[ 25 July 2004: Message edited by: Malek ]

Babble seems to be a fairly leftish, NDP forum. But there are trolls and heated debates at times, I've found.

quote:

---

Babble seems to be a fairly leftish, NDP forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malek:
This was a no holes barred arena where right vs left debate was heated and often extreme.

---

Sorry, but I must nitpick. It's "no HOLDS barred".

"No HOLES barred" conjures up, ahem, somewhat different images. Or, er, so I'd imagine, for those awful people who have dirty minds.

quote:

---

"No HOLES barred" conjures up, ahem, somewhat different images. Or, er, so I'd imagine, for those awful people who have dirty minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Babble has nothing to do with the NDP.

---

Rabble ran nice big banners saying the site supports the NDP. Babble has only 1 major party with its own forum, and it ain't the Cons. I'm guessing the majority of folks on here voted NDP last election, and that more than a couple were involved in the actual campaigning.

NDPish, if not an official NDP site, okies?

Allowing the forum unmoderated speech would allow people to post vile and disgusting comments all in the name of free speech. Often times a message that has some reasonable points is obscured by the language that the poster is either actively or inadvertently using.

At the very least, it was assumed, when this site was set up, that there were lots of people feeling pretty dubious about the quality of the news we get from the corporate media. If one thing should unite us, that's it; and the people who have stuck around have tended to be those interested in backing up their (often mouthy) opinions with evidence or corroboration from interesting sources that most of us weren't regularly in contact with before.

We aren't a mouthpiece for the NDP, although many babblers are kneedeeps, if critically aware ones. During the election, we got invaded by PR persons from all parties, and I am still waiting for the parties -- all the parties, including the NDP -- to do the right and proper and graceful thing, and offer rabble.ca some financial support, given the free advertising that they got from us, not to mention our patience through the aggro some of the more obvious pros were giving babble regulars.

Malek, you seem to be assuming that a discussion board cannot be useful or intelligent unless there is constant, basic debate going on between extremes of right and left views. Most of us would not agree with that -- forgive me, but -- sophomoric position. The problem with continual face-offs between people holding extremely polarized views is that neither side ever becomes complex or subtle or progressive. Extremely polarized debates keep forcing everyone to return to step one. They keep people stupid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erstwhile:
Sorry, but I must nitpick. It's "no HOLDS barred".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Extremely polarized debates keep forcing everyone to return to step one. They keep people stupid.
[/QB]

---

Socialists are different. We have much greater differences among ourselves, partly because we have so seldom been successful anywhere.

quote:

---

Perhaps I'll assume the mantra of a right wing ideologue just to generate some heat.

---

Oh, sigh. Another one of those.

Malek, I have to tell you. We always have at least a couple of persistent contrarians on the board, and their main effect on everyone else is to make us wonder whether a Viagra prescription wouldn't help more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malek:
Generally however, there is more sport in debates of dissimilar views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
PS:
Malek, I have to tell you. We always have at least a couple of persistent contrarians on the board, and their main effect on everyone else is to make us wonder whether a Viagra prescription wouldn't help more. In other words: check your ego at the door, eh?

---

Funny how various threads are related. We have one now in which media balance is being discussed. Now this thread is drifting into a discussion of how opposite views are necessary, as if two contraries bashing it out will somehow create a balance.

In light of all this, Neal Gabler makes some interesting observations:

quote:

---

The words "fair and balanced" have been largely discredited in recent years because of the Fox News Channel, which uses them to mean not that Fox takes an objective, evenhanded approach to the news but that the cable channel is redressing the purported liberal bias of the mainstream news media, balancing them. But Fox aside, the idea of "fair and balanced" is still a mainstay of most journalistic practice, at least in theory. Reporters are not supposed to take sides. For every pro on one side of the scale there must be a con on the other....

Even before Fox appropriated them, the words "fair and balanced" had been yoked as if they were somehow synonymous, but if by "fair" one means objective and unbiased, then more often than not "fair" and "balanced" may be mutually exclusive. To cite one glaring example of just how balance can transmogrify into unfairness, there is the story of a television host who once invited Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt on his program and then had a Holocaust denier as a counterweight, implying that the two sides were equally credible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slim:

Those goals can be incompatible with maximizing the sport, as you call it.

---

Not necessarily incompatible. Knowledge of adversarial points of view can also refine opinions. It can also be stimulating without resorting to chaos and obstinancy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[QB] To cite one glaring example of just how balance can transmogrify into unfairness, there is the story of a television host who once invited Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt on his program and then had a Holocaust denier as a counterweight, implying that the two sides were equally credible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malek:
Not necessarily incompatible. Knowledge of adversarial points of view can also refine opinions. It can also be stimulating without resorting to chaos and obstinancy.

---

While I agree with the above (the recent abortion thread with Hailey from FD being a fairly amicable example) many discussions from widely diseparate viewpoints will simply degenerate into shouting matches, and its hard to pick out the subtle nuances in what someone is saying when they make you very very angry.

quote:

---

If so, please direct me to the right wingers in here so I can have a go at them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malek:

No Viagra required, but I'd need a pill for ego. Its funny how feminists have latched onto Viagra comments in the same way that the testosterone set often refers to feminine monthly episodes as a way to debunk someone's point of view.

---

You're just proving my point. You've already said that you're looking for "sport," or a contest, as al-Q translated you.

That's what makes some people come to babble and play contrarian: they think that we need them, we really need them.

The same oversupply of something causes men who feel threatened to remind uppity women that they are just women, after all.

It all stems from one source, Malek.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Slim is just plain a tower of strength to us all. He has never said a word he doesn't mean and that is not rock-solid true. I call that amazing strength.

---

Awwwwww shucks, skdadl.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:
This seems to indicate a left leaning view, but also a strong desire to engage in what could be considered baiting (and biting) discussion with the right. Did you come here from the CBC board after it had been shut down, I'm assuming, because of its overly vocal debates? And if so, how truly productive were the debates, not just for yourself, but for everyone involved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malek:

Aside from my belief in the value of honest debate, I believe that confronting the right is important for our society because they espouse a philosophy whereby violence against innocent human beings is justified as long as the goals are worth the effort. It is not baiting for the sake of argument to strongly believe in humanistic ideals. I don't know the reason why CBC ended it's online forum. I only know that within those threads the viewpoints of the right were eventually and thoughtfully overcome both by reasoned argument and unfolding events which lent credence to what we were saying all along. I could only assume that the personal virtolic from the right was the catalyst for its demise. It grew in relation to the growing bankrupcy of their positions on current events. I suppose in that sense it was productive.

---

Fair enough. It seems you're looking for a place with plenty of vocal right leaning voices, and while we do have a few trolls here from time to time, they are never the majority (although they often try and make up for number - and substance - with volume) But if you do stick around you will find that we aren't a homogenous group with identical ideals; hell, we can't even agree on how to ride bicycles

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malek:
I don't know the reason why CBC ended it's online forum. ...I could only assume that the personal virtolic from the right was the catalyst for its demise. It grew in relation to the growing bankrupcy of their positions on current events. I suppose in that sense it was productive.

---

Over at the Internet Infidels one contributor complained that "the deliberate casting of personal insults" was a right-wing technique used to close threads at that Discussion Forum. In other words, if you can't convince others, THEN JUST START SHOUTING OBSCENITIES. It works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Hey, Malek. Can we have a truce?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baldfresh:

Besides, as you can see clearly see by now, you've already engaged in a decent debate with us, even though most of us here also strongly believe in the humanistic ideals you spoke of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malek:

Truce. May peace be upon you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[QB] Over at the Internet Infidels one contributor complained that "the deliberate casting of personal insults" was a right-wing technique used to close threads at that Discussion Forum. In other words, if you can't convince others, THEN JUST START SHOUTING OBSCENITIES. It works.

---

The resistance to this you're recieving is based, I think, on our experience of some "polarized opposites" recently.

People like Brutus (god help us ) and Hailey (who I will admit is a great deal more polite): There tends to be a lot of bashing of heads against walls and regardless of what is said they just keep repeating themselves. Overall I think our impression of right wing ideologues on this site has been, rather than edifying, largly an incredibly frustrating one.

I think this has to do with the fact that Right wingers come here spoiling for a fight rather than willing to engage in reasoned debate. However I must say that I recently took the same approach to FD so I guess no one is blameless!

What you're talking about is debate between factions which can at least understand each other. On things like abortion or Bigotry (comme Brutus) Nobody is going to budge so it often does come down to pissing contests where the invective flies liberally.

As for nuanced debate between people who can understand each other at least a little, I think that's exactly what Rabble provides.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socrates:
Overall I think our impression of right wing ideologues on this site has been, rather than edifying, largly an incredibly frustrating one.
On things like abortion or Bigotry (comme Brutus) Nobody is going to budge so it often does come down to pissing contests where the invective flies liberally.

---

quote:

---

I believe that confronting the right is important for our society because they espouse a philosophy whereby violence against innocent human beings is justified as long as the goals are worth the effort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socrates:
People like Brutus (god help us ) and Hailey (who I will admit is a great deal more polite): blameless!

What you're talking about is debate between factions which can at least understand each other. On things like abortion or Bigotry (comme Brutus) Nobody is going to budge so it often does come down to pissing contests where the invective flies liberally.

As for nuanced debate between people who can understand each other at least a little, I think that's exactly what Rabble provides.

We've got plenty of Conservative voices such as Gir, t_link and Heywood, but they are friendly and not out to bash our heads into a wall for not agreeing with them!

---

Some clarification, please: do you mean "Brutus" (who I believe is fairly new here) or moi, "mighty brutus" (note lower case)--- if it is me, please give me an example of something I've said about abortion. I don't think I've ever posted anything about it, but I stand to be corrected. I would also like to know when you have found me to be bigoted. In cases where I have made hurtful remarks or made sexist jokes I have apologized.
If you don't mean me, then forgive me for being over-sensitive.

[ 26 July 2004: Message edited by: mighty brutus ]

I must admit when I first saw your handle I wondered if it was the same person and whether he had been banned and returned as mighty brutus. Luckily enough you've now clarified the confusion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socrates:
My apologies for the confusion mighty, I was indeed refering to the "intolerably obnoxious" (nice one beluga2 ) Brutus who is quite the anti-quebec bigot.

I must admit when I first saw your handle I wondered if it was the same person and whether he had been banned and returned as mighty brutus. Luckily enough you've now clarified the confusion.

Good meeting you mighty brutus!

---

Even those who claim to more conservative leanings here actually behave themselves in a respectful and engaging manner, unlike the ones I ran into on the CBC Forums or the Canada.com trash sites.

CBC has shut down its Forums, and I don't miss them. I hope Canada.com goes next. They were mostly slag sites, with mostly the same group of steady-eddies just repeating the same old mis-information and bad reporting that these corporate media outlets would push out, and hurling insults.

My first experience with a public affairs debate site was the Forums. Like a naive idiot, I assumed these were venues for perhaps heated, but intelligent and respectful debate--so much so that I used my real name has a handle.

I soon found out it wasn’t the case. This was epitomized when some goose-stepping BC Liar/corporate apologist actually looked up my number from my name and phoned up and threatened my daughter, who just happened to the one who answered the phone, because I kept shooting down his lies and insults with researched fact, which he figured wasn't fair.

Of course the gutless little wimp never left his name or handle--but did mention the Forums. But no matter how I tried I couldn't find out who he or where he was (if I had, there would likely now be one less BC Liberal out there to ruin the economy).

After this, I pretty much gave up on debate sites as a waste of time, which in most cases they are. The Rabble is the only major one in Canada that isn't owned by a corporate media conglomerate and dominated by a band of apologists for the same.

As for the "leftish NDP" tendency here, I ask just what that's supposed to mean.

While it's true there is a refreshing general pro-democracy/anti-corporate capitalist/socialistic leaning (in some ways) sentiment here, there certainly are some pretty diverse and even conflicting views on a whole variety of issues.

While some of the views expressed here may offend others, people can still make their case here without getting flamed by the same group of idiots all repeating the same insults without actually ever being able to factually dispute what others say.

So if there are folks here who can't stand people criticizing the corporate establishment or its politicians and media, or don't like the progressive general leanings, or find the more qualitative form of debate here unpalatable, well then, by all means, go park yourselves at the Canada.com site, where you can be surrounded by the same obedient monolithic-thinking crowd that worships whoever happens to be in charge.

quote:

---

Of course the gutless little wimp never left his name or handle--but did mention the Forums. But no matter how I tried I couldn't find out who he or where he was (if I had, there would likely now be one less BC Liberal out there to ruin the economy).

---

Too bad -- I would've loved to see you carve the honourless p'tahk into itty-bitty pieces with your bat'leth! Qu'vatlh guy'cha b'aka!

One only has to spend a few minutes exporing the rest of cyberspace to realize what an oasis of sanity babble truly is. Out there, if you're not being slagged 'n' slurred by twitchy-eyed right-wing nutbars, you're being supported by people whose support you don't want at all.

Like the time I posted something on one forum debunking the latest neocon Iraqi-WMD claims, and was immediately congratulated by several posters for "helping to expose the Jews' secret plan for the world", or some such. Umm, thanks but no thanks, guys. Needless to say, I immediately fled that place and never returned. I don't need people like that on "my side".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klingon:
Even those who claim to more conservative leanings here actually behave themselves in a respectful and engaging manner, unlike the ones I ran into on the CBC Forums or the Canada.com trash sites.

---

Example: "You've clearly found your comfort zone here among like minded people, and noticeably to the exclusion of other points of view."

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I'm quite sure I have a good mastery of the English language. I believe I made it quite clear that I have found largely divergent points of view on a whole wide range of issues here at the Rabble--as much or more than the corporate sites.

Yet the overall debate is more qualitative and the general philosophy is geared more to free and open thought and the public interest--unlike the corporate sites.

These are the reasons why I participate here. If the "exclusion of other points of view" was what I was after, I certainly wouldn't bother to spend time on the Rabble.

In re-reading my last post, it seems obvious to me that I made this very clear, and I guess Malek understood exactly what I wrote. Bu in keeping with one of the key styles of "debate" of the corporate sites, Malek seems to want to play the wounded conservative (or Liberal or whatever) by insisting, despite the obvious, that all I'm interested in is the "exclusion of other points of view."

This is one of the very common behaviours among pro-corporate etc elements, especially in the media. It's why I find it hard to take so many of them seriously.

>"Granted some other venues have their share of agressive rhetoric, however careful and well intentioned individuals can be found even amongst the barbarians."

This is certainly true. However, I have also found that these barbarians don't hang around on corporate media sites like CBC Forums or Canada.com.

And why should they? Regardless of a person's views or life philosophy, one can only put up so much with reading foam-at-the-mouth violent comments against union members, ecologists, immigrants and refugees and aboriginals, as well as blindly repeated lies, bigotry and put-downs and the occasional speculations about one's family or sexual practices or, in some cases, sexual practices with members of one's family.

PS"Ghobe!! Something I have noticed about many pro-corporates and conservative types is that they either can't absorb information very accurately, or they just seem to feel compelled to arrive at conclusions that don't reflect what they just read.

Example: "You've clearly found your comfort zone here among like minded people, and noticeably to the exclusion of other points of view."

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I'm quite sure I have a good mastery of the English language. I believe I made it quite clear that I have found largely divergent points of view on a whole wide range of issues here at the Rabble--as much or more than the corporate sites.

Yet the overall debate is more qualitative and the general philosophy is geared more to free and open thought and the public interest--unlike the corporate sites.

These are the reasons why I participate here. If the "exclusion of other points of view" was what I was after, I certainly wouldn't bother to spend time on the Rabble.

In re-reading my last post, it seems obvious to me that I made this very clear, and I guess Malek understood exactly what I wrote. Bu in keeping with one of the key styles of "debate" of the corporate sites, Malek seems to want to play the wounded conservative (or Liberal or whatever) by insisting, despite the obvious, that all I'm interested in is the "exclusion of other points of view."

This is one of the very common behaviours among pro-corporate etc elements, especially in the media. It's why I find it hard to take so many of them seriously.

>"Granted some other venues have their share of agressive rhetoric, however careful and well intentioned individuals can be found even amongst the barbarians."

This is certainly true. However, I have also found that these barbarians don't hang around on corporate media sites like CBC Forums or Canada.com.

And why should they. Regardless of a person's views or life philosophy, one can only put up with reading foam-at-the-mouth violent comments against union members, ecologists, immigrants and refugees and aboriginals, as well as blindly repeated lies, bigotry and put-downs and the occasional speculations about one's family or sexual practices or, in some cases, sexual practices with members of one's family.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
You're not obliged to answer, but I find it interesting that someone would post a profile with location Lower Canada and a postal code in North York. Assuming you are well aware that Lower Canada was the name of Quebec from 1791 to 1840, I'm trying to guess the implication. Then again, maybe you just meant you didn't go to Upper Canada College?

---

I was trying to have an interesting discussion here about Lebanon, but it was *impossible* to discuss things because the thread was highjacked - again! I HATE the middle-east forum, why do I go back there every two or three months? I thought this time since the discussion was supposed to be about Lebanon that things would be different...ooh, no! Damn it's annoying. The stupid arguments about you-said-that and anti-semitic-this are driving me (and other babblers) away. I'd like meaningful debate/discussion - it is impossible. It is appropriate perhaps - for it mirrors the real situation: the real diplomats can't even begin to talk! The moderates are shut out - in Israel and on Rabble.ca/Babble.

Now I'm going to go sulk in the BC/AB/Sask forum, where no one will bother me!

[ 27 July 2004: Message edited by: wei-chi ]

quote:

---

4. Baiting and trolling (e.g. "I'm posting this article, not that anyone here will give a damn about Israeli lives anyhow," or "Gee, I wonder what Macabee/Starbuck/whomever will have to say about this - aww, guess it doesn't matter since it's only Palestinians") is not allowed.

---

quote:

---

2. If you have a complaint about the moderation, either complain to Audra or me privately, or if you feel the need to do so publicly, start a thread in rabble reactions about it. Don't derail already-running threads with arguments about whether this decision or that decision was unfair,

---