EnMasse

[cueball]

Over the last few days a discussion has taken place around the AUP. In this disussion the subject has come up regarding the inclusion of Anti-imperialist, and anti-colonialist, along side a list of exclusions.

Is this a satisfactory user policy for the site

I am really trying to get my head around the fact that this site can not be anti-impeirlist and anti-colonialist, as a rule, just as it is opposed to homophobia, sexism and racism.

Truthfully, I probably would not have minded had these exclusions not been included in the text discussed, but they were, and now their has been some opposition to there use. Now that the debate has been had I think it is now an issue, and that the board should clearly define itself in this regard.

I think this is particularly important, given the nature of Canada, both as colonialist venture, and as a political advent of imperialism, and also Canada's ongoing role in supporting imperialists activities world-wide, something which continued even after the country gained nominal indepenence from the British Empire in the 19th Century.

I think that not establishing our clear opposition to imperialism and colonialism, both things that are central to some of Canada's ongoing internal inequities (particularly in regards to its indiginous people,) as well as Canada's ongoing role internationally as a supporter of European and American interests, interests that this country unfortunately largely shares.

Not stating our clear opposition to this, in my view, especaially now that it has become an issue of discussion as far as the AUP is concerned, amounts to whitewashing Canada internal inequities, and its complicity in international opressions taking place as we speak.

We all seem very happy to make a point of protecting our own individual rights to not be subject to homophobia, racism and sexism, but for some reason seem to be failing in explicitly defending the rights of others not to be subject to our colonialism, and the imperialism of ourselves and that of our traditional allies.

[Hephaestion]

I really don't see what the fuss is about leaving it in, any more than I understand the opposition to the "WO" threads.

But as for "just as it is opposed to homophobia, sexism and racism"... You really think including a phrase in the AUP is gonna rid enmasse of continued racism, sexism and homophobia? (Or at the *very* least, heterosexism.) Dream on. We've already seen people dragging their squabbles from one forum to another and making outlandish statements in the Rainbow Room and the anti-racism forum without any repercussions. (I'd guess it's happened in the FF as well, but as I almost never go to that forum I won't comment on what I don't know.)

You think having a few phrases in the AUP is really gonna make that much difference?
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin

[cueball]

Yo! No I really don't think that including such exclusions are going to rid Enmasse of "racism, sexism and homophobia," and that is partly the point, as these exclusion act to moderate, and control discussion, not actually exclude contrary points of view.

So there really is no reason not to include these other exclusions, as they will also be circumvented, just like all the others, but at least the most egregious examples can be dealt with when they become counter-productive and trollish, and it is of course more a matter of principle. How we define that principle in practice will of course always be the subject of debate.

So you are right, "what is the big deal" about including them as they are really only principles of intent, and ideals?

[Senor Magoo]

Before I vote, by "a clear anti-imperialist/anti-colonialist statement" do you mean that it will be concrete, unambiguous, and clear enough to not need interpretation on a daily basis, or do you mean "clear" as in "clearly we're against imperialism and colonialism"?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[cueball]

Well, obviously someone is going to be able to argue that bombing Serbia was not imperialist, and really "humanitarian." Isn't that the crux of the debate?

All we are really saying is that we are opposed to Imperialism and Colonialism. of course someone is able to argue that this or that is not imperialist or colonialist. But the base principle, that imperialism and colonialism is wrong remains intact, and we are arguing from that point of view, at the very least.

[Senor Magoo]

Very well. I voted "yes", but honest to Gord, the minute I see a pseudomoderator trying to use this inclusion as a club I'll be back here to rant in ways that make my last post at babble look like a nursery rhyme.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[Stephen Gordon]

It pleases some people to equate globalisation and free trade with imperialism/colonialism. This is a rhetorical dodge that I've hitherto ignored, and that I'd like to be able to continue to ignore. Would that still be possible?

[cueball]

You are wrong that it is a rhetorical dodge, But you are right, in that you have been ignoring it. But I don't see the problem with you arguing this falacy.

People argue all kinds of things that I things for completely incomprehsible reasons, it does not mean they are bad people, just that they are wrong.

However, saying that people equate Globalilization with Imperialism is a dodge in itself, in the form of a strawman, since most people who make these arguements are asserting that globalization is a qualative evolution of imperialism, and a subset of it.

[Hephaestion]

I don't think it's a "dodge" at all. I think globalisation and free trade ARE a form of imperialism and colonialism...

ETA: Of course, you are free to continue to ignore reality, if you so choose.
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin

[Stephen Gordon]

So would arguing that free trade and globalisation have been an overwhelmingly positive force in reducing world poverty be a bannable offense?

[Hephaestion]

Stephen: Check upthread for my "ETA"...
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin

[Stephen Gordon]

Ah. Cross-posted. But I'd still like to get Cueball's response.

[cueball]

Some people might argue that it is essentially "racist" imperialism in form, anyway, and try and have you banned on that basis, imperialism aside, but let us be aware that we are part of an intelligent community, who at least sometime in the future is going to be able to vote the present Junta out of power (just a joke) and as such will be able to decide whom it is are doing the interpretting of the law, something which is probably more important than the letter of it.

And it really is this fear of wildly obscure and abstract and rarified interpretations of the law that seem to be driving peoples opposition, not the wording itself. There already is plenty of room for such just in the term racism, for instance, and what that entails.

It think we should trust the community more, if it truly is a democratic and particpatory social organism of intelligent design.

[Senor Magoo]

So a tenured Economics professor, arguing in favour of an economic policy, and presumably supporting that argument with facts, "might" be seen as racist if not simply imperialist, and said professor could get whacked with the banning stick because of it, if someone's in a banning mood?

Can I reverse my "Yes" vote? This looks like it could go way beyond "telling the world what EnMasse stands for". How about if we put "We don't like imperialism or colonialism" on the logo, so it's for sure that everyone knows it, and maybe NOT use it as an excuse to shut down reasonable discourse without all the messy annoyance of having to provide similarly reasonable counter arguments and facts?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[TS.]

I voted yes for its inclusion but I also voted in favour of the AUP as JF posted it. I think that the best bet would be to have a debate on the meaning of the words and how such a regulation would be interpreted and enforced by the mod team. The results of that debate could then be written up as an ammendment to the AUP and voted upon.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[cueball]

[Stephen Gordon]

[RealityBites]

[cueball]

[Stephen Gordon]

The AUP is supposed to give the moderators guidance, isn't it? So if a moderator were faced with that argument, what guidance should the AUP give her in deciding whether it was spurious or not?

[cueball]

Based on your logic we should excclude the word racism, since all the moderators ae nuts.

[Stephen Gordon]

This is your proposal. If you're not going to take it seriously, why should anyone else?

[Senor Magoo]

[cueball]

[cueball]

[Stephen Gordon]

[cueball]

Well it is begining to sound like you are trying to get an political determination on wether or not Globalization is Imperialism, on the AUP. Get it to say that globalization is not imperialism and should not be equated with it.

[Stephen Gordon]

I'm not asking for anything other than a clarification about what your proposal means, and I'm not having much success. So I ask again: is it your intention that the AUP make arguing in favour of globalisation and free trade a bannable offense?

[cueball]

And my answer is that fuzzy nature of any of the exclusions included in the AUP make it theoretically possible for moderators to make complex political analysis that distort the intention of the AUP. In my view the intention of the AUP, is not to make complex political analysis, but to exclude the most atrocious examples of negative behaviour. And that we have control over the way that the AUP is interpreted by our ability to control who does the interpretation.

So, for instance, I think there are some instances where some people who are voicing opposition to SSM are doing so from a naive, as opposed to a malicious point of view, and that our moderators should be able to discern this fact, and not assert that in all cases oppositioning or questioning of SSM means absolutely that person is homophobic, as opposed to being uniformed or simply stupid. Likewise, similar arguements have been made about abortion rights for women.

Obviously moderators should have the good sense to be able to determine the difference between outright racism, sexism and homophobia, and fair minded and honest debate.

In my view, I have read your detailed arguments in favour of globalization, as not being imperialist, but I personally disagree, and find them actually to be imperialist, colonialist and also latently racist. This racist aspect is an advent of the nature of the Globalizations imperialist engine (deregulation and free trade naturally favouring those who have the power in the status quo,) but I do not think that this means that you are racist per se, but moreso addled.

On that basis, Globalizations inherently racist nature, I should theoretically be able to argue that you be banned. But I would not ask for such, because I recognize that you are honestly arguing that globalization should in the long run increase equity among peoples, not decrease it. And I believe the apparent intent of a poster should be considered when moderating decisions are being made on the board.

I don't think honestly addled persons should be banned really as that is ableist in the extreme.

[Stephen Gordon]

Thanks.

[elmateo]

The AUP should be like the Mexican constitution! Include land reforms too!!!

(btw I voted yes).

[transplant]

Just a note to point out that with only 31 votes on the AUP and only today and tomorrow remaining quarum is not even close to being reached.

[Tommy Shanks]

What would be a quorum here?

[Admiral Awesome]

I have another problem with the whole implicit anti-imperialist, and anti-colonialist point is that it's just yet another specific example that could and would clutter the entire AUP up. I mean jeez, why don't we just say we're against child hunger too, I mean we are against that too right? So anyone who argues against increasing foreign aid should be banned cause they're propagating child hunger and are probably racist too cause it's mostly non-white children who are dying from it. And then why don't we also say we don't tolerate arguments that don't encourage an equal distribution of wealth? I mean we all want more equitability right? So let's put that in there too. So anyone who is in favour of tax cuts for high income earners should be banned. Cause that sort of thing gets in the way of proper progressive discussion.

I mean jeez, this thing isn't a bible or something its a mini-constitution, we don't need to include every single thing in there.

Cause if we’re saying that we don’t approve of homophobia, sexism and racism anyways why doesn’t that already deal with imperialism and colonialism? Which now that I think of it are often used as a reason to back up continued imperlialist and colonialist actions? To me it would be like also saying, “don’t link to hate sites cause that’s bad too.” Well, yeah, duh. Which would then lead me to say why doesn’t this site include a specific statement demanding that people speak in terms that are infavour of economic egalitarianism since thats a specific symptom of colonialism and imperialism?

Does this desire to have it included have something to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or something?

Cause I don't remember any of those pro-colonialists and pro-imperalists that were plaguing babble. I wasn't at babble that long compared to some people so I didn't really witness the arguments in the run up to the Iraq war, but frankly having people argue in favour of it was probably a good thing, as all their arguments were eventually discredited anyways. When I spend time looking through some of the babble archives I remember specific examples of people thinking that the Iraq war was a good idea at one point, saying they thought it was a good idea, then being proven wrong later on and admitting to it.

I don’t think we’re going to solve all these questions so I think people should just vote for the AUP and then debate various amendments as they come up.
_________________
"These Banana Republicans are confused. They think we elected Harper as president, instead of having voted for our Parliamentary representatives." - h/t to LTJ

[cueball]

[transplant]

[cueball]

Well that is part of the problem with the way the vote has been arranged. I think it is very likely that many people here have a much smaller stake in this issue than in the AUP in general. Thus this will never reach qourum for an amendement because people who are generally less interested, though they might have a preference will simply not vote on this issue.

However, were the original AUP vote posed as an alternate, with one version including the colonialism thing, and the other not, people who might not be extremely interested to vote on this poll might vote in favour of this based on their nominal. but not extreme preference on the general AUP vote.

Does that make sense?

[Stephen Gordon]

[cueball]

Does it strike anyone as funny that when the issue of the economic disparity is raised it is the tenured University Professor who immediatly appeals to his own percieved analytic authority by dismissing the analytic ability of others out of hand, without argument or appeal to logic?

Peer review? You and I aren't peers, as you have so readily just implied. So much for your heartfelt belief in equity.

"Just cause, I am smart you are dumb?" That is all the tenured professor can give up for an arguement?

[JPG]

I'd just like to get my two cents in here for cueball. The inclusion of anything you or anyone else finds unjust or offensive in the AUP will only serve to stifle discussion. How can enmasse serve any useful purpose, even as a pastime, if every topic can be censored by very broad rules? FOrt example, would expressing support for the mission in Afghanistan, couldn't that be considered supporting imperialism or colonialism?
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

[cueball]

Sure it could, but as I so carefully explained to Stephen Gordon, the same could be done by simply asserting that because the Afghan mission was Imperialist, it was therefore also racist, and therefore bannable, or so the logic goes.
Of course for a moderator to ban on such an analysis would require that they be channeling Chaing Ching.

Obviously all these rules are moderated by applying common sense understandings, and interpretations.

Obviously if someone is arguing that the mission in Afghanistan is humanitarian peacekeeping or whatever, they are not arguing for imperialism, they are arguing for humanitarian peacekeeping.

[Admiral Awesome]

I don't think everyone is going to take the time to look at it that way, there will be those who just shout down those taking the humanitarian peacekeeping position saying that its "interventionist" and draw the whole colonialist and imperialist argument in there. I don't think the moderators are stupid, but I think some people will use it as an excuse to further vendettas against those they don't like, and try to entrap them in such a way as to make an argument that makes it look like yes they did violate the AUP.

P.S. I still don't understand how this was a huge problem on babble that this site could improve the quality of discussion with by including it in its AUP.
_________________
"These Banana Republicans are confused. They think we elected Harper as president, instead of having voted for our Parliamentary representatives." - h/t to LTJ

[cueball]

Who cares, if there are stupid people who try and use the AUP as a club to pursue their personal vendettas, people are going to do that anyway, using the other exclusions. What is important is how such is moderated.

This is silly. You are either for colonialism or you are not.

Apparently, there are a number of people here who don't think that it is so bad to invade other countries, steal their wealth, and kill and enslave their people. It certainly not something as important as gay people being allowed to marry, or women being allowed equal pay for equal work, or black people being allowed to study in the same schools as white people.

Just as long as the people with all the guns and the wealth are nice to each other, whatever they do to others is just fine and dandy.

This is bizarre.

[Admiral Awesome]

Well I too think this is bizzare, because since you've constantly avoided answering the point of pro-colonialist and pro-imperalist points of view actually being a problem on ye old babble and here to the point of disrupting good discussion, so I think your being kind of silly too. Cause there are so many things that can be included, like I pointed out earlier, that one would assume the balance of the participants are against, so I tend to think that makes your entire point moot. Just because they're not included in the AUP, doesn't mean that people are all the sudden for them it simply means what it means.
_________________
"These Banana Republicans are confused. They think we elected Harper as president, instead of having voted for our Parliamentary representatives." - h/t to LTJ

[cueball]

Well then why include any exclusions. I am assuming that you support the exclusion of sexims, racism and homophobia? Why support those and not an exclusion of colonialism and imperialism?

What is it about invading other countries, pillaging them, and killing and enslaving their populations that isn't extremely objectionable, and what is it that makes it irrelevant, given that it is precisely because some people thought all of that was AOK that you have the priviliage of sitting here and looking back on them and disaproving of their sexist, racist and homophobic attitudes, in this tollerant nook we call Canada.

God forbid we should condemn their imperialism because that would be silly and moot.

[Admiral Awesome]

Because sexism, homophobia and racism seemed to be problems on babble and here in the sense that there have been various cases of individuals registering and posting on this site or babble expressing sexist, homophobic or racist views to bait other participants. An AUP is designed to deal with problems that seem to exist and would hurt the positive and constructive functioning of this site. Frankly there are a lot of social, economic and political problems in the world, a message boards AUP can’t and shouldn’t address them all. It has to arbitrarily decide which issues will disrupt the board the most should those issues be brought up, and then decide which of those will be unacceptable to express. I can’t recall many examples of people showing up here or on babble saying “gee, colonizing Canada was a good idea cause those first nations people didn’t really know what they were doing with it anyways.”
_________________
"These Banana Republicans are confused. They think we elected Harper as president, instead of having voted for our Parliamentary representatives." - h/t to LTJ

[RealityBites]

If they did, they'd be banned anyway.

[al-Qa'bong]

I just found this thread.

I support the inclusion of a clear anti-Imperialist, anti-colonialist statement in the AUP.

On the other hand, I'm not so crazy about the inclusion of dismal scientists or Lord Protectors.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Left Turn]

I voted in favour of having and anti-imperialist clause in the AUP. I also voted in favour of the AUP. My rationale was that we can always add an anti-imperialist clause to the AUP at a later date, and that getting an AUP was of paramount importance.

Now that we have an AUP, I hope there will be movement to ammend it to include an anti-imperialist statement.

[ephemeral]

I missed the vote, but I would like to see an anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist clause in the AUP. I don't think that such a clause would stifle discussion.
_________________
and on that note...