was another concern. The same concerns will arise with a strategic and tactical diversity policy, if that is what we decide what we need.
People bring their lives, their experiences into babble, and sometimes that creates problems for others. Mental health issues are difficult for all at times, and sometimes an individual who is particularly angry comes into the forum and disrupts and abuses others. These are community issues, both within babble and outside in the world. How to deal with such behaviors is an ongoing conversation that has no definitive conclusion.
Tolerance for differing opinions is key to creating a welcoming environment. In so many aspects of life we cannot freely express our opinions without fear of reprisal. This must be a space where that fear is mitigated by respectful disagreement. New users who are unused to the language of progressives, who may not be politicized but are looking for a place to express ideas that aren't well received elsewhere need to be welcomed and introduced to new ways of expression. Of course it goes to say that the existing policy regarding anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and anti-oppression should always be in the back of our minds but unless a new user is obviously a troll, we need to be more gentle in our treatment of new users. Those of us who are veteran babblers have a wealth of knowledge and experience to offer a new user and we should regard ourselves as mentors, to a degree. Hostility is the fastest way to discourage participation.
As for tactics, one that I wanted to put to all of you was the idea of holding an online anti-oppression decolonize workshop. Would people be interested in participating? It could help clarify what oppressive language is and could prove to be a community-building exercise as well.
All ideas welcome,
Meg
I don't know if tolerance is the right word to toss around. It can imply that a dominant segment of a community will set aside any misgivings they may have about including others who are less dominant, for the good of their own agenda. The word tolerance risks coming across as 'putting up with,' which of course is an entirely wrong vibe to put out there to begin with.
Good point. Of course tolerance in the extreme can lead to moral relativism as well. Words and language are always open to interpretation but I trust babblers to know where to draw the line. This is why an understanding of anti-oppression is important not only for ourselves, but for the purpose of guiding new users who express a willingness to learn. Those who are intractible will, obviously, get the boot because those users are trolls.
I want to boost Smith's comments.
I know this sounds like off-topic navel gazing, but I really don't think there is any hope of being more inclusive and inviting of diverse perspectives if we can't manage to balance the differences we have here right now, as narrow and not-at-all diverse as we are. A lot of people seeing this lack of trust would probably be inclined to run screaming. Rules can only go so far, and moderator interventions can only go so far. If we don't personally try to do better than we have done, it is not going to happen.
Absolutely Caissa. I shouldn't have to spend so much time intervening in disagreements, I should be able to spend more time introducing new discussions, recruiting new partcipants and promoting our content outside of babble where appropriate to encourage new and more diverse participation.
Not that I have anything against angry white men, but that is the dominant culture here currently and that has to change if babble is to survive and grow.
And as an angry white man, I don't disagree with your analysis.
Debating on Babble has become less and less fun for me as time progresses. Maybe I'm getting older. If I recall, Babble was born in the euphoria post-Seattle. Since then the conservative hegemony has grown more entrenched and the left has had less and less to be euphoric about. I spend less time here because ther are fewer people here I want to spend time with and less to discuss.
As an angry white woman 
I would no better like being limited to debating only with other angry white women. It's not only about fairness and equity, it's about interest. People aren't going to come here if it's just a bunch of arguing. It's a total turn-off for everyone except those who enjoy flaming each other. It's boring. Much better to have input from all different kinds of progressive people.
People have differing perceptions about what the word implies, is what I was agreeing with.
"Freakout" I use advisedly, and for a bit of levity. We have just been through one (from all sides), in part over a question of tolerance. Just my take on it.
Actually responding to Meg's post just before SJ. And in case it isn't clear I hear and agree with you about the inevitable freakouts over the word tolerance, SJ.
I wouldn't describe the use of the word 'tolerance' as risking a 'freakout.' It was more to do with real perceptions with respect to the sincerity of initiatives toward openness and facilitating a welcoming environment.
As to the topic of this thread, it should be understood that very few of us who participate here are experts at facilitating diverse dialogue and issues. We are generally not trained sociologists that can always speak the convincing words on cue depending on the circumstance, owing to a certificate on the wall. If we did, then perhaps in the broader context there will be little need to pursue dialogue, because everything would already be understood. I've never looked at Babble as a place that can actually put salve on the wounds of this world, but only as a microcosm of a much larger world that disturbs us greatly. What became evident over the years, at least to me, was that in the western context, what makes both the dominant and the non-dominant segments of society angry is ultimately derived from the same set of circumstances. And in the broader context beyond the scope of this board, if there is a hope in hell that those circumstances can be changed before an inevitable societal and environmental collapse, in whatever is left of humanity's future, then there doesn't seem to be any choice in the matter but to find a way beyond the given modes of dicussion and interrelation between people. Critique, and an acceptance of critique is part of it. It is a process that should involve being willing to situate ourselves, and to see ourselves situated by others, and to move beyond it to more tangible political discussions and actions.
I should add that there is nothing new here, no original thought or summons, because better examples occur all the time in this society that transcend the boundaries that have been set before us. One example is the letter of support that was sent from Inverness County, home of Scottish and Acadian decendents, to Elsipogtog First Nation in their struggle against fracking interests and the government of NB.
Less partisanship. So many people come here with an agenda and they have way too many times on their hands to type long posts and never stop engaging and talking about one or two issues only. I tried to create a new topic called ISAL, it was almost duly ignored because the thread title wasn’t provocative enough, I guess? The title Harper joined the U.S to invade Iraq proved to be more successful, but I digress
People like Pondering and Debater are the reason I do not enjoy posting on here muh anymore. They seem to come here just to advertise their liberal party and idol Justin Trudeau. Of course on the NDP side, we have others as well, but they don't seem to post as often as those two. It seems that there are several posters who only post when during an election campaign so they can advertise and prop up their candidates or parties until the election is over, and they disappear after they finished spinning election results. It's a bit sad.
But not to single those two out too much, there seems to be several posters here who are only interested in talking about what they want to talk about, even though they have been here for years, and maybe post regularly. Babblers don’t really seem to really have any other conversations that are less contentious. They come here to prove a point or to win an argument and couldn't care less about the Babble community. Maybe we need a general talk forum.
Its hard to build a community when the forum is build on being argumentative and partisan.
Rabble is not really inclusive in that I get the sense that people here are always showing off their knowledge and writing lengthy academic posts that are inaccessible to many people. Perhaps thats fine, because be many people come here just to read and lurk. Those few form a clique and they dominate every debate. It looks like an academic circle jerk and many discussion often get very heated and mean spirited, it often results into who is unwilling to let go and get the last words in.
Thats my 2 cents.
Meg,
I wanted to respond to your post with my own personal observations as a new member to rabble(babble). I think feed back from new members such as myself could provide some input from a different direction, something that a 10 year babbler may be less inclined to observe. It'll probably be a bit long sorry. I'm also going to highlight some parts of your comment that stood out to me when considering a response.
While it's natural for partisan political discussion to get heated, more tolerance is required. Some people interpret babble's mandate and policy very rigidly and that was one concern that came up when considering writing up a policy. How to enforce it was another concern. The same concerns will arise with a strategic and tactical diversity policy, if that is what we decide what we need.
People bring their lives, their experiences into babble, and sometimes that creates problems for others. Mental health issues are difficult for all at times, and sometimes an individual who is particularly angry comes into the forum and disrupts and abuses others. These are community issues, both within babble and outside in the world. How to deal with such behaviors is an ongoing conversation that has no definitive conclusion.
Tolerance for differing opinions is key to creating a welcoming environment. In so many aspects of life we cannot freely express our opinions without fear of reprisal. This must be a space where that fear is mitigated by respectful disagreement. New users who are unused to the language of progressives, who may not be politicized but are looking for a place to express ideas that aren't well received elsewhere need to be welcomed and introduced to new ways of expression. Of course it goes to say that the existing policy regarding anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and anti-oppression should always be in the back of our minds but unless a new user is obviously a troll, we need to be more gentle in our treatment of new users. Those of us who are veteran babblers have a wealth of knowledge and experience to offer a new user and we should regard ourselves as mentors, to a degree. Hostility is the fastest way to discourage participation.
I came to Babble because someone who worked for me was interested in taking part in the Idle no More movement, specifically attend rallies and protests, and they wanted to ensure they were not breaking any workplace rules. As the persons supervisor I wanted to protect them, give them accurate information and also just make myself aware of what they were interested in/doing. This brought me here. I'm no newbie to message forums (I started back on the B.B.S, pre-internet). Before registering and after I researched the forums, looked for key people and most importantly (in my opinion) I watched how new users were treated. I think I got off relatively easy compared to some but I still experienced the very same thing I noticed in my search.
Friendly hellos and welcomes! followed by a feeling of members just waiting for me to say something they didn't like in order to pounce on me. That didn't take long either. I fell in to the same pattern that it appears a lot of new users fall into. They get on the radar of the more agressive posters then it's having to continiously defend everything you say. I've mentioned it in the last few weeks; common types of attacks (which Pondering wisely mentions doesn't have to me insults). New posters being forced to defend ourselves, our credibility, our integrity and even at times our race and gender. Comments like "If you really are a female like you suggest". (wow) Other comments like why are you here, why don't you leave, OMG this place is horrible now. New members being forced to defend their interest and membership in the forum by veteran posters who have taken it upon themselves to police the place.
I've noticed the biggest offenders when it comes to personal attacks against other members or just abusive language are usually the first and fastest ones to "run to the mods" when they're upset. Upset may not even be the correct word. Maybe run to the mods in order to attack someone from a different angle.
The personal attacks and attemps to make people quite aren't just restricted to rabble. I'm on a couple firearm forums and because I don't support Canadians walking around looking like rambo on vacation at an NRA bake sale I get called all kinds of names. Traitor, spy, plant, anti in disguise, weak, coward. You get the picture.
I really like this place. I find the people here articulate, educated, smarter-than-me and all around interesting to listen to. Lots of commentary, information and perspectives I'd simply never have with my own group of friends or peers. Nothing wrong with that. That said however when I post on this forum I more often than not feel like a mouse crossing a field with hawks overhead. Some posters just waiting for me to say something and cue them to pounce. (ie what do you mean YOU PEOPLE!). Some people have summed it up well when they say some posters are here for an agenda and don't care what anyone else has to say. It's a soap box for them.
At the end of the day I think it's matter of deciding who you want to debate with. The same small group of people who are for the most part on the very same page or expand and accept people with some possibly drastically different opinions and views. Pondering has taken a real beating int he forums lately. I'm not astue enough to really see or understand why. I DO know her and I have some drastically different views but we've managed to debate our points and not only respectfully disagree but also respect each other in our disagreement. That extends to some other postersI think that's pretty cool. it seems like the atmosphere here is changing. Some have expressed they don't like it anymore and 3 others said they're quitting/taking a break (2 out of 3 were back within a day). Change isn't always a bad thing. With a bit of patience respect and tollerence everyone could very well get along.
I think it is important to recognize - without excusing specifics - that this is not about pouncing or attacking new people. There are people who have been involved in progressive issues who will react with dismay when the debate on them returns to square one. There are nerves here and people have to tread carefully or there will be a reaction.
Gun control is a debate that has been tightly associated with violence against women because women are more likely to get shot than anyone else except for suicide. The reactions are not because people are nasty. It reflects deep committments and huge investment sometimes over many years into topics that are presumed to be at least partly understood here.
In fact even the partisan stuff is sourced not just in people being nasty or unwelcoming but in the fact that many here have dedicated themselves to a cause they feel deeply about.
It is not completely unreasonable for a new person to review a place before posting and at least be sensitive to where some of the nerves may be if they want to fit in. Then if they want to challenge the board on those be a little bit respectful enough to be aware of those things and try to be tactful. I don't agree that all the responsibility must be on the so-called veterans. This is a shared responsibility.
In your case you wanted to come to the board and talk about firearms on a left wing board and from a more libertarian perspective. I don't think it is fair just to be angry at the majority of the responses without realizing that some delicacy would be expected. Sensitivity to a culture you come into is just as important as sensitivity to newcomers from that culture.
It is not unreasonable for people coming here to be expected to show a little sensitivity when they come in and choose in their first posts to go for topics that are flashpoints.
I am not saying you are unwelcome but I am saying that there is learning for you as well -- not just for people who have been invested as activists or here a long time to accept full responsibility for how you were recieved.
I won't touch the parts about Pondering as I would prefer not to go there. However I think there is more to that conflict than you are taking into consideration and a little more history as well.
I probably shouldn't have brought up firearms in this thread. I did so only as a reference to how I've been treated the way of my example in other places, a firearm board. I wasn't angry over the reactions nor suggesting people were nasty; I didn't really expect a different reaction (though in a previous thread about gun control I was surprised at the number of firearm owners on babble). While I started that latest thread the other 2 or 3 times I've spoken about firearms has been in response to threads posted by other members (long-gun registry). It is what it is.
You say it's not about attacking or pouncing on people but that's the feeling I got when I joined and what some posts and behaviors looked like to me when I researched other posts. You have been a contributing member here for over 10 years Sean, your perspective will be different from a new member.
I'm sure you're right and there is more to the story or history I'm not taking into account.
No problem -- and over time you will contribute to that history I hope.
I am glad that you notice that firearms while they are a flashpoint are not a topic everyone agrees on. People here who agree on many other things disagree on this one but learn the hard way (or easy way) that the discussion requires a lot of tact.
And you can't discuss it here no matter what your opinion is without acknowledng the facts about violence against women (and firearms are only a small part of that).
I appreciate your interest in what makes a community better and the investment of thought you are putting in.
While it's natural for partisan political discussion to get heated, more tolerance is required. Some people interpret babble's mandate and policy very rigidly and that was one concern that came up when considering writing up a policy. How to enforce it was another concern. The same concerns will arise with a strategic and tactical diversity policy, if that is what we decide what we need.
This is the heart of it, imv. Babble is a highly intolerant and ideologically rigid board with the most aggressive moderation I have encountered anywhere. If you want to attract diverse communities, you have to accept that they will have diverse opinions. For example, a lot of people from marginalized communities support Rob Ford, an avowed public racist, because they feel shut out from mainstream political discussions.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: loosen up on the moderation and make it more even-handed. If I'm wrong and it doesn't work, you can tighten it up again.
C'mon. Give it a try.
I am trying not to comment much on the moderation becuase I have already said a lot on record recently but the summary for me would be more interventions but more even-handed and less harsh. Persuading does work with a lot people who will respond badly to bullying.
Waiting till things get really bad and then coming in with a baseball bat, hitting one side, and then saying this was forebearance because of the wait before getting involved is not a working strategy.
No problem -- and over time you will contribute to that history I hope.
I am glad that you notice that firearms while they are a flashpoint are not a topic everyone agrees on. People here who agree on many other things disagree on this one but learn the hard way (or easy way) that the discussion requires a lot of tact.
And you can't discuss it here no matter what your opinion is without acknowledng the facts about violence against women (and firearms are only a small part of that).
I appreciate your interest in what makes a community better and the investment of thought you are putting in.
Please don't put this on women. The gun thread had nothing to do with violence against women and it wasn't women who tried to shut down the conversation. Post 30 began the "complaint" and was an attack against two posters one of whom actually is a woman, me.
Not interested in your opinion Pondering.
Any direction you give me is only for purposes of harassment as I have asked you to disengage at least for a time.
Violence against women does not have to be a topic only women are interested in. In fact it is essential men care about it as well.
Post 30 was not the start of the issue.
But I see you are still trying to pick at anything I can say that you can object to.
I also see that you interfere persistently in any exchange I have with another person that is conciliatory in order to try to open a wound and instigate a fight. I guess you found it disturbing to your agenda that I had a polite and respectful exchange with Paladin.
I view you as nothing but a distructive force on this board at the moment -- one that is insistent on making that force as aggressive and in my face as you can.
Looks to me like you are doing your best to pick a fight so that a moderator will come in and rescue you-- that is if I don't just leave first.
Jesus Sean. Don't leave, whatever you do. You're the best poster on this board right now. You just have to accept that certain people are always going to lack rationality and integrity and there's no way to change that. Don't take it personally.
Not interested in your opinion Pondering.
Any direction you give me is only for purposes of harassment as I have asked you to disengage at least for a time.
Violence against women does not have to be a topic only women are interested in. In fact it is essential men care about it as well.
Post 30 was not the start of the issue.
But I see you are still trying to pick at anything I can say that you can object to.
I also see that you interfere persistently in any exchange I have with another person that is conciliatory in order to try to open a wound and instigate a fight. I guess you found it disturbing to your agenda that I had a polite and respectful exchange with Paladin.
I view you as nothing but a distructive force on this board at the moment -- one that is insistent on making that force as aggressive and in my face as you can.
Looks to me like you are doing your best to pick a fight so that a moderator will come in and rescue you-- that is if I don't just leave first.
Men can certainly care about violence against women but it was not the focus of objections to the gun discussion that happened with Paladin.
If you are not behaving objectionably then there will be no reason for a mod to intervene. A mod did start this thread so it probably isn't a good place to continue sharing your opinion of me.
You can't control who responds to your comments in a group discussion.
Jesus Sean. Don't leave, whatever you do. You're the best poster on this board right now. You just have to accept that certain people are always going to lack rationality and integrity and there's no way to change that. Don't take it personally.
I agree.
Pondering, I am never going to accept you as a judge of what I do that is objectionable. And I don't accept your opinion on what is the focus of, or the objections to, the gun discussion.
And that is just it - you present your opinion as fact but it is only your opinion since I doubt you speak for those people.
You seem to want to impose the double standard that you come into this thread to comment on my post saying I am "putting this on women" suggesting what -- that I am being sexist?
Then you tell me I should not continue to share my opinion of you -- suggesting a personal attack that has never happened. I haven't shared my opinion of you anywhere in spite of the tempations you keep offering and baiting and in spite of the fact you keep saying I have.
It is obvious that you are picking and extending a fight on purpose, at any cost and in any place.
What exactly are you getting out of it? Is it pleasure? Is it to derail the site? Is it to get attention by having a target you can fight with? Is it to drive me off the board because I don't pray to your dear god? Do you have nothing better to amuse yourself with?
Jesus Sean. Don't leave, whatever you do. You're the best poster on this board right now. You just have to accept that certain people are always going to lack rationality and integrity and there's no way to change that. Don't take it personally.
I agree.
Thanks -- I don't know what it will take when this person insists on responding to my posts with nastiness. I am not answering any of her posts that do not mention me. I did not bring the fight with her here and avoided comment on it when it came up in a post I wanted to respond to for other reasons.
I don't know if she is disrupting the entire board but she is making sure to disrupt any participation I have on it by snark or manipulative dishonest responses to anything I say. She has nominated herself to police whatever I do on the board. Obvious that she is trying to get this to the point that the mod will slap me down. And she is doing this with the clear confidence that this tactic will be approved of and rewarded by the mods. Sickening. Maybe it is appropriate that it be here after all as it sure is an example of something that is wrong about this place.
Actually Im thinking Jacob is the one with the nastiness since he is accusing people of lacking integrity.
And you are continuing you but posting stuff and saying I wont respond to pondering but then posting stuff virtually giaranteeing a response from her and then you rpetending surprise at it
Really not cool, especially after your backtracking from your flounce before
You seem to want to impose the double standard that you come into this thread to comment on my post saying I am "putting this on women" suggesting what -- that I am being sexist?
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/when-police-enter-your-house-w...
No I am not suggesting anything at all about you. I just skimmed the first 70 posts and your posts are among the best in that thread. There is just no mention of violence against women.
I didn't skim the rest but I followed the thread and I very much doubt there is a single reference to gun control being a factor in violence against women.
I am not at all impressed by threads in the feminist forum in which it was difficult to get consensus that women in Canada are still oppressed while fending off men's rights arguments. Even in "yesallwomen" there was challenge to defining it as a problem of sexism and male violence against women because he shot men too.
If anyone is going to suggest that the debate in "police enter house without warrant" was prompted out of concern for the safety of women I would expect the safety of women to be explicitly referenced.
I recall one post in which Paladin made some reference to the fact that other implements are more widely used in domestic violence against women therefore that was not a good argument for preventing people from owning guns. I didn't notice any outcry against that male or female.
So, it's a little late to suggest support for gun control in that thread was motivated by the desire to protect women from violence.
Jesus Sean. Don't leave, whatever you do. You're the best poster on this board right now. You just have to accept that certain people are always going to lack rationality and integrity and there's no way to change that. Don't take it personally.
I agree.
Actually Im thinking Jacob is the one with the nastiness since he is accusing people of lacking integrity.
And you are continuing you but posting stuff and saying I wont respond to pondering but then posting stuff virtually giaranteeing a response from her and then you rpetending surprise at it
Really not cool, especially after your backtracking from your flounce before
Jesus Sean. Don't leave, whatever you do. You're the best poster on this board right now. You just have to accept that certain people are always going to lack rationality and integrity and there's no way to change that. Don't take it personally.
I agree he is the best poster on here. Don't need to ponder on that one.
Jjuares, how does that make her different than anyone else here? Trying saying that the ukraine issue is Russian sponsored or the plane shot down by rebels and show evidence and it will be disbelieve and false statements repeated. Say pro palestinian or pro israel comments equally false or true and watch equally false or true statements come out in attack or defense.
That doesnt mean we say posters are lacking in integrity over it, or do we just do that for the women? Like criticising statements by Meg?
Jjuares, how does that make her different than anyone else here? Trying saying that the ukraine issue is Russian sponsored or the plane shot down by rebels and show evidence and it will be disbelieve and false statements repeated. Say pro palestinian or pro israel comments equally false or true and watch equally false or true statements come out in attack or defense.
That doesnt mean we say posters are lacking in integrity over it, or do we just do that for the women? Like criticising statements by Meg?
We'll this whole bizarre stream began with Pondering stating that the NDP could have saved the Martin gov. by voting with it. (Post 177, Here's Stephen Harper's Plan to Win the 2015 Election). In that post she simply gets the math wrong by giving the NDP the wrong number of seats. Sean and others point this out and then rather than admit she is wrong she simply goes off in another tangent and talks about the role of the NDP in sponsoring the vote. Many side issues are discussed some of them important, some not but what of course gets lost in this discussion is Pondering's original false statement. Things get surreal when Pondering demands that Sean owes her an apology.
That isn't true. I agreed that Sean's numbers were correct in posts 202, 219, 226 and 240.
From post 202 on, (after doing the research I was told it was my responsibility to do,) I made it clear that I was not referring to the vote of non-confidence. That my focus was on the events that led up to that vote, not the vote itself.
I did all the work of gathering the information from multiple articles that I was challenged to do but it made no difference, it was ignored.
You are still here insisting this was all about a single non-confidence vote when it was never about that vote. The vote is not why people held Jack Layton responsible at that time nor since.
Throughout the discussion 7 of you were attacking me personally and repeatedly through mocking and derogatory statements.
From Friday Sept. 12th, 2014
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/12/national_child_care_the_pr...
In 2005, it was then NDP leader Jack Layton’s decision to pull the plug on Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government that helped kill the closest thing Canada has ever had to a national child care system.
Excellent historical account of those days and also of earlier NDP history.
http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/
I am not claiming that Layton was factually responsible for the government falling early and Kelowna, daycare etc. failing. Many people hold Martin solely responsible and they have their reasons too.
What I am saying is that it is a matter of opinion (mainstream and progressive) therefore it was not unreasonable for me to remember Layton being responsible even though I didn't remember the details. Having reviewed what happened it is not unreasonable for me to still believe that Layton should have made the deal with Martin because it would have benefited Canadians. It's not Liberal propaganda.
jjuares,I am not claiming to be some angel that is never abrasive or annoying but I do not deserve to be vilified as I am being. I'm challenging you to look at the situation impartially.
P.S. This may seem like reviving the personal battles in this thread but I think it is actually a pretty good case study of the dynamics on this board that have to change. The hostility is relentless.
There are lots of members I enjoy having conversations with and some have expressed pleasure in our discussions even though we differ greatly on important issues so it is not as though everyone finds me intolerable.
Justin Trudeau Campaign Thread
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-campaign-2015?p...
post 108,109,111
It's constant shot after shot after shot from a gang of you. How can you possibly defend yourselves. How can you possibly think that the mods should be on your side.
How can you not get that you are relentlessly baiting and flaming me and it is this culture that has to change.
Yes, I called someone a jerk, because they were behaving like one. I won't do it again. It is self-evident in the behavior so readers can judge for themselves.
