It would seem a weekly event the thread asking for definition of progressive, asking who would not fit under the big tent. No answer was ever forthcoming except that the owner and mods did not feel it their place to determine what people wrote on their blog.
Self definition of progressive then seemed to be the criteria for fitting under The Big Tent.
Blogging for F4J – acceptable, maligning female politicians [see numerous posts on Belinda Stronach]- acceptable, adhering sexist and politically derogatory labels to feminists [again see PB diaries around abortion,Elizabeth May]- acceptable, debating a womans’ right to choice [many blogs, tags-abortion,Elizabeth May]- acceptable, defaming a persons reputation and all who associate with him – acceptable.
Whether or not Roberts’ post was wrong has been discussed throughly, what I would like to know is how it was worse than any of the previous examples?
The Big Tent is either Big enough to handle and accept all sides of a controversy and to allow free speech OR it moderates views and speech.
If PB has decided on the latter will we soon be in receipt of a policy clearly defining the progressive views and values the mods and owner find acceptable?
A policy on what will be acceptable blog topics, words used, groups and/or persons that can be maligned freely?
It would seem echo chamber is in the eye of the beholder.
Given our recent experience with tighter moderation, I now oppose it. PB is not the sort of community in which that is going to work well, not yet, anyway. It is useful as an aggregator, but the divisions among us run too deep for much more than that.
I agree with that. Despite my lack of comfort with much that is posted.
The PB moderators are the definition of what progressive is not. The complete lack of transparency is a perfect example of how not to do things. If Cherniak is progressive and Robert is not we might as well rename the PB to the LibLogs as thats all it really is now.
I’m sure Scott Tribe will be here any moment to explain how wonderfully progressive their decision was and he will hint at moderators forums no one will ever be able to see. At the end of the day, Scott Tribe is to Cherniak, as Blair is to Bush. He will bend over for him because he wants the big time, its rather sad as in the past Scott seemed intelligent on occasion, now he is just Jasons poodle.
Sid, tempers are running high at the moment. That can be useful, but let’s not go too far.
You are mistaken that Views is f4J. And I don’t believe he’s maligning a ‘female’ politician per se. It’s pretty clear that he maligns bad family policy – the Minister responsible just happens to be a woman. There’s a mistaken belief that all female politicians are worthy of our defense; in this case Minister Meilleur deserves the criticism, not Views.
We’ll have to disagree about “bad family policy”. Or whether or not those posts represent F4J talking points.
But you are mistaken that I was referring to that situation re female politicians.
Interestingly, I made the mistake of reading Views from the Water’s edge a little while ago, and I have to say I definitely wonder what such a site is doing on a “progressive” site.
He talks about reverse gender discrimination:
Why is this permitted on a progressive site and yet RM’s comments got him quickly banned? Shouldn’t there at least be some consistency? Is it because he didn’t say “fuck the women” that he is cleared of promoting anti-woman sentiment? I would have hoped we were more sophistamacated than that.
I agree that there are some divergent opinions as to what represents “progressive”, but I am shocked that bloggers such as April Reign and Red Jenny would not consider themselves to be the radicals. Though it might offend some to think that this is a men against women issue, which keeps advocacy monies flowing, it is not. I studied feminism in graduate school and I am a proponent of everything feminist apart from radical feminism, which is all I see here and which is definately not “progressive”. Scott, you should have a closer look at this site.
Red Jenny, if you had spent less time looking for “dirty quotes” and more time considering whether or not what my blog is really about “fair process” regardless of gender and whatever the topic, you would have noticed my blogs that call for gender parity in the House of Commons. The advantage given to women in matters of family law have been orchestrated by the “old boys” to delay and prevent gender parity in the House of Commons and in the corporate world. Think about it, you blind advocacy on ther basis of you gender cannot consider that none of this is a gender issue – it is more about fairness for people.
I challenge anyone to look at my blog from the universal principle of fairness and equality and to tell me that I am not more progressive than these radicals who put the interests of one gender over another and in so doing demonstrate the blindness of their advocacy and the gender discriminatory nature of their cause. Shame on you. http://viewsfromthewatersedge.blogspot.com
🙄
April.
Great answer. I see the extent to which you are open to the truth. If I were a “man hating vagina warriors club member” would I have more credibility, while you continue to roll your eyes? ❓
It is not like anything I would say could ever elicit a positive response, because of my gender. Perhaps you should attend some gender sensitivity training before you go after anyone else.
Is this more about your “blind hatred” than anything else? 😈 Please let me know. And, for now I still think this gender biased, man-hating blog is inappropriate.
Keep it up and unfortunately meritorious women will continue to be left behind, and that is the real tragedy of the involvement of persons like you.
Edgewater Views
March 10th, 2007
Why do you feel the need to sign your posts when both you and your questionable site are fully identified at the top.
I having no interest in your sort or your site do not bother to troll there.
I’d appreciate if you would show the maturity you claim to have and do me the same favour.
Or you can continue on this way and show better than I ever could your true colours.
You picked the fight with me, not the other way around, by wrongly and taking issue with my site and wrongly interpreting what is my cause. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it. Obviously you cannot.
At the same time you also shouldn’t raise questions like you did in an inappropriate and unprovoked way, and not expect from me some type of reasoned response from me.
Unfortunately, you and your cronies have nothing constructive to say apart from spin and inappropriate allegations. This latest episode shows your recklessness. You should be absolutely ashamed for representing “women”, my prefered gender, so recklessly.
EV
Man look at the time. Thanks for coming it’s been real.
You have so very clearly illustrated how you don’t represent F4j talking points.
Much the same way a cat illustrates it has no whiskers.
Now pick up the misogyny you’ve left all over my clean floor and piss off.
Good post April Reign. Now that the PB moderators have banned McClelland and vehemently defended their banning they are going to have to ban other blogs to prove that they are balanced banners.
Good point April. Now that the moderators have banned McLelland, they are going to have to ban some other blogs to demonstrate that they are balanced banners.
Oops, apologies for the multiple posts. I thought my first post had been rejected by a technical glitch.
Psychols, that’s a good point. Unfortunately, however, it’s not like the PB moderators haven’t been warned about that…..
Good post…and I must say I enjoyed your ABC thing with the ProgMods.The whole thing was absurd…a Salem scene.If the moderators had a problem with what McLelland wrote they should have used the comments section of My Blagh…or their own blogs to attack him. The idea of four of five people poring over a sentence and deciding whether or not to ban someone makes me want to vomit.
That’s not moderation that’s anal retention taken to a ridiculous length…and for what? To get their 15 minutes of fame in the dumbo mass media…to become mainstream…no thanks.
Good luck with your petition!
I have mostly kept out of this, since it actually didn’t really interest me all that much. I thought the whole thing was pretty ridiculous. Nothing wrong with calling someone on statements they make, but banning the whole blog? Seems like an overreaction.
I feel that because I’m an adult, you know, a thinking person, I can make up my mind about which blogs I want to read. If there are views I don’t agree with I can choose to engage in a discussion, or not. I understand not everyone agrees with me though – some may want to read a more narrow slice of progressive thought. That’s cool too, but in that case shouldn’t there be some sort of criteria, a set of consistent rules?
April,
You posted an accusatory blog re: Views. You can’t address the points he raises. You consistently are unable to counter anything, so you revert to name-calling and vulgar language. I have to wonder: since you are so clearly obsessed with insisting that Views is f4j, what is your problem with fathers wanting to see their children? If you can’t come up with a mature, well-thought out answer, I would strongly advise you to not post anything further about him. You do not know him; you do not know whether he is progressive, yet you continue with assumptions, accusations and insults. If that’s all you have in your arsenal, desist. If fathers don’t spend sufficient time with their kids, it fits into the neat framework of paternalism. Following this logic, would fathers seeking to buck this ‘trend’ not be seen as progressive? i.e. progressing AWAY from pre-set roles that society has long accepted. Think hard on that one.
As for Red Jenny and her crass ‘fuck the women’ comments: If you are going to accuse someone of being a misogynist, you had best come up with some better evidence than that.
If this is the new generation of feminism, we are all done for.
It is not that I cannot make an argument it is that I choose not to.
How ironic that you feel both you and he are progressive and for women’s rights yet feel entitled to come to my blog and tell me what I must do here.
If “vulgar” language hurts your poor virginal little ears I suggest you stay the fuck away from here.
I do in fact believe that fathers -good fathers, not abusive fuckwads-should spend time with their children.
I would strongly advise you to not post anything further about him.
That sounds suspiciously like a threat. I hope I won’t need to involve the authorities.
I have posted nothing further.
Now why don’t you both slink back to the darkness from whence you came?
Are you suggesting Views is abusive, you potty-mouthed child? I hope he doesn’t have to involve the authorities, because that’s what it looks like you’re saying. 😈
You referred to his blog, then you revert to insults when people defend him. When you posted about Views, you invited comments on your blog. Did you fucking think of that? You can call me names, swear at me, whatever, but if you ‘choose’ not to respond to him or me, you should have thought of that BEFORE linking to his blog with your accusations. If you can’t compete on an intellectual level I would suggest YOU shut the fuck up and try a bit of lye soap in your mouth. Keep your ill-thought out garbage to yourself. Now fuck off back to your mummy.
In point of fact I was speaking generally.
You wanted to know my opinion on fathers and I gave it to you.
Rather than be glad that I recognize the value of fathers you chose to assume that I was saying either of you are abusive.
If you believe it represents either of you that is of your own vivid imaginings.
And exactly the type of behaviour I expected which is why I chose not to enter into a more substantial discussion on the matter.
I’m not biologically capable of being a father, let alone an abusive one. If you don’t want sunstantive discussion, don’t post inflammatory things. Point final
DO NOT PRESUME TO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MY BLOG OR ANYTHING I POST!
AND POINT OF ORDER VIEWS BY POSTING ALSO INVITES COMMENT ..YES??
OR DO YOU HAVE SOME ODD DOUBLE STANDARD?
Wow, that was quite a lecture Sinsetra’s just given you April. Better watch out, or next she might send you to your room with no supper. 🙄
Oooh, are you skeert, April? The bully swore at you.
*waves* Over here, Bully. Here’s another Man-Hating Vagina Warrior Feminista to swear at. 😛
I’m a woman. And yes, if Views posted a blog about you, he would invite comment. He did not – you did. Your juvenile Man-Hating club would be rightfully called misogyny if it were the Woman-Hating Penis Warrior club – hardly progressive in any sense – so it appears that as well as holding double standards, you and your little girl gang are a) – ‘bullying’ Views by posting an assumptive blog about him and b) – deadset on setting back the feminist cause with your ‘radicalism’. It would undoubtedly surprise your ‘progressive’ selves that Views has done a lot more to promote women than your Man-Hating club would ever attempt to do let alone succeed at. Grow up – not all feminists are revolting man-haters. Calling on your hypocrisy is hardly an attempt to control your blog. Your ‘shouting’ at me in caps bears an unfortunate resemblance to a temper tantrum. You can go back to your play-group – the ‘bully’ has left this pit.
Man, they’re thick, aren’t they?
[quote]the ‘bully’ has left this pit.[/quote]
Thank fuck.
Some people really take everything literally don’t they? No nuance, no understanding of satire. Not even a sense of the ha-ha. 🙄
Well don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
I just love all how the ill informed love to go on about the MHVWC without ever having read up on what it is really about.
Without knowing anything about it’s history and without reading the must have sense of humour tag.
Radical keep saying it cause it’s a label I wear with pride. It sure as fuck wasn’t the suckups that got me the freedoms I enjoy today.
Not a tantrum at all. Some people just need a little extra volume before they take notice. You appear to be one of those people.
In case you are unaware of how the interweb works, you post things other people see it, other people comment on it, some even link to it. SUZANNE does it to me all the time.
I have never once felt compelled to go on her site and whine about it. Mainly because she just isn’t that important to me.
You should go visit her the three of you would get along famously.
Back to Red Jenny’s quote way back at comment 7 for a moment. Perhaps such a quote didnt get the author banned because he didn’t add “When they come for these aggresive women, I doubt I’ll be even be able to muster a ‘what a shame'”?
Perhaps if he had expressed an indifference to the rounding up of women by the State based on their gender, he WOULD have gotten into more trouble?
Just a thought.
Of all the things you claim have been labelled “acceptable” in reference to women (acceptable meaning, apparently, simply not enough to get you de-linked, we’ll leave aside wether we expect the moderators to vet every post from every RSS feed of all 354 blogs), stating an indifference to women being rounded up by the State was noticibly absent. I think you’re really showing how very open minded the Progressive Bloggers moderates are. Many would say TOO open minded. To get de-linked, you actually have to express an indifference to the renewed rounding up of Jews by the State. Seems pretty far to me. And further than the examples cited above, by far.
So those very words “rounded up” are now the ‘litmus test’ [as PB men are so found of saying] of hate speech?
No, not necessarily.
I DO think though that talking smack about someone, or some group or defaming a person or group is different from saying “when next the come for “group X” I doubt I’ll even be able to muster a ‘what a shame'”.
I just think “I don’t like person/groupX” is less offensive than “I’m indifferent to group X being rounded up”. The second crosses a line the first does not. Expressing indifference to feminism is one thing. Expressing indifference to the fight against sexism is one thing. Expressing indifference to the rounding up of feminists is a bridge too far, imho. I think the line is crossed, in this example, when you stop expressing indifference to a person’s ideas, or religion, or ideology, or opinions, and start being indifferent to a violation of their human rights.
LKO, instead of spouting nonsense about rounding women up, which ignores any kind of context, why don’t you write about some real examples where someone is indifferent to a violation of women’s human rights? How about the women that Robert Pickton is accused of killing? And the dozens more who may have been killed by him or his friends? Those disappearances went on for years and nobody gave a shit, did they? So the women were not “rounded up”, but they were still murdered. How about the Highway of Tears in BC or the women murdered in Mexico? As far as I know, nobody is murdering Jews in Canada because they are Jews; but lots of women are getting murdered because they are women.
I also wonder at people who insist on seeing one act (one comment) in isolation, even though it was blindingly obviously part of a complex drama that was immediately given a boost to a national power-centre whose obvious purpose was to crush, simply crush a few bloggers who can’t hope to fight back against that kind of power.
Dozens of people have been libelled in this affair, or opened themselves to vicious attack from a couple of people who are truly capable of viciousness because they know they can get away with it. A lot of people who are willing to vote anonymously are afraid to speak/publish.
“Rounding up” doesn’t happen overnight. It develops over time, perhaps years, by slowly escalating abuses that are not opposed by decent people in the first place. Everyone who is still fixed on Robert’s one comment is severely lacking in imagination or historical knowledge, imho.
Skdadl writes “‘Rounding up’ doesn’t happen overnight. It develops over time, perhaps years, by slowly escalating abuses that are not opposed by decent people in the first place. Everyone who is still fixed on Robert’s one comment is severely lacking in imagination or historical knowledge, imho.”
Well, I agree that rounding up certainly doesn’t happen overnight. It starts when people simply say they’d be indifferent if such rounding up starting up again in the future. Robert’s comment is itself, imho, one of those slowly escalating abuses that decent people need to stand up to. First, we say it’s OK to express an indifference to “the next time they come for the Jews”. Then, we say it’s Ok to actually BE indifferent to “the next time they come for the Jews”. By the time they actually come for the Jews, everyone’s convinced it’s no big deal.
As for the comparison to rounding up women, I simply used it because it was a simple replacement of “the Jews” with “women”. I’d imagine if I HAD referenced Pickton as those up post suggested, I would have been SKEWERED for such an analogy. I realize no one is being killed in Canada (on a large scale, I can’t say definitively that it doesn’t happen) for being Jewish. That kind of ignores the point too though doesn’t it? Just because it isn’t happeneing now, doesn’t excuse Robert’s stated indifference to it happening in the future (or at least to someone coming for the Jews… and what am I to infer? That those “coming for the Jews” in the future are coming to take them to tea???). And as far as real world examples of violence against women are concerned, if someone expressed indifference to the crimes of Robert Pickton, or expreseed that they felt that “the next time someone does that to a group of women, I doubt I’ll be able to muster up a ‘what a shame'” I’d want Proegressive Bloggers to stop aggregating THAT blog too.
I’m fully willing to accept the adversarial context in which Robert made his statement of indifference to “the next time they come for the Jews” and if he’d immediately apologized for such an offensive comment, I would have accepted that and moved on, and I’d imagine most PBers would have too. But he didn’t apologize. He said he stands by the statement. Then, he defended the statement, and tried to convince people that “indifference isn’t hostility”, which is absurd. If you’re indifferent to the “next time the come for the Jews” how is that NOT hostile? If someone said they were indifferent to the next Robert Pickton, would we buy the argument that that person is not hositle towards women, because “indifference is not hostility”? If someone stated an indifference to “the next time they send the blacks back to Africa” would we let the comment slide because “indifference is not hostility”? I certainly hope not.
Robert has issued an apology, which is more than I expected, but to my knowledge he still hasn’t acknowledged that his remark was offensive, or expressed any understanding that stating an indiffference to “the next time the come for the Jews” is unacceptable. And to me, THAT is unacceptable. Saying you’re sorry you offended people is a first step. I’d like Robert to acknowledge that his stated indifference was repugnant, and frankly I’m shocked that so many people defend it.
LKO “…As for the comparison to rounding up women, I simply used it because it was a simple replacement of “the Jews” with “women”. I’d imagine if I HAD referenced Pickton as those up post suggested, I would have been SKEWERED for such an analogy…”
And it is much easier to get all excited over some event that is far away and long ago; over a hypothetical thought crime than what is occurring in our own country.
LKO: “…Well, I agree that rounding up certainly doesn’t happen overnight. It starts when people simply say they’d be indifferent if such rounding up starting up again in the future…”
No. People would not say they are indifferent, because that would show that they had actually thought about it. It would start with most people refusing to talk about it, or to think about it, or to do anything about it. It would start with denial and avoidance.
Well, OK, but I know at least ONE person who WOULD say they were indifferent.
In fact, he already did.
That’s what this whole curfuffle is all about.
No that is what you are making it about; I have been trying to get through your thick skull that your narrow sideblinded focus on some of Robert’s words while ignoring the rest of them and ignoring the context and ignoring the ongoing situation and extrapolating whole new hypothetical situations from the few narrow words that you do see, while ignoring the realities of life in our own society here and now, is wrong.
If I may say so, I find many things I read on PB offensive, but it’s a diverse group with a huge variety of opinions. The truth is, I fail to see how expressing indifference is worse than expressing sentiment against a particular group. Letting someone fall off a balcony without trying to save them is worse than pushing them off? I have no problem with some sort of criteria for inclusion – but those criteria should be equally and fairly applied.
It’s not about simple indifference, it’s about what Robert stated indifference to. He didn’t state an indifference to anti-semitism. He didn’t state and indifference to the fight against anti-semitism. He didn’t state and indifference to Jews. He stated and indifference to “the next time they come for the Jews”.
Stating an indifference to bigoted sentiment is bad, but yes, I do think stating an indifference to an actual act, is worse. Being indifferent to the notion that someone would “come for the Jews” is worse, imho, than being indifferent to the notion that someone would think the Jews inferior, or worthy of scorn. Indifference to bigotry is bad, indifference to actual acts predicated on bigotry is worse.
In the balcony analogy, it’s not that letting someone be pushed off a balcony is worse than pushing them off. For one thing, Robert didn’t simply state that he doubted he’d be able to DO something to stop it the next time they come for the Jews, he said he doubts he’d even be able to muster a “what a shame”. He’s not expressing doubt about whther he’ll be able to come to the defence of someone being pushed off a balcony. He doubts he’ll even be able to muster a “tisk tisk” while the person falls. For certain, the people actually “coming for the Jews” would be (MUCH) worse than Robert, who has simply said he’d be indifferent to the event. The “pusher” is worse than the person indifferent to the pushing. But surely being indifferent to someone being pushed off a balcony is worse than being indifferent to the notion that said person is inferior, or deserving of lesser treatment by society.
To go back to a racial analogy, it’s one thing to state an indifference to the notion that blacks are an inferior race. But I do think it would be worse to state that you doubt you’d be able to muster a “what a shame” if we sent all black people back to Africa in response to that bigotry. Being indifferent to an act predicated on bigotry is worse, imho, than being indifferent to simple bigotry.
And I’m certainly not ignoring context. I’m not upset so much at Robert’s comment (heat of the moment as it was) as I am at Robert’s subsequent defence of the comment. The context I’m concerned about is that Robert said something offensive, and subsequently stood by the remark, and has defended it.
But, LKO, it was not an actual act he was expressing indifference to, it was a hypothetical. Yes, offensive, but why more so that other offensive statements?
Red Jenny,
Because this “hypothetical” is the hypothetical rounding up of an entire people because of their religion. Also, it is indifference to the renewal of a practice that has actually occured in our history. This wasn’t indifference to some crazy, far out hypothetical. This wasn’t some “thought experiment” like the old “f*ck the Jews” post. This was a stated indifference to the renewal of a horrible, real world precedent from the recent past. Indifference to a renewed rounding up of Jews is simply repugnant, and I don’t know how elese to explain that.
If someone said “when they start lynching black people again, I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a ‘what a shame'” is that any less repugnant because it’s referencing future, “hypothetical” lynchings? To me, it isn’t. To me, the line is crossed when one’s indifference is indifference to actual, physical harm coming to a group. Not indifference to unequal treatment, or perpetuating stereotypes, or mocking of a group. Indifference to “the next time they come for the Jews”. And unless one believes that “the next time they come for the Jews” they’ll be coming to invite them to tea, it’s clear to me that Robert’s statement (and, importantly, his standing by the statement and defending it) crosses that line.
It’s the difference between “I’m indifferent to bigotry focused against group X” and “I’m indifferent to group X being rounded up in the future on the basis of that bigotry”. To me, that’s an important difference.
Speaking of offensive web sites, perhaps those who think that Views from a Water’s Edge is a progressive blog should check out a real progressive men’s issues site – like this helpful page about husband battering.
The reason I raise this issue is because it isn’t a hypothetical – it is something that is going on every day. Women are being harmed and killed because they are women, yet because it is done in private instead of “being rounded up” it is somehow ok? Denying it is worse than being indifferent, no? I’m not trying to pick on anyone here. Rather, I’m trying to point out the lack of consistency…