Changing thread titles

Maysie wrote:

Anouncement:

The word "pig(s)" used to describe the police is no longer allowed in thread titles.

The reason is that the use of the word conflicts with rabble's editorial policy and anti-oppression mandate.

The word "pig(s)" to describe the police will be allowed in the body of threads themselves.

 

So calling a cop a pig is OK on rabble.ca, just not in the thread title. LOL.

Look, if the word violates some anti-oppression mandate then it violates everywhere doesn't it? I can't see the logic. Please help.

It seems to me that "someone" feels the pigs are a group that needs extra protection from nasty words. I guess guns, tasers, body armor, clubs, pepper spray, horses, oh and the full backing of the state aren't enough.

Also, making this announcement on a Friday afternoon seems so, I don't know, governmenty... Like when the government announces on the Friday before a long weekend that SOW Canada will have its budget slashed, or something else distasteful.

I am in agreement with E.Tamaran.

"So calling a cop a pig is OK on rabble.ca, just not in the thread title. LOL.

Look, if the word violates some anti-oppression mandate then it violates everywhere doesn't it? I can't see the logic. Please help."

This seems a bit strange to me.

I think it's entirely defensible and comprehensible. It's like the difference between having a book on a library shelf entitled "F**K THE P*GS!!!!" versus hanging a banner on the outside library wall. In the first case, it's the author's view. In the second, it's the library condoning and publicizing it. Actually, it seems strange to me that it should seem strange to anyone. It's just plain common sense.

The front page is the purvue of the editor of rabble, who is free, in consultation with the publisher to set policies for the front page and other areas of the magazine portion.

The babble mods in the normal course of events have little to do with the editor except with this area.  I recall having a discussion with the previous editor on the topic of the "F" word (that'd be FUCK for the more dense among you)  appearing in thread titles.  I did not entirely agree with the outcome of the discussion, but it was her decision to make and not mine.

Use of the word 'pig' does not contravene babble policy as it has evolved on babble, my personal views notwithstanding.  This has little to do with policies on rabble in general.  I would encourage people not to read too much into this, and please don't go putting the word 'pig' into thread titles just to make a point.  It just makes more work for the mods, because editing titles and opening posts is a pain in the ass.

As Oldgoat says the rabble has created the problem for themselves by having recent Babble threads listed on the rabble page. Simple solution is to cease doing that rather than creating extra work for the babble moderators. As much as I dislike the use of pigs to refer to police officers, the choice of the Rabble editor to have them scrubbed from thread titles along with "fuck" are genteel bourgeois affectations.

Many police forces are unionize, I believe Saint John had the first police union in Canada. Is it proper to call unionized workers "pigs"?

Remember what the cops said to Michael Moore when he was wrapping the bank in police crime scene tape. The one cop said to Moore to go ahead, they'd ripped off the NYC police pension fund for so much money. I think we'll eventually have to gain support of the cops and even woo members of the military if the pro-democracy movement is ever going to overthrow the stoogeaucracy arm-in-arm.

Nor has there been one word of dissent from those here who have accepted the task of enforcing these unprincipled rules.

Meanwhile, rabble seems perfectly content to allow babble thread titles to appear on its front page [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/what-do-nothing-... the virtues of notorious war criminals[/url].

I agree that thread titles containing expletives shouldn't be on the main rabble page - "pigs" I'm not so sure about. Perhaps a filter would work better than a ban though. Actually I'm confused. Expletives are allowed but filtered from the main page, whereas "pigs" is banned and would appear on the main page otherwise. Is that right?

I would encourage anyone who disagrees with this editorial policy for whatever reason to write a letter to the editor: editor[at]rabble.ca, or use the "contact us" form at the top of the page.

Quote:

And of course, banning the use of foul language has nothing to do with suppressing freedom of speech...more an invitation to develop a working vocabulary.

I'm not sure if that's the intent here, but your suggestion is a noble goal nevertheless.

I dunno, looks like a Landrace-Berskhire cross.

On the other hand people could just continue to post what they want to post until they are banned. After a while this would reduce the number of click thoughs that they can claim their advertizers get from the automatic web page redirects, which artificially inflate click though statistics.

Yes, I totally see that you are completely closed to allowing the dissemination of expressions that represent a view of the world through the eyes of those who are most oppressed by the agents of the institutions that protects your privilege. Honestly, I am pretty much convinced that someone who donates a fair amount of cash to this site complained and tried to get them to change the policy, but partially failed. But what good is privilege if it doesn't enable someone to pull the purse strings of the media in the service of limiting the discourse so that it serves privilege?

What you really seek to do is remove the part of the "user policy" that gives any meaning to the term "Opressive language" and whitewash it.

Am I discouraged? Not at all, the reaction itself indicates progress, since it exhibits the flaws of the paradigm. Your objection is right on therefore. It shows a contradiction clearly. It can not live up to its own stated objective, in public and in full view. Instead it wants such ideas burried a deeply as possible, without appearing to repress the world view it pretends to serve.

Thus the Darcy Sheppards are merely roadkill in the eyes of the Michael Bryants of the world.

Caissa wrote:

I am no more of a fan of the use of "Fuck" indiscriminaterly but I think Rabble's stance on its usage is just asunprincipled.

Oh look, a spelling errors. A few.

That is what pedantry looks like, from the other side,

Thanks for all your feedback -- (particularly from M. Spector who I thought had left the boards -- welcome back!) and the pig photo was a nice touch. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear you don't agree with our editorial policies. To reiterate what old goat, maysie and catchfire have already tried to explain, thread headlines do appear on our front page. If these contravene with our editorial policies the mods and/or editors do step in to change these headlines -- particularly if they are deemed to be oppressive. In this case the use of the word 'pig' to describe a police officer is a term we feel is anti-labour which is why it was changed. Thanks again for your understanding, Alex (managing editor, rabble.ca)

alex wrote:

To reiterate what old goat, maysie and catchfire have already tried to explain, thread headlines do appear on our front page. If these contravene with our editorial policies the mods and/or editors do step in to change these headlines -- particularly if they are deemed to be oppressive. In this case the use of the word 'pig' to describe a police officer is a term we feel is anti-labour [snip], Alex (managing editor, rabble.ca)

Actually Alex this is the very first time anyone from management has put forward the claim that "pig" with respect to cops is anti-labour.

And that's really bizarre, 'cause the pigs absolutely are NOT on the side of labour. I will open a new thread to discuss this claim.

Caissa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

It's like the difference between having a book on a library shelf entitled "F**K THE P*GS!!!!" versus hanging a banner on the outside library wall. In the first case, it's the author's view. In the second, it's the library condoning and publicizing it.

Au contraire, Unioinist. Both the act of advertisement and the act of owning, in your example, are signs of condoning and publicizing through circulation.

I seriously don't understand you. A library can have a copy of Mein Kampf in its shelves. Does that condone and publicize it? But if it posts excerpts on the outside wall, without comment... you don't see the difference?

How about a bookstore stocking a copy of Abbie Hoffman's classic "Steal This Book"? Is that functionally equivalent to putting "Steal This Book" up on the wall?

Again, I think it's perfectly obvious what policy rabble has adopted and perfectly sensible. It doesn't breach anyone's freedom of speech in any meaningful way.

And by the way, the argument that cops are unionized, and that that makes them somehow better, is pathetic. Cops are to be judged on what they do, not on how hard they fight for better wages. Please don't rise in consternation when I suggest that cops are not the allies of the workers, unionized or otherwise. They don't work for us.

Here we go around the mulberry bush of obfuscation again.  Books be damned, this is simply a bullying action that is not concerned with the feelings of others.

Cops are a necessary element in this society, as the boyos in black recently proved.  They also apprehend robbers and rapists and other bad guys.  Any force is made up of a variety of human types, from nasty bastards to those who give their lives in defence of others. I have had bad experiences with those deviant members of the constabulary who somehow find their way into an organization that suits their authoritarian personality.  But I have very much appreciated the care and attention of the good cops who can take charge of a mental patient and gently bring them to a place of safety. 

The use of "pigs" to describe them is unacceptable for many reasons, but one seldom mentioned is that it is resented by others in this supposedly socially concerned little grouping of do-good folks. The vicious putdown of those who disagree is symptomatic of the anti-social behaviour of those who rampaged in Toronto a few days back.  It is a finger in the face of those who are more than uncomfortable with anarchistic behaviour and disdain for those who dare to protest at their behaviour.

Finally, it is simply bullying in the name of "freedom", the product of a lax management style that dows not work here or in an elementary   schoolroom. Enough of the high-minded ratonale for bullying.

alex wrote:

Thanks for all your feedback... Anyway, I'm sorry to hear you don't agree with our editorial policies. To reiterate what old goat, maysie and catchfire have already tried to explain, thread headlines do appear on our front page. If these contravene with our editorial policies the mods and/or editors do step in to change these headlines -- particularly if they are deemed to be oppressive. In this case the use of the word 'pig' to describe a police officer is a term we feel is anti-labour which is why it was changed. Thanks again for your understanding, Alex (managing editor, rabble.ca)

Just as I suspected: Not only does Rabble management collectively lack two brain cells to rub together, they assume we have even fewer.

According to the threads listed in the OP that have been changed to the satisfaction of Rabble management, [b]Saskatoon police murder another FN[/b] is quite acceptable, whereas [b]Saskatoon pigs murder another FN[/b] is not.

[b]Fucking RCMP Murder ANOTHER FN![/b] is not considered to be "oppressive language", whereas [b]Fucking RCMPigs Murder ANOTHER FN![/b] is.

[b]Kenora police shoot another FN[/b] is not "anti-labour" but [b]Kenora pigs shoot another FN[/b] is.

[b]SIU probe OPP in FN death (Murder?)[/b] doesn't contravene Rabble's secret "editorial policies", but [b]SIU probe OPPigs in FN death (Murder?)[/b] does.

Thanks for clearing that up, Alex. I'm sure your story makes a lot more sense than the [b]real[/b] story would.

Actually, as Michael Nenonen pointed out, a bad barrel creates bad apples.

alex wrote:

Thanks for all your feedback -- (particularly from M. Spector who I thought had left the boards -- welcome back!) and the pig photo was a nice touch. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear you don't agree with our editorial policies. To reiterate what old goat, maysie and catchfire have already tried to explain, thread headlines do appear on our front page. If these contravene with our editorial policies the mods and/or editors do step in to change these headlines -- particularly if they are deemed to be oppressive. In this case the use of the word 'pig' to describe a police officer is a term we feel is anti-labour which is why it was changed. Thanks again for your understanding, Alex (managing editor, rabble.ca)

Alex, "contravene" is a transitive verb -- thus, "contravene our editorial policies."

Excuse the pedantry, but you are an editor, after all, and one wielding authority here.

  My apologies.  This is so fucking wrong.

Ok. Pigs like pot too. Anything substantive to say to the sudden limitation of invective used to describe this particular class of employee. Personally, I only started using the term "pig" to describe cops now that Babble has decided that it is "offensive" based on various spurious justification, none of which hold water.

You of course are free to describe pigs however you want to, are you really saying that you believe your particular brand of moralism should be extended to one and all? My view is that this is simply an attempt to shut down discussion of police abuse in the terms chosen to describe it by those who are victims of it.

Are we so touchy feely now that we will chastise the victims of the Holocaust for calling SS soldiers "pigs" because the SS are people too... and because not all members of the SS were bad people.

Either Babble decides to ban the use of this language on any and all threads, and likewise bans any word that might be deemed offensive, or it should remove this ban. A sad thing about the left is that it is often a conduit for a certain brand of Protestant puritanism.